CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Can the living God who created heaven and earth lie? Is He cruel and does He like to trick us?
Can the one who took the concept of a human being and wrote it genetic code not use language to communicate something that is accurate to us? If He can write a genetic code I seriously doubt He would have a hard time writing something as simple as a book.
Is the creator of language unable to communicate using language? Is that omnipotent being incapable of preserving His word.
Seriously, if there is a problem with God's word it should be logically obvious that the problem lies with us and not God. Because how does an omniscient being make a mistake? And we all know that we make errors in thinking and judgment all the time.
Can the living God who created heaven and earth lie? Is He cruel and does He like to trick us?
Earth and the heavens were not created, however, so it is a lie to attribute them to a god.
Can the one who took the concept of a human being and wrote it genetic code not use language to communicate something that is accurate to us? If He can write a genetic code I seriously doubt He would have a hard time writing something as simple as a book.
The genetic code and the human race were not created either.
Is the creator of language unable to communicate using language? Is that omnipotent being incapable of preserving His word.
We created language, actually.
Seriously, if there is a problem with God's word it should be logically obvious that the problem lies with us and not God. Because how does an omniscient being make a mistake? And we all know that we make errors in thinking and judgment all the time.
Correct. The problem which lies with us is that we made a wrong assumption about the universe, namely that it has a god.
Earth and the heavens were not created, however, so it is a lie to attribute them to a god.
So, in your view, how did the universe begin?
The genetic code and the human race were not created either.
Same question as above, but with genetic code.
We created language, actually.
If we created language, and random chance is making more information in the world, than why are languages getting more simple? The farther back you go, the more complex the writing system is, the more complex the language is. It seems language would start simple and we'd be somewhere around Traditional Chinese now, instead of the opposite.
If we created language, and random chance is making more information in the world, than why are languages getting more simple? The farther back you go, the more complex the writing system is, the more complex the language is. It seems language would start simple and we'd be somewhere around Traditional Chinese now, instead of the opposite.
There are more than twice the number of words in the English language now than there was in Shakespeare's day. Where is your evidence that language is getting simpler?
Where writing systems are getting more simple, where modern Chinese is much more simple than ancient. Having symbols represent sounds, not whole words, is much more simple.
Presently nobody knows, including the religious. The best that science can tell us is that our universe is either cyclical, or the result of a quantum fluctuation. These are really just very educated extrapolations of theory at this point however.
After that, something we do know about in great detail happened, the Big Bang, which formed our universe. Protostars formed from hydrogen and gravity, then nebula formed, which made new stars and galaxies, and accreted into planets. We are standing upon one such planet.
Same question as above, but with genetic code.
Abiogenesis, which formed many simpler molecules first, until complexity progressed into self-replicating molecules, which grew into hybrids of nucleic acid and enzymes which could reach themselves (ribozymes). Then we would have something like DNA in protocells. Endosymbiont theory deals with the formation of eukaryotic cells.
If we created language, and random chance is making more information in the world, than why are languages getting more simple?
They aren't actually. New words are formed every day, and languages diverge constantly into new dialects. Look at Ebonics and Singlish as examples.
Given decades, and especially centuries, languages naturally evolve and diverge from each other. Try reading this:
Harold Godƿinson, oþþe Harold II (c. 1022 - 14 Ƿinterfylleþ, 1066) ƿæs se endenīehsta Seaxisca cyning Englalande. Hē ƿēold fram 5um Æfterran Ȝēolan tō 14um Ƿinterfylleðes, 1066, þonne hē ƿearþ in þǣm Beadƿe Hǣstingum ȝecƿeald.
Haroldes fæder ƿæs Godƿin, se onƿealdiȝa Eorl Ƿestseaxes. Godƿin ƿæs sunu Ƿulfnoðes Ċildes, þeȝn Sūþsēaxa and ƿīfode tuƿa. His ǣreste ƿīf ƿæs Thyra Sveinsdōttir (994 - 1018), dōhtor Sƿeynes I, cyninges Denemearce, Norþƿeȝes and Englalandes. His ōðer ƿīf ƿæs Gytha Thorkelsdōttir, suna dōhtor þæs Sƿēolandes ƿicinges Styrbjörnes Starkes and þridde dōhtor Harold Hǣƿentōþes, cyninges Denemearces and Norþƿeȝes, fæder Sƿeynes I. Godƿin and his ōðere ƿīf hæfdon tƿēȝen suna: Harold and Tostiȝ Godƿinson, and āne dōhtor Ēadgyþ Ƿestseaxna (1020 - 1075), cƿēn tō Ēadƿearde þǣm Andettere.
This is Anglo-Saxon, colloquial known as Old English. Our modern tongue has so diverged over a period of one millennium that we cannot natively understand it.
After that, something we do know about in great detail happened, the Big Bang, which formed our universe. Protostars formed from hydrogen and gravity, then nebula formed, which made new stars and galaxies, and accreted into planets. We are standing upon one such planet.
So the universe came about out of nothing (we don't know how, but it did), and the Big Bang created matter out of nothing. That sounds like Creationism to me.
As for stars, is there enough gravity in a nearly-uniform hydrogen cloud to form stars? If so, why don't interstellar gas clouds clump into fairly small objects instead of being spread-out. And if nebula formed solar systems, than why is the majority of the hydrogen and helium (the lightest elements) in the center. If gravity was the main factor, wouldn't the heavy elements go to the center and the lighter ones be the ones to form planets? Instead, it seems the opposite has happened--heavy elements stayed out to form planets, while the lighter ones formed the Sun and Saturn.
Abiogenesis, which formed many simpler molecules first, until complexity progressed into self-replicating molecules, which grew into hybrids of nucleic acid and enzymes which could reach themselves (ribozymes). Then we would have something like DNA in protocells. Endosymbiont theory deals with the formation of eukaryotic cells.
So, basically, non-living matter formed life? Once again, that seems like Creationism.
Look at Ebonics and Singlish as examples.
Ebonics seems like slang--a simplified version of English. Singlish is a mixture of languages, and I assume they didn't choose the most complex parts of each language to be in there.
languages naturally evolve and diverge from each other.
I don't argue with this. I know languages change. But they tend to get more simple. Latin and it's offspring have full conjugation, whereas the much younger English doesn't. "I go, you go, he goes, we go, y'all go, and they go." The verb 'go' has been conjugated, but they're all the same. In older languages, the verbs differ.
So the universe came about out of nothing (we don't know how, but it did), and the Big Bang created matter out of nothing. That sounds like Creationism to me.
If the universe has a flat geometry, and dark matter occupies a certain level, then it is very possible that our universe was a quantum fluctuation.
The big bang deals with the formation of the universe however, so however it began, it is proceeded by the big bang.
Creationism just invokes magic with no understanding of nature.
As for stars, is there enough gravity in a nearly-uniform hydrogen cloud to form stars?
Your key word is "nearly." In a mostly uniform universe any area out of balance is susceptible to accretion due to gravity.
If so, why don't interstellar gas clouds clump into fairly small objects instead of being spread-out.
Because being pulled towards a center pulls matter near the thing being pulled with it.
And if nebula formed solar systems, than why is the majority of the hydrogen and helium (the lightest elements) in the center.
They aren't. If you observe our solar system, the planets have a distribution of heaviest elements (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars) to lightest (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune).
If gravity was the main factor, wouldn't the heavy elements go to the center and the lighter ones be the ones to form planets?
That's what happened. Remember that we are also dealing with orbits caused by gravity which allows for planets to keep from falling into the sun.
Instead, it seems the opposite has happened--heavy elements stayed out to form planets, while the lighter ones formed the Sun and Saturn.
You're forgetting Jupiter, Neptune and Uranus.
So, basically, non-living matter formed life? Once again, that seems like Creationism.
Non-living, organic matter. Creationism posits sudden creation from nothing due to magic words.
Ebonics seems like slang--a simplified version of English. Singlish is a mixture of languages, and I assume they didn't choose the most complex parts of each language to be in there.
Ebonics is a dialect, Singlish is a creole, which is a pidgin which has been nativised. Slang is the formation of new, trendy words, I suspect that it becomes a dialect when slang and manners of speaking stick beyond just one generation.
But they tend to get more simple.
You really need to qualify this.
Latin and it's offspring have full conjugation, whereas the much younger English doesn't. "I go, you go, he goes, we go, y'all go, and they go." The verb 'go' has been conjugated, but they're all the same. In older languages, the verbs differ.
Words and conjugations change. It doesn't make the language simple. I think you want to say that our language has become more casual, without emphasis on social tiers.
Because being pulled towards a center pulls matter near the thing being pulled with it.
What? Could you clarify, please?
They aren't. If you observe our solar system, the planets have a distribution of heaviest elements (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars) to lightest (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune).
Actually, they are. Most of the mass of the solar system (98%) is in the sun, which is made of mostly hydrogen and helium. The planets are drops in buckets compared to the sun. So why did all the light elements clump together in the middle to form the sun while the heavy elements stayed on the outside (orbiting the sun)?
That's what happened. Remember that we are also dealing with orbits caused by gravity which allows for planets to keep from falling into the sun.
If the planets are in stable orbits (they are), than the dust that made them had to also be in stable orbits (as orbit doesn't rely on mass). Which means that in our stellar dust cloud with the makings of our sun in the center, the dust 'orbiting' would fly off into interstellar space because the sun wasn't massive enough to keep them in orbit. And before that, the dust would have to be swirling at fairly specific velocities with enough matter not swirling to be able to get pulled in to make the sun.
You're forgetting Jupiter, Neptune and Uranus.
Jupiter, Neptune, and Uranus aren't made from hydrogen and helium like the Sun and Saturn are. They're heavier elements, like methane, oxygen, nitrogen, etc.
You really need to qualify this.
I did. Writings systems are simplified (from pictographs to sound-symbols), and words are simplified (from fully-conjugated verbs with implied nouns to non-conjugated verbs.
I think you want to say that our language has become more casual, without emphasis on social tiers.
Sure, it's grown more 'casual', but also more simple. Especially Ebonics and like dialects.
A gravity well does not merely move particles towards the center of gravity, those particles have their own gravity well which draws other particles inward towards them, and repeat this to infinity.
Actually, they are. Most of the mass of the solar system (98%) is in the sun, which is made of mostly hydrogen and helium. The planets are drops in buckets compared to the sun. So why did all the light elements clump together in the middle to form the sun while the heavy elements stayed on the outside (orbiting the sun)?
If I understand your question, hydrogen gas and helium are light elements and would be drawn together. The mass of iron, nickle, and other heavy elements would draw their own matter towards them. These heavier elements are much less common, like you said drops in a bucket. They wouldn't form as big a mass as the sun, but be drawn towards it. I imagine that at some point they formed orbits.
Cosmology and astronomy are not my specialties but from what I understand of physics and what I have read it would probably be along these lines. However orbital mechanics is where I find myself really leaving my expertise comfort zone.
If the planets are in stable orbits (they are), than the dust that made them had to also be in stable orbits (as orbit doesn't rely on mass). Which means that in our stellar dust cloud with the makings of our sun in the center, the dust 'orbiting' would fly off into interstellar space because the sun wasn't massive enough to keep them in orbit. And before that, the dust would have to be swirling at fairly specific velocities with enough matter not swirling to be able to get pulled in to make the sun.
I have to imagine that the sheer mass of hydrogen and helium would form a body with enough gravity to draw in those particles even slowly. I'm a little out of my element in imagining the formation of orbits however, because this isn't my specialty.
Jupiter, Neptune, and Uranus aren't made from hydrogen and helium like the Sun and Saturn are. They're heavier elements, like methane, oxygen, nitrogen, etc.
Yes, but these elements are lighter than iron, nickle, silicon, etc.
I did. Writings systems are simplified (from pictographs to sound-symbols), and words are simplified (from fully-conjugated verbs with implied nouns to non-conjugated verbs.
That's right, but we have also gained increasing complexity in the number of words, and dialects within a body of language.
Sure, it's grown more 'casual', but also more simple. Especially Ebonics and like dialects.
I don't know if I would call them simple. There are divergences in dialects within those dialects, and new vocabulary and rules form each decade. Some of them borrow from other languages, adding grammatical complexity.
A gravity well does not merely move particles towards the center of gravity, those particles have their own gravity well which draws other particles inward towards them, and repeat this to infinity
Okay. Yes, I can see that things like that would happen. But say you have an abnormally-shaped gas cloud in space. (I'm assuming most clouds aren't spherical.) The particles on the edges would be pulled strongly toward the center, while the particles in the middle would be pulled weakly toward the center, while the particles in the center would be pulled nowhere. This is based on the location of every other particle to the individual particle in question.
No, as the cloud collapses, say, unevenly, some particles would slow down because there are now particles 'behind' them because the one went too quickly. Some would speed up as those 'behind' it (behind is away from the center of mass of the cloud) moved to the front. As this goes on, the cloud should collapse until the particles are like a liquid.
If I understand your question, hydrogen gas and helium are light elements and would be drawn together. The mass of iron, nickle, and other heavy elements would draw their own matter towards them. These heavier elements are much less common, like you said drops in a bucket. They wouldn't form as big a mass as the sun, but be drawn towards it. I imagine that at some point they formed orbits.
Hydrogen and helium are the lightest elements (that's why a helium balloon floats [where as hydrogen balloons explode--see the Hindenburg]). They would be forced away from wherever the center of mass is, because all the heavier things (iron, nickel, oxygen, methane, carbon, gold, lead, etc.) would be moving to the center. It's like this: If you put a helium balloon on a bus and the bus suddenly accelerates quickly, the balloon would actually move forward. The heavier air is pushed to the back by inertia, pushing the balloon forward.
The heavier elements are much, much fewer, yes, but that would mean what little there were should be dropped to the center much faster than hydrogen and helium. By the time the sun ignited, the heavier elements should all, or nearly all, be in the sun, not orbiting it.
orbital mechanics is where I find myself really leaving my expertise comfort zone.
Orbital mechanics is interesting. I enjoy it, but then again, I enjoy calculus as well.
I have to imagine that the sheer mass of hydrogen and helium would form a body with enough gravity to draw in those particles even slowly. I'm a little out of my element in imagining the formation of orbits however, because this isn't my specialty.
I'm not exactly sure myself. It gets tricky with a changing orbital mass.
Yes, but these elements are lighter than iron, nickle, silicon, etc.
Yes, they are, so I guess that part would be true.
That's right, but we have also gained increasing complexity in the number of words, and dialects within a body of language.
Number of words are a valid argument, but dialects ... I'm not sure. Most dialects tend to be less complex than their parent (Ebonics from American English, American from British, British from Saxon, etc.)
But say you have an abnormally-shaped gas cloud in space. (I'm assuming most clouds aren't spherical.) The particles on the edges would be pulled strongly toward the center, while the particles in the middle would be pulled weakly toward the center, while the particles in the center would be pulled nowhere. This is based on the location of every other particle to the individual particle in question.
I perceive it as the outer particles being pulled towards the not-so outer particles, which are pulled towards the even closer particles, up until the inner part of the cloud (assuming that is where the most mass lies) otherwise you could have separate gravitational collection points within the cloud if everything is distributed heterogeneously.
No, as the cloud collapses, say, unevenly, some particles would slow down because there are now particles 'behind' them because the one went too quickly. Some would speed up as those 'behind' it (behind is away from the center of mass of the cloud) moved to the front. As this goes on, the cloud should collapse until the particles are like a liquid.
If we assume that there is a central mass to the cloud, yes. Unless of course the cloud has multiple large mass points which pull matter from nearby clouds towards them. I believe this is the process of planetary accretion.
I looked further into it, and should add a condition: small clouds are not affected enough by gravity to accrete. They will rely on brownian motion instead. However cosmic quantities of gas should have enough gravitational pull to work as suggested. It wouldn't make sense if they did not, given the mass.
Hydrogen and helium are the lightest elements (that's why a helium balloon floats [where as hydrogen balloons explode--see the Hindenburg]). They would be forced away from wherever the center of mass is, because all the heavier things (iron, nickel, oxygen, methane, carbon, gold, lead, etc.) would be moving to the center. It's like this: If you put a helium balloon on a bus and the bus suddenly accelerates quickly, the balloon would actually move forward. The heavier air is pushed to the back by inertia, pushing the balloon forward.
The heavier elements are much, much fewer, yes, but that would mean what little there were should be dropped to the center much faster than hydrogen and helium. By the time the sun ignited, the heavier elements should all, or nearly all, be in the sun, not orbiting it.
I discovered some considerations I failed to make. Apparently the early formation of our solar system was in the vicinity of thousands of young stars and exploding supernovas. This would trigger the birth of our sun before all mass would be pulled towards the center, and it would expel heavier elements towards it. Orbits would be affected by the sun's angular momentum, apparently. Also, the temperature of a newly born sun would prevent elements with low boiling points from condensing into the planetesimals.
Number of words are a valid argument, but dialects ... I'm not sure. Most dialects tend to be less complex than their parent (Ebonics from American English, American from British, British from Saxon, etc.)
Consider the diverging nature of language, and how a small population of English speakers from England diverged into an entire continent of different dialects. There isn't just one dialect in America but dozens, some are unintelligible to the uninitiated.
Apparently the early formation of our solar system was in the vicinity of thousands of young stars and exploding supernovas.
Just wondering, how do 'they' ('them' being the generic people who say things) know this? Is it becasue they looked far enough away to equate the age of the sun and figure what they see was uniform throughout the universe.
Or is it because the look at the evidence and form a theory to explain it in a way that takes God out of the picture. Not that doing so is a bad thing, but it is bad to pass that theory as fact in absense of evidence.
This would trigger the birth of our sun before all mass would be pulled towards the center, and it would expel heavier elements towards it.
If the sun was 'birthed' before there was enough mass to naturally light it, wouldn't the force of fusion push the vital hydrogen away from the core, making it impossible to continue burning naturally?
There isn't just one dialect in America but dozens, some are unintelligible to the uninitiated.
I know this, too. The list was symbollic. I obviously didn't list all the dialects and their parents.
Just wondering, how do 'they' ('them' being the generic people who say things) know this? Is it becasue they looked far enough away to equate the age of the sun and figure what they see was uniform throughout the universe.
Bits of evidence are left behind, like certain radioactive isotopes and we can observe the formation of stars in the universe with our massive telescopes. We look at history every day when we look to the sky, because our universe is so vast and light travels so slowly. We can observe the past-formation of stars, exploding supernovas, etc.
By making these and other observations we can deduce how our early solar system must have been.
Or is it because the look at the evidence and form a theory to explain it in a way that takes God out of the picture. Not that doing so is a bad thing, but it is bad to pass that theory as fact in absense of evidence.
As explained before: god is not science. Science does not work by invoking magic, or sacrificing animals to an altar. It relies on the knowable, which requires that we do not invoke supernatural, magical concepts.
When you invoke god, you enter the territory of the unknowable, which means that you can never expand knowledge since you cannot verify your claims.
If the sun was 'birthed' before there was enough mass to naturally light it, wouldn't the force of fusion push the vital hydrogen away from the core, making it impossible to continue burning naturally?
It was not ignited prematurely but bits of dense mass were hurled into it, accelerating the process greatly.
I know this, too. The list was symbollic. I obviously didn't list all the dialects and their parents.
What then are your objections remaining? We see that languages diverge, create new words and grammar schemes, so how can you maintain that language is getting simpler when more keep popping up?
Bits of evidence are left behind, like certain radioactive isotopes and we can observe the formation of stars in the universe with our massive telescopes. We look at history every day when we look to the sky, because our universe is so vast and light travels so slowly. We can observe the past-formation of stars, exploding supernovas, etc.
I understand the concept of time being distance.
Science does not work by invoking magic, or sacrificing animals to an altar. It relies on the knowable, which requires that we do not invoke supernatural, magical concepts.
I realize that science doesn't, or shouldn't evoke magic. But what happens when we come across something that cannot be explained by nature? There are many questions science cannot answer right now (origins are usually the category--life, the universe, the first stars, etc.) But the scientists looking for the answers think they know them already.
In doing experiments, they already have the conclusion in mind. When finding the origin of life, they know that all life had a single ancestor, and thus they're much, much, much more likely to disregard the contrary evidence (as I don't do these experiments, I'm not sure if there is any, but I'm sure if there was, it wouldn't be published) as faulty data.
What I see science doing now is finding evidence to prove a conclusion, when it should be finding conclusions to fit the evidence.
What then are your objections remaining? We see that languages diverge, create new words and grammar schemes, so how can you maintain that language is getting simpler when more keep popping up?
Language as a whole might be getting more complex, but languages are getting more simple. That's my argument. I honestly don't really care about modern languages, but comparing what we have to what we had. Comparing modern languages to ancient Asian, Mesopotamian, American (north and south), and Scandinavian. All those old languages are much more complex than what we have today.
I realize that science doesn't, or shouldn't evoke magic. But what happens when we come across something that cannot be explained by nature?
As far as can be ascertained, we haven't ever come across this and have no reason to believe that we will. If such a thing were to happen, then science would not be adequate methodology to study it. Neither would religion however, since religion is not a means of gaining knowledge about the world.
There are many questions science cannot answer right now (origins are usually the category--life, the universe, the first stars, etc.) But the scientists looking for the answers think they know them already.
There is a difference between not having the answer, or a complete answer, and being incapable of providing an answer. The only natural things which may be out of the capacity of science are multiverse and "before the big bang" (if either of these things even exist or are possible). They are conjecture, however.
In doing experiments, they already have the conclusion in mind.
No they don't. They have the process of finding the conclusion in mind.
When finding the origin of life, they know that all life had a single ancestor,
No, this is just a proposed hypothesis. There is also the hypothesis that we had multiple beginning ancestors, which merged in various degrees due to horizontal gene flow.
and thus they're much, much, much more likely to disregard the contrary evidence (as I don't do these experiments, I'm not sure if there is any, but I'm sure if there was, it wouldn't be published) as faulty data.
Your premise is faulty and so this statement follows.
What I see science doing now is finding evidence to prove a conclusion, when it should be finding conclusions to fit the evidence.
You would be mistaken. Evolution was determined to be solid, through the typical scientific process. Now it is accepted as fact because it would require an equal theory, 150 years of complexity, and which equally accounts for the evidence, to assume otherwise. This is why we treat gravity as fact, as well.
Language as a whole might be getting more complex, but languages are getting more simple. That's my argument. I honestly don't really care about modern languages, but comparing what we have to what we had. Comparing modern languages to ancient Asian, Mesopotamian, American (north and south), and Scandinavian. All those old languages are much more complex than what we have today.
Being more streamlined doesn't mean innate simplicity. For example with English, it has been streamlined to use fewer odd characters, and unwieldy tenses. However in the last millennium it also gained complexity by means of borrowing heavily from other languages. It is now more complex than Old English, but also easier to learn, arguably, because it is more approachable.
It's kind of like with cetaceans, they were originally land mammals but became streamlined to swim in the ocean. Their outward form became simpler but they grew in complexity by diverging into Dolphins, Whales, etc. and gaining new structures.
If such a thing were to happen, then science would not be adequate methodology to study it. Neither would religion however, since religion is not a means of gaining knowledge about the world.
But we have. Gravity. There is no logical reason why mass should attract other mass other than it just does. Science asks us to accept this fact (it's an easy one to accept, because anyone can test it). Sure you can talk about it curving space, but how does it, and why? If curving is your explanation, than you ask me to accept that mass curves space because it just does. So you really haven't gotten anywhere, you've just added a step.
No they don't. They have the process of finding the conclusion in mind.
Than why do I hear/read scientific stories that say things like "Well, since life began on the planet, it must have been ," and they then test to see if it works. That seems like conclusions preceding evidence, to me.
You would be mistaken. Evolution was determined to be solid, through the typical scientific process. Now it is accepted as fact because it would require an equal theory, 150 years of complexity, and which equally accounts for the evidence, to assume otherwise. This is why we treat gravity as fact, as well.
But if we're not allowed to pursue other options because evolution is fact, we'll never come up with a theory with 150 years behind it! The heliocentric theory didn't have as much time behind it as the geocentric did. If people waited until it did, it never would, because as long as people hold out, any new idea will be forever younger than the old one.
But we have. Gravity. There is no logical reason why mass should attract other mass other than it just does.
In Newtonian Mechanics the mechanism of gravity is opaque but the discoveries and revisions that Einstein made allowed us to model the effects of mass on space. Thus we know that mass attracts other mass because it deforms space in such a way that it must move into it. This is verified by gravitational lensing, in which a sufficiently massive star bends space so that light from behind the star is visible in front of it.
Sure you can talk about it curving space, but how does it, and why? If curving is your explanation, than you ask me to accept that mass curves space because it just does. So you really haven't gotten anywhere, you've just added a step.
Some things cannot be broken down any further, they are axioms. Other things, like the interaction of mass with space, might be broken down further but each step is, to quote Gell-Mann, "like taking a layer off of an onion." Getting closer and closer to the axiom.
Than why do I hear/read scientific stories that say things like "Well, since life began on the planet, it must have been ," and they then test to see if it works. That seems like conclusions preceding evidence, to me.
You really need a less ambiguous sentence example, however on the origin of life we are not completely ignorant and know enough to suggest that it formed here.
But if we're not allowed to pursue other options because evolution is fact, we'll never come up with a theory with 150 years behind it!
Why would you pursue options which contradict that which works? Evolution accounts for all the evidence, and explains more than adequately the diversity of life. Why would you seek to abandon something so complete and functional?
The heliocentric theory didn't have as much time behind it as the geocentric did. If people waited until it did, it never would, because as long as people hold out, any new idea will be forever younger than the old one.
Heliocentric theory better explained observations and did so in a more elegant way (meaning it required less complex math and tricks to make the data work).
The problem does lie with us. Those who claim to speak for God, and the fools who believe them. All religious texts were written by man, who is to say which one is "God's word" if any?
Don't you find it strange that an omnipotent omnipresent God would have to speak to us through the interpretations of a handful of ancient religious texts passed down through the centuries? For an all-powerful God (if he exists at all) this is an incredibly inefficient method of passing on a message. What prevents him from cutting out the middle-man and telling us directly?
When you can prove there even is a "God's Word" to speak of, then we can debate it's veracity.
Let's say if God did speak and He used men to do it, like you use your computer to speak for you, do you think we could tell the difference between what men write and what men under the control of God write. Or do you think it all would be the same with no differences?
Your assuming that a god does exist, and you've given no evidence. Until the claim that a god does exist has been supported by evidence that justifies belief in said god, then the only reasonable response is to see these as human texts.
How about you narrow it down for us. What "word"/book do you consider to be God's word? Then we can analyze it's texts based off of what we know of reality to see if it's inerrant.
I use my computer to communicate, because I am not omnipotent, If I was then I could communicate telepathically, but I am not omnipotent am I? There is absolutely no reason to limit God to a massive game of "telephone".
Do I think we can tell the difference between what men write, and what men inspired by God write? Let me answer your question this way. If it were so simple to differentiate God inspired works from Men inspired works, do you think there would be so many religions around today?
The Lords word has always been competley true and America's laws come from the ten comandments in the New Testament from the holy bible. America was founded by relegious pilgrims who setteld the land many years ago. The book of Revelation in the Holy Bible has a true story of end time events that will shake the world! These end time events or often refered to as birth pains are taking place today and at a faster frequency than ever in American History!
The Book of Mormon says the Book of Mormon is true, and this can be verified when one asks this question of God. If one is sincere in asking, God will manifest that it is true. So, the Book of Mormon is true, and if it is true, its authors and transcribers were not mistaken.
You my friend insult THE God your maker. He doesn't lie; men lie so check evolution on the lie scale! God's word is absolute truth! Ask Him to forgive your ignorance for believing lieing men! Think all men lie?
First, your making an assumption that a god exists, and secondly that this god has the ability to communicate his/her/it's will in such a way that we could understand. Please show evidence for this assumption.
If your referring to the Bible, what makes you believe that this book is inspired by a god and inerrant?
This verse is talking about people believing the lies of the "man of lawlessness" who does the "work of Satan," not lies that God supposedly tells. You have to be very careful when you read the Bible that you don't take a verse out of context.
In this case, I don't believe the context changes the intended meaning of the quote. The main topic of that passage is what comes before the return of Jesus, and it plainly states that God will spread lies to certain people during that time.
I find it utterly scary how blindly religious so many US citizens are. What the hell are you all talking about?? There is no god! To an outsider (I'm English) you all seem to be brainwashed into believing the unintelligible. What is the matter with you people? Start thinking for yourselves.
