Link mine. Makes just as much sense. 
Again you do science and religion a diservice. Both are a quest for truth, both are explanations for observable phenomena.
Do you seriously think religious folk wake up one morning and think ‘I believe there is an intelligent agent outside the universe…’? Of course not. Religious viewpoints reflect a quest for truth, just as do scientific ones.
There are many things science cannot explain (if you doubt that I suggest you watch a brief excerpt from a debate between William Lane Craig and Dr Peter Atkins at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkBD20edOco). The God hypothesis isn’t simply a matter of filling in the gaps, it is a plausible, coherent hypothesis that has been shared by some of the planets greatest intellects, including scientific ones.
The question was about what the Bible SAYS, not whether any of us believe it.
I was responding to false claims as to content, not defending the Bible. That is a different debate altogether.
It is still an assumption. Upon which the entire special theory of relativity hinges.
Doubting relativity is about as ignorant as doubting evolution, so you’re consistent.
Relativity makes predictions. They all line up. Anything that replaces relativity will contain it. You need to understand that. We have thousands of experiments that support it. Why do those experiments work if relativity is wrong?
But you wont answer. Because you’re ignorant enough to think “God did it” is somehow profound.
1> There is no hebrew word that specifically translates sphere.
2> We still speak of the ‘four corners of the world’ today. Doesn;t mean we thnk the earth is flat.
3> Actually the position I put forward about the assumption to spped of light has been put by William Lane Craig to a number of scientists wwho have NOT refuted it. It is an assumption, untested and unobserved.
As an aside, there a number of verses that speak of a simultaneous day and night on earth, showing that the Bible not only teaches a round planet, but also understands the day/night variations in the earths rotation around the sun.
There is a lot of misinformation on the web about what the bible says. It doesn’t take long to refute it.
When did I say I doubted relativity?
My point was that even one of the most widely accepted scientific theories have assumptions at their base.
Lobohan…if you are unable to read or comprehend the points I am making, you should hesitate before labelling someone else ignorant…
Assumptions you have evidence for, like things will fall down when you let them go, are one thing. Assuming an intelligent God has no evidence for it, so it isn’t a sound assumption. It’s a silly assumption.
Trying to create parity between actual scientific study and the childish wishful thinking you’re promulgating here isn’t sound. Ya dig?
I can’t comprehend how someone can actually try to make the silly points you’re making. That’s different than understanding what you’re trying to say. Although your utter lack of education on anything scientific does make it difficult to figure what you’re getting at, because your ignorance is so profound you don’t use words in the correct way.
I understand your debate strategy though. You simply deny a point was made and restate your objection. You keep doing it with the hope that others will eventually tire, whereupon you declare yourself the winner.
You’re right, we may have to agree to disagree on some points, so I will respond to just a few…
Adoption…
A non-family like species or inter species adoption has no genetic benefit, and requires a diversion of resources away from genetic relatives. Surely this is not just neutral to the selfsih gene but counter to it?
Euglena
1> Your proposition is based on assumption, of course, and I would ask why these single celled organisms, living in such a idyllic circumstance, would begin to suddenly develop a concern for their offspring?
2> You describe Euglena in a steady state, however, given the greater theory of evolution, these single celled organisms eventually began the journey to ‘tooth and claw’ organisms. The same arguments apply; how did populations develop without any aversion to murder?
You implied I doubted relativity. You were wrong.
The general theory of relativity is widely accepted, and it is based on the assumption as to the constancy of the speed of light. This is a reasonable assumption, but an assumption none the less. It cannot be proven.
The greater theory of evolution, a far less reasonable contention, is likewise based on a number of unprovable assumptions.
There is no problem with this, it’s just humorous how strongly some will refute the notion that science is not omnipotent.
My debate strategy is simply to ask the hard questions, which is consistent with robust scientific method. If you had any valid answers, you wouldn’t need the ad-hominem.
Asking hard questions is laudable. Jamming your fingers in your ears and ignoring the answers is what you’re doing.
I’ll listen and respond to legitimate answers when they are provided.
Don’t you see how this is a problem if you’re too ignorant to judge what’s legitimate and what isn’t? No one can satisfy your standards because you know so little that your standards make no sense.
How is it an assumption if it’s been proven?
In this particular case, yes. In general, no.
Huuuuuuuuuge difference.
A somewhat indiscriminate willingness to adopt some cute little helpless orphaned baby will occasionally run counter to the selfish gene by producing a not-just-neutral outcome. But so long as said tendency frequently benefits relatives, it’s good enough to stick around; it’s a little overly broad, and so falls short of perfection, but (a) like always, evolution doesn’t require “perfect”; it rewards “good enough”. Also, (b) while “overly broad” isn’t perfect, keep in mind that “overly narrow” ain’t too great either.
So let’s say that 99% of the times a lioness comes face-to-face with a cute little helpless orphaned baby, it’s the offspring of a blood relative; adopting it helps pass along her genes in the next generation. And figure that maybe 1% of the time, such a lioness comes across an oryx; adopting it doesn’t help pass along her genes. Given those numbers, does it make evolutionary sense for those lionesses to have a somewhat indiscriminate willingness to adopt babies? Well, yeah; ninety-nine times out of a hundred it’s a better-than-neutral approach, and that’s good enough to persist despite being worse than neutral one time out of a hundred.
I think you still come out comfortably ahead at 95/5 or even 90/10.
I dunno. Mutation, maybe? Yeah, let’s go with that, for now.
If a given mutation turns out to be beneficial-- or at least not-too-harmful – with regard to having kids who have kids, then it’ll stick around. If not, it’ll die out; figure enough billions of years pass for the right mutation to show up, and figure it then starts proving its worth: at least neutral, possibly much better, either suffices for it to stick around.
Well, figure that first they had neither altruism nor tooth-and-claw proclivities. Then figure they next got some altruism. Then figure they got some tooth-and-claw proclivities after that.
But it could be disproven, right? If we ever measure the speed of light in a vacuum and note that it’s clocking in at half the expected speed, or double the expected speed, or whatever, we’d scrap the assumption and the theory, right? We can keep an open mind while running experiments to see whether the results vary?
It hasn’t.
1> Your adoption example STILL refers to a genetic linkage. My question specifically called for an explanation of non-family, like species, or inter species adoption where NO genetic benefit is achieved, and where a diversion of resources away from genetic relatives is required. Evolution is not merely neutral on this, it is specifically antagomistic to it.
2> There are so few examples of beneficial mutations as to be irrelevant. For you to suggest one that takes us towards benevolence is pure speculation.
3> Altruism vs. tooth and claw…these are still only assumptions. Can you name an evolutionary motivation for the very earliest form of altruism?
4> Einstein himslef wrote (in the 1920 book “Relativity: the special and general theory”) . . ." according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [. . .] cannot claim any unlimited validity." You speak of the speed of light in a vacuum. But if you measure the speed of light in an accelerating reference frame, the answer will, in general, differ from that commonly accepted. And in a frame at rest relative to a source of gravity, the speed of light can differ from that accepted, because of the effect of gravity (spacetime curvature) on clocks and rulers.