Posted on 07/05/2003 4:12:52 PM PDT by chance33_98
Nice try, but evolution is a theory, as it synthesizes phenomena and makes testable predictions.
And I also consider both to have sufficient irrefutable evidence to be regarded, presented and taught as fact.
Would you say that a black hole has a physical edge?
But has a huge Union Pacific switch yard. Go figure.
That Darwin ... what a guy ... his theory is responsible for absolutely everything! It's probably to blame for this plague of obesity we're said to be experiencing. The one thing Darwin isn't being blamed for is Islamic terrorism. (The muslims are said to be creationists.)
Actually, Darwinian evolution probably is to blame for that one.
Intelligent Design is not natural science, for it purposes to demonstrate the existance of the supernatural. It is most properly a subset of philosopy. Natural science, of course, is also a subset of philosophy. These two are, however, different branches of the same tree--not different parts of the same branch. Perhaps if we still taught philosophy in high school, this would be a non-issue.
I'm not sure what to call the point of singularity, but with regard to the event horizon, no; I wouldn't refer to it as a "physical" edge. Points on both sides of the event horizon are still part of the Universe; hence points on the event horizon do not satisfy the definition of a boundary point.
2. Start with Darwin
a. Transitionals
b. the eye
Ah, well there's the rub. I myself define "universe" as "everything we could in principle travel to and communicate with"; the interior of a black hole would qualify as "existing outside of our universe". I myself don't have a problem with the word "edge" to describe such geometrical inaccessibility, but "horizon" is certainly a better term in both cases.
I'll still talk about the "edge of my reach" rather than the "horizon of my reach", however. :-)
Survival of the fattest??? LOL
A little too cryptic. The moon doesn't get hit that much anymore, either.
Shoemaker Levy was a timing event, which was drawn into the mass of Jupiter at the last instance of its journey.
As opposed to what?
No good.
Theologians agree the Bible teaches a 6,000-10,000 year geneology from Adam to present. Jesus taught that Adam and Eve were created at the beginning of creation in Matthew 19:4-6, dismissing the idea that God used evolution to bring life to the present.
Creationists feel the supporting evidence resides in geologic formations that support the flood which killed off all people and land animals. God provided Moses with the baby animals containing the complete genetic information to form all of the land aimmals we see today. (Of which many are extinct).
a. Seashells on Mt. Everest (These shells aren't crushed like you would expect them to be if they were sediment for millions of years, also they are in the closed position suggesting rapid death).
b. The Grand canyon erosion pattern. (Diagram).
c. The percentage of Salt in the oceans. (Far to low for even 100,000 years of erosion).
d. The worldwide existance of petrified trees crossing cleanly through layers of sediment that geologists claim took millions of years to be laid down.
e. The existence of massive amounts of dead microscopic sea life beds.
f. The fossilization of Mammoths in a standing position with undigested meals in their digestive tracts.
g. The existance of many fossils that contain fish in the act of eating, in the act of giving birth.
h. The population on the planet dictates a close to 4,000 year population growth. (Since the flood) Click here for info.
i. the oldest living tree - around 4,000 years. Bristlecone Pine
A preponderance of the available evidence is not discussed by the evolutionary ridden academia.
Ignoring the deposition pattern, which doesn't look a bit like flood debris. But then, what laid the sediments if the flood eroded them?
Rather too massive, wouldn't you say? And what about all the gradual evolution visible within those sediments?
I'm out of time for now. More cherry-picking in a few hours when I get back.
And, as you've probably guessed, I tend to use the more inclusive definition ("all that exists") for Universe. I like the usage of "Hubble volume" for the less inclusive notion of Universe, as it avoids the confusion that inevitably arises otherwise.
Of course, to be absolutely strict, you CAN travel into the Black Hole; you just can't come back, or send a message to anyone outside the event horizon once you've crossed it! It's strictly a one-way trip.
I myself don't have a problem with the word "edge" to describe such geometrical inaccessibility, but "horizon" is certainly a better term in both cases.
I'll still talk about the "edge of my reach" rather than the "horizon of my reach", however. :-)
Well, as you probably know, my concern is that the casual reader might mis-interpret what you mean by "edge." We are forever having to answer questions from laymen who pop up on these threads who ask: "What happens when I travel to the "edge" of the Universe -- what's 'outside'?" The point being that if the large scale geometry of the Universe is Euclidean (as the WMAP data suggest), it has no "physical" spatial boundary, though it does have a limit, or horizon, that defines the extent of the Hubble volume of any point at a given time.
So, I guess I'd say: "The horizon of the Hubble volume...." where you say: "The edge of an Universe....". We're both saying the same thing.
The same methods used by the writer of "Inherit the Wind" to glorify evolution believers and put down God believers are the same methods the evos of today often try to use.
There is nothing new under the sun. LOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.