Can God love? (Part 1)

I have not the time at the present Tosh but will attempt to answer your opinions at a later date..

Wake up and see the facts rather than fiction. .

Washington (CNN) – The percentage of Americans 30 and younger who harbor some doubts about God’s existence appears to be growing quickly, according to a recent Pew Research Center survey. While most young Americans, 68%, told Pew they never doubt God’s existence, that’s a 15-point drop in just five years.

In 2007, 83% of American millennials said they never doubted God’s existence.

More young people are expressing doubts about God now than at any time since Pew started asking the question a decade ago. Thirty-one percent disagreed with the statement “I never doubt the existence of God,” double the number who disagreed with it in 2007.

The internet is working, and there is hope for America yet.

Shirina, if you believe the world is a peaceful place you will believe anything other than the truth.

There are nations at each others throats but dare not actually do anything about it because of the possible consequences to themselves.

That is not peace and can explode at any time.

There are also many actual wars in progress throughout the world, they may be small but those killed are just as dead as those in a world war.

Just wait and see the consequences of the action Israel will take against Iran.

Wake up and see the facts rather than fiction.

A scientist, on the basis of much comparative anatomy and physiology, might hypothesize that, in the distant past, mammals evolved from reptiles. This would have testable consequences for the present state of the system (earth's surface with the geological strata in it and the animal and plant species living on it) in the form of reptile-mammal transition fossils that should exist, in addition to other necessary features of the DNA, developmental systems, and so forth, of the present-day reptiles and mammals.

What about repeatability? It is the observations that must be repeatable, if only to establish their validity independently of any one person's authority. This does not mean that the hypothetical mechanism or the phenomenon concerned must be repeatable or reproducible. In the experimental laboratory where the phenomena being studied are short-lived and transient, it is usually necessary to reproduce them in order to repeat the observations. But scientists must wait for the recurrence of natural phenomena—such as eclipses, earthquakes, seasonally recurring biological phenomena, and so forth. Yet, if a phenomenon is a stable, more or less permanent long-term condition, observations may be repeated anytime. A geologist may return to a geological formation to repeat or make new observations, or an anatomist or paleontologist may reexamine a museum specimen, either corroborating or refuting someone else's previous observations. Clearly, then, a hypothesis postulating a unique past event is scientific—as long as it has observable consequences for the present that can be repeatedly verified by any observer.

Thus we may conclude (as Popper did) that evolutionary theories or historical hypotheses about origins are no different than other scientific theories as far as their logical features are concerned and are just as falsifiable as hypotheses in the form of general laws and theories.

Tosh wrote:
Texas,

It seems you have a problem with any scientific evidence that contradicts the Genesis myth…

Tosh wrote:
It seems you have a problem with any scientific evidence that contradicts the Genesis account…

Who-What-When-Where-How-Why exposition and comparison of Genesis 1:1 and Big Bang:

1. Genesis 1:1, brief exposition:

English, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Hebrew, “B’r’shythe bara Elohim et hashamayim ve’et ha’arets”.

• Who: Elohim, power, plural of Eloah, power, by inference, incomprehensible, immeasurable power.
  
  
• What, bara, created, by inference, created from nothing, et hashamayim ve’et ha’arets, the heavens (everything other than the earth), and the earth (everything other than the heavens), in total, everything, thus, bara… et hashamayim ve’et ha’arets, created everything from nothing.
  
  
• When: B’r’shythe, the beginning, at the beginning, at the point of beginning, at the beginning point of everything, when everything begins.
  
  
• Where: B’r’shythe, the beginning, at the beginning, at the point of beginning, at the beginning point of everything, where everything begins.
  
  
• Why: Not addressed by Genesis 1:1 (addressed by Genesis 1:2 and following).
  
  
• How: Not addressed by Genesis 1:1.
  

2. Big Bang, brief exposition:

Incomprehensible, immeasurable power, at/from “the singularity”, explodes the universe into existence from nothing.

• Who: Incomprehensible, immeasurable power.
  
  
• What, exploded everything (the university) into existence from nothing.
  
  
• When: “the singularity”, the beginning, at the beginning, at the point of beginning, at the beginning point of everything, (b) when everything begins.
  
  
• Where: “the singularity”, the beginning, at the beginning, at the point of beginning, at the beginning point of everything, where everything begins.
  
  
• Why: Not addressed by Big Bang.
  
  
• How: Addressed by Big Bang data set.
  

Tosh wrote:
… your selection process is rather unscientific.

Tosh wrote:
I am amused you have appointed yourself as a global authority on science and its methodology…

Tosh wrote:
… unfortunately for you and your case, your subjective perceptions are not evidence or proof of any scientific shortcomings.

Tosh wrote:
Anytime you wish to disclose your scientific objections to the use of fossils and their dating methods, I will be all ears.

Tosh wrote:
I hope it contains more evidentiary material than your objections to macro-evolution and order on earth.

Tosh wrote:
There was no incontrovertible evidence of a flat earth…

Tosh wrote:
… it was an optical illusion, a subjective perception that simply highlighted the need for an objective scientific method…

Tosh wrote:
… the very method you reject when the results contradict your subjective perceptions.

Tosh wrote:
Galileo would have loved you.

Tosh wrote:
I must remind you that you have not provided one shred of evidence or proof that the scientific conclusions you oppose are false…

Tosh wrote:
I must remind you that you have not provided one shred of evidence or proof that the speculative conjecture you dispute is false…

Tosh wrote:
… the only opinion worth its salt on this matter is the scientific consensus…

Tosh wrote:
… they happen to be qualified to make these judgements.

Tosh wrote:
It matters not a jot what you consider to be evidence or proof or empirical…

Tosh wrote:
… nobody appointed you God of science…

Tosh wrote:
… what matters is what the scientific body accept as evidence or proof or empirical.

Tosh wrote:
Would you like me to post again the percentage of qualified scientists who consider Common Descent a fact…

Tosh wrote:
… would you like the scientific consensus on dating fossils embedded in rocks ?

Tosh wrote:
Texas, I will burst a rib if you start talking about flood geology.

What planet are you on Shirina.

Steven Pinker on How Violence is Actually in Decline in the Long Term

With a wry smile the young man went on his way and thanked the Lord he was not an expert.

Even suicides are becoming a daily occurance

The worlds economy is on the point of calapse

Crime figurers are a laugh, crimes previously recorded are now let off with a caution and they are not counted.

I have a problem with any scientific evidence that contradicts Big Bang.

I have engaged in no “selection process. I am amused that you have appointed yourself as global monitor as to what I might or might not have appointed myself. ”

Biologists at the University of California, San Diego have uncovered the first genetic evidence that explains how large-scale alterations to body plans were accomplished during the early evolution of animals.

In an advance online publication February 6 by Nature of a paper scheduled to appear in Nature, the scientists show how mutations in regulatory genes that guide the embryonic development of crustaceans and fruit flies allowed aquatic crustacean-like arthropods, with limbs on every segment of their bodies, to evolve 400 million years ago into a radically different body plan: the terrestrial six-legged insects.

The achievement is a landmark in evolutionary biology, not only because it shows how new animal body plans could arise from a simple genetic mutation, but because it effectively answers a major criticism creationists had long leveled against evolution—the absence of a genetic mechanism that could permit animals to introduce radical new body designs.

“The problem for a long time has been over this issue of macroevolution,” says William McGinnis, a professor in UCSD’s Division of Biology who headed the study. “How can evolution possibly introduce big changes into an animal’s body shape and still generate a living animal? Creationists have argued that any big jump would result in a dead animal that wouldn’t be able to perpetuate itself. And until now, no one’s been able to demonstrate how you could do that at the genetic level with specific instructions in the genome.”

The primary function of science is to demonstrate the existence of phenomena that cannot be observed directly. Science is not needed to show us things we can see with our own eyes. Direct observation is not only unnecessary in science; direct observation is in fact usually impossible for the things that really matter. In fact, the most important discoveries of science have only be inferred via indirect observation. Familiar examples of unobservable scientific discoveries are atoms, electrons, viruses, bacteria, germs, radio-waves, X-rays, ultraviolet light, energy, entropy, enthalpy, solar fusion, genes, protein enzymes, and the DNA double-helix. The round earth was not observed directly by humans until 1961, yet this counterintuitive concept had been considered a scientific fact for over 2000 years. The Copernican hypothesis that the earth orbits the sun has been acknowledged virtually ever since the time of Galileo, even though no one has ever observed the process to this day. All of these "invisible" phenomena were elucidated using the scientific method of inference. When the term "evidence" is used in this article, it is used strictly with respect to this scientific method.

The scientific method is a program for research which comprises four main steps. In practice these steps follow more of a logical order than a chronological one:

1.Make observations.
2.Form a testable, unifying hypothesis to explain these observations.
3.Deduce predictions from the hypothesis.
4.Search for confirmations of the predictions;
if the predictions are contradicted by empirical observation, go back to step (2).

Examination of the scientific method reveals that science involves much more than naive empiricism. Research that only involves simple observation, repetition, and measurement is not sufficient to count as science. These three techniques are merely part of the process of making observations (#1 in the steps outlined above). Astrologers, wiccans, alchemists, and shamans all observe, repeat, and measure — but they do not practice science. Clearly, what distinguishes science is the way in which observations are interpreted, tested, and used.

A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time. Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unproven or speculative.

Tosh wrote:
Texas,

Still waiting.

Tosh wrote:
It seems your standards of proof are actually irrational and unscientific.

Tosh wrote:
Darwins Theory of Evolution states Common Descent which includes macroevolution.

With RockOnBrother’s alterations, Tosh wrote:
Darwin’s speculative conjecture of macro-evolution states Common Descent which includes macroevolution.