If Evolution were true...

[Deaver]

So are you saying we can have our own truth? because we all know that we can't have our own facts.

No, there is only one truth, whatever it may be.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your (apparently new) position is philosophically feasible (though I wouldn't consider it established), and, if true, science would have no way of refuting it.

What 'apparently new position'?

QV please: 1

So why, a month or so ago when we were discussing dating methods, did you continue to disagree when I conceded then that if there were a miraculous discontinuity in the history, the models would not see it and when they would continue to make accurate predictions on where to find oil, or coal, or other resources, they would do so on the calculated dates involved?

I don't know -- I vaguely remember the conversation.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you really think we are trying to deceive anyone here?

Do you really think God is?

No, apparently he needed to check with you guys first, since you know what he did and didn't do.

Is that a problem? would you know what someone did, if you read his diary?

 

[selfinflikted]

Do you really think God is?

Is that a problem? would you know what someone did, if you read his diary?

I would be incredulous, since the diary was written by multiple people decades after the fact.

 

[AV1611VET]

Which leaves one to conlude an actual history, as this is parsimonious.

-- what?

Me: Embedded Age is 'maturity without history'.
You: Which leaves one to conlude [sic] an actual history...

I'm missing something in your logic somewhere.

Nobody "did" anything.

I beg your pardon?

There is no evidence that a real "Adam" or "Eve" ever existed. Allegorically, it's make for a neat story.

How about Molid? did he exist?

 

[AV1611VET]

I do know, trying to squish reality into a literal understanding of an allegory creates more questions than it answers.

That's why I don't do it.

As for Jesus walking on water, laws of physics would preclude this from happening.

Then I'm sure the laws of physics [pun] took a hike [/pun] during that timeframe.

It's more likely this was written as a legendary account.

For what purpose? so the author could die a martyr?

It can be difficult to distinguish the two for some people.

That's your problem, not mine.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think it's down to what people want to believe rather that what's true, if a body needs to believe it's true then it's true.

You were there?

 

[AV1611VET]

I would be incredulous, since the diary was written by multiple people decades after the fact.

Can you give me an example in history, where someone wrote a diary (or made an entry in one) for the purpose of dying a martyr's death?

 

[Nathan Poe]

You were there?

You were?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Can you give me an example in history, where someone wrote a diary (or made an entry in one) for the purpose of dying a martyr's death?

They're called "suicide notes."

 

[AV1611VET]

They're called "suicide notes."

So a bunch of people just decided to kill themselves, so they wrote the New Testament?

Is that what you want me to believe?

 

[Insane_Duck]

Can you give me an example in history, where someone wrote a diary (or made an entry in one) for the purpose of dying a martyr's death?

They wrote down hearsay that they clearly believed, no one ever claimed they made it up on the spot.

 

[OllieFranz]

Which leaves one to conlude an actual history, as this is parsimonious.

-- what?
Me: Embedded Age is 'maturity without history'.
You: Which leaves one to conlude [sic] an actual history...

Occam's Razor is the philosophy in science that if two or more models give exactly the same results, then the simplest (the one with least extraneous assumptions needed) one is to be preferred. Parsimony means prefering the simpler explanation.

Frenchy is saying that he has no reason to abandon his simpler view for your view. You do. You believe that the Creation ex nihilo occured relatively recently, on the basis of your understanding of Scripture. Therefore this is another fact that needs to be accounted for for you, whereas for Frenchy it would be merely an extra assumption.

 

[SignOfGod]

I think it's down to what people want to believe rather that what's true, if a body needs to believe it's true then it's true.

You were there?

A true blue creationists answer, answer with a question that has nothing to do with anything,
you are one sick individual and a credit to creationism.

 

[OllieFranz]

What 'apparently new position'?

On the basis of our previous discussions, I was not aware of how early you developed this theory. I just knew that our discussions then did not seem to reflect it clearly. My uncertainty as to whether this was a new development is reflected in both the word "apparently" and my placing the entire phrase in parentheses of doubt

QV please: 1

Thank you for the link. Now I know

I don't know -- I vaguely remember the conversation.

Perhaps we were talking past one another.

I know that for me it was mostly your refusal to accept even the phrase "calculated dates" that led me to believe you were rejecting even the possibility of using the current models in the search for the location of the resources.

That refusal still seems to go against the fact that the miraculous discontinuity would leave no evidence detectible to science.

 

[Nathan Poe]

So a bunch of people just decided to kill themselves, so they wrote the New Testament?

What people were those again, AV? Are you confusing myth with fact, as you always do?

Before you start listing assigned titles of Gospels, answer this: Did Diedrich Knickerbocker write "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow"?

Is that what you want me to believe?

I'd like you to believe that God serves a better purpose than your own glorification, but I'm long since given up on that.

 

[Inan3]

That doesn't answer the question.

Well, I guess the answer to that question is because they are fools rejecting the only means to help them avoid hell.

 

[Inan3]

Unless of course you are a creationist, being a creationists requires a person to be able to deny what they can see in favour of what they can not see, understandably the ability to do that doesn't come easy, it's an unnatural concept it therefore requires years and years of indoctrination in order to sufficiently distort the minds sense of reality.

I thought you were a Christian

 

[Inan3]

I hope you don't mind me elbowing in and giving my two penneth.

No, I don't mind but I think you give it too much value.

 

[Split Rock]

I think we have a point of of agreement. "If God had dropped the first life forms and let them evolve, it would not change the theory of evolution at all." Where we disagree, I am sure, is the point is that He didn't. He had a very ordered process of creation and the last of His creations was Man who was perfect when created.

The theory of evolution, especially as it realtes to man, skips the most important issue of the debate. Man was created perfect by God. Therefore, there is no evolution from something other than human. So in this case we would see microevolution - man adapting to his environment. Please don't say if man was perfect why microevolution. That will entail a whole discussion of the fall of man and sin and all sorts of other issues, I don't think we will agree on either.

This is really nothing more than an assertion on your part. The fact is that man is not perfect. Therefore you are abliged to show us that he was perfect at one point and provide us with the details of the mechanism that altered his perfection.