Do you agree with these statements?

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,509
9,486
✟236,253.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Much of the speculative connections they make over such a long time.
That's very general. My perception is that the multiplicity of connections, all well validated, means that there is no unreasonable gap between connections. Could you give a specific example where you feel this is not so.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Bungle_Bear
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
No, speaking for myself, I ‘recognize’ the possibility of deep time (considering gaps/delineation and all that), beyond the approx. 7,000 years required to mesh a literal biblical creation and historical/archeological evidence. But, I don’t ‘understand’ it, and I don’t think evolutionists do either, not like they think they do. I just don’t agree that the macro-level large changes you allude to happened.
Deep time is geologic time, measured in tens & hundreds of millions to billions of years; 7,000 years is just an instant.
 
Upvote 0

inquiring mind

and a discerning heart
Supporter
Dec 31, 2016
7,222
3,311
U.S.
✟652,664.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
That's very general. My perception is that the multiplicity of connections, all well validated, means that there is no unreasonable gap between connections. Could you give a specific example where you feel this is not so.
My perception is that it's not possible to be 'specific' with connections over such long periods of time. Even speculation that there are connections, and any given example, is not without question. Do you know one that is nailed without any speculation?
 
Upvote 0

inquiring mind

and a discerning heart
Supporter
Dec 31, 2016
7,222
3,311
U.S.
✟652,664.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Deep time is geologic time, measured in tens & hundreds of millions to billions of years; 7,000 years is just an instant.
Yes, I said 'beyond' just to point out that I realized there was possibl a timeframe 'other than' the standard creationist one.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
My perception is that it's not possible to be 'specific' with connections over such long periods of time. Even speculation that there are connections, and any given example, is not without question. Do you know one that is nailed without any speculation?

If you're talking about phylogenetic reconstruction, it's known that such reconstructions are not specific. They are statistical and everything in statistics has a margin of error.

There doesn't mean they aren't useful or can't be a valid way of interpreting the data, though. In fact, phylogenetic reconstructions have real world applications.
 
Upvote 0

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,200
3,819
45
✟917,196.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
My perception is that it's not possible to be 'specific' with connections over such long periods of time. Even speculation that there are connections, and any given example, is not without question. Do you know one that is nailed without any speculation?
Surely the multiple lines of radiometric evidence is hard evidence for deep time.
 
Upvote 0

inquiring mind

and a discerning heart
Supporter
Dec 31, 2016
7,222
3,311
U.S.
✟652,664.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
If you're talking about phylogenetic reconstruction, it's known that such reconstructions are not specific. They are statistical and everything in statistics has a margin of error.

There doesn't mean they aren't useful or can't be a valid way of interpreting the data, though. In fact, phylogenetic reconstructions have real world applications.
Yes, as long as we don't forget that even the maximum 'likelihood' does not eliminate the creation option.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Yes, as long as we don't forget that even the maximum 'likelihood' does not eliminate the creation option.

Given that supernatural creation is completely unbounded, technically nothing can "eliminate" that option. I mean, the entire universe and everything could have been supernaturally created 5 minutes ago and everyone has false memories. Technically, you can't eliminate that option either.

All we can do is set an objective baseline and follow the evidence. The evidence under such a baseline suggests all life forms share common ancestry. There is nothing that specifically suggests independent origins of life on Earth.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,509
9,486
✟236,253.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
My perception is that it's not possible to be 'specific' with connections over such long periods of time. Even speculation that there are connections, and any given example, is not without question. Do you know one that is nailed without any speculation?
  • What is the basis of that perception? Dissuade me that this is not just an argument from incredulity.
  • Pretty well all of connections may begin with speculation, but that speculation is intensively tested, amended and developed. But you ask for an example: evolution of the Ceratite ammonites.
  • The basis of science is to question everything, repeatedly, so of course none of the connections are without question.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: pitabread
Upvote 0

inquiring mind

and a discerning heart
Supporter
Dec 31, 2016
7,222
3,311
U.S.
✟652,664.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Given that supernatural creation is completely unbounded, technically nothing can "eliminate" that option. I mean, the entire universe and everything could have been supernaturally created 5 minutes ago and everyone has false memories. Technically, you can't eliminate that option either.

All we can do is set an objective baseline and follow the evidence. The evidence under such a baseline suggests all life forms share common ancestry. There is nothing that specifically suggests independent origins of life on Earth.

Only the lack of evidence in your bounded argument. You have hamstrung all supernatural thought and material, including eyewitness accounts.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Only the lack of evidence in your bounded argument.

In order for evidence to have any meaning, you need an objective baseline to compare it. This is the problem with creationism: there is no objective baseline for comparing ideas, hence no way of testing said ideas.

This is why there are so many contradictory versions of creationism out there.

You have hamstrung all supernatural thought and material, including eyewitness accounts.

Claims of "eyewitness accounts" is meaningless without an objective baseline to test such accounts. Humans are natural story-tellers. We love making stuff up. So unless you have a way to corroborate stories with independent, objective testing, then all the purported eyewitness accounts in the world don't mean anything.

Likewise, supernaturalism itself has no bounded constraints and therefore no way of objectively testing it. The only way to test is to set constraints.

Hence why scientific method using methodological naturalism which assumes an objective universe as its baseline. If you throw that out, then how are you going to test ideas about the world?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

inquiring mind

and a discerning heart
Supporter
Dec 31, 2016
7,222
3,311
U.S.
✟652,664.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
In order for evidence to have any meaning, you need an objective baseline to compare it. This is the problem with creationism: there is no objective baseline for comparing ideas, hence no way of testing said ideas.

This is why there are so many contradictory versions of creationism out there.



Claims of "eyewitness accounts" is meaningless without an objective baseline to test such accounts. Humans are natural story-tellers. We love making stuff up. So unless you have a way to corroborate stories with independent, objective testing, then all the purported eyewitness accounts in the world don't mean anything.

Likewise, supernaturalism itself has no bounded constraints and therefore no way of objectively testing it. The only way to test is to set constraints.

Hence why scientific method using methodological naturalism which assumes an objective universe as its baseline. If you throw that out, then how are you going to test ideas about the world?
I mentioned this in another thread... eyewitness accounts have been widely written and accepted in other historical events. Matthew and John were eyewitnesses to Jesus' life and wrote of His divinity, and Jesus didn't doubt Genesis. At the very least, you would think non-believers and science-types would believe Luke (a Gentile physician & historian) who was a witness to eyewitnesses about Jesus (who as I said didn't doubt Genesis).
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Yes, as long as we don't forget that even the maximum 'likelihood' does not eliminate the creation option.
Nothing that science has discovered, or even in principle could discover can eliminate the creator option.
 
Upvote 0

inquiring mind

and a discerning heart
Supporter
Dec 31, 2016
7,222
3,311
U.S.
✟652,664.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
What is the basis of that perception? Dissuade me that this is not just an argument from incredulity.
People with differing perceptions are and will remain skeptical of each other's motives.

Pretty well all of connections may begin with speculation, but that speculation is intensively tested, amended and developed.
To no end.

evolution of the Ceratite ammonites.
They're extinct aren't they?

The basis of science is to question everything, repeatedly, so of course none of the connections are without question.
Yep, that's what I said.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
I mentioned this in another thread... eyewitness accounts have been widely written and accepted in other historical events. Matthew and John were eyewitnesses to Jesus' life and wrote of His divinity, and Jesus didn't doubt Genesis. At the very least, you would think non-believers and science-types would believe Luke (a Gentile physician & historian) who was a witness to eyewitnesses about Jesus (who as I said didn't doubt Genesis).
John may have written the Gospel which is attributed to him. The other three, including Matthew, were not written by eyewitnesses to the events described. Yes, you said that "Jesus didn't doubt Genesis." And a lot of people assume that means that He didn't doubt that it is literal and inerrant. But there are no grounds for such an assumption.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

inquiring mind

and a discerning heart
Supporter
Dec 31, 2016
7,222
3,311
U.S.
✟652,664.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
John may have written the Gospel which is attributed to him. The other three, including Matthew, were not written by eyewitnesses to the events described. Yes, you said that "Jesus didn't doubt Genesis." And a lot of people assume that means that He didn't doubt that it is literal and inerrant. But there are no grounds for such an assumption.
Why wouldn't Matthew have written Matthew (or dictated to someone)... he was a Disciple of Jesus, among the 12??? And, I said Luke was a 'witness to eyewitnesses.'
 
Upvote 0