If evolution is true

inquiring mind · Oct 3, 2021

Astrophile said:
Your fourth sentence in the second quote is a good example of the fallacy of begging the question, since you need to have evidence for your God before you can propose that He did anything in a way that we do not fathom.

I did say I was thinking outside your box.

Astrophile said:
Moreover, your whole argument in post 147, that modern humans did not exist at the same time as Homo erectus, depends on your accepting that the geological dates obtained for Homo erectus and Homo sapiens are reliable.

I did say 'Connecting the dots' in that post.

inquiring mind · Oct 3, 2021

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
I think it's kind of telling that you have to bring up time in everything whenever anyone asks you about science.

It makes is very easy for you to ignore what science tells us about God's actual creation.

Do you not regard 'time' in a scientific way?

Warden_of_the_Storm · Oct 4, 2021

inquiring mind said:
Do you not regard 'time' in a scientific way?

I think that you're being willingly obfuscating.

Occams Barber · Oct 4, 2021

inquiring mind said:
Do you not regard 'time' in a scientific way?

There's a saying:

"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail"

You hammer appears to be 'time'.

OB

pitabread · Oct 4, 2021

inquiring mind said:
But, thinking outside your box, I think it possible that God created everything on a timescale we do not fathom.

So you're a fellow subscriber to Last Thursdayism?

inquiring mind · Oct 5, 2021

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
I think that you're being willingly obfuscating.

Occams Barber said:
There's a saying:

"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail"

You hammer appears to be 'time'.

OB

pitabread said:
So you're a fellow subscriber to Last Thursdayism?

Nope, I’m just saying that even by your own definition (all the science doesn’t prove anything stuff), science really doesn’t know the ‘actual’… it only concludes through the ‘observable’ at the time (no pun intended). So, since we don’t know everything, I sort of lean toward the idea of 'physical laws are indisputable only in theory'… do you see where I’m going? ‘Time’ may be the wild card.

pitabread · Oct 5, 2021

inquiring mind said:
Nope, I’m just saying that even by your own definition (all the science doesn’t prove anything stuff), science really doesn’t know the ‘actual’… it only concludes through the ‘observable’ at the time (no pun intended). So, since we don’t know everything, I sort of lean toward the idea of 'physical laws are indisputable only theory'… do you see where I’m going? ‘Time’ may be the wild card.

That's essentially what I was suggesting via the Last Thursdayism quip. I.e. that it's an unfalsifiable proposition.

For science to have meaning, it deals with things within certain philosophical constraints/baselines. If you remove that, then you one can believe anything they want to believe, but science derive a conclusion about it.

inquiring mind · Oct 5, 2021

pitabread said:
That's essentially what I was suggesting via the Last Thursdayism quip. I.e. that it's an unfalsifiable proposition.

For science to have meaning, it deals with things within certain philosophical constraints/baselines. If you remove that, then you one can believe anything they want to believe, but science derive a conclusion about it.

I understood your meaning. The 'nope' part of my answer was a general response to three posts at once.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Oct 5, 2021

inquiring mind said:
Nope, I’m just saying that even by your own definition (all the science doesn’t prove anything stuff), science really doesn’t know the ‘actual’… it only concludes through the ‘observable’ at the time (no pun intended). So, since we don’t know everything, I sort of lean toward the idea of 'physical laws are indisputable only in theory'… do you see where I’m going? ‘Time’ may be the wild card.

Except that we have seen no evidence to suggest that time has been different in Earth's history than it has been to now.

Shemjaza · Oct 6, 2021

inquiring mind said:
Nope, I’m just saying that even by your own definition (all the science doesn’t prove anything stuff), science really doesn’t know the ‘actual’… it only concludes through the ‘observable’ at the time (no pun intended). So, since we don’t know everything, I sort of lean toward the idea of 'physical laws are indisputable only in theory'… do you see where I’m going? ‘Time’ may be the wild card.

The problem with analysis of the past is that whether or not time is distorted doesn't change that there are billions of years of events, not simply some kind of absolute standard time.

tas8831 · Oct 6, 2021

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
I think that you're being willingly obfuscating.

One of his usual tactics.

tas8831 · Oct 6, 2021

inquiring mind said:
Nope, I’m just saying that even by your own definition (all the science doesn’t prove anything stuff), science really doesn’t know the ‘actual’… it only concludes through the ‘observable’ at the time (no pun intended). So, since we don’t know everything, I sort of lean toward the idea of 'physical laws are indisputable only in theory'… do you see where I’m going? ‘Time’ may be the wild card.

You're going where you always go - anywhere but on topic to rescue your cherished fantasy-based beliefs.

inquiring mind · Oct 6, 2021

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Except that we have seen no evidence to suggest that time has been different in Earth's history than it has been to now.

Having no origin for DNA doesn't stop you from speculating about a natural one.

inquiring mind · Oct 6, 2021

Shemjaza said:
The problem with analysis of the past is that whether or not time is distorted doesn't change that there are billions of years of events, not simply some kind of absolute standard time.

Bending space would not permanently change the time and distance from a point A to a point B, but you'd still get there a lot quicker.

dlamberth · Oct 6, 2021

inquiring mind said:
‘Time’ may be the wild card.

I don't believe that God creates in time warps.

inquiring mind · Oct 6, 2021

dlamberth said:
I don't believe that God creates in time warps.

I just know we have no real understanding of that possibility... and that His ways are not our ways.

Shemjaza · Oct 6, 2021

inquiring mind said:
Bending space would not permanently change the time and distance from a point A to a point B, but you'd still get there a lot quicker.

Not actually helpful to your case.

If space was bent around the Solar system so everything in the universe was within a few thousand light years so all the light and signals could hit us, then it would all still look like it was within a few thousand light years, but it doesn't.

tas8831 · Oct 6, 2021

inquiring mind said:
Having no origin for DNA doesn't stop you from speculating about a natural one.

And YOUR origin for DNA is...? Silicates being 'willed' into being a collection of monosaccharides, phosphates, and nitrogenous bases, all at once? The mechanism for that is...?

tas8831 · Oct 6, 2021

inquiring mind said:
I just know we have no real understanding of that possibility... and that His ways are not our ways.

I just know how much you love engaging in and relying on the fallacy of begging the question.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Oct 6, 2021

inquiring mind said:
Having no origin for DNA doesn't stop you from speculating about a natural one.

Because we have no evidence of a non-natural origin. It's really not that hard.

If evolution is true

and a discerning heart

and a discerning heart

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

and a discerning heart

Well-Known Member

and a discerning heart

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

and a discerning heart

and a discerning heart

Senior Contributor

and a discerning heart

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads