Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.Much of the speculative connections they make over such a long time.
Deep time is geologic time, measured in tens & hundreds of millions to billions of years; 7,000 years is just an instant.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.
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?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.
Yes, I said 'beyond' just to point out that I realized there was possibl a timeframe 'other than' the standard creationist one.Deep time is geologic time, measured in tens & hundreds of millions to billions of years; 7,000 years is just an instant.
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.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?
Ah, OK.Yes, I said 'beyond' just to point out that I realized there was possibl a timeframe 'other than' the standard creationist one.
Yes, as long as we don't forget that even the maximum 'likelihood' does not eliminate the creation option.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.
I didn't say there was no possibility of deep time.Surely the multiple lines of radiometric evidence is hard evidence for deep time.
Yes, as long as we don't forget that even the maximum 'likelihood' does not eliminate the creation option.
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?
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.
I hate that word. I see it a lot here, and have to look-up the meaning every time.Prediction: it's going to be an argument from incredulity.
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).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?
Nothing that science has discovered, or even in principle could discover can eliminate the creator option.Yes, as long as we don't forget that even the maximum 'likelihood' does not eliminate the creation option.
People with differing perceptions are and will remain skeptical of each other's motives.What is the basis of that perception? Dissuade me that this is not just an argument from incredulity.
To no end.Pretty well all of connections may begin with speculation, but that speculation is intensively tested, amended and developed.
They're extinct aren't they?evolution of the Ceratite ammonites.
Yep, that's what I said.The basis of science is to question everything, repeatedly, so of course none of the connections are without question.
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.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).
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.'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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?