Endogenous retroviruses

dad · Oct 28, 2006

Chalnoth said:
No, you're talking about a mechanism that existed in a different past. What mechanism would that be?

A different universe. And all the other differences that entails in the atomic and molecular levels. We lived a thousand years, and there was no decay, and the laws of this physical only universe did not apply. In other words, you can't know the different process by your present science. That doesn't mean you can assume away with the temporary universe present, into that past either. You need a past that was the same as the present to make any of your ideas make any sense at all. And you just can't have it.

Chalnoth · Oct 28, 2006

dad said:
A different universe. And all the other differences that entails in the atomic and molecular levels. We lived a thousand years, and there was no decay, and the laws of this physical only universe did not apply. In other words, you can't know the different process by your present science. That doesn't mean you can assume away with the temporary universe present, into that past either. You need a past that was the same as the present to make any of your ideas make any sense at all. And you just can't have it.

But from your statements, you seem to believe that the old past before the split affected the physical only universe. So shouldn't we be able to measure this so-called different past just fine?

Ondoher · Oct 28, 2006

dad said:
A different universe. And all the other differences that entails in the atomic and molecular levels. We lived a thousand years, and there was no decay, and the laws of this physical only universe did not apply. In other words, you can't know the different process by your present science. That doesn't mean you can assume away with the temporary universe present, into that past either. You need a past that was the same as the present to make any of your ideas make any sense at all. And you just can't have it.

Making up a pretend past where the laws of physics do not apply and where basic logic breaks down just so that you can avoid the implications of modern science just isn't rational. You keep pretending as if this makes any sense. There is absolutely no reason to think the past was substantially different from the present, and that somehow this mythical past could account for the unity of life.

You're living in a fantasy world of pixies and candycane rainbows.

dad · Oct 29, 2006

Chalnoth said:
But from your statements, you seem to believe that the old past before the split affected the physical only universe. So shouldn't we be able to measure this so-called different past just fine?

Apparently not, as it was spiritual and physical. Science does not know a thing about the spiritual.

dad · Oct 29, 2006

Ondoher said:
Making up a pretend past where the laws of physics do not apply and where basic logic breaks down just so that you can avoid the implications of modern science just isn't rational. You keep pretending as if this makes any sense. There is absolutely no reason to think the past was substantially different from the present, and that somehow this mythical past could account for the unity of life.

You're living in a fantasy world of pixies and candycane rainbows.

Nonsense. You can't tell us a thing about the state of the past, why would I even consider your opinion?????

Ondoher · Oct 29, 2006

dad said:
Nonsense. You can't tell us a thing about the state of the past, why would I even consider your opinion?????

As explained, the nonsense is all yours. You've failed to provide a reason why anybody would accept the absurd, utterly unparsimoneous notion that some magical "different past" could resolve all the problems with creationism. It's just plain illogical and silly. Might as well believe in the easter bunny.

Chalnoth · Oct 29, 2006

dad said:
Apparently not, as it was spiritual and physical. Science does not know a thing about the spiritual.

But it should, if your assertion were correct. Because if there is no evidence for a different past, then it would mean that the one initiating this spiritual-physical split would have to explicitly mold creation so extremely perfectly so as to look as if it all came about without any creator at all. Why would any creator do such a thing?

dad · Oct 29, 2006

Ondoher said:
As explained, the nonsense is all yours. You've failed to provide a reason why anybody would accept the absurd, utterly unparsimoneous notion that some magical "different past" could resolve all the problems with creationism. It's just plain illogical and silly. Might as well believe in the easter bunny.

Not true, because one might as well believe in the bunny as your same past. If it was the bunny againt the present science, science wins. If it goes against the assumption the past was the same and the same laws and science applied, it loses!
You are left with no proof whatsoever that the bible past and future are not the actual ones in existance. None. No science. So you are in a position to disbelieve all you like, yes, but do it quietly, as you have no science to back you up.
But, as I said there is a thread for talking about the past, why harp on it here??? Bottom line, you simply cannot back it up, it is impossible.

dad · Oct 29, 2006

Chalnoth said:
But it should, if your assertion were correct. Because if there is no evidence for a different past, then it would mean that the one initiating this spiritual-physical split would have to explicitly mold creation so extremely perfectly so as to look as if it all came about without any creator at all. Why would any creator do such a thing?

That is your idea, nothing to do with how it works. The seperation is like taking away something out of the mix. Something that your science admittedly can't deal with. If you think about it,a ll you are saying is why did He make it look like it is, when our dreams of a pst, based on how it now is, say it always was like this!

Ondoher · Oct 29, 2006

dad said:
Not true, because one might as well believe in the bunny as your same past. If it was the bunny againt the present science, science wins. If it goes against the assumption the past was the same and the same laws and science applied, it loses!
You are left with no proof whatsoever that the bible past and future are not the actual ones in existance. None. No science. So you are in a position to disbelieve all you like, yes, but do it quietly, as you have no science to back you up.
But, as I said there is a thread for talking about the past, why harp on it here??? Bottom line, you simply cannot back it up, it is impossible.

Absent a compelling argument that the laws of physics were different in the past, science will accept the most parsimoneous explanation that they have always been the same. Your really shouldn't try to pretend you understand enough science to claim it agrees with your bizarre notions.

dad · Oct 29, 2006

Ondoher said:
..., science will accept the most parsimoneous explanation that they have always been the same. ....

So what? They are entitled to their beliefs, cause that is all it is, no matter how fond you may be of them! I have my own, thank you very much. If you ever get actual evidence and proof, we can talk. Meanwhile, I say your assumptions of a same as the present past state are nonsense, once we think about it. Just something everyone always, of course, assumed.

Mocca · Oct 29, 2006

Oh no. Dad got to WinAce's ERV thread.

RichardT · Oct 3, 2007

Atheuz · Oct 3, 2007

EDIT: Nevermind!

Shame on you RichardT for giving me false hope for dad to come back ;P

TheOutsider · Oct 3, 2007

Yikes, 58 pages worth. Can anyone do a quick summary? Did the Creationists ever come up with a reasonable argument?

Also, I noticed that someone mentioned bevets on the first page. I ran into him on Fark awhile ago. Good at quote-mining, horrible at actually debating.

Endogenous retroviruses

Undefeated!

Senior Contributor

Veteran

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Veteran

Senior Contributor

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Veteran

Undefeated!

MokAce - Priest of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Contributor

It's comforting to know that this isn't a test

Pope Iason Ouabache the Obscure

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency