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.
First of all, we don't actually know how the universe came into being or how our solar system came together. We also find life occurring in a swarm of life in the oceans as we find in the fossil evidence without precursors for the life we find there.Let's get this straight. You find that the Genesis account parallels the appearance of organisms in the fossil record. However, if the order doesn't match it doesn't count against Genesis since you can imagine a fantasy land where the fossil record is different and matches Genesis.
Seems like you are starting with the conclusion and accepting/rejecting reality based on that already held conclusion.
First of all, we don't actually know how the universe came into being or how our solar system came together.
We also find life occurring in a swarm of life in the oceans as we find in the fossil evidence without precursors for the life we find there.
According to TOE they are required are they not?We do have a pretty good idea of how our solar system came together.
http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/solar-system-formation/en/
How did you determine that those species did not have precursors?
According to TOE they are required are they not?
I didn't, the scientists in the field did.Answer my question, which I asked first.
How did you determine that those species did not have precursors?
I didn't, the scientists in the field did.
How so?Really? Examples?
BTW, no known precursors is not the same as no precursors.
I think AV that you get caught up in the philosophy of science rather than the actual science. Science only is that data that we can discover, the philosophy of science is the interpretation of the data.
Ok, how is it and why are you confused?No< that's not "the philosophy of science" AT ALL, Nowconfused.
It would seem so. He's (She is ) certainly not on track with philosophy.So, what you're saying is, Oncedeceived, Nowconfused?
I think "He's" a she, and no, you'll never get a straight definition from her. Eliminates her wiggle room, that way she's never wrong.
No, it's based upon interpreting the universe under today's clock and decay rate - which would have been faster in the past and therefore the age of things would appear older than they actually are under today's clocks. And thus the confusion of interpreting those vast amounts of time by using the rate of clocks as they tick today.
I asked how I was not "on track" with philosophy? You might explain yourself.It would seem so. He's (She is ) certainly not on track with philosophy.
But who can blame him (her) for that?
Hitch, how would you like to be reported?I think "He's" a she, and no, you'll never get a straight definition from her. Eliminates her wiggle room, that way she's never wrong.
I asked how I was not "on track" with philosophy? You might explain yourself.
Equally dubious is the claim that dating methods unequivocally support geologic time, when we know for a fact that geologic time has never been allowed to be questioned since its acceptance. If an idea cannot be questioned, it is hard to imagine that research is not inevitably biased towards supporting it and data ultimately filtered towards those ends.
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?