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.
Perhaps there's no alternative to teaching evolution to school children, as it's the mainstream opinion. i think it's rubbish, but that's the way of the world.
That is logical at least.The theory of evolution is the reality of natural selection and can be tested.
Only by assuming a 6,000 year old limit to biology can you make such a statement seem reasonable. If that timetable is totally off, as an enormous mountain of evidence proves, then your argument falls apart. If the universe is much older then evolution because a necessity, the only possibly explanation. So you have all your eggs in one basket, hoping you are right on one data point, hoping against all hope since it is completely devoid of any evidence to support it.The evolutionary theory of origins is not scientific beyond what can be tested tomorrow.
Yesterday is just speculation for science.
Only by assuming a 6,000 year old limit to biology can you make such a statement seem reasonable. If that timetable is totally off, as an enormous mountain of evidence proves, then your argument falls apart. If the universe is much older then evolution because a necessity, the only possibly explanation. So you have all your eggs in one basket, hoping you are right on one data point, hoping against all hope since it is completely devoid of any evidence to support it.
Well, we can see the effects of the past as they currently exist and extrapolate from that information what actually happened. It's really no different than a historian - a historian takes all of the data available and constructs a narrative for what happened in humanity's past.Yes, it can.
Well, we can see the effects of the past as they currently exist and extrapolate from that information what actually happened.
Of course we can make predictions, don't be purposefully dense.That doesn't always produce a picture of what actually happened.
"Past events cannot be observed, cannot be predicted or deduced from physical evidence, and cannot be tested experimentally."
While I'm sure that your opinion on how scientists go about doing their jobs is 100% accurate based on your own extensive experience, I'll just say that it doesn't match up well with mine. When I go to a conference and give a talk about my research my peers will follow up my talk by expressing skepticism regarding my findings, my methods, and my conclusions. It's then up to me to address this criticism and defend my findings. Science depends on skepticism, otherwise we'd go around believing in bigfoot, Nessie, and creationism.Just as my wife never makes mistakes, science clings to the
contrived logic that all false theories are just being improved
by the "superior process of peer review". Then in the next breath
they will decry any form of skepticism.
I can't even imagine how science would operate if it allowed for the supernatural to be invoked.I'm sure you can understand that if a Supernatural event were under
investigation, it could only be analyzed in natural terms. Natural
events are the only ones that can be repeated.
Take it up with Feduccia
Hello again, hiscosmicgoldfish.
I'll repost what I said earlier, even though I know you yourself have already read it:
YEC physicists have multiple theories for reconciling long-distance starlight with a young earth. I suggest going to creation.com and searching for "John Hartnett" or "Russell Humphreys".
I bought Humphreys' book a while ago. I have a physics education so it was a good read. He's made some changes to his model since then, which can be found on the web site above.
Hartnett's model is more mathematically rigorous, but more difficult to follow, imo.
Each attempts to explain what we see with an "economy of miracles". That is, to marry a literalistic approach to Genesis 1 with as few miracles as necessary.
The results can be fascinating. I think Humphreys's idea is especially interesting because he's about as literal as a Christian can be regarding Genesis. So when Genesis 1 begins with water, the idea of which is repeated in 2 Peter 3, Humphreys' model begins with a ball of water big enough to contain the mass of the universe. It collapses on itself, ignites, and voilà, a kind of big bang emerges. Definitely outside-of-the-box stuff.
I'll suggest something else. We're all creationists, because scripture says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". We're just not all young earth creationists.
Of course we can make predictions, don't be purposefully dense.
Dino-bird link: "If birds are descended from predatory dinosaurs (theropods) then we should find either non-feathered birds or feathered dinosaurs". Boom, we find feathered dinosaurs. LOTS of them.
Alvarez hypothesis: "We see a global iridium layer at the K/Pg boundary, which could be indicative of an asteroid impact. If this is the case then we should see a large impact crater 65 million years old". This was confirmed with the later realization that Chicxulub was an impact crater and matched with the proposed age.
Of course you're quoting someone talking about forensic pathology, and not geology or paleontology or anything like that. So it's really no wonder that what they said isn't correct for what we're actually talking about.
While I'm sure that your opinion on how scientists go about doing their jobs is 100% accurate based on your own extensive experience, I'll just say that it doesn't match up well with mine. When I go to a conference and give a talk about my research my peers will follow up my talk by expressing skepticism regarding my findings, my methods, and my conclusions. It's then up to me to address this criticism and defend my findings. Science depends on skepticism, otherwise we'd go around believing in bigfoot, Nessie, and creationism.
I can't even imagine how science would operate if it allowed for the supernatural to be invoked. "This experiment didn't produce as much halite as I expected - I wonder if my wife cast a hex on me!"
This is being deliberately dense. We can make predictions about what historical evidence we will find in the future. We're Sherlock Holmes (or my favorite Hercule Poirot) saying "They buried the knife in the flower garden" and then successfully finding the knife buried in the flower garden.No, I'm correct. You can only make predictions about the future.
"John Hartnett" or "Russell Humphreys" have good ideas, but neither of their specific theories is necessary to explain starlight. Not even Setterfield's theory is necessary. In fact no mathematics at all is necessary to understand how it is possible. All God has to do is run the universe outside say the orbit of pluto at warp speed until starlight from the stars gets here.
The present is not the key to the past. Only God's Word is.
Why would God deliberately falsify the historical record? Why impregnate the universe with false memories?
-CryptoLutheran
God has no memories. Nor does the universe. Memories require "Past" and only sinners experience "past" or "future". God Created before man sinned which is what causes time to flow. What is time except the path to death?
Without time flowing, God created. Still, God knew we would need some structure, so He used a model for a 7 day week. Kids need structure.
If this is regarding distant starlight in particular, Hartnett and Humphreys don't posit false memories, such as "light in transit". Rather, old and distant stars really are that old and distant. What's happened is that time has passed at different rates at different times and locations during the creation.Why would God deliberately falsify the historical record? Why impregnate the universe with false memories?
-CryptoLutheran
If this is regarding distant starlight in particular, Hartnett and Humphreys don't posit false memories, such as "light in transit". Rather, old and distant stars really are that old and distant. What's happened is that time has passed at different rates at different times and locations during the creation.
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?