Hypothetical for Scientists

[AV1611VET]

Keep looking.

Don't you ever get tired of this useless response?

Have I used it before???

 

[Tomk80]

I think the "historians" have already done that under the name of "historical reconstruction", or some such garbage.

p.s. Incidentally, give it time, you "scientists" will re-write your own, under the guise of "new evidence".

And there is that true proclamation of outright insanity again. Truly, if one is not willing to change his viewpoint on the basis of the evidence, one cannot simultaneously claim to be interested in the truth.

 

[Tomk80]

Have I used it before???

Only in every thread where you have sufficiently backed yourself into a corner.

 

[tanzanos]

Incidentally, give it time, you "scientists" will re-write your own, under the guise of "new evidence".

AV1 Has finally uttered something TRUE!! AMAZING!!! WAYTO GO AV1.

Yes it is true that scientists rewrite their own every time new evidence comes to light. It is called SCIENCE!

Bravo! AV1! Now that you know what science is perhaps you could take the time and learn what religion is and what is the difference between them?

 

[FishFace]

Dunno --- why would He put zinc in copper [brass] --- or tin in copper [bronze]?

As has been explained to you, he didn't. But if he did, it would be because you can't have brass without zinc, or bronze without tin. You can have zircons without lead - if they have only been in existence for a while.

Keep looking.

In other words, "I'm in a corner, there's no evidence for my position, but I'm still going to believe it. There must be evidence somewhere, you've just not found it yet!"

Epistemological Nuclear Bomb number twenty-four - by following this line of reasoning, I conclude that the world is a giant dustbin lid. No evidence, you say? KEEP LOOKING!

 

[FishFace]

I take offense to newbies coming on here and treating me like I haven't been explaining this stuff over and over and over and over and over.

We take offense at you treating us like you've actually explained anything.

Just because it can fool your niece (and possibly other relatives) doesn't mean it's an explanation, by the way.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

No --- I have already proven --- via my Apple Challenge --- that it cannot be explained.

You have proven that you are unable to explain your pet hypothesis. We understand it and we see that it's impossible. Your childish denial of reality and rejection of opinions beside your own doesn't change that.

I even gave you guys a chance to explain it, and you couldn't.

Explain what? You asked if there can be evidence for the ex-nihilo creation of an apple. Several people replied that creating another apple in front of skeptics would certainly suffice, at which point you claimed that "God doesn't do that".

I haven't noticed anything we couldn't explain, really.

 

[PacificPandeist]

And good food, too, Pan! That's a very good explanation.

But what I don't like about it, is that is shows God using nature as a tool to bring about His Creation --- something I don't think He did.

In my opinion, the speed of light is just as fast today as it was yesteryear.

??? My theory doesn't require any change in the speed of light!! Just that a little patch of ground was moving that fast for a while....

How about this, God creates the Universe and lets evolution take its course.... at the same time, God carries out a creation in just one tiny patch which is moving at near light speed.... when humans have evolved independently in the Universe (specifically on Earth) God introduces to Earth that little patch that contains the humans he made himself (which were just sort of ethereal forms) -- they've only existed for a day or a few days, but the Universe is 13+ billion years old.... then God puts their ethereal (spiritual) form in the physical bodies of existing humans (or maybe clones some) and introduces them to interbreed (hence the mysterious appearance of people in the next kingdom)!!

 

[AV1611VET]

And there is that true proclamation of outright insanity again. Truly, if one is not willing to change his viewpoint on the basis of the evidence, one cannot simultaneously claim to be interested in the truth.

You got that viewpoint in the first place, based on evidence. Then you changed it, based on evidence. Then you changed that, based on evidence; and so it goes, ad infinitum.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV1 Has finally uttered something TRUE!! AMAZING!!! WAYTO GO AV1.

Yes it is true that scientists rewrite their own every time new evidence comes to light. It is called SCIENCE!

Well, while you're celebrating, ask around:

1. Is it really science - (or just your interpretation of science)?
2. Is it unanimous?

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes it is true that scientists rewrite their own every time new evidence comes to light.

I almost missed this.

You can call it "new evidence" if you want, but it's been there all the time. Your rhetoric doesn't fool anyone.

And "comes to light"???

You guys are good at making your mistakes and shortcomings sound like advancements; but again, all it is is scientific PR.

 

[AV1611VET]

Explain what? You asked if there can be evidence for the ex-nihilo creation of an apple. Several people replied that creating another apple in front of skeptics would certainly suffice, at which point you claimed that "God doesn't do that".

I haven't noticed anything we couldn't explain, really.

Then look again. I believe the consensus of opinion was that it would have to be done again, in front of someone. (Even though I asked how you --- not me --- would explain it to someone else.)

 

[AV1611VET]

??? My theory doesn't require any change in the speed of light!! Just that a little patch of ground was moving that fast for a while....

How about this, God creates the Universe and lets evolution take its course.... at the same time, God carries out a creation in just one tiny patch which is moving at near light speed.... when humans have evolved independently in the Universe (specifically on Earth) God introduces to Earth that little patch that contains the humans he made himself (which were just sort of ethereal forms) -- they've only existed for a day or a few days, but the Universe is 13+ billion years old.... then God puts their ethereal (spiritual) form in the physical bodies of existing humans (or maybe clones some) and introduces them to interbreed (hence the mysterious appearance of people in the next kingdom)!!

I'll say this, Pan --- you're a deep thinker!

 

[FishFace]

You got that viewpoint in the first place, based on evidence. Then you changed it, based on evidence. Then you changed that, based on evidence; and so it goes, ad infinitum.

Yes. That would be quite sensible, don't you think? In a murder case, suppose we start off with suspect A. He is suspected because someone overheard him saying, "Goodness, I hate Mr X!" (Mr X being the victim of course.) Over the course of investigation, it comes to light, however, that suspect A and Mr X were quite good friends, and suspect A was out of the country at the time.
Based on evidence, the police change their minds.
After a while, they are called by an anonymous witness who said they saw suspect B outside the house of Mr X around the time of the murder. The police decide suspect B likely did it, since he, unlike A, was not on good terms with Mr X, and Mr X owed him some money.
Based on evidence, the police come to a new conclusion.
Suspect B denies the murder, and insists he was at Mr X's house to collect a payment promised to him by Mr X, but that there had been no answer. Police still think he is the culprit, until fingerprints of suspect C, and not suspect B, are found on the kitchen knife used in the murder.
Based on new evidence, the police change their minds.
They were ready to convict when, at the last moment, CCTV footage of suspect D is handed in, wherein he is shown entering Mr X's house and leaving a while later, with blood on his white sweatshirt. Further investigation finds traces of suspect D's hair and sweat at the scene of the murder. A pair of gloves with blood on them are also found, explaining why there are no fingerprints on the knife.

Now, who do you reckon we should convict? A, B, C, D, or E - E, I haven't mentioned until now, was said to be a murderer in some book someone wrote.

Of course, it's D. But if the police couldn't change their minds as often as necessary, we'd still be stuck with A. Or possibly E.

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course, it's D. But if the police couldn't change their minds as often as necessary, we'd still be stuck with A. Or possibly E.

Well, if that's your example of how science works, what gives "scientists" the right to proclaim that the Flood doesn't exist, based on zero evidence?

When I hear stuff like, "There's no evidence for [whatever]", I automatically think to myself, "Keep looking until you find it."

If, in fact, there's no evidence because no evidence exists, then that's a different story; and I have to change my question to: "How will you ever know?"

 

[Chalnoth]

Well, if that's your example of how science works, what gives "scientists" the right to proclaim that the Flood doesn't exist, based on zero evidence?

It's not that there isn't any evidence. It's that there should be evidence of such a massive catastrophe, given what we know of floods and geology, but it's nowhere to be found. Then there's tons of evidence against it even being possible as described in the Bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's not that there isn't any evidence. It's that there should be evidence of such a massive catastrophe, given what we know of floods and geology, but it's nowhere to be found. Then there's tons of evidence against it even being possible as described in the Bible.

Did it ever occur to you that God cleaned it up?

As I have said before, He could have sent five times the amount of water He did, and we still wouldn't find it.

 

[elcapitan]

Well, if that's your example of how science works, what gives "scientists" the right to proclaim that the Flood doesn't exist, based on zero evidence?

When I hear stuff like, "There's no evidence for [whatever]", I automatically think to myself, "Keep looking until you find it."

If, in fact, there's no evidence because no evidence exists, then that's a different story; and I have to change my question to: "How will you ever know?"

Right.
What gives "scientists" the right to claim that mythical creatures don't exist, based on zero evidence?

By your logic, we should spend our time and money looking for evidence of mermaids, centaurs, fairies, etc. Since there's no evidence for them, we should keep looking until we find it. If no evidence exists, we'll never know.

Anyway, you're confusing "evidence for no global flood" with "no evidence for a global flood".

 

[AV1611VET]

Since there's no evidence for them, we should keep looking until we find it.

You do --- it's called S.E.T.I.

 

[Chalnoth]

Did it ever occur to you that God cleaned it up?

As I have said before, He could have sent five times the amount of water He did, and we still wouldn't find it.

Yes. But then your God would be a deceiver, and you couldn't trust anything you believe this God did or said.