If Evolution were true...

[Skaloop]

Doubt wish or condition contrary to fact.

I had to sit on my hands to avoid commenting on it.

Ditto. Every time this thread shows up on my sub list, I cringe a little.

 

[Tiberius]

But what if we believe evolution aren't true?

I gotta admit, you made me lol.

it always sounds odd to me, "If evolution WERE true." The "were" to me suggests a plural. Maybe there are several evolutions?

Anyway, I know it's grammatically wrong the way it is. perhaps a helpful mod could change the title?

Anyway, back to our regularly scheduled thread now...

 

[Gracchus]

But what if we believe evolution aren't true?

Then you would flunk biology and grammar!

 

[AV1611VET]

I gotta admit, you made me lol.

it always sounds odd to me, "If evolution WERE true." The "were" to me suggests a plural. Maybe there are several evolutions?

Anyway, I know it's grammatically wrong the way it is. perhaps a helpful mod could change the title?

Anyway, back to our regularly scheduled thread now...

Ya -- another one is the sentence that starts out:

"If I were to say that..."

As opposed to:

"If I was to say that..."

 

[AV1611VET]

Then you would flunk biology and grammar!

 

[dad]

..........................




When he says "let's say" it means he'll for the sake of argument take your position on the subject. He does not agree with you

He agrees for the framework of the discussion...

 

[dad]

Unfortunately you don't get to decide what is science and what isn't science. If investigations lead to a conclusion you don't like, that's just tough luck.

I get to decide what is not science, regardless of what you call it. Them's the rules..

 

[dad]

*Sigh*

What I mean is that it is the inherent properties of the universe that cause things to act the way they do. Those properties came about in exactly the same way that you create a shape with one side if you twist a loop of paper 180 degrees before attaching the ends together.

So if you twist a paper loop, you can make graity, and electricity, and etc? No. You have no idea how the forces and laws came to be, or how long they were as is. Neither do you know so much as what they are now!

Then you do not have a problem with evolution. Glad we got that settled.

No, none. Long as it started at Eden 6000 years ago.

Ah, nice. Now you are back-peddling from your earlier position, because there are plenty of scenarios I can think of which cannot be changed in any significant way by any passage in the bible.

How is that?

Please point out the flaws in radio-carbon dating.

Easy to do. They look at the present decay. They then assume the daughter material all got here that way.

The above-mentioned radio-carbon dating is one such method. You say that scientists are assuming that the laws back then were different. Well, we can double check the accuracy of that dating technique by using other techniques. if what you are proposing is true, how do you explain the fact that all the dating techniques agree with each other?

Easy. All of them first assume a present state!

it's like this...

(This is an analogy here, Dad, so don't start getting confused. it's a hypothetical thing used to illustrate a point)

Today, one minute is equal to 60 seconds.
1 hour = 60 minutes.
1 day is 24 hours.

Now let's say that back in the past, this wasn't true. Perhaps a minute was 45 seconds, an hour was 72 minutes and a day was 31 hours.

Now, let's say I go back in time to a particular event to see how long ago it was.

I measure my trip back and discover I travelled back in time 172800 seconds. I want to double check that time, so I decide to measure it again, but this time I'll be using minutes. I find out that it is 2880 minutes. And to be even more sure, I measure it once again, but this time using hours. I find I travelled back 48 hours. And one last time, i measure it in days, and find out that it was two days.

Now, the only way for the measurements to be accurate is if the number of seconds in a minute was 60 the whole time. Likewise for hours and days. if the number of minutes in an hour had ever been different, I would have got a figure that didn't add up to what i expected.

They don't use seconds to determine millions of imaginary years.

This is the same sort of thing we find. If the laws of the universe had ever been different, then the various dating techniques we have would not agree with each other the way they actually do.

False. They ALL start out believing the present was in place, and proceed from there. Where they arrive at in la la land FROM there doesn't matter, unless the there is known and proven.

This shows that the laws of the universe as we experience today have been in effect for the entire time that the universe has existed.

Absurd circular reasoning. It shows you color all evidence with your belief system.

*Sigh again*

No, I am asking you this...

What is the difference between a universe were the laws were different in the past and a universe where the laws were the same in the past?

[/QUOTE] Well, since we do not even know that the far universe is under our laws, that would be difficult to say. But the short answer is that the spiritual is also involved, not just the physical only we know here.

 

[rjc34]

I get to decide what is not science, regardless of what you call it. Them's the rules..

Only in your universe...

 

[dad]

Only in your universe...

Nope. In any universe, on must do more than claim stuff. Real science simply does not, include the life from a little granny bacteria we could not even see with the naked eye. Period. Neither is it a universe so small we couldn't see it sailing out of an imaginary speck.

Seems like the big criteria for evo philosophy and belief is that as long as we can't see it, and it no longer exists, it must have done wonders!!!

 

[Tiberius]

So if you twist a paper loop, you can make graity, and electricity, and etc? No. You have no idea how the forces and laws came to be, or how long they were as is. Neither do you know so much as what they are now!

Okay, we seem to have reached something of an empasse here.

You say that the laws governing the universe may have been different way back then and I say that the evidence does not support this conclusion.

So tell me, WHY do you think the laws were different back then?

And in any case, you completely missed my point, which was that one thing can have unavoidable consequences. And the laws of the universe are similarly unavoidable consequences of the Big Bang that created our universe.

No, none. Long as it started at Eden 6000 years ago.

We'll get back to this when you've told me WHY you think the laws of the universe weren't always the same.

Also, how do you explain the molecular and genetic evidence that shows that evolution has been taking place for a very long time?

How is that?

You stated that the Bible is relevant to all things at all times. i then asked you if you could tell me how the Bible was applicable to any situation I could think of. And now you have replied with a rather weak "Maybe."

So can you do it or not? You sounded so sure of yourself at first...

Easy to do. They look at the present decay. They then assume the daughter material all got here that way.

Okay. now if you could show me some evidence that scientists have not taken steps to ensure that they aren't dealing with contaminated samples...?

Anyway, here's something for you to think about...

Let's say I carbon date an object, and it's age is given as 30,000 years. Now, someone else in another country finds the same sort of object, and they carbon date that. If the samples were contaminated, wouldn't the results be rather different, depending on the amount of contamination? And yet, when we use this technique, the results nearly always match closely. How can this be?

Easy. All of them first assume a present state!

Can you provide any reason why they shouldn't? especially considering that such an "assumption" provides verification when several different techniques are used.

They don't use seconds to determine millions of imaginary years.

You've completely missed the point of what i was trying to say. Go and read it again please.

False. They ALL start out believing the present was in place, and proceed from there. Where they arrive at in la la land FROM there doesn't matter, unless the there is known and proven.

My point is that if the laws of the universe WERE different back then, we'd get meaningless results if we didn't take that into account.

Since we DON'T get meaningless results, doesn't this tell us that the laws were the same as they are now?

Absurd circular reasoning. It shows you color all evidence with your belief system.

it does not.

need I remind you that you are the one claiming that the laws were different without ever having produced any evidence to support this claim?

Well, since we do not even know that the far universe is under our laws, that would be difficult to say. But the short answer is that the spiritual is also involved, not just the physical only we know here.

We don't know if the universe far away from us operates under the same laws that govern local space?

um, given that we can do things like measure the temperature of stars and such, even if they are very far away, and also given that the stars we measure at such distances operate exactly as we expect them to, I think that is evidence that the laws that are in effect locally are also in effect far away.

 

[dad]

Okay, we seem to have reached something of an empasse here.

You say that the laws governing the universe may have been different way back then and I say that the evidence does not support this conclusion.

What you say doesn't matter. What you know and have strong evidence for, and can present here does.

So tell me, WHY do you think the laws were different back then?

Science doesn't know. God does. History agrees.

And in any case, you completely missed my point, which was that one thing can have unavoidable consequences. And the laws of the universe are similarly unavoidable consequences of the Big Bang that created our universe.

Blather. That is very avoidable...like the plague.

Also, how do you explain the molecular and genetic evidence that shows that evolution has been taking place for a very long time?

Easy...soon as you mention it here in detail.

You stated that the Bible is relevant to all things at all times. i then asked you if you could tell me how the Bible was applicable to any situation I could think of. And now you have replied with a rather weak "Maybe."

So can you do it or not? You sounded so sure of yourself at first...

Yes of course I can. Name something you are not sure it is relevant to?

Okay. now if you could show me some evidence that scientists have not taken steps to ensure that they aren't dealing with contaminated samples...?

You misunderstand. I am giving them the benefit of the doubt here, that contamination is not involved.

Anyway, here's something for you to think about...

Let's say I carbon date an object, and it's age is given as 30,000 years. Now, someone else in another country finds the same sort of object, and they carbon date that. If the samples were contaminated, wouldn't the results be rather different, depending on the amount of contamination? And yet, when we use this technique, the results nearly always match closely. How can this be?

Easy. You miss the point entirely! The point is that they misread what a daughter is...and where the daughter material really came from.

My point is that if the laws of the universe WERE different back then, we'd get meaningless results if we didn't take that into account.

How so? How do you allow for a difference in laws???

Since we DON'T get meaningless results, doesn't this tell us that the laws were the same as they are now?

No. That tells us you look at all things like daughter materials as if they were created by the processes that now produce them.

it does not.

need I remind you that you are the one claiming that the laws were different without ever having produced any evidence to support this claim?

False. I have the bible and history. You have squat.

We don't know if the universe far away from us operates under the same laws that govern local space?

No.

um, given that we can do things like measure the temperature of stars and such, even if they are very far away, and also given that the stars we measure at such distances operate exactly as we expect them to, I think that is evidence that the laws that are in effect locally are also in effect far away.

If you dare, tell us HOW you think you know the temperature of stars!!!!!?

 

[Darkeonz]

False. I have the bible and history. You have squat.

how does any of that show the laws were different?

 

[sandwiches]

I get to decide what is not science, regardless of what you call it. Them's the rules..

Wow... you're really off the deep end, chief. I guess people are correct; you do think you're God.

 

[Split Rock]

I get to decide what is not science, regardless of what you call it. Them's the rules..

No, dad. You are not a scientist and you do not do science. Therefore, you do not get to decide what science is. Them's the rules of something we call "reality." Look it up.

 

[Split Rock]

Wow... you're really off the deep end, chief. I guess people are correct; you do think you're God.

To be fair, I don't think dad believes he is God; rather, he thinks he speaks for God and is God's prophet on earth.

 

[AirPo]

how does any of that show the laws were different?

It's the HI Theory, he just makes up that it does.

 

[AirPo]

Unfortunately you don't get to decide what is science and what isn't science. If investigations lead to a conclusion you don't like, that's just tough luck.

I get to decide what is not science, regardless of what you call it. Them's the rules..

Wow... you're really off the deep end, chief. I guess people are correct; you do think you're God.

What did I tell ya ...

Actually, according to the HI Theory, he does.

 

[Tiberius]

Science doesn't know. God does. History agrees.

Please show us evidence supporting your position that history agrees with you.

Blather. That is very avoidable...like the plague.

You seem to be rather ignorant of science then...

Easy...soon as you mention it here in detail.

The information is freely available on the net. I'm sorry I don't have time to find it for you, but as I've said before, I'm not your mum. do your own homework.

Yes of course I can. Name something you are not sure it is relevant to?

If I was riding my bicycle and the chain broke, leaving me stranded out many kilometers from help, what passage or passages from the Bible would you say are relevant to helping me out of that predicament?

You misunderstand. I am giving them the benefit of the doubt here, that contamination is not involved.

Then if you assume that the sample they are testing is not contaminated, why do you think it is wrong?

Easy. You miss the point entirely! The point is that they misread what a daughter is...and where the daughter material really came from.

You actually think that something so simple has just been completely by every scientist all over the world?

How so? How do you allow for a difference in laws???

Have you been reading what I am saying at all? I'm saying that there IS NO DIFFERENCE! The laws back then were the same as the laws now!

No. That tells us you look at all things like daughter materials as if they were created by the processes that now produce them.

If you were right, then we wouldn't get sensible results. We DO get sensible results. How do you explain that?

False. I have the bible and history. You have squat.

The Bible is just a book, you'll need more than that.

As for history, you don't have that. You have made claims, nothing more. You want me to believe you, you;d better give me something more than claims. Like some actual evidence.

No.

Yes, we do.

If you dare, tell us HOW you think you know the temperature of stars!!!!!?

Spectral absorption lines.

 

[Philothei]

Mod hat on
Please enough with the personal attacks. The rules are very clear. Do not personally attack other and deal with the post NOT the POSTER!!!

or this thread will close one more time for review!!!!

Flaming and Harassment
● Do not insult, belittle, mock, goad, personally attack, threaten, harass, or use derogatory nicknames in reference to other members or groups of members. Address the context of the post, not the poster.
● If you are flamed, do not respond in-kind. Alert staff to the situation by utilizing the report button. Do not report another member out of spite.
● Do not state or imply that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christian.
● Those who do not adhere to the Statement of Faith are welcome as members and participants in discussions, but you are required to respect these beliefs, even if you do not share them.
● Do not make another member's experience on this site miserable. This includes, making false accusations or persistently attacking them in the open forums.
● Respect another member's request to cease personal contact.



Mod hat off​