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.
Doubt wish or condition contrary to fact.
I had to sit on my hands to avoid commenting on it.
But what if we believe evolution aren't true?
Ya -- another one is the sentence that starts out: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...
Then you would flunk biology and grammar!
He agrees for the framework of the discussion.............................
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
I get to decide what is not science, regardless of what you call it. Them's the rules..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.
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!*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.
Then you do not have a problem with evolution. Glad we got that settled.
How is that?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.
Easy to do. They look at the present decay. They then assume the daughter material all got here that way.Please point out the flaws in radio-carbon dating.
Easy. All of them first assume a present state!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?
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.
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.
Absurd circular reasoning. It shows you color all evidence with your belief system.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.
[/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.*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?
I get to decide what is not science, regardless of what you call it. Them's the rules..
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.Only in your universe...
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!
No, none. Long as it started at Eden 6000 years ago.
How is that?
Easy to do. They look at the present decay. They then assume the daughter material all got here that way.
Easy. All of them first assume a present state!
They don't use seconds to determine millions of imaginary years.
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.
Absurd circular reasoning. It shows you color all evidence with your belief system.
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.
What you say doesn't matter. What you know and have strong evidence for, and can present here does.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?
Blather. That is very avoidable...like the plague.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.
Easy...soon as you mention it here in detail.Also, how do you explain the molecular and genetic evidence that shows that evolution has been taking place for a very long time?
Yes of course I can. Name something you are not sure it is relevant to?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...
You misunderstand. I am giving them the benefit of the doubt here, that contamination is not involved.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?
How so? How do you allow for a difference in laws???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.
No. That tells us you look at all things like daughter materials as if they were created by the processes that now produce them.Since we DON'T get meaningless results, doesn't this tell us that the laws were the same as they are now?
False. I have the bible and history. You have squat.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?
No.We don't know if the universe far away from us operates under the same laws that govern local space?
If you dare, tell us HOW you think you know the temperature of stars!!!!!?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.
False. I have the bible and history. You have squat.
I get to decide what is not science, regardless of what you call it. Them's the rules..
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.
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.
Actually, according to the HI Theory, he does.
Science doesn't know. God does. History agrees.
Blather. That is very avoidable...like the plague.
Easy...soon as you mention it here in detail.
Yes of course I can. Name something you are not sure it is relevant to?
You misunderstand. I am giving them the benefit of the doubt here, that contamination is not involved.
Easy. You miss the point entirely! The point is that they misread what a daughter is...and where the daughter material really came from.
How so? How do you allow for a difference in laws???
No. That tells us you look at all things like daughter materials as if they were created by the processes that now produce them.
False. I have the bible and history. You have squat.
If you dare, tell us HOW you think you know the temperature of stars!!!!!?
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?