The evolution of adaptive behaviour in robots.

[sandwiches]

It's your job, and the job of science, to present evidence of your claim of "a same state future"..where all things die. So, again, there's nothing to counter from you.

Adaptive behavior in man made robots, really doesn't speak of how creation came down. It is wild speculation, taken way beyond all limits of possible proof. Which, really, is the name of the so called science game. Kids, aren't you tired of playing that fool's game?

Sorry, you got this backwards. We're going by what we can observe to the best of our abilities. If you think or think you know that nature is other than what we've observed and recorded thus far, it's very simple: Show your evidence.

 

[dad]

Sorry, you got this backwards. We're going by what we can observe to the best of our abilities.

Of course you are. The question is, how far can you go with that? The answer is not very far. Only as far as this universe state can be proven to exist, past and future! How sweet it is.

If you think or think you know that nature is other than what we've observed and recorded thus far, it's very simple: Show your evidence.

No one questions the nature you observed, or recorded! Only the nature you invent and paste onto a past and future you know nothing at all, and could not possibly know anything about!

Stick to the little you know. Be honest.

 

[sandwiches]

Of course you are. The question is, how far can you go with that? The answer is not very far. Only as far as this universe state can be proven to exist, past and future! How sweet it is.

No one questions the nature you observed, or recorded! Only the nature you invent and paste onto a past and future you know nothing at all, and could not possibly know anything about!

Stick to the little you know. Be honest.

You should heed your own advice, cowboy.

Again, if you think nature is other than what we observe. You're welcome to present your evidence, if not, then you have nothing but interesting but, ultimately, empty ideas.

 

[dad]

...

Again, if you think nature is other than what we observe. You're welcome to present your evidence, if not, then you have nothing but interesting but, ultimately, empty ideas.

I think nothing of the sort. Nature IS what nature IS. The creation debate has to do with the nature that WAS.

 

[sandwiches]

I think nothing of the sort. Nature IS what nature IS. The creation debate has to do with the nature that WAS.

Cool. What was nature like before? Was it different than it is now?

 

[Spacewyrm]

Cool. What was nature like before? Was it different than it is now?

It was different in exactly the ways needed for the Bible to be taken literally and be true historical fact. Everything in nature worked such that any attempt to measure the past which accounts for ages greater than 6,000 or so years is wrong but everything still looks the same as it would if the Earth were 4.5 billion years old. Exactly what was different depends on what evidence you want to present. Old tree rings? Trees grew faster then! (and this is obvious, because how else could God plant a garden in Eden in one day otherwise, huh!?) Radiometric dating? God made the daughter elements in the rock crystals in the different-state spiritual-also state because they had a function that was different before the present-state physical-only state came into being (and of course there was no radiation back then! Otherwise the heat from all the continents splitting apart in one year would have killed everyone!!). Anything you got, dad can either wave it away or ignore it. All you've got is so-called science that can't even see into the distant past and disprove that God created the world in the different-past spiritual-also state and didn't have all the planets and stars in a little speck o' soup!

 

[dad]

It was different in exactly the ways needed for the Bible to be taken literally and be true historical fact.

Of course, but I think he wants details.

Everything in nature worked such that any attempt to measure the past which accounts for ages greater than 6,000 or so years is wrong but everything still looks the same as it would if the Earth were 4.5 billion years old.

Except it does not look old at all save to the untrained eye. They strain things through a filter, so it has to look old. The filter of the present...as if it always worked as it now does.

Exactly what was different depends on what evidence you want to present. Old tree rings? Trees grew faster then! (and this is obvious, because how else could God plant a garden in Eden in one day otherwise, huh!?)

Very good! I almost know how the beatles felt, having groupies. Of course the garden grew in a few days, to where we ate stuff from it. We should also note that Noah sent out a bird...no trees. A week later, again, he sent a bird...lo and behold, a fresh twig from a tree!

Of course science wasn't there, so it knows nothing except how things now grow, and has assumed it was always the same.

Radiometric dating? God made the daughter elements in the rock crystals in the different-state spiritual-also state because they had a function that was different before the present-state physical-only state came into being (and of course there was no radiation back then!

Wow, some people pay attention. Of course we might qualify that a bit, and say, 'most likely'. We don't actually know.

Otherwise the heat from all the continents splitting apart in one year would have killed everyone!!).

Elementary! Of course it would, if present laws had been in effect. Just as it also would have in the big continental separation after the flood. So that narrows down the time of the big change, it had to be post flood.

Anything you got, dad can either wave it away or ignore it.

Now now..tut tut. I wave nothing away that is proven and known...ever. Neither do I ignore such things. On the contrary, I embrace the challenge, and look honestly at the actual evidence, without filtering it through the sordid little same state filter, as so called science is wont to do. How they got away with it this long, I really don't know. Hopefully some start to realize that the jig is up.

All you've got is so-called science that can't even see into the distant past and disprove that God created the world in the different-past spiritual-also state and didn't have all the planets and stars in a little speck o' soup!

..

Amen! I almost wish I was a kid again, so I could really stick it to my teachers..

 

[Spacewyrm]

Very good! I almost know how the beatles felt, having groupies.

I'm not your groupie, dad. I think your different-state-past stuff is ridiculous. But I've been lurking here for a few years and I've read quite enough of these threads where people try to argue with with you to know how you operate and what kind of "arguments" you tend to put forth. I also know that there is no point in arguing with you about anything.

 

[dad]

I'm not your groupie, dad. I think your different-state-past stuff is ridiculous. But I've been lurking here for a few years and I've read quite enough of these threads where people try to argue with with you to know how you operate and what kind of "arguments" you tend to put forth. I also know that there is no point in arguing with you about anything.

Well, for anyone that pays attention, it should be obvious that science cannot enter into the creation debate in a meaningful way. Either we know, or we do not know. As it is, man does not know, so God's word is lookin real good. If anyone knows the basic thrust of the case against science, from the different state angle, I figure the seeds are planted.

Cheers.

 

[dad]

Cool. What was nature like before? Was it different than it is now?

Yes. The differences were permeating every facet of our existence. The degree is not known, except for rapid evolution, and plant growth, and a much more present spiritual, etc.

 

[sandwiches]

Yes. The differences were permeating every facet of our existence. The degree is not known, except for rapid evolution, and plant growth, and a much more present spiritual, etc.

Neat. Where is the objectively verifiable evidence to support this claim?

 

[dad]

Neat. Where is the objectively verifiable evidence to support this claim?

That is easy. Let's verify it right now. The bible and history record it. Science doesn't know. So we can use the evidences we do have with a high degree of certainty.

 

[sandwiches]

That is easy. Let's verify it right now. The bible and history record it. Science doesn't know. So we can use the evidences we do have with a high degree of certainty.

The Bible contains contradictions, errors, false prophecies, lies, etc and due to the fact that no one knows exactly what the meaning of the verses are, as clearly evidenced by the multiple understandings, interpretations, and versions of the same verses, the Bible is not a very reliable book to be used as evidence of anything. If we can admit unreliable books, I guess the Iliad, the Epic of Gilgamesh, among many other books are also admissible.

History does not verifiably show "rapid evolution, and plant growth, and a much more present spiritual." If anything, history, as far as we've recorded, is evidence of uniformitarianism.

 

[dad]

The Bible contains contradictions, errors, false prophecies, lies, etc and due to the fact that no one knows exactly what the meaning of the verses are, as clearly evidenced by the multiple understandings, interpretations, and versions of the same verses, the Bible is not a very reliable book to be used as evidence of anything. If we can admit unreliable books, I guess the Iliad, the Epic of Gilgamesh, among many other books are also admissible.

That depends on what it is being admitted for. Funny, I have looked long and hard, but never found any of the things you mentioned in the bible. I suspect it is a mistake on your end.

History does not verifiably show "rapid evolution, and plant growth, and a much more present spiritual." If anything, history, as far as we've recorded, is evidence of uniformitarianism.

Let's look at that. The first kings of Egypt were said to have been spirit gods. That is uniformitarian? The garden of Eden planted, is not speaking of fast growth? Adam formed from the dust of the earth is uniformitarian? What history are you talking about?

 

[sandwiches]

That depends on what it is being admitted for. Funny, I have looked long and hard, but never found any of the things you mentioned in the bible. I suspect it is a mistake on your end.

You suspect, but you're wrong. A cursory look through most theism books and internet sites can quickly point out unfulfilled prophecies, contradictions, mistakes, and different interpretations of the Bible.

Let's look at that. The first kings of Egypt were said to have been spirit gods. That is uniformitarian? The garden of Eden planted, is not speaking of fast growth? Adam formed from the dust of the earth is uniformitarian? What history are you talking about?

Can we verify the veracity of any of those claims with what with more contemporary sources, including those that did not subscribe to that particular line of belief? If you have evidence to corroborate the above claims, please do so.

Verifiable history shows us that plants grow at more or less the same rates as they did back then, that light was never any faster or slower (as would have been clearly visible and obvious to anyone,) that dogs didn't magically and quickly evolve from one pair to thousands of different breeds, etc.

 

[dad]

You suspect, but you're wrong. A cursory look through most theism books and internet sites can quickly point out unfulfilled prophecies, contradictions, mistakes, and different interpretations of the Bible.

An in depth look will dispel the naysayings of the people on the wrong end of the understanding of the word of God. There is usually a choice, where one can give God the benefit of the doubt, or where one can interpret things in a way that God is a moron. Many prefer to interpret things in the wrong way, which merely tells us about them, not God. To the pure, He shows Himself pure, to the moron, He shows Himself as a moron. Or at least He let's them see it that way, since they want to.

Can we verify the veracity of any of those claims with what with more contemporary sources, including those that did not subscribe to that particular line of belief? If you have evidence to corroborate the above claims, please do so.

It sets the calendar. Nothing is more verified or predicted on the planet than the life and death and resurrection of the savior.

Verifiable history shows us that plants grow at more or less the same rates as they did back then,

Whatever are you talking about? What history is that, never heard of it, show us!!?

..that light was never any faster or slower (as would have been clearly visible and obvious to anyone,)

Whatever are you talking about? What history is that, never heard of it, show us!!?

that dogs didn't magically and quickly evolve from one pair to thousands of different breeds, etc.

Whatever are you talking about? What history is that, never heard of it, show us!!?