Dad seems to find himself at odds with pretty much every aspect of both empirical and theoretical physics, but he does enjoy using the fruits of empirical physics in the form of his computer to participate in this forum.
Upvote
0
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.
I have posted it. The fact you ignore it does not mean it never happened.
Don't believe you. Whatever I saw that you posted was second rate religion dressed up as science.I have posted it. The fact you ignore it does not mean it never happened.
No same nature in the past made a computer or anything else. Associating real science with fake news origins sciences is cognitive dissonance.Dad seems to find himself at odds with pretty much every aspect of both empirical and theoretical physics, but he does enjoy using the fruits of empirical physics in the form of his computer to participate in this forum.
No same nature in the past made a computer or anything else. Associating real science with fake news origins sciences is cognitive dissonance.
Right. Me too. No radiometric method works unless there was radiation. Can you prove there was some in Noah's day?I'm thinking about basic things, like radiometric dating methods.
I'm not sure I understand what point you were trying to make let alone agree with whatever point you think you're trying to make.
DNA seems to be the ultimate enigma.
To suggest we can "assume" that a 'natural" origin of DNA somehow precludes "intelligent design" is simply empirically unsupportable.
I´d like to add that postulating a designer as the origin of life implies that the designer didn´t/doesn´t live.We have zero examples of "designers" capable of doing such a thing, if we don't count ourselves.
Don't believe you. Whatever I saw that you posted was second rate religion dressed up as science.
No one cares what people handwave at. The important thing is that fake news science cannot defend itself here or anywhere. They could not expect to be treated as if they knew what they were talking about any more.Yeah, treating opposing viewpoints like that makes them easy to handwave away rather than actually dealing with them.
It seemed pretty straightforward.
If the natural and the artificial can look exactly alike, how do you tell the difference?
For whom?
I'm not assuming anything.
The origins of life are unknown.
I expect the answer to be some natural process.
I consider that more likely.
Sure.
There is exactly zero reason to expect something else.
If I had to choose where to invest a billion dollars for researching this, I'ld spend it on a team looking for a natural process, instead of a team looking for a god (oeps, sorry, "designer").
As for your claim that this expectation is empirically unsupportable - that's also ridiculous.
We have a gazibillion examples of natural chemical and bio-chemical processes producing all kinds of things (including many building blocks of life which were previously branded "too complex to form naturally" by a certain group of people - you know who they are).
We have zero examples of "designers" capable of doing such a thing, if we don't count ourselves.
I´d like to add that postulating a designer as the origin of life implies that the designer didn´t/doesn´t live.
We have no examples for non-living designers - plus the idea of a non-living designer would pretty much blur the line between "designer" and "natural process".
I was referring to this statement of yours:I don't make such an assumption, so how can you?
Thus far we have no examples of any "designers" that are "intelligent" enough to create DNA from raw chemicals.
No one cares what people handwave at. The important thing is that fake news science cannot defend itself here or anywhere. They could not expect to be treated as if they knew what they were talking about any more.
False. My claim that you have no evidence for your pasta state past used by science is proven. You post none. We already discussed how it is useless to pretend you did sometime somewhere also, cause you posted nothing but belief based fake news.*Sigh* More claims, still zero evidence.
False. My claim that you have no evidence for your pasta state past used by science is proven. You post none. We already discussed how it is useless to pretend you did sometime somewhere also, cause you posted nothing but belief based fake news.
Scientists Closer To Creating A Fully Synthetic Yeast Genome
Not there yet, but getting closer, and from the looks of it, not far off.
Assuming we do get there during my lifetime, it will just be "an" example of "intelligent design".
Name something in physics a different nature in the past deviates from!?Dad, your *assumption* about the laws of physics changing over time is where you deviate from not only empirical physics,
Circular. The belief system used in forming theories is what matters, not the elaborate dreams that result.but most of hypothetical physics as well.
?? Canard. I do not say light speed changed.Even when folks have suggested that the speed of light changes over time, it's typically a small amount, and nothing that would help your claims.
Unless you have some it didn't....you do not know.Unless you have some evidence that the laws of physics change over time,
The descriptions of life demand a different nature pre flood and even early post flood actually. Six ways from Sunday. Trying to wave that away or not believe it doesn't change it.it's not particularly helpful or logical to create a customized personal belief system that centers around your *entirely subjective* interpretation of the book of Genesis.
Yes it is. Science must support it's foundational principles as relates to the past and what is used to model the past. It is foolish to think otherwise.Your position isn't logical or scientific dad
Absurdly untrue. I have never seen any evidence yet for a same set of forces and laws in the far past, so what is there to wave away?? I have seen people try to impose their belief set onto evidences. Fake news science is busted whether you like it or agree or not., which is why you're required to handwave away virtually all types of scientific evidence.
[/QUOTE] Not if moving through space did not involve time like it does here! So..prove time exists there and existes exactly the same or face the fact you do not know and are preaching nonsense.It would be physically impossible for the light from galaxies that are billions of light years away to have even reached earth yet were they all created less than 10,000 years ago. In fact we wouldn't even observe all the stars in our own galaxy.
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?