Time and evolution

thaumaturgy · Feb 26, 2007

FoeHammer said:
So much for the fact of evolution.

FoeHammer.

And this is supposed to mean...what?

Please do us all a favor and if you ever see a scientists claim that they are 100.0...0% right without error take the time to tell him or her that they are fools.

Do you really not understand science any better than that?

No scientist ever claims perfection. THAT is left to the religious people. They do a good job of that. It is not logically feasible but they do it anyway.

Funny how that works. Guess that's why there are so many competing theories of evolution and only one true religion!

Selah!

FoeHammer · Feb 26, 2007

Molal said:
Use a compass

How does that work then?

FoeHammer.

flatworm · Feb 26, 2007

FoeHammer said:
So much for the fact of evolution.

FoeHammer.

Empirical facts are not absolute certainties. That doesn't mean it's reasonable to doubt them. It's an empirical fact that when I walk out my front door tomorrow, I will end up on my front porch, and not the surface of Mars. It can't be proven absolutely, but the evidence is overwhelming.

Evolution likewise is a fact with an overwhelming body of supporting evidence. Any attempt to denigrate it simply because it doesn't rise to the level of mathematical proof is profoundly ignorant.

aerophagicbricolage · Feb 26, 2007

JohnR7 said:
I have studied evolution for over 3 years now. You can go back and read the posts. I know more about evolution then 99% of the people out there. I would venture to say that 99% of the people have never heard of founder effect, genetic drifting, the bottleneck effect and so on when it comes to genetics.

Pretty much every seventh grader in my school knows all about that. And you are certainly wrong about knowing more than Biology PhD's in population genetics. I am in high school and I am doing research into the population genetics of olefactory receptors (seeing which are turned on, etc.) My mom who doesn't even have a biology degree knows about population genetics. Maybe not a lot, but I do venture more than you. You overestimate your knowledge in an attempt for credibility.

Please give me some evidence of your claim that 99% of X aren't as educated about Y as you are. If your claim is, in fact true, I fear for the future.

CACTUSJACKmankin · Feb 26, 2007

Molal said:
Use a compass

That would send you to magnetic north, but if you have a surveying compass that accounts for the 11 degree difference then you are right.

flatworm · Feb 26, 2007

CACTUSJACKmankin said:
That would send you to magnetic north, but if you have a surveying compass that accounts for the 11 degree difference then you are right.

I don't think a fixed correction for magnetic declination would cut it in this case.

I would say, if you live in the northern hemisphere above the tropics like most of us, observe the azimuth of the sun at its highest point above the horizon. Then move in the opposite direction.

FoeHammer · Feb 26, 2007

thaumaturgy said:
And this is supposed to mean...what?

Please do us all a favor and if you ever see a scientists claim that they are 100.0...0% right without error take the time to tell him or her that they are fools.

Do you really not understand science any better than that?

No scientist ever claims perfection. THAT is left to the religious people. They do a good job of that. It is not logically feasible but they do it anyway.

Funny how that works. Guess that's why there are so many competing theories of evolution and only one true religion!

Selah!

I would expect facts to be free of uncertainties.
''So many competing theories of evolution? Such as?

FoeHammer.

flatworm · Feb 26, 2007

FoeHammer said:
I would expect facts to be free of uncertainties.

You're free to expect what you want, but it won't be my fault if you look ludicrously silly.

''So many competing theories of evolution? Such as?

FoeHammer.

I believe that was meant sarcastically. The point is that there are a multitude of contradictory theologies, each of which has adherents who hold them to be true with absolute certainty. Since they are contradictory, it is obvious that this certainty is illusory, since most (if not all) of them must be wrong.

aerophagicbricolage · Feb 26, 2007

FoeHammer said:
I would expect facts to be free of uncertainties.
''So many competing theories of evolution? Such as?

FoeHammer.

That was sarcasm dude. There are thousands of "One True Religion(s)."

CACTUSJACKmankin · Feb 26, 2007

FoeHammer said:
I would expect facts to be free of uncertainties.

You have successfully demonstrated that you know zero about science. In science you always account for uncertainty. Data are given with uncertainty ranges such as 5+/-0.1 million years.

FishFace · Feb 26, 2007

FoeHammer said:
A is before B is before C is before D etc. etc.
What was there before time?

So what is the sequence in which time lies? Is there something left of time and right of time, as in the above sequence? No - time doesn't have a position. Is time in some sort of sequence with an obvious pattern like 1,2,3 or A,B,C? No, it's not, so that doesn't make sense either. The only other option is before in time - and you can't be before time in time, because that's still nonsense.

Danhalen · Feb 26, 2007

FoeHammer,
My understanding of time is the relation of two, or more, positions an object has occupied in space. If I am correct in this understanding, there can be no before time if time occurs within the confines of space.

If you wish to provide an alternative description of time, I will be willing to contemplate your defense of asking "what was before time."

I would even be happier if we could tie all of this into a discussion of evolution. As of now, we are either into a philosophical or cosmological discussion.

Sleeker · Feb 26, 2007

Foehammer said:
A is before B is before C is before D etc. etc.
What was there before time?

And tell me, what letter is before A?

Now for some fun:

FishFace said:
Where is left of blue?

San Francisco.

Who is tuesday?

Gayle Tuesday

When is potato?

Right after mashed.

Why is a fruity more than clouds?

Because fruit is an adjective and clouds a noun. Adjective comes first in a dictionary over noun, therefore it is "more."

And to make sure my main point is seen and promptly answered:

Foehammer said:
A is before B is before C is before D etc. etc.
What was there before time?

And tell me, what letter is before A?

Foehammer said:
A is before B is before C is before D etc. etc.
What was there before time?

And tell me, what letter is before A?

Foehammer said:
A is before B is before C is before D etc. etc.
What was there before time?

And tell me, what letter is before A?

FoeHammer · Feb 27, 2007

Sleeker said:
.....

And tell me, what letter is before A?

C, as in Cat.
Of course there is no letter before A in the alphabet but there was intelligence before the alphabet. I believe God was before time and that time is a consequence of His creation of the heaven and the earth.

FoeHammer.

flatworm · Feb 27, 2007

FoeHammer said:
I believe God was before time and that time is a consequence of His creation of the heaven and the earth.

This despite being utterly incapable of explaining how "before time" makes any sense whatsoever?

I mean, there's no shame in not being able to make sense of it since it's internally contradictory. Of course if you go ahead and incorporate nonsense into your belief system, that belief system becomes nonsensical.

Upisoft · Feb 27, 2007

FoeHammer said:
I believe God was before time and that time is a consequence of His creation of the heaven and the earth.

I believe that you believe it. I'm assuming you don't put any temporal meaning in the word "before", though.

Certainly that doesn't prove your belief is the right one.

FoeHammer · Feb 27, 2007

flatworm said:
This despite being utterly incapable of explaining how "before time" makes any sense whatsoever?

I mean, there's no shame in not being able to make sense of it since it's internally contradictory. Of course if you go ahead and incorporate nonsense into your belief system, that belief system becomes nonsensical.

In order to state that something cannot exist before/ouside/independently of time you have to know that it cannot... Do you?

FoeHammer.

flatworm · Feb 27, 2007

FoeHammer said:
In order to state that something cannot exist before/ouside/independently of time you have to know that it cannot... Do you?

FoeHammer.

I did not say nothing can exist outside, or independently of time, but I do know nothing can exist before time because it's logically self-contradictory. That's one of those theorems in formal logic I told you about that can be proven absolutely. There is no "before time" like there are no married bachelors or square circles.

FoeHammer · Feb 27, 2007

flatworm said:
I did not say nothing can exist outside, or independently of time, but I do know nothing can exist before time because it's logically self-contradictory. That's one of those theorems in formal logic I told you about that can be proven absolutely. There is no "before time" like there are no married bachelors or square circles.

If it is possible that something can exist outside/independently of time then it is possible that it existed before time. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp.

FoeHammer.

flatworm · Feb 27, 2007

FoeHammer said:
If it is possible that something can exist outside/independently of time then it is possible that it existed before time. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp.

FoeHammer.

Because your statement is false and the concept of "before time" is nonsensical.

Without time there is no before.

It's very simple. If you mean outside time, then say so, but don't pretend it's before time.

Time and evolution

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Veteran

Active Member

Scientist

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Active Member

Scientist

Senior Veteran

Healing

DON'T PANIC

Veteran

Veteran

CEO of a waterfal

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency