313d
@sonhouse saidShow some science that disagrees with Tour.
@KellyJay
So we are supposed to believe a renowned scientist touting creationism up front as real science?
He has an agenda to push totally outside the ballywack of science and runs it right into the anti Popper idea if a hypothesis cannot be falsified it is not science.
I don't think you fully understand that idea about science.
If he goes over all the science and then ...[text shortened]... ory is plagiarized, paved over creation story thousands of years older in Egypt, 7 day tale and all.
313d
@kellyjay saidThe 'solidity' of science comes through its' proven nature; evidence, dear Watson. The fossil record, our ability to date accurately, our understanding of genetics and inheritance, and so on, none of which were understood or available during biblical times.
You should look at the science and see if it is solid. I find it very hypocritical of you and others here who spend all of your complaining about spirituality instead of using either or both reasoning and science for a cause.
You can check those who get Nobel prices in science and see a very large numbers of Theists whose scientific achievements rate such awards.
Yo ...[text shortened]... e non-existence of evidence when as soon as some may be true shows up you reject it all out of hand.
You will say that I'm obsessed with your talking snake, but it's a good and simple analogy, which I will continue to use. Science tells us that snakes cannot talk, your religious beliefs rely upon snakes being able to talk, so where does that leave your religious beliefs in relation to science?
Nobody is and certainly I am not saying that you can't or shouldn't per se believe anything you want, whatever gets you through the night, but to try to add intellectual credibility to your beliefs by bringing science or pseudo - scientists into the mix doesn't work. There can be no 'agreement' about talking snakes, a 6,000 year old earth, or mythical entities who once lived amongst us, for which there is no evidence but the written word, which is notoriously biased and unreliable. There is no 'reasoning' behind such beliefs, nor 'evidence' that science and faith can agree upon.
313d
@indonesia-phil saidWhy even bother discussing science with a gravity denier and probable flat-earther.
The 'solidity' of science comes through its' proven nature; evidence, dear Watson. The fossil record, our ability to date accurately, our understanding of genetics and inheritance, and so on, none of which were understood or available during biblical times.
You will say that I'm obsessed with your talking snake, but it's a good and simple analogy, which I will cont ...[text shortened]... . There is no 'reasoning' behind such beliefs, nor 'evidence' that science and faith can agree upon.
His particular version of Christianity is just another delusion.
313d
@Indonesia-Phil
Which is exactly why Popper invented his rules, if it can't be falsified it is not science,
Let's see a falsification of the idea a god created the universe.
Good luck with that one🙂
313d
@indonesia-phil saidThe fossil record shows us quite a few things some quite inconvenient for the narrative that suggests small changes over time had life evolving from simpler to more complex lifeforms. If we accept the dates you offer, we see the sudden appearance and disappearance of different lifeforms through time, not a long string of ever-changing lifeforms that would have also had to continue through today.
The 'solidity' of science comes through its' proven nature; evidence, dear Watson. The fossil record, our ability to date accurately, our understanding of genetics and inheritance, and so on, none of which were understood or available during biblical times.
You will say that I'm obsessed with your talking snake, but it's a good and simple analogy, which I will cont ...[text shortened]... . There is no 'reasoning' behind such beliefs, nor 'evidence' that science and faith can agree upon.
Today we don't see a long series of different lifeforms looking like a bunch of other life, we see very distinct unique life from one another, in the fossils this is true, and now it is true. The mindless narrative doesn't account for all the properties in life, no matter how you twist what we see doesn't fit those stories in how it may have happened. Each life brings with it a change of form and processes due to every different characteristic, an explosion of new genetic information occurs for each new life that is dissimilar in forms from others, and mindlessness cannot do this, especially in the small time frames your times suggest were available.
Mindlessness creating a thinking mind trumps a spiritual being speaking through a snake in my opinion.
312d
@kellyjay saidAgain: no reason why a Designer wouldn't have created evolution. You're creating a false dichotomy. Your position is fundamentally flawed even apart from your many factual errors.
Mindlessness creating a thinking mind trumps a spiritual being speaking through a snake in my opinion.
If you could prove ID it would in no way disprove evolution.
312d
@vivify saidYou have never seen me deny what could happen if it was designed to behave in any specific way, what you do see me say is that the level of functional complexity in life mindlessness is inadequate to do the work. A mindless process would never be able to through time cause a functioning mind to come into existence. Do you think I am wrong?
Again: no reason why a Designer wouldn't have created evolution. You're creating a false dichotomy. Your position is fundamentally flawed even apart from your many factual errors.
If you could prove ID it would in no way disprove evolution.
@kellyjay saidWell, no mindless process that we can yet prove.
A mindless process would never be able to through time cause a functioning mind to come into existence. Do you think I am wrong?
It's quite possible scientists may one day be able to replicate the conditions on earth 4 billion years ago in a lab. If that happens, we may be able to see some primitive life that forms spontaneously.
You have never seen me deny what could happen if it was designed to behave in any specific way
Are you willing to state straightforwardly that it's possible An intelligent designer may have created life to evolve?
Are you willing to admit this without dancing around it in some verbose manner, that yes: evolution is scientifically proven but you believe a designer is responsible?
312d
@kellyjay saidThe fossil record is incomplete, everyone accepts that; the chances of anything being fossilised, preserved in its' fossilised state for millions of years and then discovered are extremely small; we only see the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. Today we see, for example, cats (lions, leopards and so on) which are similar enough to one another for us to be able to classify them as cats, because they wend from a common ancestor. The same can be said of fishes, birds.....And apes, of course; it's a well estabished fact that we are genetically almost the same as chimpanzees, (it's that common ancestor thing again) but one would hardly mistake one for the other. Small genetic differences can and do result in big phenotypical differences, and the 'small times frames' are millions of years, indeed billions of years. The fact that we don't witness big changes during our lifetime, or a hundred lifetimes, or a thousand lifetimes, means nothing; our species is a blip in geological time.
The fossil record shows us quite a few things some quite inconvenient for the narrative that suggests small changes over time had life evolving from simpler to more complex lifeforms. If we accept the dates you offer, we see the sudden appearance and disappearance of different lifeforms through time, not a long string of ever-changing lifeforms that would have also had to c ...[text shortened]... ndlessness creating a thinking mind trumps a spiritual being speaking through a snake in my opinion.
And as for "Mindlessness creating a thinking mind trumps a spiritual being speaking through a snake..." I couldn't agree with you more.
@indonesia-phil saidThe fossil record is what it is, you say there is more that may someday make what you think you should see valid, that is nothing but wishful thinking. Small changes over time do not produce fully developed life in spurts there should be a string of lifeforms all similar to one another due to slow changes.
The fossil record is incomplete, everyone accepts that; the chances of anything being fossilised, preserved in its' fossilised state for millions of years and then discovered are extremely small; we only see the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. Today we see, for example, cats (lions, leopards and so on) which are similar enough to one another for us to be able to class ...[text shortened]... thinking mind trumps a spiritual being speaking through a snake..." I couldn't agree with you more.
I'm glad you agree the unlikely hood of mindlessness producing a mind is zero.
312d
@kellyjay saidWhy don’t you accept the scientific explanation of gravity Kellyjay?
The fossil record is what it is, you say there is more that may someday make what you think you should see valid, that is nothing but wishful thinking. Small changes over time do not produce fully developed life in spurts there should be a string of lifeforms all similar to one another due to slow changes.
I'm glad you agree the unlikely hood of mindlessness producing a mind is zero.
312d
@kellyjay saidI don't 'wish' for anything in this regard. I don't 'wish' that there is no god. Science doesn't 'wish' for anything. Unless and until you understand this most fundamental thing, you understand nothing about science.
The fossil record is what it is, you say there is more that may someday make what you think you should see valid, that is nothing but wishful thinking. Small changes over time do not produce fully developed life in spurts there should be a string of lifeforms all similar to one another due to slow changes.
I'm glad you agree the unlikely hood of mindlessness producing a mind is zero.