@fmf saidDodge.@fmf said
Both Pianoman1 and josephw have much in common: they both think more should be done by society to intervene when the wellbeing of a child is threatened by unbalanced adults.
@josephw said
Don't you?
No, not if the definition of "unbalanced" is related to beliefs regarding things like young-Earth creationism and evolution and certainly not if society seeks to interfere in family life.
@kellyjay saidNo one is saying that something came from nothing.
How it works in life is due to the coding in life; we can find many of the features we have in our code in biology, so we know how it is happening. How nothing can produce everything isn't a solution worth exploring; why do we date something billions of years old if there was no beginning? Something that transcends the physical universe as a first cause seems the most reasonable to me, show me how I'm wrong.
Evolution does not claim anything about how life started. Evolution starts with the first simple lifeform and explains how it developed into the variety of life seen today.
Even if there was no beginning, it is potentially valid to say that something is a billion or more years old. No beginning just means that the timeline goes back infinitely.
I see zero reason that we need anything outside the physical universe to explain anything. As you are adding the extra something, it falls to you to explain why that something is needed.
@bigdogg saidNo, it falls to you to explain how life came from non-life.
No one is saying that something came from nothing.
Evolution does not claim anything about how life started. Evolution starts with the first simple lifeform and explains how it developed into the variety of life seen today.
Even if there was no beginning, it is potentially valid to say that something is a billion or more years old. No beginning just means that the timel ...[text shortened]... ing. As you are adding the extra something, it falls to you to explain why that something is needed.
@fmf saidI would suggest that a definition of unbalanced is out of balance, i.e. overly weighted in one direction. YEC’s are certainly unbalanced because they deny the overwhelming tsunami of both fossil evidence and astrophysics. We know when we look at the night sky we are looking back in time, and with the Hubble telescope we can see objects 10 billion light years away. I am aware that YEC’s like to deny fossil evidence, but they are silent in this regard. So, yes, more should be done to protect children from the brainwashing propaganda that some are being subjected to by unbalanced adults.@fmf said
Both Pianoman1 and josephw have much in common: they both think more should be done by society to intervene when the wellbeing of a child is threatened by unbalanced adults.
@josephw said
Don't you?
No, not if the definition of "unbalanced" is related to beliefs regarding things like young-Earth creationism and evolution and certainly not if society seeks to interfere in family life.
@bigdogg saidI agree evolution never talks about the beginning of everything, so anyone who compares creation to evolution is comparing apples and oranges. Suggesting there isn't a beginning is as miraculous as having one; both require something eternal, so which is the most reasonable since we date our universe a few billion years old?
No one is saying that something came from nothing.
Evolution does not claim anything about how life started. Evolution starts with the first simple lifeform and explains how it developed into the variety of life seen today.
Even if there was no beginning, it is potentially valid to say that something is a billion or more years old. No beginning just means that the timel ...[text shortened]... ing. As you are adding the extra something, it falls to you to explain why that something is needed.
@pianoman1 saidNone of that addresses the question of how it all started; it only disputes how long ago.
I would suggest that a definition of unbalanced is out of balance, i.e. overly weighted in one direction. YEC’s are certainly unbalanced because they deny the overwhelming tsunami of both fossil evidence and astrophysics. We know when we look at the night sky we are looking back in time, and with the Hubble telescope we can see objects 10 billion light years away. I am awar ...[text shortened]... ect children from the brainwashing propaganda that some are being subjected to by unbalanced adults.
1 edit
@pianoman1 said"I am aware that YEC’s like to deny fossil evidence, but they are silent in this regard."
I would suggest that a definition of unbalanced is out of balance, i.e. overly weighted in one direction. YEC’s are certainly unbalanced because they deny the overwhelming tsunami of both fossil evidence and astrophysics. We know when we look at the night sky we are looking back in time, and with the Hubble telescope we can see objects 10 billion light years away. I am awar ...[text shortened]... ect children from the brainwashing propaganda that some are being subjected to by unbalanced adults.
Not true. Fossils exist obviously. Are they evidence that life evolved? I'm not a scientist ok, but I just read some articles about the fossil record and it's unconvincing.
Here are some selected statements.
"By comparison of overlapping sequences, it is possible to build up a continuous record of faunas or floras that have progressively more in common with present-day life-forms as the top of the sequence is approached."
That does not prove that plants evolved, only that they adapted to environmental factors that changed over time, and that "time" need not be millions of years. I admit there is a problem with that.
One might wonder how so much fossil evidence can be distributed through hundreds and thousands of feet of layers of rock in a "YEC" period of time. I might ask, how much of the earth's crust is littered with fossils? 5%? 10% more. IDK.
Or is it possible that a catastrophic event or events occurring simultaneously in a short period of time, destroying virtually everything, dumping the remains in settling strata? Not if the layers show a progression of change in the flora and fauna.
But that can be reasonably explained as well.
Perhaps what the paleontologist is seeing is only all the different types of plant life actively adapting to an environment that changes slowly, but only over a shorter period of time.
Here's another:
"Study of the fossil record has provided important information for at least three different purposes. The progressive changes observed within an animal group are used to describe the evolution of that group. In general, but not always, successive generations tend to change morphologically in a particular direction (e.g., the progressive acquisition or loss of specific features), and these changes are often interpreted as better adaptation (through preferential selection of beneficial mutations) to a particular environment".
No problem. That is if I viewed "life" through a microscope all day!
So there is a fossil record of insects and plant life imbedded in rock! Obviously one is going to find those in great abundance - "Of the 550 gigatons of biomass carbon on Earth, animals make up about 2 gigatons, with insects comprising half of that and fish taking up another 0.7 gigatons. Everything else, including mammals, birds, nematodes and mollusks are roughly 0.3 gigatons, with humans weighing in at 0.06 gigatons."
So I would ask, where in the fossil record is the evidence for humans? It seems there's an abundant fossil record for fauna and flora, showing what looks like a progression of development, but where's the fossil record for man?
Pictures in a book?
Set me straight!
I was quoting fossil records and astrophysics as evidence to disprove the YEC theory that the Universe is only 11,000 years old, not to disprove creationism per se. Although fossil records do disprove creationism in that they show that life forms millions of years ago were very different to life forms today and so they have evolved.
@pianoman1 saidThe fossil records don't disprove creation, neither does it disprove design. The sudden burst of life in the fossil record, then the disappearances of that life only to have more life suddenly appear and on and on don't suggest a gradual change over time.
I was quoting fossil records and astrophysics as evidence to disprove the YEC theory that the Universe is only 11,000 years old, not to disprove creationism per se. Although fossil records do disprove creationism in that they show that life forms millions of years ago were very different to life forms today and so they have evolved.
@kellyjay saidTrue.
The fossil records don't disprove creation, neither does it disprove design. The sudden burst of life in the fossil record, then the disappearances of that life only to have more life suddenly appear and on and on don't suggest a gradual change over time.
But the creation story as told in Genesis, which I am assuming you believe, is rather hard to square with dinosaurs roaming the earth 60 million years before Adam and Eve.
@kellyjay saidWe don't know what happened 'before the big bang' or even if that phrase is coherent.
I agree evolution never talks about the beginning of everything, so anyone who compares creation to evolution is comparing apples and oranges. Suggesting there isn't a beginning is as miraculous as having one; both require something eternal, so which is the most reasonable since we date our universe a few billion years old?
"Reasonable" doesn't help much on questions like this.
Quantum mechanics shows that the physical world does not always behave in "reasonable" ways. It works on probability rather than determinism. It has the 'spooky action at distance' of entanglement.
"Origin of the Universe" is another huge question. Preconceptions will likely have to be abandoned to gain further insight.