@proper-knob saidWhen events occur if there isn't a recording a documentation of some sort we are left with piecing it together. The futher into the past things go the worse it gets for us, distant past doesn't have to a long period of time but a something that occurred and we simply don't know. Human memory, writings all help but you have to trust the writers and memory testimony. Going back when there is not human testimony in any form you are left with attempting to piece things together with just looking at things you assume are true to glean what occurred.
I have no idea what you are trying to say. Could you rephrase please.
When does the ‘past’ become the ‘distant past’?
You also haven’t answered the question regarding humans living with dinosaurs and the evidence which led you to believe this. What evidence do you have that humans lived with dinosaurs?
@kellyjay saidFirstly, Newton died in 1727, before the 'Enlightenment', so it's hardly surprising he viewed the world the way he did. If he lived today with all the scientific discoveries at his disposal he would probably think differently. Newton also lived in an era where blasphemy was punishable by death, people didn't dare cross the church as a brutal fate would be coming their way. Google - Giordano Bruno.
I want to ask a clarifying questions here since you brought up some specific scientific minds. You didn't bring up Newton and many others who do not hold to the same materialistic limiting views on science. When you look at the universe and take it all in do you hold that only the material matter, that the only things that count are all we can see and measure?
When Dawkin ...[text shortened]... think there is an illusion going on a world view blinding people to what is right in front of them.
When you look at the universe and take it all in do you hold that only the material matter, that the only things that count are all we can see and measure?
No.
As for Dawkins, he doesn't reject what he sees as being designed because of 'his core beliefs of Atheism'. He rejects the design argument because he has an understanding of the natural world and that evolution by natural selection is a better explanation. The rest of your post can be dismissed because your views regarding Dawkins have been manufactured by yourself. You've made it up.
17 Mar 19
@proper-knob saidWhen I told you that I believe in the creation account and see no reason for long periods of time all life was started at the same time! This puts all lifeforms on the planet at the same time, and the fossil record would then mean we have fossils, but they are not separated by time as we think, fossils don't just occur more times than not when something dies it is eaten it doesn't turn to stone so the fact we have a mountain of fossils to look at to me suggests an event, like a flood that occurred quickly.
Okay, let's break this down.
There were many things said there
I know, this is the issue. The vast majority of your post above has zero bearing on the question i asked. My question is very specific, because i want a specific answer. If i ask for your best evidence that humans lived with dinosaurs why are you talking about the ID movement believing the earth is ...[text shortened]... believe. Your constant inability to answer this question leads me to the conclusion that you don't.
Billions of years doesn't help with life being formed, it most certainly doesn't help with life springing up during different time periods and ending during those time periods with other life also showing up and disappearing over and over. That looks more like a sudden event each time you see a new lifeform arise and die, due to the complexity of life from its smallest part to the creatures as a whole that would make life simply showing up for no good reason over and over again. Even the small changes theory has not been seen creating new forms only making small changes of what is already there, nothing new is ever made.
I'm not sure what the context is of some of the things you quoted so I cannot address them.
There is assumption that slow changes over time built things there is nothing that has shown us its true, its the illusion of Dawkins in reverse, where he sees design and refuses to acknowledge it, others see no evidence for slow changes building newforms and finding it where it isn't really.
At the start of life if evolution through abiogenesis was true there was no life, everything was dead then there was, so life from dead things.
You look at the fossil record and suggest this creature looks like that therefore they are related through change that is just connecting dots in your head there is no way you can know. There are many creatures today that have some features that are look like others it doesn't mean one was made before the other.
Why would life arise from dead things?
If you are asking me if I can prove things in the distant past I believe, no, neither can you.
17 Mar 19
@proper-knob saidDawkins said it looks design, he acknowledged that it does, then he turns around and refuses to acknowledge that truth. He refuses, because he doesn't want to acknowledge it, yet he without a doubt sees it. What more is he looking for if it is right in front of him and he still denies it?
Firstly, Newton died in 1727, before the 'Enlightenment', so it's hardly surprising he viewed the world the way he did. If he lived today with all the scientific discoveries at his disposal he would probably think differently. Newton also lived in an era where blasphemy was punishable by death, people didn't dare cross the church as a brutal fate would be coming their wa ...[text shortened]... e dismissed because your views regarding Dawkins has be manufactured by yourself. You've made it up.
The truths Newton found didn't just disappear due to a passage of time. Yes there have been many discoveries since then, but they don't alter truth.
17 Mar 19
1 edit
@kellyjay saidI am well aware of this.
When events occur if there isn't a recording a documentation of some sort we are left with piecing it together. The futher into the past things go the worse it gets for us, distant past doesn't have to a long period of time but a something that occurred and we simply don't know. Human memory, writings all help but you have to trust the writers and memory testimony. Going bac ...[text shortened]... ing to piece things together with just looking at things you assume are true to glean what occurred.
On the one hand you're, quite rightly, claiming that the past is difficult to ascertain as we have to rely on the accuracy of mostly anonymous people who wrote ancient texts. Yet on the other hand you've made numerous 'truth' claims in this thread based on your interpretation of ancient texts. As far as i can see, you've contradicted yourself?!
17 Mar 19
@kellyjay saidGoing back when there is not human testimony in any form you are left with attempting to piece things together with just looking at things you assume are true to glean what occurred.
When events occur if there isn't a recording a documentation of some sort we are left with piecing it together. The futher into the past things go the worse it gets for us, distant past doesn't have to a long period of time but a something that occurred and we simply don't know. Human memory, writings all help but you have to trust the writers and memory testimony. Going bac ...[text shortened]... ing to piece things together with just looking at things you assume are true to glean what occurred.
Not necessarily. For instance take a human settlement from the Neolithic period. Within this settlement we find pottery, burnt earth indicating the use of fire, we find other man made tools such as hoe and a yoke indicating agricultural and we also find animal bones some of which have cut marks on them from human tools. In some places we have found early humans using mammoth bones as building materials. There's no written record from this period but by using the evidence we can get a handle, to a certain degree, of what our earliest ancestors were doing.
My question to you is - where are the dinosaur bones? How come we have yet to find any dinosaur bones in human settlements anywhere? If humans coexisted with dinosaurs and all the other long extinct animals you believe we cohabited the earth with, where are they? Wherever our ancient ancestors have lived, we find the remains of animals from that geographic location. No dinosaur bone or long extinct animal has ben found in a human settlement. Bit odd don't you think?
17 Mar 19
@proper-knob saidI tell you and everyone else these are things I believe, facts are different than things of faith yet things of faith can still be true and factual. If you tell me something is a fact how I would then be forced to think about that means nothing can alter that, only confirm it because truth doesn’t change with new information or because the calendar has changed.
I am well aware of this.
On the one hand you're, quite rightly, claiming that the past is difficult to ascertain as we can have to rely on the accuracy of mostly anonymous people who wrote ancient texts. Yet on the other hand you've made numerous 'truth' claims in this thread based on your interpretation of ancient texts. As far as i can see, you've contradicted yourself?!
17 Mar 19
@proper-knob said"...that evolution by natural selection is a better explanation."
Firstly, Newton died in 1727, before the 'Enlightenment', so it's hardly surprising he viewed the world the way he did. If he lived today with all the scientific discoveries at his disposal he would probably think differently. Newton also lived in an era where blasphemy was punishable by death, people didn't dare cross the church as a brutal fate would be coming their wa ...[text shortened]... ismissed because your views regarding Dawkins have been manufactured by yourself. You've made it up.
That is my point, he bases that on what, his understanding of a godless universe!
He acknowledge it looked like design he just didn't want to accept what was right in front of him. If you can be shown something and you can acknowledge yes, that is what it looks like, and still deny it, your denying it not based on what you see, but what you believe beyond the evidence.
21 Mar 19
@kellyjay saidJust because something 'looks' a certain way it doesn't mean it actually is that way. Dawkins rejects the design argument as he is an evolutionary biologist and understands, better than you and me, the science behind the evolution of life on this planet. Evolution is not synonymous with a 'godless universe' there are plenty of Christians for example who accept 'theistic evolution'.
"...that evolution by natural selection is a better explanation."
That is my point, he bases that on what, his understanding of a godless universe!
He acknowledge it looked like design he just didn't want to accept what was right in front of him. If you can be shown something and you can acknowledge yes, that is what it looks like, and still deny it, your denying it not based on what you see, but what you believe beyond the evidence.
21 Mar 19
1 edit
@kellyjay saidBack to the topic of this thread. This is what you posted in another thread.
I tell you and everyone else these are things I believe, facts are different than things of faith yet things of faith can still be true and factual. If you tell me something is a fact how I would then be forced to think about that means nothing can alter that, only confirm it because truth doesn’t change with new information or because the calendar has changed.
Our opinions may or may not be a reflection of reality. They are opinions, and the only time truth comes into play is when our opinions line up with reality.
What 'reality' is there that human lived with dinosaurs? Other than your literal interpretation of the Genesis account? But that's your faith based religious beliefs. For you to claim humans lived with dinosaurs is a truth, as you did earlier in the thread, surely there has to be some evidence from reality to back this up?! Otherwise you are failing your own standard of what a 'truth' is.
21 Mar 19
@proper-knob saidHow so?
I am well aware of this.
On the one hand you're, quite rightly, claiming that the past is difficult to ascertain as we have to rely on the accuracy of mostly anonymous people who wrote ancient texts. Yet on the other hand you've made numerous 'truth' claims in this thread based on your interpretation of ancient texts. As far as i can see, you've contradicted yourself?!
21 Mar 19
@proper-knob saidReally I have to accept Dawkins argument because of his beliefs wrapped around field of study? If others with similar degrees in the same field disagree am I allowed to doubt his point of view?
Just because something 'looks' a certain way it doesn't mean it actually is that way. Dawkins rejects the design argument as he is an evolutionary biologist and understands, better than you and me, the science behind the evolution of life on this planet. Evolution is not synonymous with a 'godless universe' there are plenty of Christians for example who accept 'theistic evolution'.
If he says it is very complicated and it looks designed but it isn’t because and his reasons are basically only found if you look at the world from a Atheist materialistic view why should I accept it? He doesn’t have any answers towards the beginning, his work can only be taken seriously if he avoids having to discuss where it all came from!
Which is the only thing that speaks to the how and why!
21 Mar 19
@Proper-Knob
I am concerned that I am missing points you want addressed due to the multiple points being made. Please let me know if I am.
11 Apr 19
@kellyjay saidHere we go again. Multiple points in this thread, let’s break it down to this one from earlier.
@Proper-Knob
I am concerned that I am missing points you want addressed due to the multiple points being made. Please let me know if I am.
This is what you recently posted in another thread.
Our opinions may or may not be a reflection of reality. They are opinions, and the only time truth comes into play is when our opinions line up with reality.
What 'reality' is there that human lived with dinosaurs other than your literal interpretation of the Genesis account? But those beliefs are your faith based religious beliefs. For you to claim humans lived with dinosaurs is a truth, as you did earlier in the thread, surely there has to be some evidence from reality to back this up?! Otherwise you are failing your own standard of what a 'truth' is.
11 Apr 19
@proper-knob saidAs I pointed out over and over, I don't worry about time. I think it is quite possible they were created at the same time as everything else was. I don't think the fossil record shows life could possibly alter itself over and over again through evolution and not have a chain of life not only in the fossils but in today too. Slow processes would have a string of lifeforms alive even today of so many lifeforms looking like each other. Life would not just appear different and then die off and other life that appeared different than die off occur. The sudden appearance of different life forms and then they disappear in record doesn't look like slow changes over time.
Here we go again. Multiple points in this thread, let’s break it down to this one from earlier.
This is what you recently posted in another thread.
Our opinions may or may not be a reflection of reality. They are opinions, and the only time truth comes into play is when our opinions line up with reality.
What 'reality' is there that human ...[text shortened]... nce from reality to back this up?! Otherwise you are failing your own standard of what a 'truth' is.