Page 4 of 6 [ 90 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,188
Location: Twin Peaks

23 Jun 2017, 12:45 am

kraftiekortie wrote:
How old do you believe the Earth is? I believe it is about 4.6 billion years old.


From a scientific standpoint that's its estimated age.

From a couple of creationist theories I know of, there's the gap theory that when genesis took place the earth already existed but was a void wasteland, perhaps through a catastrophe, and from there god reformed it. Which would take into account the fossil record. So there's earth part one and then there's earth part two where genesis picks up.

The other is just as god created man as a fully developed adult, rather than starting him out as a fetus, god also created a fully developed earth. So even though Adam was only a day old he had the attributes of a person who formed over a period of lets say 21 years. Likewise even though the earth was a day old, it had the attributes of however long it would take the earth to develop to that point.



Darmok
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,011
Location: New England

23 Jun 2017, 1:00 am

^ Here's an excellent book on the history and philosophy of science that you might like to add to your reading list: Toulmin & Goodfield's The Discovery of Time.

https://books.google.com/books?id=h_Tb8B8Uo5gC

It reviews the development of the historical picture of the universe that we have today, as that picture developed over the last 2000 years through religion, philosophy, and science. It's very well written also -- a minor masterpiece in the history of science.


_________________
 
There Are Four Lights!


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 66,036
Location: Queens, NYC

23 Jun 2017, 7:12 am

If taken literally, the Biblical Creation Story doesn't make sense.
Then again, the belief in it is arrived at, usually, via "faith," rather than relatively objective inquiry.

I must say, though, that the Abrahamic religions have had great staying power. Could there be some basis to them?

I, myself, don't believe there is literal basis--but perhaps an allegorical basis.



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,190
Location: USA

23 Jun 2017, 7:51 am

NewTime wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
NewTime wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
Such a religious authority as Pope John Paul II (the Pope before Francis) declared evolution to be a "fact."

According to this site, in his speech, all he said was "it's more than just a hypothesis".
http://www.cuttingedge.org/n1034.html

Which is funny, since it's commonly called a "theory".


Evolution occurs. That is a fact. How it occurs is a theory. Which is why it's called the theory of evolution.

That's your opinion.

Science NEVER labels their discoveries as facts.

It's anti-science to shut-off any further contradictory evidence.


Evolution has been directly observed. Pesticides have to be modified because insects become resistant to them. The pesticides in use 20 years from now won't be the same as those used now. The "theory" in evolution refers to how it occurs, not whether or not it occurs.

Direct observation does not make something a "fact".

In the macro-world, we can't see reality (the truth of how matter functions).

I posted earlier that some high-profile physicists think it's possible that we live in simulation, and evolution does not occur, rather, humans "pop" into existence.

Are We Living in a Computer Simulation?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... imulation/

So, I disagree.

The theory of evolution first requires one to believe that evolution actually occurs.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 66,036
Location: Queens, NYC

23 Jun 2017, 8:57 am

All right. You don't believe in it. I accept that. I'm not trying to change your belief.

As long as you don't smite me, I won't smite you :wink:

I believe in evolution on "faith," and on the preponderance of the evidence.



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,190
Location: USA

23 Jun 2017, 1:38 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
All right. You don't believe in it. I accept that. I'm not trying to change your belief.

As long as you don't smite me, I won't smite you :wink:

I believe in evolution on "faith," and on the preponderance of the evidence.

I never said that.

Science gives us our present best guess at truth.


So, the theory of evolution is our present best guess.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,160
Location: temperate zone

23 Jun 2017, 2:36 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
NewTime wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
NewTime wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
Such a religious authority as Pope John Paul II (the Pope before Francis) declared evolution to be a "fact."

According to this site, in his speech, all he said was "it's more than just a hypothesis".
http://www.cuttingedge.org/n1034.html

Which is funny, since it's commonly called a "theory".


Evolution occurs. That is a fact. How it occurs is a theory. Which is why it's called the theory of evolution.

That's your opinion.

Science NEVER labels their discoveries as facts.

It's anti-science to shut-off any further contradictory evidence.


Evolution has been directly observed. Pesticides have to be modified because insects become resistant to them. The pesticides in use 20 years from now won't be the same as those used now. The "theory" in evolution refers to how it occurs, not whether or not it occurs.

Direct observation does not make something a "fact".

In the macro-world, we can't see reality (the truth of how matter functions).

I posted earlier that some high-profile physicists think it's possible that we live in simulation, and evolution does not occur, rather, humans "pop" into existence.

Are We Living in a Computer Simulation?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... imulation/

So, I disagree.

The theory of evolution first requires one to believe that evolution actually occurs.

Nonsense wrapped in nonsense.

Its possible that there is a little green man who follows you around every where you go, and that he disappears every time you turn to look at him (and that every other person in your life is in on the conspiracy to conceal this LGM from you, so they all act as if they all don't see him either). So (in a manner of speaking) you could claim that "it is NOT a fact that there is no little green man who follows you around everywhere you go". And that there are no facts about anything.

But for practical purposes the fact that there is no little green man following you around every moment of your life can be accepted by you as that...as a fact.

And this new notion that we all live in a simulation doesn't contradict evolution because even if we do live in a simulation then evolution itself was part of the simulation. So that simulation notion is a nonsequitar.



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,190
Location: USA

23 Jun 2017, 4:04 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
NewTime wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
NewTime wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
Such a religious authority as Pope John Paul II (the Pope before Francis) declared evolution to be a "fact."

According to this site, in his speech, all he said was "it's more than just a hypothesis".
http://www.cuttingedge.org/n1034.html

Which is funny, since it's commonly called a "theory".


Evolution occurs. That is a fact. How it occurs is a theory. Which is why it's called the theory of evolution.

That's your opinion.

Science NEVER labels their discoveries as facts.

It's anti-science to shut-off any further contradictory evidence.


Evolution has been directly observed. Pesticides have to be modified because insects become resistant to them. The pesticides in use 20 years from now won't be the same as those used now. The "theory" in evolution refers to how it occurs, not whether or not it occurs.

Direct observation does not make something a "fact".

In the macro-world, we can't see reality (the truth of how matter functions).

I posted earlier that some high-profile physicists think it's possible that we live in simulation, and evolution does not occur, rather, humans "pop" into existence.

Are We Living in a Computer Simulation?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... imulation/

So, I disagree.

The theory of evolution first requires one to believe that evolution actually occurs.

Nonsense wrapped in nonsense.

Its possible that there is a little green man who follows you around every where you go, and that he disappears every time you turn to look at him (and that every other person in your life is in on the conspiracy to conceal this LGM from you, so they all act as if they all don't see him either). So (in a manner of speaking) you could claim that "it is NOT a fact that there is no little green man who follows you around everywhere you go". And that there are no facts about anything.

But for practical purposes the fact that there is no little green man following you around every moment of your life can be accepted by you as that...as a fact.

And this new notion that we all live in a simulation doesn't contradict evolution because even if we do live in a simulation then evolution itself was part of the simulation. So that simulation notion is a nonsequitar.

In the article, a simulation means reality is a computer program, and we are computer code.

So, we are not evolutionary -- of moving from a lower thing to a higher thing -- rather we "pop" into existence as a stored piece of code.

Like, Windows 7 is not evolutionary from Windows XP
Image

Rather, someone wrote out the new code.

That's why the article points out that we can be reused -- because we are stored in memory.



jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,280
Location: The end of the northwest passage

23 Jun 2017, 4:10 pm

Still, I consider absurdism my best response function. If evolution appears to occur in the simulation, then it seems likely to have occurred in reality, and I would have to find a better explanation in order to have another working belief. Jehovah is nowhere in the null hypothesis.


_________________
"I find that the best way [to increase self-confidence] is to lie to yourself about who you are, what you've done, and where you're going." - Richard Ayoade


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,160
Location: temperate zone

23 Jun 2017, 7:13 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
NewTime wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
NewTime wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
Such a religious authority as Pope John Paul II (the Pope before Francis) declared evolution to be a "fact."

According to this site, in his speech, all he said was "it's more than just a hypothesis".
http://www.cuttingedge.org/n1034.html

Which is funny, since it's commonly called a "theory".


Evolution occurs. That is a fact. How it occurs is a theory. Which is why it's called the theory of evolution.

That's your opinion.

Science NEVER labels their discoveries as facts.

It's anti-science to shut-off any further contradictory evidence.


Evolution has been directly observed. Pesticides have to be modified because insects become resistant to them. The pesticides in use 20 years from now won't be the same as those used now. The "theory" in evolution refers to how it occurs, not whether or not it occurs.

Direct observation does not make something a "fact".

In the macro-world, we can't see reality (the truth of how matter functions).

I posted earlier that some high-profile physicists think it's possible that we live in simulation, and evolution does not occur, rather, humans "pop" into existence.

Are We Living in a Computer Simulation?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... imulation/

So, I disagree.

The theory of evolution first requires one to believe that evolution actually occurs.

Nonsense wrapped in nonsense.

Its possible that there is a little green man who follows you around every where you go, and that he disappears every time you turn to look at him (and that every other person in your life is in on the conspiracy to conceal this LGM from you, so they all act as if they all don't see him either). So (in a manner of speaking) you could claim that "it is NOT a fact that there is no little green man who follows you around everywhere you go". And that there are no facts about anything.

But for practical purposes the fact that there is no little green man following you around every moment of your life can be accepted by you as that...as a fact.

And this new notion that we all live in a simulation doesn't contradict evolution because even if we do live in a simulation then evolution itself was part of the simulation. So that simulation notion is a nonsequitar.

In the article, a simulation means reality is a computer program, and we are computer code.

So, we are not evolutionary -- of moving from a lower thing to a higher thing -- rather we "pop" into existence as a stored piece of code.

Like, Windows 7 is not evolutionary from Windows XP
Image

Rather, someone wrote out the new code.

That's why the article points out that we can be reused -- because we are stored in memory.


This theory is a recent notion of some people. Its not the mainstream view of science.
And even if it were the mainstream pov it has no bearing on what we are talking about.
Even if we live in a simulation, the simulation has a simulated backstory (a simulated history) of millions and billionos of years of evolution built into it (like characters in a movie -or in a computer game- have to have a background, and a backstory that is also simulated). We also live with a simulated future. The fact that walking off cliffs is not really deadly, but is only a simulation of being lethal, does not mean that its now okay for us all to start walking off cliffs.

And actually Windows ten did evolve from windows eight, which did evolved from Windows seven, etc. Lol!



Last edited by naturalplastic on 23 Jun 2017, 7:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,160
Location: temperate zone

23 Jun 2017, 7:19 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
All right. You don't believe in it. I accept that. I'm not trying to change your belief.

As long as you don't smite me, I won't smite you :wink:

I believe in evolution on "faith," and on the preponderance of the evidence.

I never said that.

Science gives us our present best guess at truth.


So, the theory of evolution is our present best guess.


Well duhhhh....

That goes with out saying.

But when the present "best guess" stands the test of time it can be thought of as a "fact" for practical purposes.

The belief that the earth goes around the sun, and the belief that humans have two feet, have both stood up to centuries of observation so both the two foot theory, and the heliocentric planetary system theory can be thought of as "facts".



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,190
Location: USA

23 Jun 2017, 8:40 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
NewTime wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
NewTime wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
Such a religious authority as Pope John Paul II (the Pope before Francis) declared evolution to be a "fact."

According to this site, in his speech, all he said was "it's more than just a hypothesis".
http://www.cuttingedge.org/n1034.html

Which is funny, since it's commonly called a "theory".


Evolution occurs. That is a fact. How it occurs is a theory. Which is why it's called the theory of evolution.

That's your opinion.

Science NEVER labels their discoveries as facts.

It's anti-science to shut-off any further contradictory evidence.


Evolution has been directly observed. Pesticides have to be modified because insects become resistant to them. The pesticides in use 20 years from now won't be the same as those used now. The "theory" in evolution refers to how it occurs, not whether or not it occurs.

Direct observation does not make something a "fact".

In the macro-world, we can't see reality (the truth of how matter functions).

I posted earlier that some high-profile physicists think it's possible that we live in simulation, and evolution does not occur, rather, humans "pop" into existence.

Are We Living in a Computer Simulation?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... imulation/

So, I disagree.

The theory of evolution first requires one to believe that evolution actually occurs.

Nonsense wrapped in nonsense.

Its possible that there is a little green man who follows you around every where you go, and that he disappears every time you turn to look at him (and that every other person in your life is in on the conspiracy to conceal this LGM from you, so they all act as if they all don't see him either). So (in a manner of speaking) you could claim that "it is NOT a fact that there is no little green man who follows you around everywhere you go". And that there are no facts about anything.

But for practical purposes the fact that there is no little green man following you around every moment of your life can be accepted by you as that...as a fact.

And this new notion that we all live in a simulation doesn't contradict evolution because even if we do live in a simulation then evolution itself was part of the simulation. So that simulation notion is a nonsequitar.

In the article, a simulation means reality is a computer program, and we are computer code.

So, we are not evolutionary -- of moving from a lower thing to a higher thing -- rather we "pop" into existence as a stored piece of code.

Like, Windows 7 is not evolutionary from Windows XP
Image

Rather, someone wrote out the new code.

That's why the article points out that we can be reused -- because we are stored in memory.


This theory is a recent notion of some people. Its not the mainstream view of science.
And even if it were the mainstream pov it has no bearing on what we are talking about.
Even if we live in a simulation, the simulation has a simulated backstory (a simulated history) of millions and billionos of years of evolution built into it (like characters in a movie -or in a computer game- have to have a background, and a backstory that is also simulated). We also live with a simulated future. The fact that walking off cliffs is not really deadly, but is only a simulation of being lethal, does not mean that its now okay for us all to start walking off cliffs.

And actually Windows ten did evolve from windows eight, which did evolved from Windows seven, etc. Lol!

You're using the word "evolution" in a broad way to mean "has ancestry".

However, evolution means "has physical ancestry".

As you say, the simulation ancestry is fictional, so there is no physical ancestry, no evolution.

Likewise, Windows 7 shares no physical ancestry with any other version of Windows, so there is no physical ancestry, no evolution.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,160
Location: temperate zone

23 Jun 2017, 9:59 pm

Yes. We didn't really evolve. And we don't actually have ancestors. AND we ourselves don't actually exist. That would be true if this simulation notion were true.

But so what? What does that have to do with anything?
Exactly what point are you making?

In this simulation we are forced to live in we have simulated ancestors who do appear to have evolved over time from other organisms to become us (that's what the simulated evidence shows overwhelmingly).

So within the internal logic of this supposed simulation we live in there was indeed evolution. So for practical purposes (for us simulated characters in this simulated universe) evolution is a fact.

So though (if youre splitting hairs about what science calls "fact")yes "nothing is fact" (the Biblical story in Genisis wouldn't be "fact" either). But to the extent that anything can be called a "fact" evolution is a fact (like the heliocentric idea about the planet system is called a "fact").



Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,778
Location: Victoria, Australia

23 Jun 2017, 10:15 pm

NewTime wrote:
Creationists think it includes abiogenesis, planet formation, star formation and the Big Bang. Creationists commonly think that these things are included in the theory of evolution.


Some do, but most don't. As for including abiogenesis, well, it should. After all, how comprehensive is a scientific theory if it cannot account for why a certain situation arose in the first place? It's incomplete as far as I'm concerned, and that is one of the reasons why I also reject it (I'm not - NOT - a Biblical creationist, but I can see a bad idea when one presents itself, and Darwinism fits that description perfectly).



Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,778
Location: Victoria, Australia

23 Jun 2017, 10:20 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Personally I only listen to erudite creationists. Why people choose the ignorant ones to quote seems suspicious to me.

There is no choice. All creationists are ignorant. Prove me wrong.


You're the one making the claim here, so why should we? Where is your evidence that ALL (without exception) 'creationists' (only Biblical ones? What about Muslims?) are ignorant? Ignorant about what, specifically? Biology? Geology? Genetics? All three?