@sonhouse saidYou are telling me about what you believe occurred millions of years ago, as if you know that there was millions of years ago and you know what happened in it.
@KellyJay
And you deliberately don't want to know since that would punch holes in your faith.
Exactly what do you think I am assuming? Are rocks as hard now as they were a million years ago? You think that is just an assumption? Do you think the laws of physics are the same as they were a million years ago?
Do you think water is somehow different a million years ago?
T ...[text shortened]... the clock backwards to figure out roughly how long ago the GC was at the beginning of it's cutting.
@kellyjay saidRight. Like if you see an airplane in the sky, knowing what we know, you can safely presume that at some point that airplane took off. Even if you didn't see it happen. It's highly unlikely that the plane simply appeared there.
You are telling me about what you believe occurred millions of years ago, as if you know that there was millions of years ago and you know what happened in it.
Hopefully you can agree with the idea of soil erosion?
@KellyJay
The evidence we see tells us that. It's either assume our logic is correct and Earth is VERY VERY old or you have to have faith in a 6000 year old Earth formed like with the GC in place and the miles deep ocean life deposits put in place just to fool mankind.
I'll go with the evidence rather than trying to invoke a last Thursday creation or a 6000 year old creation myth that was a repaved thousand year older 7 day creation tale from Egypt, who BTW, had a lot of other creation myths also but that is the one Jews ran with, modified for Jewish consumption.
It goes beyond the possibility of belief for me to think a god would go to all that trouble just to fool humans who wouldn't even know they were being fooled till the 19th or 20th century.
Besides Earth and the Solar system, there is interstellar space with literally billions of galaxies and at different stages of their life cycles also, young ones just caught in the act of stars getting together as a galaxy and old galaxies just a bunch of very old stars clumped close together on the cosmic scale.
The ingredients of life are present most everywhere in at least our solar system. Organic stuff has been found on Mars.
The next set of probes to Mars may find life present buried where UV and such from the sun can't get to them.
Then the question would be, getting those samples to Earth to see if that life form was made up of Earthy DNA and such or did it have a completely different plan than the DNA based life we know of here.
Maybe they find the DNA ladder is a triple affair more like the way we make radio towers, amateur radio towers, Cell phone towers and such or cubic structures. No way of knowing till we actually show life is present on Mars which for now is just speculation but maybe in another 30 years or so we may find life there even if it is only surviving bacteria far underground, if humans get there with drilling equipment we will know fairly soon if that is the case.
If so it strongly points to the idea life abounds in the universe.
We may say 100 years from now, find life on some of the moons out there, Titan, Europa, maybe even Pluto.
If that happens the next thought would be life happens anywhere the most basic ingredients are available, certain minerals, carbon, hydrogen and such and life pops up willy nilly anywhere in the universe halfway capable of supporting life.
And of course that is just speculation and you can feel free to poo poo the whole concept since it IS speculation at this point in time. But the possibility is there which would throw some ice on the 6000 year creation tale.
I don't believe Earth is the only place we will find life. I EXPECT there to be life anywhere it is halfway benign for such. For instance, it might be shown there is life on Titan, a smoggy atmosphere moon of Saturn, where a NASA probe landed on the surface and took a lot of pictures and measured the atmospheric pressure, temperature, composition and such already, like 300 odd degrees below zero and snowing methane snow but the place is FULL of organic stuff, most likely pre-biotic but even there life of some sort may have developed.
There is BTW a fascinating probe being built now to launch there in 2026, as it is already known Titan has a gravity field 1/7th Earth and an atmosphere FOUR TIMES thicker, so average pressure of about 60 PSI but pretty much zero free oxygen. That probe is called Dragonfly and it does something no other probe has ever done, assuming it works: FLY. it will be a large drone and if it weighs in at 700 pounds on Earth it will be 100 pounds on Titan and the thick atmosphere will give 4 times the lift pound for pound of the same kind and size drone here on Earth.
It will have a nuclear PS like the Mars rovers putting out a couple hundred watts for decades so it can rest, charge up batteries, send power to blades and fly off to a new location and do that for years, of course assuming it actually lands in one piece.
Exciting time for NASA for sure. Besides all the hooplah about humans going back to the moon and on to Mar and so forth.
Just an aside though.
I would be very surprised to have proven there ISN"T life elsewhere. THAT would up the game for creationism. But I rather think not.
@sonhouse saidTrust me the evidence isn't talking to you telling you anything, people are looking things and coming up with what they think it means, and you believe them. So you describe what you think occurred millions of years ago as if that is proof you know what happen millions of years ago. You don't know what happened millions of years ago, I don't care what you think the evidence is telling you.
@KellyJay
The evidence we see tells us that. It's either assume our logic is correct and Earth is VERY VERY old or you have to have faith in a 6000 year old Earth formed like with the GC in place and the miles deep ocean life deposits put in place just to fool mankind.
I'll go with the evidence rather than trying to invoke a last Thursday creation or a 6000 year old crea ...[text shortened]... e proven there ISN"T life elsewhere. THAT would up the game for creationism. But I rather think not.
None of us KNOW, we may believe, but we most certainly don't know. If you want to invoke last Thursday for a creation date, find someone who is pushing it and debate them. There are no other creation stories that can take you from the day of creation to the birth of Christ, given the lineage from Adam to Jesus with accompanying history. There are no historical manuscripts on the planet that can compare to both the OT and NT documentation, and there are quite a few historical documents whose validity is unquestioned with far less convincing proofs.
Your grasping at what maybe found doesn't dispel what is, even when you fight against it tooth and nail because it doesn't add to your world view.
@KellyJay
Like I have said before, you would not accept ANY evidence of ancient Earth, I imagine even if someone put you in a time machine and go back 70 million years to the time of dinosaurs you would just say you were put on the wrong planet.
@sonhouse saidI don’t have an issue with an old earth it doesn’t change anything I believe in, except for the age. Nothing about my beliefs are based on age being old or young. You telling me that you know only shows me that you are trusting in something beyond what you should.
@KellyJay
Like I have said before, you would not accept ANY evidence of ancient Earth, I imagine even if someone put you in a time machine and go back 70 million years to the time of dinosaurs you would just say you were put on the wrong planet.
@KellyJay
So in other words, we should throw out science since we can't KNOW anything about what we can't see or touch.
Or is it we should only throw out that science which refutes what is said in the bible?
So if I shoot a bullet straight up in the air on a calm day I should throw out my knowledge of physics and get the hell out of the way of the bullet with will surely come down and bang into my head?
I can't see that bullet so according to you, I don't have to worry, it is invisible therefore not a threat......
@sonhouse saidNever said that, you forget people like Newton and other people of science who believed in God. You should treat everything with skepticism, a holy doctrine in science has no place no matter where it comes from! You refuse to question evolution you have a holy doctrine!
@KellyJay
So in other words, we should throw out science since we can't KNOW anything about what we can't see or touch.
Or is it we should only throw out that science which refutes what is said in the bible?
So if I shoot a bullet straight up in the air on a calm day I should throw out my knowledge of physics and get the hell out of the way of the bullet with will su ...[text shortened]... that bullet so according to you, I don't have to worry, it is invisible therefore not a threat......
@kellyjay saidThere you go again with that unholy false dichotomy that I suppose is required for arguments sake.
Never said that, you forget people like Newton and other people of science who believed in God. You should treat everything with skepticism, a holy doctrine in science has no place no matter where it comes from! You refuse to question evolution you have a holy doctrine!
Darwin believed in God. The Pope believes in God.
Episcopal, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, Catholicism, Judaism. All have affirmed their religions to be compatible with evolutionary theory.
The scriptures don't say how God created life. You've decided how God created life, and that guess contradicts many other God-fearing religions of the world. Why do you have a problem with the work of the natural sciences in investigating phenomena in the natural world and explaining how they work and how they originated? Religions are not against this, it seems to be your own personal philosophy.
@wildgrass saidThe point isn't that some faiths accept or reject evolution, who cares who believes in it or not? If it cannot be questioned, does it matter? If evolution gets sets up that it cannot be questioned without someone's wrath coming down, it has moved from science seeking the best possible explanations, to a doctrine of the faithful who will not tolerate decent.
There you go again with that unholy false dichotomy that I suppose is required for arguments sake.
Darwin believed in God. The Pope believes in God.
Episcopal, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, Catholicism, Judaism. All have affirmed their religions to be compatible with evolutionary theory.
The scriptures don't say how God created life. You've decided how God cre ...[text shortened]... nd how they originated? Religions are not against this, it seems to be your own personal philosophy.
Here if someone questions, or even casts doubt on evolution, its propaganda, if anyone has a different point of view, opposition research, their credibility must be called into question! Your a part of this, if you think about it.
@kellyjay saidThe Bible doesn't say either way. Just like Flat earthers and "Alien pyramid power plant scheme between Giza and Teotihuacan" anything can be conceivably questioned with varying degrees of evidence. Evolutionary biology is still a very active area of cutting-edge research, along with chemistry, astronomy, gravity, lots of questions exist. But it sounds like you're questioning the whole concept, like an "is my hand even real?" kind of question?
The point isn't that some faiths accept or reject evolution, who cares who believes in it or not? If it cannot be questioned, does it matter? If evolution gets sets up that it cannot be questioned without someone's wrath coming down, it has moved from science seeking the best possible explanations, to a doctrine of the faithful who will not tolerate decent.
Here if someon ...[text shortened]... esearch, their credibility must be called into question! Your a part of this, if you think about it.
@wildgrass saidI didn't come to this forum to discuss scripture but the lecture on chemistry and that has been resisted, because some (you included) called it propaganda, and refused to give it a full hearing. Even now those that refuse to discuss it, spend more time with me talking about scripture, and now you bring up flat earthers, alien pyramid power, and on and on. None of which touches the possibility that you were willing to even entertain questions about evolution, you just accept it, and that is that, like people of faith in scripture you have a doctrine, unlike people of faith in scripture you are not willing to entertain reasons it could be shown wrong. It is as if your eyes automatically get diverted away without being able to see this, and you want it that way.
The Bible doesn't say either way. Just like Flat earthers and "Alien pyramid power plant scheme between Giza and Teotihuacan" anything can be conceivably questioned with varying degrees of evidence. Evolutionary biology is still a very active area of cutting-edge research, along with chemistry, astronomy, gravity, lots of questions exist. But it sounds like you're questioning the whole concept, like an "is my hand even real?" kind of question?
@kellyjay saidIt's not been resisted. Sonhouse met this head on and outlined a series of critiques regarding the science he presented. From the very beginning of this lecture, it was obviously framed as propaganda. If he can prove that science hasn't quite figured out how the chemistry works that would support abiogenesis, then it must be time to consider design. There are no other options are there? Pond scum or Child of God. You decide.
I didn't come to this forum to discuss scripture but the lecture on chemistry and that has been resisted, because some (you included) called it propaganda, and refused to give it a full hearing. Even now those that refuse to discuss it, spend more time with me talking about scripture, and now you bring up flat earthers, alien pyramid power, and on and on. None of which touch ...[text shortened]... your eyes automatically get diverted away without being able to see this, and you want it that way.
I'm willing to entertain questions about evolution or any other science. But denying the concept evolution itself is as silly as questioning the origin of the Pyramids. Of course they could have been built by aliens, but the evidence supports its construction by humans.
@wildgrass saidYou prove my point
It's not been resisted. Sonhouse met this head on and outlined a series of critiques regarding the science he presented. From the very beginning of this lecture, it was obviously framed as propaganda. If he can prove that science hasn't quite figured out how the chemistry works that would support abiogenesis, then it must be time to consider design. There are no other optio ...[text shortened]... f course they could have been built by aliens, but the evidence supports its construction by humans.