The different nature in the past allows literal Genesis

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
dad
Scholar
Posts: 341
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2016 8:53 pm

The different nature in the past allows literal Genesis

Post #1

Post by dad »

Science today is based on the nature and laws of today. If the nature was not the same, then things like people living 1000 years could be natural in the former nature. The question is does science know it was this same nature that existed or not? The anser is no. It only assumed it was.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20499
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 335 times
Contact:

Post #661

Post by otseng »

dad wrote:And thank you for showing that you do not comprehend that science makes claims and models based on beliefs and that you are unable to defend or discuss them. They DO have to support their claims and basis for models. Until they do, we can lean toward the historic default position on creation if we like.

Not sure like you talk like you are some little judge, when you have not even contributed anything but self righteous smug ignorant babble?
:warning: Moderator Final Warning

Please do not make uncivil comments towards others.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator final warnings serve as the last strike towards users. Additional violations will result in a probation vote. Further infractions will lead to banishment. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

dad
Scholar
Posts: 341
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2016 8:53 pm

Post #662

Post by dad »

Neatras wrote:
Worthless assertion. You've once again asserted without providing evidence. And once again, you'll act as if this is the rational position to take. Substantiate your argument.
Your opinion of what is of worth is not relevant. Anyone asking that Scripture and historical records need to be 'substantiated' should say how they would like this done? What needs to be substantiated here is claims that are supposed to be science when they really are just beliefs. Since they are unsubstantiated, by your standards you would call them worthless.
"Science is fake, therefore my religion is right," is an argument chock full of holes. So find a better argument.
Trying to attach beliefs to actual science and have them considered also science is an argument chock full of holes. So find a better argument.

Note to self: it is ok to call posts worthless and beliefs science, and insult the bible on forum. It is not OK to tell the truth.

JJ50
Banned
Banned
Posts: 512
Joined: Thu May 29, 2014 6:22 am

Post #663

Post by JJ50 »

The theory of evolution is much more credible than the mythical creation tale in the Bible. Science may one day explain exactly how the universe came into being, and when/if it does I am willing to bet it will have absolutely nothing to do with any god.

dad
Scholar
Posts: 341
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2016 8:53 pm

Post #664

Post by dad »

JJ50 wrote: The theory of evolution is much more credible than the mythical creation tale in the Bible.
Says who??
Science may one day explain exactly how the universe came into being
Meanwhile, they can't.
, and when/if it does I am willing to bet it will have absolutely nothing to do with any god.
Prophesy based on nothing.

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9340
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 882 times
Been thanked: 1240 times

Re: The different nature in the past allows literal Genesis

Post #665

Post by Clownboat »

dad wrote:
Clownboat wrote:
dad, I don't see any evidence for this rapid form of evolution that you claim happened..
I don't see any evidence for this slow form of evolution that you claim happened.
I am not claiming here that some form of slow evolution happened.
Therefore, please evidence this rapid form of evolution that you are claiming happened.
I question your evidence for this rapid form of evolution.
I question your evidence for this present nature slow form of evolution you claim also existed in the past.

I am not claiming here to know that some present nature slow form of evolution happened.
Therefore, please evidence this rapid form of evolution that you are claiming happened.
If it happened, please provide whatever evidence you have seen that has convinced you that a same nature existed in the far past.
I'm not claiming here that this nature was the same in the past.
Therefore, please evidence this change in nature that you are claiming happened.
As for me I claim that science doesn't know.

I'm with you so far. Now, all you need to do is show some evidence for this different nature and this seemingly crazy fast form of evolution that you are claiming happened.
Feel free to show us otherwise.
I have nothing to show you. I'm not making claims. I'm questioning your claims and asking for whatever evidence you have to show them as being reasonable.
What do you have?
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
marco
Savant
Posts: 12314
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2015 3:15 pm
Location: Scotland
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: The different nature in the past allows literal Genesis

Post #666

Post by marco »

dad wrote: Science today is based on the nature and laws of today. If the nature was not the same, then things like people living 1000 years could be natural in the former nature. The question is does science know it was this same nature that existed or not? The anser is no. It only assumed it was.
It is reasonable to suppose that scientific laws, which were not invented by man, were in operation in what was the relatively near past. On the face of it one would think that someone living for 1000 years is a silly claim; but if scientific laws allowed this, then presumably humankind would have been blessed in the same way, not just a few prophets. The huge problem would be in suggesting at what point in human history scientific laws changed, and why.

I think the ridiculous longevity of some old nomadic soothsayers is a myth meant to compliment them.

Post Reply