Is changing a physical law like changing a speed limit sign?

[Neatras]

Changing some laws on earth is more like changing a speed limit sign.

Is the above true? If so, how does one demonstrate this to be the case?

If not, what are some physical consequences of changing a physical law outside of what one might expect?

My debate position is this: It is extremely uneducated and willfully ignorant to believe that changing a physical law only affects a limited domain of physical phenomena. For example, changing the speed of light to be faster doesn't just affect how quickly light reaches us; it also affects how quickly particles interact, the energy required for all physical interactions, and other sundry details that would, in essence, be very telling if they suddenly altered in an instant.

However, I am aware that both dad and Kent Hovind maintain that God is some sort of master engineer, complete with a box and dials that he can play with, turning some physical laws on and off while the rest remains unaffected. This is a position maintained by and expressed via ignorance and incredulity, with no physical basis or rationale behind it besides "God is awesome enough to get away with it."

So, any creationists wanna try and put it across that changing a physical law is like changing a speed limit sign?

[dad]

I don't see how you can make a claim of circular reasoning from this process. It is simply taking a collection of observations, then trying to explain them in a way that is consistent with existing known laws of physics. .

Your problem is that it is not just physics when it comes to the far universe that underlies the explanations, it is several things, such as assuming time exists, assuming that the distances derived from that assumption are right, assuming space and spacetime are the same, assuming there is nothing else but the physical only out there...etc. In other words...religion falsely called science.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 71 by dad]

Your problem is that it is not just physics when it comes to the far universe that underlies the explanations, it is several things, such as assuming time exists, assuming that the distances derived from that assumption are right, assuming space and spacetime are the same, assuming there is nothing else but the physical only out there...etc. In other words...religion falsely called science.

Time does exist in the far universe, the speed of light is the same there as it is here in our "fishbowl", and there is zero evidence (so far) of the existence of any supernatural beings. I don't have any problems with these things, and neither does the huge majority of the scientific community and educated people all over the world.

It is you who postulated that things were different in the past, or far away, and after 50 pages of rambling you've yet to offer up a single supporting piece of evidence for your wild idea. Nothing but the same old useless comments claiming science doesn't know, science is a crock, etc. etc.

I don't think anyone is listening to you anymore as you're now just recycling the same stale opinions without a shred of evidence either to support those opinions (and that's all they are until you can support them in some way), or to discredit the past 500 years of scientific observation and analysis which proves that you are dead wrong.

[dad]

Time does exist in the far universe, the speed of light is the same there as it is here in our "fishbowl", and there is zero evidence (so far) of the existence of any supernatural beings.

Can you support this claim? I thought man only saw whatever was here in the area of the solar system and earth? Does not the photons and light and etc enter this area before being seen? Does science not think that (because of the time involved in light moving here) that great time must be involved for the light to have gotten here? How would you know the speed of light anywhere else?

It is you who postulated that things were different in the past, or far away,

I have postulated that they do not know. That has become obvious here. The record of creation and the past in Scripture does suggest a difference. One cannot postulate either position from science. Science merely accepts a belief and models accordingly.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 20 by Kenisaw]

Firstly, without trying to lump you in with all non-theists, you appear to pose the same conundrum or paradox. You seem to have rejected the possibility (not probability) of the meta-physical, thereby asking for an explanation of a meta-physical event using purely physical means. Thus you discard any response that suggests the possibility of a meta-physical solution. If such events could be explained by physical/natural means, that would be no 'proof', to you, of the meta-physical/supernatural.

First, thanks for not lumping me in with anyone else. Each of us (believer and non) have our own take on things to be sure.

I do not reject the possibility of the supernatural. I cannot say, with 100% certainty, that such a thing does not exist. There could be such a thing as a god that exists somewhere, somehow. Since I strive to be logical and rational, I hope to be open to all evidences and data that are presented to me.

But that, Smalls, is exactly why explanations involving the supernatural have no reason to be considered. There is never, ever any evidence provided to support claims or explanations that involve the meta-physical. I've asked many for proof of such claims, and I've received exactly zilch. So although I don't say that such a thing is impossible, I have no reason to consider the supernatural as even a remotely plausible explanation for something. This is especially true when the natural facts appear to fully explain the phenomena in question.

Now I realize that you have pointed out that anything "supernatural" is, by definition, beyond the scope of science. But is your god, or any god, truly supernatural? I've yet to see any religion in the pantheon of human imagination that didn't have their god(s) interacting with the universe like crazy. The Abrahamic god has taken human form, made pillars of fire, interfered with all sorts of natural events to save people (miracles), and so forth. Tales of a god impregnating a human also abound in the tales.

Why does that matter? Because the universe balances. We have conservation laws verified countless times that show that you can't create or destroy energy. We know all the positive energy in the universe (light, thermal, kinetic, etc) offsets the negative energy (gravity). The net spin of the universe is zero. The net charge of the universe is zero. The universe is literally nothing broken up into little pieces. Like 1+1+1-1-1-1=0, but on a far grander scale. So if gods are always interacting with the universe, they either a) belong to the universe, or b) have some kind of magic that allows them to ignore the balance of everything. For b) to be true you need speculative gods to exist and for some kind of speculative magic to exist so that the speculative gods can do their thing without violating known symmetry. It takes speculation about the speculation to explain how it could possibly work, and for me that is an utterly ridiculous proposition. That leaves a) as the only realistic possibility, which means they can be proven and discovered. Of course, there is no proof for such beings, so it doesn't even appear to be realistic at this point in time.

There are too may facts in existence which support naturalism, and none which support anything else. That's not a logical paradox at all, that's just the rational conclusion to reach, given the data that exists...

Prove such a light existed. We know the Sun and stars exist, and they create photons as part of the fusion process. But the Bible claims these things came after plants. Plants couldn't have come before stars because the Earth couldn't have come before stars. The Earth has elements that are created by stars - oxygen, carbon, iron, nitrogen, etc. You can't have carbon based life forms without the carbon that stars create.

The Sun/stars are not the only source of light or photons. I'm currently (no pun intended) writing this under the lighting of an incandescent lamp. Nor is natural sunlight necessary for plant growth. For example, an acquaintance of mine, was recently accused of producing a rather large crop of 'healthy' plants under artificial lighting in a hydroponic set-up. He apparently didn't want it exposed to natural sunlight, for some reason (:-k).

I guess I should point out that the artificial light used in those examples is probably powered by fossil fuels, which are a result of buried biomass that used - the Sun - to grow in the first place. You are really using stored solar energy. But I completely agree that stars are not the only source of light or photons. You could use geothermal energy to power your light bulb, which is a result in part of gravity consolidating the planet together billions of years ago (along with radioactive decay, which is a result of stars). No stars required for that energy. In fact the energy stars produce are a result of immense gravity inside them. So really the source of all energy can probably be chalked up to the interaction of mass with gravity. (That's a realization I never thought of until literally right now as I am writing this. Cool).

However, we are talking specifically about enough light at a strong enough intensity to power plant life on Earth. Stars are the only known structure capable of that. And since there is no evidence of any other light, what is stated in the Bible is conjecture.

As light from natural sources, such as the Sun, is the norm nowadays, this does not exclude the possibility of a meta-physical source at a previous time.

Well, based on the conservation laws of the universe, it pretty much does exclude a supernatural source for such light. Is it possible there is a natural source for such light? Well, there is no evidence for such a thing at this time, so there is no reason to think it is plausible. Hence the doubt about one religion's claim about the order of appearance of stuff on Earth.

Can I 'prove it'? No. One cannot prove an historical event without 'eye-witnesses' or recording equipment, neither of which existed at the time we are examining.

I would definitely disagree with this. How do you think people are convicted of crimes without eyewitness testimony? Forensic evidence, which is data left at a place at the same time something happened. We can most definitely figure out what happened in the past without people or recording equipment being present. We do it all the time in a court of law.

Do I believe it is possible? Yes because I accept and believe there to be a meta-physical realm, one outside of our physical 4D space-time universe. Can I prove it? No, not from within this physical universe but there are certain things within it that defy all known physical explanations, thereby leaving only the meta-physical possibilities.

Please name these "things within it that defy all known physical explanations" if you don't mind.

Can the Earth exist before stars? Not according to current naturalistic hypotheses. Yet, the formation of neither a star nor a planet has yet to be observed. It is speculation from a purely naturalistic paradigm. Yes, there are theories such as the accretion model, etc, but each has their own unsolved problems and limitations. As for the production of various elements, you are correct. That is how they occur naturally under current processes but that does not preclude any previous or future method. I often go to the local supermarket and buy an apple turnover (shh . . . don't tell my wife) which is produced in large commercial bakeries. But this does not preclude the possibility of the apple turnovers my grandmother use to make, many years ago, in her kitchen wood fire oven.

I believe the formation thing has already been addressed by others in here.

I hope you aren't parroting the same nonsense daddy-o has been trying to hoist on everyone lately, claiming a different "nature" in the past. There are many reasons why this cannot possibly be true, and those reasons have been presented to him repeatedly by many. Perhaps you haven't seen all that. If so, it might benefit the conversation if you were to review those posts and understand why something like the non-linear decay of radioactive isotopes makes it mathematically impossible for the laws of the universe to have changed over time.

6 And God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.� 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so.

Synonyms for firmament: vault, lid, canopy.

A couple of points need to be clarified here. Firstly, the original Hebrew word translated to 'firmament' is - רָקִיעַ. (râqı̂ya‛ - raw-kee'-ah) from רָקַע (râqa‛ - raw-kah'); properly an expanse, that is, the firmament or (apparently) visible arch of the sky: - an open space. It is that which we call the sky or atmosphere.
Secondly, the water was above and below this expanse, therefore the water, according to your interpretation is above and below the canopy, as opposed to being the canopy, itself.

Either way, there isn't a bunch of water above the sky, Smalls. That is physically impossible, which makes the Biblical claim simply nonsense. Even the goat herders back in ancient times knew that something (an arch) would have to hold up the "water from the water", hence a firmament, no matter how you want to define it.

As you look out your window, you see a denser material (liquid water) closer to the gravitational center of the Earth than a less dense material (the atmosphere). They aren't separated either, they are in contact with each other, just like the more dense rock is below the less dense water. Or are you going to tell us those rocks at the bottom of the ocean aren't wet?

The clouds are not touching the sea, there is an atmosphere or air space separating the two. Yes, the atmosphere contains water molecules but they do not necessarily, due to meteorological reasons, form the clouds.

I guess we won't get into fog then, will we.

During your studies, I hope someone explained to you that the Oort Cloud is almost entirely empty space. You could travel around in that area for light years and never see a single thing. I find it a poor rationalization to claim the Oort cloud is the water above the firmament...

Yes, I am aware that the Oort Cloud is "almost entirely empty space" but, then again, so is an atom (a hydrogen atom is about 99.9999999999996% empty space). I mentioned the Oort Cloud only to remind you that water encircles, sparsely though it may be, the entire Solar System.

Water molecules in the occasional dirty snowball at a density much closer to absolute vacuum than even the thinnest atmosphere found at the top of Mt Everest is hardly in the spirit of the Genesis passage, wouldn't you agree? I think you are stretching the very limit of intellectual honesty to try to equate the division in the midst of the waters to separate the waters from the waters with the Oort cloud.

According to which facts? All of them, Smalls. And I do mean all. Literally every single piece of empirical data and evidence ever gathered by geology, paleontology, morphology, biology, genetics, and so on shows the Earth to be billions of years old and that flight didn't develop until after land creatures first crawled out of the sea.

Ok, when you say "Literally every single piece of empirical data" (emphasis added), what do you mean by the term, which you often use, 'empirical'? According to most dictionaries, 'empirical data' means "data derived from or relating to experiment and observation rather than theory". What experiments have been performed to show that flying creatures came after land creatures? Who observed the original transitions? Now, while there are numerous fossils of life forms with various characteristics, the interpretation of this data is usually in accordance with a particular theory, not independent of the theory. Each fossil is just a snapshot at a single time at a single location or niche. It is not a frame from a film, being a sequence of snapshots. Palaeontologists, placing them in a sequence, do so according to their theory, again, not independent to that theory. This is what is known as confirmation bias.

Allow me to answer this all at once. I apologize as it might get lengthy.

Your definition of empirical works just fine for me. The empirical evidence for flying creatures coming after land animals is both geological and genetic. Please note right off the bat that these are two independent fields of research by the way.

On the geological side, humans have collected over two billion (that's with a B) fossils since the time of Darwin in a professional sense. You add in every kid that has ever had an amateur collection and it's probably in the trillions. I can go to the limestone sticking out of the hill by interstate 270 here in St Louis and see thousands of them in just one rock (shells, fins, scales, etc). As far as species go that is hard to determine, but I know Homo Sapiens here at this website has corrected me in the past and noted that there are millions identified through fossils.

Finding the fossils is just one part of the work however. You also have to know how old they are. Just because one layer of rock is atop another layer doesn't prove they are in sequence. There are places on Earth where older layers of rock have been pushed up and over younger layers of rock for example. A system that can determine how old things are is needed.

That is where radiometric dating comes in. Radioactive isotopes number in the thousands, but there are about 40 found in nature that are usable for dating. Radioactive decay is a non-linear process, which means that it loses about half it's radioactivity in a given time period, and then half of the remaining energy in the next given time period (or a 1/4th of the overall amount), and then half of that in the next time period (or an 1/8th of the overall amount), and so on. That is what "half-life" means. As it decays the non-radioactive part turns into something else, for example uranium-234 turns into lead (or you can think of uranium as radioactive lead).

When a sample of rock is found with fossil remains in it, it is dated by measuring the ratio of parent material (like the uranium 234) to the daughter material (the lead). This ratio shows how much of the radioactive energy of the uranium has been emitted, and therefore how long it has been encased in the rock sample. Multiples samples will be tested to ensure the readings are good. The sample is also checked to make sure there isn't other daughter material elsewhere in the rock, which means the sample could be contaminated with extra lead and therefore the reading cannot be considered accurate. What's even better is when you have two different radioactive isotopes in the same rock layer, because then their ages can be compared (to reduce the chance of error), assuming again no contamination concerns.

Such dating of fossil beds has been done countless times, and the date of almost all of the rock layers on Earth is now known.

Based on that, the order of appearance of living things can be shown. As flying creatures have always appeared much later than their land counterparts, it can be stated that flying creatures did not appear before land animals. Insects hit land around 480 million years ago, but did not take flight until 400 million years ago. Dinos appeared 230 million years ago (from previous land animals) and pterosaurs 220 million years ago, with protobirds about 150 million years ago.

Of course as you mentioned we only have snapshots in time, not a film reel, so how do we know that these animals were even related? That's where biology and morphology comes in. These fields look at the similarity of the bones, including how many there are, how the joints connect, how the ligaments and muscles attached to them, and so forth (and yes, you can still see tendon and ligament connections on fossilized bones hundreds of millions of years old). It's based on things like that, for example, that let us know that a rhino is actually closely related to horses, because they are all odd-toed ungulates with the same ankle and leg systems. Tapirs also fall in that group, even though they have a snout that reminds people of elephants. So when bird bones from 10 million years ago and raptor dinosaur ones from 170 million years ago have the same number of arm bones, in the same pattern, with the same tendon connection points, and their hip bones have the same structure, it's clear to see that one came from the other.

On top of all that, about 50 years ago a brand new scientific field of research - genetics - begins looking at the genomes of all living things. The closer animals are related to each other (like horses and zebra), the more DNA they have in common with each other. Rhino DNA was found to be just a little more different than the horse and zebra, and tapir DNA just a little more different than rhino, horse, and zebra. But they all had more DNA in common than the DNA of other animals, say elephants for instance.

It turned out that the tree of life based on the fossil record was amazingly accurate at showing how all living things were related, and a complete unrelated scientific field (genetics) confirmed it.

We have two independent lines of research showing the exact same thing, using trillions of facts and data points verified and validated countless of times through hundreds of millions of man hours of research and experimentation.

So when I say all the evidence points to one little book claiming that flying creatures came before land animals being completely wrong, I have pretty good reason for that.

Karl Benz made the first auto in 1885. So I guess we need to credit a different god for Earth in your example?

Again, what facts? All of them Smalls. The process that produces iron (and all the other elements outside hydrogen) is fission or supernovae. If that's the process your god made, then the Earth couldn't have existed before the stars. Not sure how a supposed omni-everything deity couldn't get that right in it's dictated book (or inspired book, depending on which believer you ask).

Again, this is your apparent preconceived opinion that 'things' can only happen naturally. While we understand that these heavier elements do form by this method naturally, it does not preclude the possibility of a 'once of' supernatural occurrence. Have you (unbiasedly) considered that this "omni-everything deity" did so and stated as much in His book? You, due to your preconceived bias against the meta-physical, may just refuse to believe Him.

I accept what I can prove. I do not believe claims that are unsupported. Could there be a supernatural? Sure. But I don't see anything that science has done so far that needs a supernatural question mark to complete the explanation. Do you?

Have you unbiasedly considered the possibility that Egyptian, or Hindu, or Norse mythology is more accurate than your Abrahamic one? Those are supernatural claims too you know, and they have precisely the same amount of data supporting them (none) that supports your meta-physical statements...

I meant to type the moon does not emit light. The Bible calls the moon a lesser light, and the Sun a greater light. The moon doesn't emit squat

Again, I am confused by your terminology. (Then, again, it may be you who is confused). By your argument, you appear to use the term 'emit' to mean 'produce' or 'be the primary source'. If that is so, you are correct, the moon does not produce light as the 'primary source'. The problem is that the passage in Genesis 1 does not state that the moon is a 'primary source'. Again, looking at the original Hebrew, the word used is - '�וֹר ('ôr - ore) - A primitive root; to be (causatively make) luminous (literally and metaphorically)'. The word 'luminous', according to most dictionaries means 'radiating or reflecting light; shining; glowing'. I believe 'reflecting light' to be a reasonable description of the light from the moon. Therefore, the Genesis passage is correct.

Which is also used for Sun in the original Hebrew, no? So is the Sun reflecting light too? http://biblehub.com/text/genesis/1-16.htm

Your killing me, Smalls. I've asserted nothing without evidence. The fact that heavier elements are created by stars, the fact that land animals are older than winged creatures, the fact that the moon does not emit light, the fact that plants could not exist before the Sun and stars, is all empirical data. The fossil record is empirical data. Genetics is empirical data. Trying to use Hitchen's razor is merely cutting your own throat...

As for your claim "I've asserted nothing without evidence" and Hitchen's Razor, you have certainly made claims to there being vast amounts of evidence supported by facts or what you call facts, (again, I think you need to check the meaning of the term 'fact'.) But actual 'facts' by you have been in very short supply. You have provide generalisations regarding points in various theories as 'facts', supposedly supported by 'empirical data', that I have shown to be false. These are the product of confirmation bias and not 'facts'.

Facts are empirical evidence, Smalls. Fossils are facts. Genes are facts. These facts support the theory of evolution, which explains the facts in existence. That's how the process works. There are literally trillions of facts that support the scientific theory of evolution. I have yet to see any empirical data that you have shown to be false, although I realize you are holding multiple conversations at the same time as I am. If you would care to show me what exactly you have shown to be false, I'd be happy to consider it.

So, until you can provide real evidence to support your argument, (by Hitchens Razor) you are wrong. Not generalisations, not assumptions nor speculation and not just extrapolation but real 'facts' are what I have been requesting from you in support of your opinion.

Have a good day!
Still small

I've given you some information in this post which should suffice. If you require additional details, please ask. If you need clarification about anything please let me know as well.

[Still small]

[Replying to post 74 by Kenisaw]

First, thanks for not lumping me in with anyone else. Each of us (believer and non) have our own take on things to be sure.

Not the problem, I, too, dislike being put in a box.

I do not reject the possibility of the supernatural. I cannot say, with 100% certainty, that such a thing does not exist. There could be such a thing as a god that exists somewhere, somehow. Since I strive to be logical and rational, I hope to be open to all evidences and data that are presented to me.

But that, Smalls, is exactly why explanations involving the supernatural have no reason to be considered. There is never, ever any evidence provided to support claims or explanations that involve the meta-physical. I've asked many for proof of such claims, and I've received exactly zilch. So although I don't say that such a thing is impossible, I have no reason to consider the supernatural as even a remotely plausible explanation for something. This is especially true when the natural facts appear to fully explain the phenomena in question.

First, let me clarify what I am referring to, when I speak of the 'meta-physical' and 'supernatural'. In both instances, I am merely referring to that which is beyond the physical and beyond the natural, being our 4 dimensional space-time universe. I wish to avoid the idea of conjuring up spirits and ghosts and magic by which some people get carried away. I speak purely about things beyond this physical, natural universe.

Now I realize that you have pointed out that anything "supernatural" is, by definition, beyond the scope of science. But is your god, or any god, truly supernatural? I've yet to see any religion in the pantheon of human imagination that didn't have their god(s) interacting with the universe like crazy. The Abrahamic god has taken human form, made pillars of fire, interfered with all sorts of natural events to save people (miracles), and so forth. Tales of a god impregnating a human also abound in the tales.

Not being restricted by the natural laws of universe, whose to say what is possible and what is not. As for interaction, being multidimensional, such an entity, may be able to, indeed, interact but only within the confines of the 4Ds which we experience. (If you have read or heard of the book Flatland by Edwin Abbott Abbott, you'll know what I mean.)

Why does that matter? Because the universe balances. We have conservation laws verified countless times that show that you can't create or destroy energy. We know all the positive energy in the universe (light, thermal, kinetic, etc) offsets the negative energy (gravity). The net spin of the universe is zero. The net charge of the universe is zero. The universe is literally nothing broken up into little pieces. Like 1+1+1-1-1-1=0, but on a far grander scale.

So what, in the beginning, broke the balanced 'zero' in to +1s and -1s? What caused the 'initial cause" or from where? Also, a closer look may need to be taken now that the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating, which appears on the positive side of the 'energy equation'.

So if gods are always interacting with the universe, they either a) belong to the universe, . . . .

But they need not be restricted to the universe. You, no doubt, have heard of the computer programmer analogy. A programmer designs a 'computer world' which he views via the screen. He can, at any time, adjust the programming to cause changes with the computer world. He can also, if he so chooses, create a character of himself within the program, to interact with the occupants but his character is then restricted to the limits of the program. He can be both inside and outside the 'computer world' at the same time. Our universe maybe similar but to a much grander scale with a 'programmer' who is able to interact with the occupants from both inside and outside the 4D universe we experience.

. . . . or b) have some kind of magic that allows them to ignore the balance of everything. For b) to be true you need speculative gods to exist and for some kind of speculative magic to exist so that the speculative gods can do their thing without violating known symmetry. It takes speculation about the speculation to explain how it could possibly work, and for me that is an utterly ridiculous proposition. That leaves a) as the only realistic possibility, which means they can be proven and discovered. Of course, there is no proof for such beings, so it doesn't even appear to be realistic at this point in time.

There we go with the 'magic'! Let's look at this a bit closer. Other than the initial 'God created the heavens and the earth', where does God not convert one form of matter or energy into another. Just as with the currently accepted theory of the Big Bang. Other than the initial 'bang', everything is, supposedly converted from one form of mass/energy to another. After the 'initial' inputs, its a matter of conversion to one degree or another. Though, in an isolated system, such as your restricted 4D universe, the 1LOT prohibits this 'initial' input.

There are too may facts in existence which support naturalism, and none which support anything else. That's not a logical paradox at all, that's just the rational conclusion to reach, given the data that exists...

But it is yet to explain, satisfactorily, the 'initial cause' and "it don't go nowhere without a beginning."

I guess I should point out that the artificial light used in those examples is probably powered by fossil fuels, which are a result of buried biomass that used - the Sun - to grow in the first place. You are really using stored solar energy. But I completely agree that stars are not the only source of light or photons. You could use geothermal energy to power your light bulb, which is a result in part of gravity consolidating the planet together billions of years ago (along with radioactive decay, which is a result of stars). No stars required for that energy. In fact the energy stars produce are a result of immense gravity inside them. So really the source of all energy can probably be chalked up to the interaction of mass with gravity. (That's a realization I never thought of until literally right now as I am writing this. Cool).

Cool.

However, we are talking specifically about enough light at a strong enough intensity to power plant life on Earth. Stars are the only known structure capable of that. And since there is no evidence of any other light, what is stated in the Bible is conjecture.

Well, as light consists of photons and, according to BB theory, they, supposedly, came into existence 380,000 years after the BB, even your naturalistic theories allow for the existence of light (photons) prior to the first stars, forming some 100 million years later.

Well, based on the conservation laws of the universe, it pretty much does exclude a supernatural source for such light. Is it possible there is a natural source for such light? Well, there is no evidence for such a thing at this time, so there is no reason to think it is plausible. Hence the doubt about one religion's claim about the order of appearance of stuff on Earth.

See my previous point.

I would definitely disagree with this. How do you think people are convicted of crimes without eyewitness testimony? Forensic evidence, which is data left at a place at the same time something happened. We can most definitely figure out what happened in the past without people or recording equipment being present. We do it all the time in a court of law.

Point taken.

Please name these "things within it that defy all known physical explanations" if you don't mind.

Let's start at the beginning. According to the commonly accept theory of the Big Bang, going backward in time, the universe started as a singularity, a dimensionless point of infinite density. This singularity is a point that scientist hate to consider as it is where the laws of physics as we know them cease to operate. As the eminent American physicist Kip Thorne describes it, it is "the point where all laws of physics break down". In other words, according to all known naturalistic laws, the singularity and thus the BB is impossible. Therefore, as the 4d universe does exist, it must be due to unnatural or supernatural laws.
Another is the warping of space time as described by General Relativity but, due to the length of our posts, we can discuss this later, if you wish.

I believe the formation thing has already been addressed by others in here.

Noted and addressed elsewhere.

I hope you aren't parroting the same nonsense daddy-o has been trying to hoist on everyone lately, claiming a different "nature" in the past. There are many reasons why this cannot possibly be true, and those reasons have been presented to him repeatedly by many. Perhaps you haven't seen all that. If so, it might benefit the conversation if you were to review those posts and understand why something like the non-linear decay of radioactive isotopes makes it mathematically impossible for the laws of the universe to have changed over time.

To be honest, I haven't been following "dad's" post closely to any degree. Maybe I'll check them out when I have time. Though, when you consider my previous point on the BB singularity, something different to our current natural laws must have been in play, even just to 'kick it all off'.

Either way, there isn't a bunch of water above the sky, Smalls. That is physically impossible, which makes the Biblical claim simply nonsense. Even the goat herders back in ancient times knew that something (an arch) would have to hold up the "water from the water", hence a firmament, no matter how you want to define it. (Emphasis added)

Well, I'm sure you would agree that there is some degree of separation between the ocean and the clouds. As to the idea of 'a bunch of water', I don't believe Genesis 1 actually gives an amount or ratio between the two 'waters' but it might be worth considering that a single average cumulus cloud that one sees on a nice sunny day contains approximately 500 tonnes of water. Now view an image of the Earth from space and note the amount of cloud covering the planet. Just something to consider.

The clouds are not touching the sea, there is an atmosphere or air space separating the two. Yes, the atmosphere contains water molecules but they do not necessarily, due to meteorological reasons, form the clouds.

I guess we won't get into fog then, will we.

I guess not.

Water molecules in the occasional dirty snowball at a density much closer to absolute vacuum than even the thinnest atmosphere found at the top of Mt Everest is hardly in the spirit of the Genesis passage, wouldn't you agree? I think you are stretching the very limit of intellectual honesty to try to equate the division in the midst of the waters to separate the waters from the waters with the Oort cloud.

"Just say'n", there is water above the surface of the Earth, separated by an expanse.

Allow me to answer this all at once. I apologize as it might get lengthy.

No problem, go for it.

Your definition of empirical works just fine for me. The empirical evidence for flying creatures coming after land animals is both geological and genetic. Please note right off the bat that these are two independent fields of research by the way.

On the geological side, humans have collected over two billion (that's with a B) fossils since the time of Darwin in a professional sense. You add in every kid that has ever had an amateur collection and it's probably in the trillions. I can go to the limestone sticking out of the hill by interstate 270 here in St Louis and see thousands of them in just one rock (shells, fins, scales, etc). As far as species go that is hard to determine, but I know Homo Sapiens here at this website has corrected me in the past and noted that there are millions identified through fossils.

A given, the existence of fossils is a fact.

Finding the fossils is just one part of the work however. You also have to know how old they are. Just because one layer of rock is atop another layer doesn't prove they are in sequence. There are places on Earth where older layers of rock have been pushed up and over younger layers of rock for example. A system that can determine how old things are is needed.

That is where radiometric dating comes in. Radioactive isotopes number in the thousands, but there are about 40 found in nature that are usable for dating. Radioactive decay is a non-linear process, which means that it loses about half it's radioactivity in a given time period, and then half of the remaining energy in the next given time period (or a 1/4th of the overall amount), and then half of that in the next time period (or an 1/8th of the overall amount), and so on. That is what "half-life" means. As it decays the non-radioactive part turns into something else, for example uranium-234 turns into lead (or you can think of uranium as radioactive lead).

Another given, radioactive decay is a fact.

When a sample of rock is found with fossil remains in it, it is dated by measuring the ratio of parent material (like the uranium 234) to the daughter material (the lead). This ratio shows how much of the radioactive energy of the uranium has been emitted, and therefore how long it has been encased in the rock sample. Multiples samples will be tested to ensure the readings are good. The sample is also checked to make sure there isn't other daughter material elsewhere in the rock, which means the sample could be contaminated with extra lead and therefore the reading cannot be considered accurate. What's even better is when you have two different radioactive isotopes in the same rock layer, because then their ages can be compared (to reduce the chance of error), assuming again no contamination concerns.

Such dating of fossil beds has been done countless times, and the date of almost all of the rock layers on Earth is now known.

There would be some disagreement about the accuracy of radio metric dating methods. For example -Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth - A Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative by the RATE team.

Based on that, the order of appearance of living things can be shown. As flying creatures have always appeared much later than their land counterparts, it can be stated that flying creatures did not appear before land animals. Insects hit land around 480 million years ago, but did not take flight until 400 million years ago. Dinos appeared 230 million years ago (from previous land animals) and pterosaurs 220 million years ago, with protobirds about 150 million years ago.

The order of appearance according to location of the fossils determining the age can be misleading. For example, if there were a situation where insects, dinos and 'protobirds' existed at the same time and location which was subjected to a catastrophic flood, involving massive sedimentation, which would be buried first? Obviously, the non-flying insects, then dinos which may escape for a short period and then the flying species as their higher perches eventually disappear. Same order, different time scale. One relies upon uniformitarianism, the other on catastrophism.

Of course as you mentioned we only have snapshots in time, not a film reel, so how do we know that these animals were even related? That's where biology and morphology comes in. These fields look at the similarity of the bones, including how many there are, how the joints connect, how the ligaments and muscles attached to them, and so forth (and yes, you can still see tendon and ligament connections on fossilized bones hundreds of millions of years old). It's based on things like that, for example, that let us know that a rhino is actually closely related to horses, because they are all odd-toed ungulates with the same ankle and leg systems. Tapirs also fall in that group, even though they have a snout that reminds people of elephants. So when bird bones from 10 million years ago and raptor dinosaur ones from 170 million years ago have the same number of arm bones, in the same pattern, with the same tendon connection points, and their hip bones have the same structure, it's clear to see that one came from the other.

This can be just as easily be explained by the 'common designer, common design' principle.

On top of all that, about 50 years ago a brand new scientific field of research - genetics - begins looking at the genomes of all living things. The closer animals are related to each other (like horses and zebra), the more DNA they have in common with each other. Rhino DNA was found to be just a little more different than the horse and zebra, and tapir DNA just a little more different than rhino, horse, and zebra. But they all had more DNA in common than the DNA of other animals, say elephants for instance.

Again, the 'common designer, common design' principle. The same genetics would be required for similar features, genetic variation only being for the variations.

It turned out that the tree of life based on the fossil record was amazingly accurate at showing how all living things were related, and a complete unrelated scientific field (genetics) confirmed it.

Whilst I'll agree that there is a certain amount of evolutionary connection between a number of life forms that can be linked in a 'tree of life' diagram, I believe the connections fall far short of a single 'tree of life' having started with a universal common ancestor. I believe, at this stage, there are a number of breaks in assumed lineages. In my view, currently, the evidence points to an 'orchard of life', consisting of a number of separate 'trees'.

We have two independent lines of research showing the exact same thing, using trillions of facts and data points verified and validated countless of times through hundreds of millions of man hours of research and experimentation.

So when I say all the evidence points to one little book claiming that flying creatures came before land animals being completely wrong, I have pretty good reason for that.

Are you claiming that there are 'trillions of facts and data points' verifying that land animals came before flying creatures. Whilst there may be numerous fossils and genetic data which are 'facts', the extrapolation of a relationship or interpretation of the data is still an opinion drawn from personal worldview.

I accept what I can prove. I do not believe claims that are unsupported. Could there be a supernatural? Sure. But I don't see anything that science has done so far that needs a supernatural question mark to complete the explanation. Do you?

Yes, there are a number of theories which, when pressed on some finer points, responds with a reply of "we just don't know, YET." For example, as mentioned earlier, the cause of the Big Bang.

Have you unbiasedly considered the possibility that Egyptian, or Hindu, or Norse mythology is more accurate than your Abrahamic one? Those are supernatural claims too you know, and they have precisely the same amount of data supporting them (none) that supports your meta-physical statements...

Actually, I have. In my younger days, I was an atheist until a point where I became challenged by a few assumed 'facts' that were, in reality, just opinions. (Admittedly, they were more in the field of cosmology rather than evolutionary biology but they had a 'flow on' effect, challenging me in many areas.) This lead me to search for answers, study various fields of 'natural' science and a number of various religions, past and present. It eventual lead me to my current position. I'm the first to admit, I don't have all the answers, yet, but I feel confident that I will, one day.

Which is also used for Sun in the original Hebrew, no? So is the Sun reflecting light too? http://biblehub.com/text/genesis/1-16.htm

Actually, the (same) word is used to describe the 'greater light' and the 'lesser light'. If you remember, the original Hebrew word meant "to be (causatively make) luminous (literally and metaphorically)." The word 'luminous', according to most dictionaries means 'radiating or reflecting light; shining; glowing'. As we were discussing the application of luminous in reference to the moon, 'the lesser light', I suggested that 'reflecting light' was an apt description. In relation to the Sun, 'the greater light', luminous meaning 'radiating . . . light' would apply. (The actual Hebrew words for the Sun and the moon are two different words, entirely.)

Facts are empirical evidence, Smalls. Fossils are facts. Genes are facts. These facts support the theory of evolution, which explains the facts in existence. That's how the process works. There are literally trillions of facts that support the scientific theory of evolution. I have yet to see any empirical data that you have shown to be false, although I realize you are holding multiple conversations at the same time as I am. If you would care to show me what exactly you have shown to be false, I'd be happy to consider it.

Yes, '[f]acts are empirical evidence, . . . Fossils are facts. Genes are facts' but as I stated before, the interpretation of this data is opinion based upon one's personal world view. I can introduce you to a couple of PhDs who would (and do) interpret the same fossil 'facts' and gene 'facts' as evidence of a Common Designer using a common design for the same or similar features.

I've given you some information in this post which should suffice. If you require additional details, please ask. If you need clarification about anything please let me know as well.

And the same applies to the information I have supplied. Though, I might suggest we stick to specific points, as these posts are getting seriously long. (Actually, I don't mind the length, I'm just thinking of others. )

Have a good day!
Still small

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 74 by Kenisaw]

I do not reject the possibility of the supernatural. I cannot say, with 100% certainty, that such a thing does not exist. There could be such a thing as a god that exists somewhere, somehow. Since I strive to be logical and rational, I hope to be open to all evidences and data that are presented to me.

But that, Smalls, is exactly why explanations involving the supernatural have no reason to be considered. There is never, ever any evidence provided to support claims or explanations that involve the meta-physical. I've asked many for proof of such claims, and I've received exactly zilch. So although I don't say that such a thing is impossible, I have no reason to consider the supernatural as even a remotely plausible explanation for something. This is especially true when the natural facts appear to fully explain the phenomena in question.

First, let me clarify what I am referring to, when I speak of the 'meta-physical' and 'supernatural'. In both instances, I am merely referring to that which is beyond the physical and beyond the natural, being our 4 dimensional space-time universe. I wish to avoid the idea of conjuring up spirits and ghosts and magic by which some people get carried away. I speak purely about things beyond this physical, natural universe.

Understood.

Now I realize that you have pointed out that anything "supernatural" is, by definition, beyond the scope of science. But is your god, or any god, truly supernatural? I've yet to see any religion in the pantheon of human imagination that didn't have their god(s) interacting with the universe like crazy. The Abrahamic god has taken human form, made pillars of fire, interfered with all sorts of natural events to save people (miracles), and so forth. Tales of a god impregnating a human also abound in the tales.

Not being restricted by the natural laws of universe, whose to say what is possible and what is not. As for interaction, being multidimensional, such an entity, may be able to, indeed, interact but only within the confines of the 4Ds which we experience. (If you have read or heard of the book Flatland by Edwin Abbott Abbott, you'll know what I mean.)

No one can really say what is possible and what is not when you bring (if I can use this term) magic into it. But that's the problem with magic, it's a catch all cure all for possible problems, and pure speculation that has yet to be substantiated.

Why does that matter? Because the universe balances. We have conservation laws verified countless times that show that you can't create or destroy energy. We know all the positive energy in the universe (light, thermal, kinetic, etc) offsets the negative energy (gravity). The net spin of the universe is zero. The net charge of the universe is zero. The universe is literally nothing broken up into little pieces. Like 1+1+1-1-1-1=0, but on a far grander scale.

So what, in the beginning, broke the balanced 'zero' in to +1s and -1s? What caused the 'initial cause" or from where? Also, a closer look may need to be taken now that the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating, which appears on the positive side of the 'energy equation'.

What broke the balance? No idea. Why does there need to be a something that broke the balance? We think cause and effect because we live in spacetime. Before spacetime there is no need for cause and effect. Empty space is unstable (and for that matter, not truly empty) and space does all sorts of things on its own. It's noteworthy to point out that we are STILL balanced. We are just nothing broken up into pieces, but still balanced. The universe has never been NOT BALANCED in other words. I've attached an interesting article about a hypothesis on the something from nothing ability that the universe seems to have.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/mario-li ... 23732.html

So if gods are always interacting with the universe, they either a) belong to the universe, . . . .

But they need not be restricted to the universe. You, no doubt, have heard of the computer programmer analogy. A programmer designs a 'computer world' which he views via the screen. He can, at any time, adjust the programming to cause changes with the computer world. He can also, if he so chooses, create a character of himself within the program, to interact with the occupants but his character is then restricted to the limits of the program. He can be both inside and outside the 'computer world' at the same time. Our universe maybe similar but to a much grander scale with a 'programmer' who is able to interact with the occupants from both inside and outside the 4D universe we experience.

It's a good analogy at a basic level, but ultimately cannot explain how a universe with entropy in it could suddenly reverse that by the creation of a new character, or a pillar of fire, or a lightning bolt, or whatever the action is. If every action has an equal and opposite reaction, and energy is conserved, there's no way to interact with the universe without affecting the laws of the universe that have no known violation, nor any way to not affect literally everything in the universe by suddenly changing something in the universe. It requires (if I may use this term again) magic, a wholly conjecturous concoction...

. . . . or b) have some kind of magic that allows them to ignore the balance of everything. For b) to be true you need speculative gods to exist and for some kind of speculative magic to exist so that the speculative gods can do their thing without violating known symmetry. It takes speculation about the speculation to explain how it could possibly work, and for me that is an utterly ridiculous proposition. That leaves a) as the only realistic possibility, which means they can be proven and discovered. Of course, there is no proof for such beings, so it doesn't even appear to be realistic at this point in time.

There we go with the 'magic'! Let's look at this a bit closer. Other than the initial 'God created the heavens and the earth', where does God not convert one form of matter or energy into another. Just as with the currently accepted theory of the Big Bang. Other than the initial 'bang', everything is, supposedly converted from one form of mass/energy to another. After the 'initial' inputs, its a matter of conversion to one degree or another. Though, in an isolated system, such as your restricted 4D universe, the 1LOT prohibits this 'initial' input.

But you can't convert random pieces of atoms and molecules into a fertilized egg inside Mary without affecting all the energy and mass that those pieces were interacting with. Which means all of the mass and energy affected by those pieces was affecting other energies and masses. It's a cascading effect that affects literally everything. Nature as the saying goes abhors a vacuum, and every magic act that happens in this universe creates a vacuum. Or it violates conversation laws, which has never happened that we know of. You turn water into wine, you have to get the alcohol molecules from somewhere, which means you've taken them from somewhere else. It's a very real problem to the insertion of magic into a balanced universe.

There are too may facts in existence which support naturalism, and none which support anything else. That's not a logical paradox at all, that's just the rational conclusion to reach, given the data that exists...

But it is yet to explain, satisfactorily, the 'initial cause' and "it don't go nowhere without a beginning."

Completely agree. It is most definitely an open question, and no one can ever say if humans will ever be able to answer those questions in the context of naturalism.

However, we are talking specifically about enough light at a strong enough intensity to power plant life on Earth. Stars are the only known structure capable of that. And since there is no evidence of any other light, what is stated in the Bible is conjecture.

Well, as light consists of photons and, according to BB theory, they, supposedly, came into existence 380,000 years after the BB, even your naturalistic theories allow for the existence of light (photons) prior to the first stars, forming some 100 million years later.

Absolutely. The cosmic microwave background is proof of that. Something with enough energy can emit a photon, it doesn't have to be a star. But plants on this planet weren't around for that, and there is no evidence that there was a strong enough light in the beginning to power photosynthesis even if plants had been around back then.

Please name these "things within it that defy all known physical explanations" if you don't mind.

Let's start at the beginning. According to the commonly accept theory of the Big Bang, going backward in time, the universe started as a singularity, a dimensionless point of infinite density. This singularity is a point that scientist hate to consider as it is where the laws of physics as we know them cease to operate. As the eminent American physicist Kip Thorne describes it, it is "the point where all laws of physics break down". In other words, according to all known naturalistic laws, the singularity and thus the BB is impossible. Therefore, as the 4d universe does exist, it must be due to unnatural or supernatural laws.

I don't believe that the "BB is impossible" given that physics breaks down at the singularity. The singularity is actually predicted by the math of relativity (although relativity is NOT good at explaining the singularity itself, whereas quantum mechanics deals with such small spaces and particles much better, hence the search for a relativity/QM combined theory to explain extreme gravity). It's definitely a gap that people are trying to figure out, don't get me wrong. We've a long way to go in that area of research. Couple of interesting articles if you have the time:

https://profmattstrassler.com/2014/03/2 ... ngularity/
https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quant ... verse.html

Another is the warping of space time as described by General Relativity but, due to the length of our posts, we can discuss this later, if you wish.

Whatever you'd like to do. The fact that GPS satellites work is proof of relativity, and that spacetime warps in the presence of mass, so I'm not sure what could be objected to here.

I hope you aren't parroting the same nonsense daddy-o has been trying to hoist on everyone lately, claiming a different "nature" in the past. There are many reasons why this cannot possibly be true, and those reasons have been presented to him repeatedly by many. Perhaps you haven't seen all that. If so, it might benefit the conversation if you were to review those posts and understand why something like the non-linear decay of radioactive isotopes makes it mathematically impossible for the laws of the universe to have changed over time.

To be honest, I haven't been following "dad's" post closely to any degree. Maybe I'll check them out when I have time. Though, when you consider my previous point on the BB singularity, something different to our current natural laws must have been in play, even just to 'kick it all off'.

I agree with you regarding the BB singularity. If you haven't followed his posts, don't I don't think they are worthy of anyone's time to be brutally honest.

Either way, there isn't a bunch of water above the sky, Smalls. That is physically impossible, which makes the Biblical claim simply nonsense. Even the goat herders back in ancient times knew that something (an arch) would have to hold up the "water from the water", hence a firmament, no matter how you want to define it. (Emphasis added)

Well, I'm sure you would agree that there is some degree of separation between the ocean and the clouds. As to the idea of 'a bunch of water', I don't believe Genesis 1 actually gives an amount or ratio between the two 'waters' but it might be worth considering that a single average cumulus cloud that one sees on a nice sunny day contains approximately 500 tonnes of water. Now view an image of the Earth from space and note the amount of cloud covering the planet. Just something to consider.

The weight of the water on Earth is about 1,450,000,000,000,000,000 tons, so while 500 tons is no laughing matter, it is really just a (pardon the pun) spit in the ocean.

We should also consider that the moisture in the atmosphere is from the waters found under the firmament, should we not? Where does the water that forms clouds come from? The ground/oceans. It's all the same water, evaporating up into the air only to eventually fall back to the ground and begin the cycle again. Clearly these waters are not "separated" from each other like those spoken of in the Bible.

Water molecules in the occasional dirty snowball at a density much closer to absolute vacuum than even the thinnest atmosphere found at the top of Mt Everest is hardly in the spirit of the Genesis passage, wouldn't you agree? I think you are stretching the very limit of intellectual honesty to try to equate the division in the midst of the waters to separate the waters from the waters with the Oort cloud.

"Just say'n", there is water above the surface of the Earth, separated by an expanse.

There's rocks too. I wonder why there is no mention of the firmament that separated the rocks from the rocks. How odd...

When a sample of rock is found with fossil remains in it, it is dated by measuring the ratio of parent material (like the uranium 234) to the daughter material (the lead). This ratio shows how much of the radioactive energy of the uranium has been emitted, and therefore how long it has been encased in the rock sample. Multiples samples will be tested to ensure the readings are good. The sample is also checked to make sure there isn't other daughter material elsewhere in the rock, which means the sample could be contaminated with extra lead and therefore the reading cannot be considered accurate. What's even better is when you have two different radioactive isotopes in the same rock layer, because then their ages can be compared (to reduce the chance of error), assuming again no contamination concerns.

Such dating of fossil beds has been done countless times, and the date of almost all of the rock layers on Earth is now known.

There would be some disagreement about the accuracy of radio metric dating methods. For example -Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth - A Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative by the RATE team.

A lot has been written since that ICR document came out in 2000.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html

Based on that, the order of appearance of living things can be shown. As flying creatures have always appeared much later than their land counterparts, it can be stated that flying creatures did not appear before land animals. Insects hit land around 480 million years ago, but did not take flight until 400 million years ago. Dinos appeared 230 million years ago (from previous land animals) and pterosaurs 220 million years ago, with protobirds about 150 million years ago.

The order of appearance according to location of the fossils determining the age can be misleading. For example, if there were a situation where insects, dinos and 'protobirds' existed at the same time and location which was subjected to a catastrophic flood, involving massive sedimentation, which would be buried first? Obviously, the non-flying insects, then dinos which may escape for a short period and then the flying species as their higher perches eventually disappear. Same order, different time scale. One relies upon uniformitarianism, the other on catastrophism.[/quote]

The "firsts" in question were found in different rock layers. For example the first flying insects were found in younger rocks than the first insects. The first insects were found in the early Ordovician Era. Here's a link that breaks down some of the layers of rock in different areas of the world (under Subdivisions). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordovician

The first flying insects are found in the Devonian Era.

But I appreciate your skepticism and you raised a valid question

Of course as you mentioned we only have snapshots in time, not a film reel, so how do we know that these animals were even related? That's where biology and morphology comes in. These fields look at the similarity of the bones, including how many there are, how the joints connect, how the ligaments and muscles attached to them, and so forth (and yes, you can still see tendon and ligament connections on fossilized bones hundreds of millions of years old). It's based on things like that, for example, that let us know that a rhino is actually closely related to horses, because they are all odd-toed ungulates with the same ankle and leg systems. Tapirs also fall in that group, even though they have a snout that reminds people of elephants. So when bird bones from 10 million years ago and raptor dinosaur ones from 170 million years ago have the same number of arm bones, in the same pattern, with the same tendon connection points, and their hip bones have the same structure, it's clear to see that one came from the other.

This can be just as easily be explained by the 'common designer, common design' principle.

Not when combined with the geology and genetic data. Clearly not all these animals found in fossils lived at the same time. There is also no reason why some ungulates would need an odd number of toes and other ones an even number for example, or why chimps and humans share more retroviral insertions into our DNA than humans/chimps and other apes. Naturalism starting points compliment each other rather well.

But like you said, fossils are a fact. Radioactive decay is a fact. Genetics is a fact. A common designer? We never get evidence for that, do we. That starting point never seems to be proven by anyone...

On top of all that, about 50 years ago a brand new scientific field of research - genetics - begins looking at the genomes of all living things. The closer animals are related to each other (like horses and zebra), the more DNA they have in common with each other. Rhino DNA was found to be just a little more different than the horse and zebra, and tapir DNA just a little more different than rhino, horse, and zebra. But they all had more DNA in common than the DNA of other animals, say elephants for instance.

Again, the 'common designer, common design' principle. The same genetics would be required for similar features, genetic variation only being for the variations.

If we start at the beginning, all we need to do is establish that a common designer is a fact. I'll let you tackle that. I look forward to what you can provide.

It turned out that the tree of life based on the fossil record was amazingly accurate at showing how all living things were related, and a complete unrelated scientific field (genetics) confirmed it.

Whilst I'll agree that there is a certain amount of evolutionary connection between a number of life forms that can be linked in a 'tree of life' diagram, I believe the connections fall far short of a single 'tree of life' having started with a universal common ancestor. I believe, at this stage, there are a number of breaks in assumed lineages. In my view, currently, the evidence points to an 'orchard of life', consisting of a number of separate 'trees'.

I respect your opinion, although I do not see it as an accurate representation of the facts that are currently known at this time. All living things share common DNA. We share some of the DNA as oak trees. There appears to be plenty of genetic data that shows that all living things shared a common ancestor. (The attached link is a tree of life that I happen to think is pretty cool)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... fe_SVG.svg

We have two independent lines of research showing the exact same thing, using trillions of facts and data points verified and validated countless of times through hundreds of millions of man hours of research and experimentation.

So when I say all the evidence points to one little book claiming that flying creatures came before land animals being completely wrong, I have pretty good reason for that.

Are you claiming that there are 'trillions of facts and data points' verifying that land animals came before flying creatures. Whilst there may be numerous fossils and genetic data which are 'facts', the extrapolation of a relationship or interpretation of the data is still an opinion drawn from personal worldview.

Anyone and everyone is free to do their own research and come up with their own conclusions of course. The scientific theory of evolution consistently explains all the data and makes accurate predictions. It's been verified and validated time and again by multiple independent fields of research. Folks at places like ICR or AIG should be able to shred the theory if it wasn't accurate or dependable. Yet that has never occurred. If common design was equally as valid, they should have been able to support that claim as well (even ignoring the lack of proof for a common designer). Yet here again they have failed miserably. At the very least someone who disagrees should be able to find something that evolution does not explain. The theory has been around since Darwin, and we are way more technically advanced then the people in that day. Surely a theory rooted in the mid 1800s should be able to be defeated by some of the smart creationist out there today, right?

I'm not opposed to new or different ideas, but they need to explain the facts in existence, and common design can't do that.

I accept what I can prove. I do not believe claims that are unsupported. Could there be a supernatural? Sure. But I don't see anything that science has done so far that needs a supernatural question mark to complete the explanation. Do you?

Yes, there are a number of theories which, when pressed on some finer points, responds with a reply of "we just don't know, YET." For example, as mentioned earlier, the cause of the Big Bang.

Which isn't proof of a god creature. Please understand, the failure of one explanation does not prove another, or even make it more likely. If the Big Bang fails tomorrow as a scientific theory, that doesn't make the existence of the supernatural or the claims that there is a common designer any more likely. They will still have the same amount of empirical evidence - none - that they had the day before. No idea wins by default. They win by being accurate and accounting for all the facts known to date. Disproving the BB does not prove the supernatural or common designer...

Have you unbiasedly considered the possibility that Egyptian, or Hindu, or Norse mythology is more accurate than your Abrahamic one? Those are supernatural claims too you know, and they have precisely the same amount of data supporting them (none) that supports your meta-physical statements...

Actually, I have. In my younger days, I was an atheist until a point where I became challenged by a few assumed 'facts' that were, in reality, just opinions. (Admittedly, they were more in the field of cosmology rather than evolutionary biology but they had a 'flow on' effect, challenging me in many areas.) This lead me to search for answers, study various fields of 'natural' science and a number of various religions, past and present. It eventual lead me to my current position. I'm the first to admit, I don't have all the answers, yet, but I feel confident that I will, one day.

Glad to hear it. Not everyone keeps an open mind (on both sides of the discussion).

I've given you some information in this post which should suffice. If you require additional details, please ask. If you need clarification about anything please let me know as well.

And the same applies to the information I have supplied. Though, I might suggest we stick to specific points, as these posts are getting seriously long. (Actually, I don't mind the length, I'm just thinking of others. )

Have a good day!
Still small

I'm sure we've lost people by now

[dad]

Time does exist in the far universe, the speed of light is the same there as it is here in our "fishbowl", and there is zero evidence (so far) of the existence of any supernatural beings.

Can you support this claim?

I take note that the claim was not supported.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 77 by dad]

I take note that the claim was not supported.

This has been supported with many examples by several participants, and you just ignore it all. So there is no point in repeating all again ... you clearly don't have the ability or motivation to understand anything science related, and have yet to provide any support of any kind for your own silly claims. So I'd say your credibility here is zero at this point, and won't rise until you can produce some external support which you have so far failed to do, or even tried to do.

Go find some external references and provide links to them, that agree with and support your "different nature in the past" idea, and let's see if their content has any merit. Your own erroneous opinions on science, and constant repeating of the same nonsense like "science is a religion", have long since worn thin.

[dad]

This has been supported with many examples by several participants, and you just ignore it all. So there is no point in repeating all again ...

I ignore nothing. The religion you post was noted. That is not support for anything. Or even really addressing the core issues here. Kid yourself all you like.

Go find some external references and provide links to them, that agree with and support your "different nature in the past" idea, and let's see if their content has any merit

.
Find some science to support your fantasy same state past claim. I do not need to do anything, because unless you do, you are peddling a belief. Whooopee doo

Science really does rely on things like considering the present the key to the past. Their models really do use our current physics, and cosmology really does assume time exists with space homogeneously in the universe. No proof exists for any of it. All that exists is models based on those things. Pure religion.

Kids...get yourself free of that dark nonsense.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 79 by dad]

I ignore nothing. The religion you post was noted. That is not support for anything. Or even really addressing the core issues here. Kid yourself all you like.

So, just more of your same mantra? Is that all you can come up with? Not worthy of a reply.

Find some science to support your fantasy same state past claim. I do not need to do anything, because unless you do, you are peddling a belief. Whooopee doo.

Whooopee doo? Are you old enough to be posting on this forum? It is not the job of anyone here to prove a "same state past" (even though evidence for that has been presented, which you ignore) ... it is your job as the author of the OP to prove your "different state past." So far you've failed completely. Trying to turn the tables on burden of proof doesn't score you any points.

No proof exists for any of it. All that exists is models based on those things. Pure religion.

Just more of the same nonsense. You have no imagination in addition to (still) having no evidence for your claims. Try the Random Ramblings section. This thread falls under that category perfectly ... Pointless Posts, Raves n Rants, Obscure Opinions. It is positively not a debate.