Irony of the evolutionary belief

[cladking]

There are a few other things I'd be curious to know. Are they really walking in a sunny spot directly away from the sun or is this an optical illusion? Did dad pick a sunny spot because experience tells him the odds are better if drivers see them sooner? Did the middle stop to assess the danger from the car and did the one behind him glance back to get the OK to move forward? Why do the youngsters look so much different and do they have different jobs?

It's easier to see that the road is not "forest" per se but rather cuts it in two and these parts still communicate in numerous ways. Deer neither recognize nor understand the concept of property rights. They don't do any abstractions at all. Humans once had no abstractions as well but they still had complex language.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You're not using 1 and 0 as numbers (quantities) there, but rather, as proxies for existence.

There's good reason to question whether what is called free will is generated by the subject or whether that is an illusion. It seems more likely that the subject is the passive recipient of desire generated outside of consciousness by unseen neural circuits and reported to the subject. The illusion would be that the subject experiences itself as the source of the will as if could have chosen to want something else. I know that I can't do that.

You say that trees and forests don't exist, then describe them. I don't see how this kind of thinking helps you or anybody else. It's more of that epistemic nihilism that I referred to earlier. It doesn't help you navigate life better, but it can do the opposite. There is no desired outcome you can achieve nor any pitfall you are avoiding by holding that belief.

View attachment 84107

There's not 0 deer there, so their must be 1 deer.

 

[John53]

There's not 0 deer there, so their must be 1 deer.

Yes dear.

 

[Eli G]

How many lifetimes would a community interested in demonstrating by real observation a process that would take millions of years to occur need?

Is it realistic to accept without hesitation human conclusions about processes that no human can really verify by observation?

Is it really scientific to speculate about processes that supposedly take millions of years to complete?

 

[cladking]

ow many lifetimes would a community interested in demonstrating by real observation a process that would take millions of years to occur need?

Is it realistic to accept without hesitation human conclusions about processes that no human can really verify by observation?

Is it really scientific to speculate about processes that supposedly take millions of years to complete?

No, it's not science. There's lots of science associated with "Evolution" but gradual change caused by survival of the fittest is extrapolation. As soon as a means was found to explain life without thew concept of "God" people wanted to believe.

Of course every observed change in species occurred suddenly. And without evidence that the new species was any mor fit than the last.

 

[cladking]

ow many lifetimes would a community interested in demonstrating by real observation a process that would take millions of years to occur need?

Is it realistic to accept without hesitation human conclusions about processes that no human can really verify by observation?

Is it really scientific to speculate about processes that supposedly take millions of years to complete?

No, it's not science. There's lots of science associated with "Evolution" but gradual change caused by survival of the fittest is extrapolation. As soon as a means was found to explain life without thew concept of "God" people wanted to believe.

Of course every observed change in species occurred suddenly. And without evidence that the new species was any mor fit than the last.

 

[cladking]

ow many lifetimes would a community interested in demonstrating by real observation a process that would take millions of years to occur need?

Is it realistic to accept without hesitation human conclusions about processes that no human can really verify by observation?

Is it really scientific to speculate about processes that supposedly take millions of years to complete?

No, it's not science. There's lots of science associated with "Evolution" but gradual change caused by survival of the fittest is extrapolation. As soon as a means was found to explain life without thew concept of "God" people wanted to believe.

Of course every observed change in species occurred suddenly. And without evidence that the new species was any mor fit than the last.

 

[metis]

How many lifetimes would a community interested in demonstrating by real observation a process that would take millions of years to occur need?

Is it realistic to accept without hesitation human conclusions about processes that no human can really verify by observation?

Is it really scientific to speculate about processes that supposedly take millions of years to complete?

"Forensics science", which has convicted many a criminal.

 

[Eli G]

Last post doesn't answer my questions. I was talking about "a process that would take millions of years to occur", "processes that supposedly take millions of years to complete". Something like this:

"We know the earth was formed via accretion because we have observed this process happening in other forming solar systems elsewhere in the Galaxy."

... that a forumer stated somewhere in the forum. The underlined idea is laughable. Who has observed that?

 

[ChristineM]

Last post doesn't answer my questions. I was talking about "a process that would take millions of years to occur", "processes that supposedly take millions of years to complete". Something like this:

"We know the earth was formed via accretion because we have observed this process happening in other forming solar systems elsewhere in the Galaxy."

... that a forumer stated somewhere in the forum. The underlined idea is laughable. Who has observed that?

Buy a half decent telescope and look.

Or read a paper, there are lots and lots on Google

 

[Revoltingest]

Buy a half decent telescope and look.

Or read a paper, there are lots and lots on Google

It won't work.
The cosmological time frame is 10k years or less
for some. So merely observing stages in celestial
body development won't satisfy those who want
to watch the movie.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Last post doesn't answer my questions. I was talking about "a process that would take millions of years to occur", "processes that supposedly take millions of years to complete". Something like this:

"We know the earth was formed via accretion because we have observed this process happening in other forming solar systems elsewhere in the Galaxy."

... that a forumer stated somewhere in the forum. The underlined idea is laughable. Who has observed that?

Astronomers have observed new stars with accretion discs.

But let's forget about how the Earth formed. Do you understand that there is endless scientific evidence that the Earth is very old and none for the young Earth of YEC's?

 

[ChristineM]

It won't work.
The cosmological time frame is 10k years or less
for some. So merely observing stages in celestial
body development won't satisfy those who want
to watch the movie.

They could always use a time lapse camera and come back in a later millennium.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It won't work.
The cosmological time frame is 10k years or less
for some. So merely observing stages in celestial
body development won't satisfy those who want
to watch the movie.

I would like to see the movie myself. I would check in every few hundred years to see if anything interesting was happening. Perhaps have a smart program that alerted me to sudden changes. I am sure that I could swing the starship on by and check it out.

 

[Revoltingest]

They could always use a time lapse camera and come back in a later millennium.

I'll let you suggest that.

 

[Eli G]

Those of us who trust in the inspiration of the Bible do not need to watch science fiction films to know the changes that the earth has undergone over millions of years.

Psal. 46:2 That is why we will not fear, though the earth undergoes change,
Though the mountains topple into the depths of the sea,
3 Though its waters roar and foam over,
Though the mountains rock on account of its turbulence.

 

[danieldemol]

Those of us who trust in the inspiration of the Bible do not need to watch science fiction films to know the changes that the earth has undergone over millions of years.

4.5 billion years give or take a bit, and no need to watch science fiction films when there is factual scientific documentation of planet formation in my view.

Psal. 46:2 That is why we will not fear, though the earth undergoes change,
Though the mountains topple into the depths of the sea,
3 Though its waters roar and foam over,
Though the mountains rock on account of its turbulence.

None of that says how long the earth has been changing in my opinion.

 

[Left Coast]

Those of us who trust in the inspiration of the Bible do not need to watch science fiction films to know the changes that the earth has undergone over millions of years.

Psal. 46:2 That is why we will not fear, though the earth undergoes change,
Though the mountains topple into the depths of the sea,
3 Though its waters roar and foam over,
Though the mountains rock on account of its turbulence.

This is fascinating. So you believe that processes have occurred that have taken millions of years. Yet you question that a process that has taken millions of years could ever be reasonably be believed because we can't watch it?

Square that circle for me.

 

[Eli G]

That is what I find the most fascinating about what the Bible says in Psal. 46:2 and other passages like Is. 54:10, Job 9:5, etc.

How did they know if they did not witness the process, and if they did, they would never have survived it? Unless that scientific information was revealed to them from a non-human source that did watch the process of the planet formation.

In fact, the biblical account of Gen. 1 has more scientific details than people may realize at first glance.

PS: I am not YEC.

 

[Left Coast]

That is what I find the most fascinating about what the Bible says in Psal. 46:2 and other passages like Is. 54:10, Job 9:5, etc.

How did they know if they did not witness the process, and if they did, they would never have survived it? Unless that scientific information was revealed to them from a non-human source that did watch the process of the planet formation.

In fact, the biblical account of Gen. 1 has more scientific details than people may realize at first glance.

PS: I am not YEC.

Sorry, so we can determine that a process happened that took millions of years without watching it happen, or we can't?

Which one?