New discoveries of 'missing links.'

[Heyo]

We do know Scripture records it. As for science, you are right, they don't know anything about it.

Apart from scripture not being a reliable source, where exactly and in what scripture does it say that trees grew faster in the past?

 

[dad]

How do you know?

Scripture records it. Not like science was around to say anything.

Yes, we assume that to be so because there is no evidence of any force or mechanism that would have changed that in the past. Or do you have any?

So you think you know there was radioactive decay because there is now is. You do not know if anything changed or not, and based on not knowing, you say that nothing could have changed.

 

[dad]

Apart from scripture not being a reliable source, where exactly and in what scripture does it say that trees grew faster in the past?

Why claim Scripture is not reliable when you don't know what you are talking about?
Anyhow, God planted a garden in the 6-day creation. Man ate fruit days later from trees there. Later, after the flood, Noah sent a bird to find plants. It returned with nothing. A week later, again another bird, and this time it had the evidence of a fresh olive leaf in its beak.

 

[Heyo]

So you think you know there was radioactive decay because there is now is. You do not know if anything changed or not, and based on not knowing, you say that nothing could have changed.

Please don't misrepresent my position. I didn't say i know, I said I assume because I have no reason to assume otherwise. The assumption of uniformity is one of the primary axioms of science. So, while I don't know philosophical, I have scientific knowledge.
And you make the same assumption. You assume that any place on earth has roughly a gravity of 9.81 m/s^2. You assume that bacon tastes good today because it tasted good yesterday. (At least I assume you do. Or are you living in constant ignorance of what will happen next? Because you believe that any rule of nature could change magically at any time for any reason or no reason at all?)

Why claim Scripture is not reliable when you don't know what you are talking about?

Because that is the definition of reliable. The assumption that something will work because it did so without failure in the past. If I don't know your scripture, I have no expectation for it to be trustworthy.

Anyhow, God planted a garden in the 6-day creation. Man ate fruit days later from trees there. Later, after the flood, Noah sent a bird to find plants. It returned with nothing. A week later, again another bird, and this time it had the evidence of a fresh olive leaf in its beak.

Once again your source doesn't state that the olive leaf did grow in one week. You assume that on "circumstantial evidence" (even when we discount the reliability of the story). You can't rely on uniformity or continuity in a universe where magic is common.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Make all the imaginary rules no one cares about that you like. Have fun in your head.

Rational people care about evidence and the burden of proof.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

?? Did someone ask that?
No. The issue is whether time exists out there exactly as it does here and how you would know!

Yes, so? Not an issue.

You just made that up. Prove it. Show any science at all even dealing with the issue??
Sure if you want to draw lines and pretend that there is no time in the distances and that space is the same all the way. Heck, you could pretend the lines are anything you like. The reality is that you have not been out there to observe time or space. You only see things here. Including light or anything else from there.
Stop making stuff up, and misrepresenting what other posters say.

You are correct.

Clearly the universe and everything in it was created Last Thursday, as it says in my book (which also says your book is wrong, btw, so there's that...)

Science can't prove or disprove it, so it can't be questioned

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That is religion.

It's not. Religion runs on faith. Science does not.

Science has deceived people by trying to explain the creation away by claiming the presentnaturedunnit.

You have provided no evidence the natural laws were different at a previous time.

 

[dad]

Please don't misrepresent my position. I didn't say i know, I said I assume because I have no reason to assume otherwise. The assumption of uniformity is one of the primary axioms of science. So, while I don't know philosophical, I have scientific knowledge.

Your claim seems to be that scientific knowledge consists of assuming for no real reason that nature must be the same. So in what way does this misrepresent your position? I do not consider it knowledge, or scientific knowledge to assume what is not known.

And you make the same assumption. You assume that any place on earth has roughly a gravity of 9.81 m/s^2. You assume that bacon tastes good today because it tasted good yesterday. (At least I assume you do. Or are you living in constant ignorance of what will happen next?

Yes, and my assumptions are based on evidence and actual knowledge. We have scientists and people who confirmed all this. I have no issue at all with laws and forces of nature existing. The issue is whether we know and can prove that this same nature today as it was in Noah's day...or not.

Because you believe that any rule of nature could change magically at any time for any reason or no reason at all?)

Not at all. I believe God sets the laws and forces. The question then becomes, do I think that He could ever change them? The answer is found in the bible. He does change nature in the future and the record of the past shows a different nature also. That is why I am loath to model all the future and past based only on the present.

Because that is the definition of reliable. The assumption that something will work because it did so without failure in the past. If I don't know your scripture, I have no expectation for it to be trustworthy.

I call that more the definition of short-sightedness. You not only may not know or care about Scripture, but you do not know what nature was like or why it exists at all. It would be short-sighted to look only at how things work now and assume it always did and will work that way for no apparent reason. That is not scientific knowledge. That is blindly leaping to conclusions by faith alone.

Once again your source doesn't state that the olive leaf did grow in one week.

That is debatable.

You assume that on "circumstantial evidence" (even when we discount the reliability of the story).

What sane alternative could there be? Every man and animal on the planet was in one boat. They were waiting for one thing to get off. They waited for real evidence that plants were now growing again so that every creature would have safety and food. The messenger sent out the first time returned and there was no evidence. Everyone stayed put. Again another messenger was sent out. This time it returned with the wonderful evidence.
The narrative is that the leaf was from a tree growing. Now let's add more evidence to this. If every animal on earth and all people were in one spot, and the world had been underwater for many many months totally, how could they survive? If that happened today, what would they all eat? The only scenario I see that makes sense is if plants grew fast in that former nature. That would allow all the grazing animals to have oodles of grasses to eat almost instantly! That would allow monkeys to have bananas or whatever. Birds to have seeds and nests. That would allow Noah to have wine in a week or so! Etc.

 

[dad]

Rational people care about evidence and the burden of proof.

Great. Start anytime.

 

[dad]

You are correct.

Clearly the universe and everything in it was created Last Thursday, as it says in my book (which also says your book is wrong, btw, so there's that...)

Science can't prove or disprove it, so it can't be questioned

Sorry, not interested in helping you come to grips with reality about the recent past.

 

[dad]

It's not. Religion runs on faith. Science does not.

You have provided no evidence the natural laws were different at a previous time.

You have provided no evidence natural laws were the same. You want us to what, believe?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Great. Start anytime.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sorry, not interested in helping you come to grips with reality about the recent past.

You don't seem to be interested in learning about how your "logic" can be used to "defend" any crackpot idea either.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You have provided no evidence natural laws were the same. You want us to what, believe?

1. When you assume they were the same, you can make testable predictions about the world that check out. This means the assumption has merrit as it gives you explanatory power.

2. there is no reason to assume they were different. assuming they were different gives you zero explanatory power, makes no testable predictions and is rationally unjustifiable.

3. your ONLY reason to claim they were different, is because you are hellbend on superimposing your a priori beliefs in iron age myths and legends upon reality. Might as well claim everything was created Last Thursday. It has the exact same merrit.

 

[dad]

You don't seem to be interested in learning about how your "logic" can be used to "defend" any crackpot idea either.

Not too much. Just interested in you using facts in 'scientific' models and not beliefs.

 

[dad]

1. When you assume they were the same, you can make testable predictions about the world that check out. This means the assumption has merrit as it gives you explanatory power.

No. Assuming does nothing. Name any prediction we can test that is based on the same nature in the past regarding the fossil record, for example?

2. there is no reason to assume they were different. assuming they were different gives you zero explanatory power, makes no testable predictions and is rationally unjustifiable.

Why would it matter what anyone assumes? There are no testable predictions either way worth a dime.

3. your ONLY reason to claim they were different, is because you are hellbend on superimposing your a priori beliefs in iron age myths and legends upon reality.

I note that history and Scripture RECORD differences. I note that nothing spiritual could be detected or tested by modern science. I note that all science can do is assume nature was any way at all and does not know. Why are you hellbent on trying to have your assumptions and hunches and beliefs elevated to a status of being knowledge?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not too much. Just interested in you using facts in 'scientific' models and not beliefs.

No, you aren't. As you keep demonstrating post after post

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No. Assuming does nothing. Name any prediction we can test that is based on the same nature in the past regarding the fossil record, for example?

The geological column the fossils are found in.
Geological formations.
The dating mechanisms.
...

Why would it matter what anyone assumes?

It matters, if one cares about being rationally justified in their beliefs. Which you clearly don't.

There are no testable predictions either way worth a dime.

I note that history and Scripture RECORD differences. I note that nothing spiritual could be detected or tested by modern science. I note that all science can do is assume nature was any way at all and does not know. Why are you hellbent on trying to have your assumptions and hunches and beliefs elevated to a status of being knowledge?

I note that religious scriptures and myths are a dime a dozen and have never contributed anything to any understanding about reality about anything.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You have provided no evidence natural laws were the same. You want us to what, believe?

There is no reason to believe they have.

 

[Heyo]

The narrative is that the leaf was from a tree growing.

You assume that a leaf has to come from a tree.
We assume that radioactive decay products come from radioactive decay.
When you can deny that radioactive decay products come from radioactive decay,
I will deny that leaves have to come from trees (let alone trees that have grown in a week).
The ability to invoke magic is only fun if others don't have the ability.