Suppose evolution was refuted, then what?

[riley2112]

I consider it a possibility, as to what that would actually mean for us? Well I am rather apathetic about it (much as I am towards most concepts of 'God')

Ok that I can understand a little better. For a min. there I thought you was throwing a double standard at me, Believing in that but can't believe in God for lack of evidence. Which would have surprised me, being I have read some other posts by you. Any way , I would concede that other time could be possible.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Sorry, I am often unclear :/ probably because I head-desk so often

 

[riley2112]

Sorry, I am often unclear :/ probably because I head-desk so often

No problem , I am often confused, if you need evidence of that , ask my wife, (sad attempt at humor)

 

[McBell]

If evolution was refuted something else would come up. It always does. D

I agree.

However it will not be creation.

 

[McBell]

Do you mean OUR time and space, or SOME time and space? For starters we can only give examples from within our existence or from the conceivable metaphysical existence... by cutting out god... well can we include other concepts, like devils, angels, leprechauns etc

Bigfoot, loch ness monster, chupacabra, jersey devil...

 

[riley2112]

I agree.

However it will not be creation.

you are correct being that evolution and creation are two different topics. Don't you agree?

 

[riley2112]

Bigfoot, loch ness monster, chupacabra, jersey devil...

Nice understanding ex-wifes

 

[McBell]

you are correct being that evolution and creation are two different topics. Don't you agree?

Two completely different topics.

And that is not even considering the fact that creation is not science.
So even if abiogenesis is completely and thoroughly debunked/refuted, creation STILL loses out.

 

[riley2112]

Two completely different topics.

And that is not even considering the fact that creation is not science.
So even if abiogenesis is completely and thoroughly debunked/refuted, creation STILL loses out.

How did I know you would say that, or at least something close to it . However I think evolution and creation are both correct. But what do I know , just what I read.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Though they can be seen as compatible depending on how you define them, ID cannot be debunked by science because it is not science (if it WAS science then it could be the subject of true scientific review) nor can evolution as a general approach be debunked by faulting one of the contributing theories because alternate theories can be used to keep the general approach valid.

 

[camanintx]

Nice to know you don't ask for much. Can anybody give you an example of anything that is not bound by time and space?

Probably not since I see it as an inherent contradiction. Space is defined as the three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur so if anything exists it does so within space. Time itself appears to be nothing more than a mathematical construct that allows us to write equations describing our physical world. The idea that other dimensions or levels may exist outside of the ones we experience is no more than a metaphysical exercise with no more basis in reality than the square root of -1.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Not necessarily camanintx... maybe one of the members here have taken a trip outside of time and space and saw something there... if something CAN be seen outside of time and space that is.... well maybe not 'see' because that is a visual process which takes light and creates carefully synchronised electronic signals in the brain which cannot happen because there is no time and we cannot have a brain because there is no space to put it.... actually I suppose we cannot use our five senses outside of space-time... we would have to rely on some other sensory mechanism.

Well it would either be some traveller from outside of our existence, someone who had an experience of faith.... or perhaps some awesome neuro-chemical reaction. I think numbers 2 and 3 are more likely.

The square root of -1 rocks doesnt it?

 

[camanintx]

Not necessarily camanintx... maybe one of the members here have taken a trip outside of time and space and saw something there... if something CAN be seen outside of time and space that is.... well maybe not 'see' because that is a visual process which takes light, distance, carefully synchronised electronic signals in the brain.... actually that rules out our five senses... we would have to rely on some other sensory mechanism.

Well it would either be some traveller from outside of our existence, someone who had an experience of faith.... or perhaps some awesome neuro-chemical reaction.

The square root of -1 rocks doesnt it?

While I can appreciate a good science fiction story just as much as anyone, is there any rational basis for believing we have some sensory mechanism other than the five senses?

 

[InformedIgnorance]

None whatsoever to my knowledge.

However someone with 'faith' will recognise that rationality may be limited.

I don't have such faith, though I am open minded enough to consider the prospect that rationality may be limited even then.

 

[riley2112]

None whatsoever to my knowledge.

However someone with 'faith' will recognise that rationality may be limited.

I don't have such faith, though I am open minded enough to consider the prospect that rationality may be limited even then.

Well I hate to say it , but :yes: I may have taken a trip to some other time or space , but it was back in the 70's, and my mind was a little fuzzy most of the 70's.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

This is definitely not acceptable from our position, because there is no limit to this kind of thought, there are people in certain areas that have gone to the extent of saying,
''we really don't exist, even what we SEE is not really there, that all this is only our impression of what we see, this is just a mental experience''. So you could apply this same thought also to yourself, that all your understanding is a deviation from whats known to be true.

Do you even understand the point I just made? Because you don't seem to be even remotely addressing it.

At least we have an answer, even though you don't accept it, and that is fine as well, its up to you to apply the approach you want, where did it come from then?

It is not fine to assert a made up answer when, in fact, you don't have one. Ignorance is always preferable to error.

Where did what come from?

 

[~Amin~]

It is not fine to assert a made up answer when, in fact, you don't have one.

When i said its fine, i was refering to your approach even though you disagree with me, that this is fine.

Ignorance is always preferable to error.

Your right, either you or i, are on guidance or clear error.

Where did what come from?

All that exists.

 

[~Amin~]

Can you give me an example of anything (other than God) that is not bound by time and space?

Every other thing is limited by boundaries, you may refer to this as time and space,
but their movement within this boundary may differ, example, an angel may be in multiple places in one time, but within time and space. God is Unique and doesn't resemble His creation, example, we are living beings, God is also Living, the difference we have a beginning and an end, He doesn't have a beginning and an end. See Unique.

 

[McBell]

How did I know you would say that, or at least something close to it . However I think evolution and creation are both correct. But what do I know , just what I read.

To be perfectly honest with you, it is completely possible that creation, abiogenesis and evolution are all three true.

The fact of the matter is that creationism is not science.
and in a sad attempt at deception, creationists tried to scam the world by removing the word god from creationism, call it "intelligent design," and try to pass it off as science.

 

[~Amin~]

It's not the evidence I find inconsistent, it's the definition of God that has problems.

Camanintx, cam you get to the point, and tell us the problem with the definition of God?