Thank you for clarifying. I think I understand your position, although I personally find it depressing.
Jonathan
Of course, this was also true the first time someone figured out how to make fire, or the wheel.
Check out Cosmic Background Radiation, direct evidence of what happened billions of years ago. By your lights if you find a body with a bullet hole in it you can’t say it was murdered since you didn’t see it happen.
I wonder what he would consider as observing evolution. A dog turning into a cat or something, no doubt. He might as well say he doesn’t believe a seed turns into a plant since he has never personally observed it happen from beginning to end.
By his logic, he shouldn’t believe it if he sees a murder because it took the light a few nanoseconds to reach his eye.
Was there ever a time when this wasn’t true? Even during the dark ages, was there a net loss of human knowledge?
Wow we’ve created evolution.
Some knowledge was lost some was maintained and there was new knowledge that came about. I think it was the lack of centralized structures that really caused the dark ages. Think of the Empire as the IEEE standards.
Is time as static as we assume, or does time move by sometimes faster, sometimes slower? Does the invention of lighting just mean we are just working some of our hours using man’s lighting instead of just working during the day?
Thank you for the clarification. I note that you are referring to this idea as your theory. Please could you tell us how it can be objectively verified?
I did skim it, but yes after I posted, I really don’t find it compelling or contradictory to what I stated. I do admit that man can cause genetic changes.
So who is the independent thinker and who is the one following the crowd?
Now, if you are going to pursue this line of argument, open a new thread to discuss it. This thread has enough hijacks without taking this one.
My claim is based on my belief that 1 it has to agree with scriptures, or at least not contradict them and 2 that the scientific method is inherently wrong as it contradicts the scriptures.
First I don’t claim it to be divinely inspired, nor to I claim it to be fact. But it is a theory that does not contradict scriptures and is observable at a personal level. I don’t believe the scientific method to be valid because it is contrary to scriptures. So you can only be able to verify it subjectively (or personally), not objectively.
Just so we’re clear, posting a snippit from a bronze-age mythological text isn’t a cite unless you’re talking about the beliefs of those primitive people.
I believe he was asking for a cite based on the real world evidence not the fantasy world of your choosing.
Your theory is perfect- at least, in that it solves itself (normally this is called begging the question), and gives the answer you want it to. Of course, people who don’t start with your presuppositions are likely to find it wanting…
Or we could start charging to post. Worked the last time.
So, you did not actually pay attention to what it described, (the act of evolution being witnessed in nature), and you are now “responding” to a different statement that no one has made: that humans can cause genetic changes.
Irrelevant and silly. Only Conspiracy Theory nutjobs and Crank Inventors think that “independent thinking” has some lofty quality when it is in complete contradiction to facts.
Actually, your claim is based on your belief that 1 it has to agree with your odd and insupportable view of your interpretation of scripture, or at least not contradict them and 2 that the scientific method is inherently wrong as it contradicts your idiosyncratic and solipsistic re-interpretation of the scriptures.
In other words, you make up your mind as to what to believe, then go out and find quotations from your particular English translation of the bible that will support what you want to believe, as though no one else in the world has actually understood the scriptures before you came along to “explain” them. Okey-dokey.
Thank you for elaborating. I’m not sure it is possible to observe the things you say at any level - how can you tell the difference between a)The stars merely appear far away and b)The stars really are far away
OK, this boggled my mind a bit. I know and fully appreciate you disagree with a whole bunch of scientific conclusions, but you don’t believe the scientific method to be valid?. How? It’s just a mechanical process for making descriptions more closely fit the things they’re describing, moreover, *it has been demonstrated to work, over and over again.
I would not have been any more taken aback if you’d said, for example, that you don’t really believe that bicycles are capable of being moved.
I promise my line of questioning will get somewhere eventually, but it requires a lot of single questions.
Let’s start with: what’s your basis for accepting the scriptures as the absolute factual world view/law? In other words, WHY is something wrong if it contradicts the scriptures?
Open a new thread.
We really do not need two more (or more) pages in this thread hammering out something that only one person in the entire world believes.
[ /Modding ]