What year Did Adam come to earth?

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, longview said:

The "why" of things delve into things of deep philosophical ponderings of the nature of all existence. The only way to do that is to have the mind of God.

Wrong. You are talking about ultimate why questions and trying to generalize all why questions to that magnitude. Why organisms change over time is not some vast philosophical mystery. We have things like “evidence” to show how things changed and we can observe it happening on a smaller time scale all the time around us.

Do you do this to every field of inquiry. Why King John and the nobility of England agreed to the Magna Carta is some kind of vast unknowable question that we cannot grasp at all without having the mind of God?

You’re being obtuse.

9 hours ago, longview said:

At best theories can only barely scratch the surface of "how" things happen. Einstein came up with formulas that show "how" space/time is curved. The greater the mass of an object, the greater the curvature of space/time around it. BUT it does NOT explain "why" there is attraction between two or more objects. Or "how" force operates between objects at a distance. Whether it be gravitation, electromagnetism, whatever.

I still don’t think you even get what a scientific theory is.

[longview]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I still don’t think you even get what a scientific theory is.

I still don't think you even comprehend how flimsy certain "theories" are. They are build on insecure lattices of assumptions and projections and whatever. Yes, even some devolve into circular reasoning.

[ZealouslyStriving]

10 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

He Is.

 

Awesome... So let's clarify the "no children before Cain and Abel thing:

 

Moses 5

"And it came to pass that after I, the Lord God, had driven them out, that Adam began to till the earth, and to have dominion over all the beasts of the field, and to eat his bread by the sweat of his brow, as I the Lord had commanded him. And Eve, also, his wife, did labor with him. 2 And Adam knew his wife, and she bare unto him sons and daughters, and they began to multiply and to replenish the earth. 3 And from that time forth, the sons and daughters of Adam began to divide two and two in the land, and to till the land, and to tend flocks, and they also begat sons and daughters...

...16 And Adam and Eve, his wife, ceased not to call upon God. And Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bare Cain, and said: I have gotten a man from the Lord; wherefore he may not reject his words. But behold, Cain hearkened not, saying: Who is the Lord that I should know him? 17 And she again conceived and bare his brother Abel. And Abel hearkened unto the voice of the Lord. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground."

And the Cain married outsider thing:

"28 And it came to pass that Cain took one of his brothers’ daughters to wife, and they loved Satan more than God."

[the narrator]

17 hours ago, longview said:

How about you make a sincere review of Dr. Stephen Meyer's work?

Nah.

[longview]

2 hours ago, the narrator said:

Nah.

Then you are just talking to yourself while fondly admiring yourself in the mirror.

[the narrator]

1 hour ago, longview said:

Then you are just talking to yourself while fondly admiring yourself in the mirror.

Nah, just not wanting to waste time on arguments that are plentifully debunked online if you were to take just a few minutes to bring yourself from the 1960s to the present. I feel zero obligation or care to do that for you.

[telnetd]

On 7/25/2024 at 2:41 PM, The Nehor said:

A theory is the highest place you get in science for an explanation for something There is nothing higher to promote it too. The stuff we are most certain of is still called a theory. 

Is gravity a theory?

[telnetd]

On 7/23/2024 at 10:28 AM, the narrator said:

In science a "law" describes what happens (or what will happen), and a "theory" describes why it happens.

Why did, as evolutionists believe, the big bang occur?

[the narrator]

On 7/27/2024 at 8:03 AM, telnetd said:

Why did, as evolutionists believe, the big bang occur?

Evolutionary biology and cosmology are two different fields.

[telnetd]

21 hours ago, the narrator said:

Evolutionary biology and cosmology are two different fields.

How did evolution begin?

[the narrator]

3 hours ago, telnetd said:

How did evolution begin?

Evolution isn't a thing that can "begin." If you are asking how the very first form of "life" began on earth, then there are a whole lot of theories. If you were actually intellectually curious about the most prominent hypotheses for the origins of life, then a few google searches and SciShow youtube episodes could have gotten you started on a path to knowledge years ago. However, that you are asking this question to me on a messageboard in 2024, I think, proves that you lack such intellectual curiosity and instead feel safer festering in your comfortable ignorance.

Edited July 29, 2024 by the narrator

[The Nehor]

On 7/26/2024 at 10:25 AM, longview said:

I still don't think you even comprehend how flimsy certain "theories" are. They are build on insecure lattices of assumptions and projections and whatever. Yes, even some devolve into circular reasoning.

Certain theories? Think you can vague that up a little more? It is a little too straightforward.

[The Nehor]

On 7/26/2024 at 12:50 PM, longview said:

Then you are just talking to yourself while fondly admiring yourself in the mirror.

Here you go.

https://gprivate.com/6chb6

[Calm]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Here you go.

https://gprivate.com/6chb6

Do I dare click on that?

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do I dare click on that?

99% sure it is safe.

[JVW]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Here you go.

https://gprivate.com/6chb6

I clicked on the lmgtfy link, had a hearty chuckle, and then proceeded to search the term provided and here is the link of the first result. 

https://biologos.org/series/reviewing-darwins-doubt/articles/reviewing-darwins-doubt-response-by-stephen-meyer

I think your joke may have come back to bite you. This is page 5/6 of various rebuttals. This page in particular is Stephen Meyer given an opportunity to respond to the rebuttals he previously received on this site (which is a site I've been linked to before by hard-line evolutionists in previous conversations here). In his response he also hyperlinks to other rebuttals he has received over his work, so I got to enjoy swimming in a sea of rebuttals.

The end result of reading them was that I agree with the conclusion Stephen Meyer draws in this article. The fundamental issue at hand is Methodological Naturalism, and I really appreciate him taking time to distill the rebuttals of his work down to the primary issue. I also think this is something anyone in any position on the evolutionary spectrum can agree with him on as being the fundamental issue of his work.

Based on the result of my search I'm guessing that you haven't googled any rebuttals of Stephen Meyers work and I am enjoying the irony on display here. It was a good read, I recommend it, and thanks for sharing the joke link because I feel enriched as a result of it.

(Please keep in mind that I do not feel like I'm in a superior position to you. I truly enjoyed all of the articles I've read this evening and it lifted my spirits to read the dissenting views and his responses to them. I needed something light after the weekend I've had.)

Edited July 30, 2024 by JVW
Typos & formatting

[The Nehor]

17 minutes ago, JVW said:

I clicked on the lmgtfy link, had a hearty chuckle, and then proceeded to search the term provided and here is the link of the first result. 

https://biologos.org/series/reviewing-darwins-doubt/articles/reviewing-darwins-doubt-response-by-stephen-meyer

I think your joke may have come back to bite you. This is page 5/6 of various rebuttals. This page in particular is Stephen Meyer given an opportunity to respond to the rebuttals he previously received on this site (which is a site I've been linked to before by hard-line evolutionists in previous conversations here). In his response he also hyperlinks to other rebuttals he has received over his work, so I got to enjoy swimming in a sea of rebuttals.

The end result of reading them was that I agree with the conclusion Stephen Meyer draws in this article. The fundamental issue at hand is Methodological Naturalism, and I really appreciate him taking time to distill the rebuttals of his work down to the primary issue. I also think this is something anyone in any position on the evolutionary spectrum can agree with him on as being the fundamental issue of his work.

Based on the result of my search I'm guessing that you haven't googled any rebuttals of Stephen Meyers work and I am enjoying the irony on display here. It was a good read, I recommend it, and thanks for sharing the joke link because I feel enriched as a result of it.

(Please keep in mind that I do not feel like I'm in a superior position to you. I truly enjoyed all of the articles I've read this evening and it lifted my spirits to read the dissenting views and his responses to them. I needed something light after the weekend I've had.)

LOL

Oh wow.

Biologos (the site you posted) also believes God influenced evolution. This is a debate between evolutionary creationism and intelligent design. It is two versions of “God did it” arguing about how God did it. So you are convinced Meyer has the superior position because you found his refutation of other pseudoscientists convincing? He wasn’t even arguing against people who hold to the Theory of Evolution. Both sides in this argument deny Methodological Naturalism which is a foundational component of modern science.

To compare this to other pseudoscience this is a debate between people who say aliens built the pyramids and those who say the aliens only taught the humans how to build the pyramids. Finding one argument more convincing is fine but it ignores the larger question of whether there were aliens involved at all.

That is also NOT the primary reason real scientists dismiss Meyer. I mean they will say that “God did it” is not something that fits into the scientific method but the main refutations of Meyer are exposing the parts of his arguments that purport to be scientific as pseudoscientific drivel. That didn’t happen in this debate probably as a professional courtesy to a fellow pseudoscientist.

i also seriously doubt that “hardline evolutionists” are referring you to Biologos for information on evolutionary theory. That would be exceptionally weird. Like ‘Hitler telling his people to read Allied propaganda to prove Hitler is right’ level weird.

[telnetd]

On 7/29/2024 at 12:19 PM, the narrator said:

Evolution isn't a thing that can "begin." If you are asking how the very first form of "life" began on earth, then there are a whole lot of theories. If you were actually intellectually curious about the most prominent hypotheses for the origins of life, then a few google searches and SciShow youtube episodes could have gotten you started on a path to knowledge years ago. However, that you are asking this question to me on a messageboard in 2024, I think, proves that you lack such intellectual curiosity and instead feel safer festering in your comfortable ignorance.

From my research, here is a simplified overview of how scientists explain the Big Bang.

The theory posits that about 13.8 billion years ago, the universe began from an extremely 
hot, dense state known as a singularity. This singularity contained all the mass and 
energy of the universe in a very compact form.

Where they lack knowledge is where this singularity came from or what caused it to
explode.

Before you want to put your faith in the theory of evolution, let the scientists start first
with a sound foundation - an explanation of a cosmology which began without God.

Many intelligent scientists do not believe in evolution.  The theory of evolution is a "johnny
come lately" attempt to remove God from history.

Edited July 30, 2024 by telnetd

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, telnetd said:

Before you want to put your faith in the theory of evolution, let the scientists start first
with a sound foundation - an explanation of a cosmology which began without God.

Can you explain how things began with God?  Why he always existed?  More than just “I have faith that he has”?

[telnetd]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Can you explain how things began with God?  Why he always existed?  More than just “I have faith that he has”?

No.  We are given only certain knowledge.   "I am" seems to be a good way to summarize
it in two words.

[Calm]

36 minutes ago, telnetd said:

No.  We are given only certain knowledge.   "I am" seems to be a good way to summarize
it in two words.

Humans are only capable of comprehending the scientific mysteries of the universe so far, our minds having difficulty with the concepts of multiple dimensions, nonexistence of time and space, etc. The singularity and what happened “before” (assuming time as we think of it even existed) are currently incomprehensible.  Perhaps one day our minds may have evolved or perhaps it will be our technology to the point we will receive that knowledge through science (I believe God gives us knowledge in many ways, including science).

”It was” seems a good way to summarize the beginnings of the universe. 

Edited July 30, 2024 by Calm

[The Nehor]

35 minutes ago, telnetd said:

From my research, here is a simplified overview of how scientists explain the Big Bang.

The theory posits that about 13.8 billion years ago, the universe began from an extremely 
hot, dense state known as a singularity. This singularity contained all the mass and 
energy of the universe in a very compact form.

Where they lack knowledge is where this singularity came from or what caused it to
explode.

Before you want to put your faith in the theory of evolution, let the scientists start first
with a sound foundation - an explanation of a cosmology which began without God.

Many intelligent scientists do not believe in evolution.  The theory of evolution is a "johnny
come lately" attempt to remove God from history.

This is dumb. You are arguing that unless you can explain everything completely even substantiated explanations of other things are inherently suspect.

28 minutes ago, telnetd said:

No.  We are given only certain knowledge.   "I am" seems to be a good way to summarize
it in two words.

Where you lack knowledge is where this God came from or what caused it to create.

Before you put your faith in this God let the theologians start first with a sound foundation - an explanation of God’s existence that isn’t self-referential and is substantiated by evidence.

Also the idea that the theory of evolution was developed primarily as a weapon against God’s existence is silly and unhistorical. It has main character syndrome written all over it. It is Christians thinking everything is about them.

[Stargazer]

On 7/25/2024 at 11:33 PM, ZealouslyStriving said:

Remind me if you are LDS.

Of course I am. 

What makes you think that I might not be?

[Tacenda]

On 7/29/2024 at 3:01 PM, Calm said:

Do I dare click on that?

First thing I thought! haha

[telnetd]

19 hours ago, The Nehor said:

This is dumb. You are arguing that unless you can explain everything completely even substantiated explanations of other things are inherently suspect.

Where you lack knowledge is where this God came from or what caused it to create.

Before you put your faith in this God let the theologians start first with a sound foundation - an explanation of God’s existence that isn’t self-referential and is substantiated by evidence.

Also the idea that the theory of evolution was developed primarily as a weapon against God’s existence is silly and unhistorical. It has main character syndrome written all over it. It is Christians thinking everything is about them.

For the Big Bang, how do you believe the singularity arose and what caused it to explode?