What year Did Adam come to earth?

[longview]

17 minutes ago, telnetd said:

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

Yeah, Nehor. The "WHY" of some of your beloved "theories" must explain that.  

[The Nehor]

18 minutes ago, telnetd said:

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

No idea and it didn’t actually explode. The name “Big Bang” was given to the theory by critics of it to mock what they saw as the absurdity of it. Defenders of the now defunct steady state model of the Universe used it as a term of ridicule.

How did it happen? Well there is the possibility of some creator which raises lots of other questions. There are some multiversal ideas out there. There is also conformal cyclic cosmology that posits that what we would consider a dead universe after everything is played out physically can generate the singularity. The math on the idea works out vaguely but it is incredibly counter-intuitive to human reasoning (like a lot of things in physics). We don’t have the math yet to work this out exactly. We would likely need a unified theory of everything to figure out if this is feasible. If this is established the Universe is cyclical and sort of rebuilds itself though the “corpse” of the previous Universe would still exist. Again this stuff is all deeply weird and doesn’t make any intuitive sense to humans. It is easy to throw “common sense” questions at them that are meaningless in that context because our reasoning is designed to work with the stuff we encounter and not singularities and quarks and matter and antimatter.

Also your question is a tangent you are running to that is irrelevant to what was being discussed. You are hoping an unanswerable question will somehow give you a victory after you have lost on every other front. It is a standard rhetorical tactic. You demand an absolute explanation for everything but you also can’t supply one.

[The Nehor]

27 minutes ago, longview said:

Yeah, Nehor. The "WHY" of some of your beloved "theories" must explain that.  

No they don’t. The theory of evolution does not a require a grand unified theory of everything nor does it require an explanation for the beginning of the Universe.

I love these “theories”? What? It is cute that you think I believe they are correct because I somehow like them. I don’t like the conclusions i draw from many of these theories. You are projecting your own emotional investment onto me. Some things I don’t like are facts.

This demand is the equivalent of a lazy child asking “WHY” at the end of every statement and thinking if the adult cannot answer it every time that the parent must be wrong and that the child shouldn’t have to wear the seat belt.

[longview]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

This demand is the equivalent of a lazy child asking “WHY” at the end of every statement and thinking if the adult cannot answer it every time that the parent must be wrong and that the child shouldn’t have to wear the seat belt.

I was disturbed earlier in this thread when I noticed that you and one or more commentators made the stunning assertion that theories have the ability to explain the "WHY". I made an argument against that. The best that theories can do is to provide formulas or narratives. BUT NOT explain the "WHY". Measurements and "educated" predications are facilitated by theories. Mainly the logic and "HOW" things interact. This is the important distinction between the "HOW" and the "WHY".

[Calm]

5 hours ago, telnetd said:

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

How would he know?  Or are you asking if he believes God was the cause (in my view he is the ultimate cause, but I don’t understand the methods he uses to create space, time, etc…not yet)?

How do you believe God arose and what caused him to create the universe?

Edited July 31, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, longview said:

was disturbed earlier in this thread when I noticed that you and one or more commentators made the stunning assertion that theories have the ability to explain the "WHY".

Really, you were disturbed?  Over an internet casual conversation?

In case your disturbance was sincere and not performative…

Simple explanation is English uses “why***” for both purpose and process (what causes something), alternatively “how” is used to question process as well.

***”for what reason or purpose”. Examples…

The how version:  Why are the cookies all gone?  Because I ate them.  “How are the cookies all gone” means the same thing, though not the usual.

The purpose version:  Why are the cookies all gone?  Because I was hungry.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, longview said:

I was disturbed earlier in this thread when I noticed that you and one or more commentators made the stunning assertion that theories have the ability to explain the "WHY". I made an argument against that. The best that theories can do is to provide formulas or narratives. BUT NOT explain the "WHY". Measurements and "educated" predications are facilitated by theories. Mainly the logic and "HOW" things interact. This is the important distinction between the "HOW" and the "WHY".

Disturbed? Well, be careful. Don’t get hysterical or you may get the vapors and exceed the limits of your constitution and fall into a fainting spell.

Formulas and narratives are often why things happen. You are retreating into petty semantics and are assuming any WHY question is an existential WHY question.

Edited July 31, 2024 by The Nehor

[longview]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

The purpose version:  Why are the cookies all gone?  Because I was hungry.

The "WHY" denotes the motive of the actor.

The "HOW" explains the "MO" (method of operation) of the process.

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Formulas and narratives are often why things happen. You are retreating into petty semantics and are assuming any WHY question is an existential WHY question.

I have to disagree most strongly. You can measure the masses and the distances between objects in a system and calculate the trajectories of all the objects. This gives you the "HOW" (the measurables). You know there is a force operating on the objects and call it gravitation.

BUT "WHY" is the force there? What gives rise to this phenomena? What enables gravitation to operate between objects "at a distance" ?

Your use of the word "WHY" is implying that the last step has been reached in explaining gravitation. That would be a most grievous error. You MUST continue to dig deeper. You most likely will need to explore further into the MANY dimensions of the fabric of space/time. You NEED to come up with MORE theories and MORE formulas. How many "HOW"s do you need to discover before you can reach the "last step" (the "WHY") ?

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, longview said:

The "WHY" denotes the motive of the actor.

Now look at the other definitions and learn of your wrongness.

[Stargazer]

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

Remind me if you are LDS.

Again, you might remind me why you asked me to remind you of this.

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Again, you might remind me why you asked me to remind you of this.

In your post about issues with Genesis, Cain's wife, other children by Adam and Eve you only referenced the regular Bible in making your points. But the JST corrects those things, informing us that A&E had children before C&A that all went astray and Eve was hoping Cain would be like a start over. We also know that Cain married a niece, not some pre-Adamite woman.

[longview]

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Now look at the other definitions and learn of your wrongness.

Your deliberate vagueness testify of your silly impish flippant insincerity. I have been detailed and reasoned but you deflect mule-headedly. So sad.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, longview said:

Your deliberate vagueness testify of your silly impish flippant insincerity. I have been detailed and reasoned….

But you have also ignored or dismissed a more precise, detailed and reasoned response in my comment.  Why should Nehor take it seriously when standard English usage showing “why” is often used as an alternative for “how”, thus Nehor was not suggesting motives, but method.

Edited August 1, 2024 by Calm

[JVW]

On 7/29/2024 at 7:20 PM, The Nehor said:

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.

I respectfully disagree with you here. According to my understanding (I haven't read a ton of biologos and only became acquainted with it within the last few weeks) scientists on the biologos site believe everything mainline evolutionary biology posits with an asterisk of "God created the primordial soup". They believe that fish morphed into lizards over millions of years, etc. The purpose of their site is to help people who believe in God reconcile their views with the latest scientific research, observations, stories, and beliefs. Not to try and twist current science to fit into their Theistic views. I could be wrong, maybe the site is different from what I've experienced so far, please bear that in mind.

On 7/29/2024 at 7:20 PM, The Nehor said:

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.

I'm not convinced he has the superior position, I just liked what he wrote. The rebuttals were not made by pseudoscientists. I also liked what I read from the other rebuttals and they all made good points, especially the page 6 closing remarks from the president of biologos. Also, I'll address this here, because I'd rather call you out on it earlier in the post than later. I don't believe that you've read any of Stephen Meyer's writings, and I don't believe that you've read any rebuttals of Stephen Meyer's writings. Everything you've been writing reeks of being lazy and uninformed (on this particular topic of Meyer rebuttals). You tell someone else to google search for rebuttals but haven't even done it yourself, and then argue with people who take the time to follow your advice.

On 7/29/2024 at 7:20 PM, The Nehor said:

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.

I don't think this analogy quite fits here. To believe that God created the primordial soup and then said "peace, I'm out" and let stuff do its thing is essentially the same belief as traditional evolutionary theory, the only difference being that the primordial soup won the lottery of chaos and organized by pure chance. Outside of the First Cause and God creating Adam, there is no difference that I can find between one who believes in "atheistic" evolutionary theory and "creationist" evolutionary theory. Young Earth creationists are where there is a hard distinction in beliefs about evolution. For the record, if "young earth" is a 0 and "atheist evolution" is a 10, I'm somewhere around a 4/10 on the scale. I know I probably sound like a 0, but I'm not.

On 7/29/2024 at 7:20 PM, The Nehor said:

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.

.......... Real scientists do not dismiss any sincere scientific debate. The heart of science is argument and discussion. To dismiss someone with an opposing viewpoint as you is about the most unscientific thing I've ever heard of in my life. Especially if that viewpoint comes from someone who has dedicated their life to the scientific endeavor, it's not like Stephen is some random dude off the street.

On 7/29/2024 at 7:20 PM, The Nehor said:

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.

  See below, this is from page one in this thread. And just so you don't automatically assume that the link is in favor of dismissing dating methods b/c of the existence of soft tissue in fossils, here is the editors note from the article.

Editor’s Note: Paleontologist Mary Schweitzer made worldwide headlines in 2005 for announcing that she had discovered soft tissue preserved in 65 million year old dinosaur fossils. Those who deny the scientific evidence for the old age of the earth have attempted to leverage this discovery to cast doubt on dating methods. But that is a misrepresentation of her findings. Scott Buchanan has meticulously poured through the details of Schweitzer’s work and presented it on the blog, Letters to Creationists. He gives us here a summary of the issues. See also our interview with Schweitzer herself.

On 7/9/2024 at 11:37 AM, the narrator said:

No it hasn't. Soft tissue =/= live tissue. 

I'll help you with a link: https://biologos.org/articles/soft-tissue-in-dinosaur-bones-what-does-the-evidence-really-say

 

Edited August 1, 2024 by JVW

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

In your post about issues with Genesis, Cain's wife, other children by Adam and Eve you only referenced the regular Bible in making your points. But the JST corrects those things, informing us that A&E had children before C&A that all went astray and Eve was hoping Cain would be like a start over. We also know that Cain married a niece, not some pre-Adamite woman.

OK, but you were doubting my bone fides as a Latter-day Saint, it seemed. Why? Is there a particular narrative that must be believed in order to qualify as LDS? 

 

 

 

[ZealouslyStriving]

42 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

OK, but you were doubting my bone fides as a Latter-day Saint, it seemed. Why? Is there a particular narrative that must be believed in order to qualify as LDS? 

 

 

 

No... since you didn't use Moses, I thought perhaps you weren't LDS. I don't have everyone's affiliation memorized.

You can believe what you want- I have my own peculiar ideas.

[Calm]

nvm

Edited August 1, 2024 by Calm

[longview]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

But you have also ignored or dismissed a more precise, detailed and reasoned response in my comment.  Why should Nehor take it seriously when standard English usage showing “why” is often used as an alternative for “how”, thus Nehor was not suggesting motives, but method.

It appears you miscomprehend my dissertation on gravitation and the "last step" theory. Which Nehor grandly ignored.

[telnetd]

On 7/31/2024 at 2:29 PM, Calm said:

How would he know?  Or are you asking if he believes God was the cause (in my view he is the ultimate cause, but I don’t understand the methods he uses to create space, time, etc…not yet)?

How do you believe God arose and what caused him to create the universe?

God always way so He did not need to arise.  His power caused him to create the universe.

[telnetd]

On 7/31/2024 at 10:12 AM, The Nehor said:

Also your question is a tangent you are running to that is irrelevant to what was being discussed. You are hoping an unanswerable question will somehow give you a victory after you have lost on every other front. It is a standard rhetorical tactic. You demand an absolute explanation for everything but you also can’t supply one.

I am not interested in a victory.  Just wanting to know how people think evolution began.

[telnetd]

On 7/31/2024 at 9:45 AM, longview said:

Yeah, Nehor. The "WHY" of some of your beloved "theories" must explain that.  

Not why, but how.

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, telnetd said:

God always way so He did not need to arise. 

How is that possible?

[Stargazer]

23 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

No... since you didn't use Moses, I thought perhaps you weren't LDS. I don't have everyone's affiliation memorized.

Didn't use it at that moment because the possible intended audience was non-LDS. Not all who peruse this place are LDS, as you know. I've been here long enough that I pretty much know everyone's affiliation, including those who used to be one thing but no longer. I'm not as long in the tooth here as some others, however.

23 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

You can believe what you want- I have my own peculiar ideas.

As do I, LOL!

If you're interested, you can read some of my ideas here: My Writings

[telnetd]

On 8/2/2024 at 1:19 PM, Calm said:

How is that possible?

I try not to understand how God has always existed as God.

[Calm]

6 hours ago, telnetd said:

I try not to understand how God has always existed as God.

Then there should be no issue with wondering about the origin of the universe.