No type of natural phenomenon is uniquely instantiated.
We detect only one finite universe.
It is therefore one of infinite from eternity.
Hmmm. Looks deductive.
Thanks for that.
No sane scientist thinks that. You’re not one are you. They all think climate change of course.
You’re welcome.
Yes, it is a deduction, but it is not necessarily correct, because your presupposition is not necessarily correct.
That’s induction for you. Or abduction even. If you ever find a type of natural phenomenon that is uniquely instantiated, be sure and let me know.
The beginning of nature itself may well be unique. You cannot prove that it isn’t. That’s induction for you.
There is no natural basis for thinking so and there is no rational one either. If supernature instantiates nature, it always has.
That is natural thinking, within the bounds of nature, so it is incorrectly exclusive.
…given your presuppositions, which are not necessarily correct.
That is a time-based statement, and does not necessarily apply, and maybe necessarily does not.
As I said there is no natural or rational reason. Eternity is in God.
Of course.
You can’t hear commas. The fact, the axiom of uniformity from eternity in God or not needs no argument. There is no parsimonious alternative.
I think they’re all nuts and climate change is political, a holdover of the 60’s hippy movement. It would take another thread to discuss, though.
Yes, you can. (Diction refers to the written, as well.)
You presume that God is continuously cranking out universes? (That’s a surfeit of universes and not
parsimonious. )
Right again, but in 66 years that’s the first usage other than with regard to speech I’ve encountered.
God cannot change. And surfeit is tad of an understatement with regard to infinite.
I expected you to say something to that effect.
And you cannot allow God to intervene in providence unless he is in a boat.
Rational, yes. You’re learning. I don’t see the connection. He doesn’t allow Himself to obviously. Nowt ter do wi’ me.
No, I just knew that you would say something. You always do.
It has to do with time.
It’s only ‘obvious’ because your presuppositions obviously exclude it.
I hope for your sake it is sometime. It’s way cool.
I’m happy it works for you and will for the rest of your life.
I don’t see what time has to do with it. Not even your invariant version.
Here ya go:
https://biologos.org/articles/testing-common-ancestry-its-all-about-the-mutations
What you mean to say is that no amount of evidence will change your mind.
Did you read the paper?
It’s a hypothesis, right?
1 Like
How would you know an explanation is wrong? Would you look at the predictions made by the hypothesis and see if it matches observations?
First, you need to decide if observations and hypothesis testing can lead to explanations.
Second, Alu transposons are not retroviruses.
Third, we can observe endogenous retroviruses inserting randomly in the genome. We can even take the mutations out of ERV’s in the human genome and get functional retroviruses from them, and those retroviruses insert all over the place in the human genome.
Infectious disease research, to be exact. In fact, I am working on adenovirus right now which is a retrovirus.
3 Likes