Replies

I have a Bachelor's degree with some post-Grad work. I understand TToE. I know what a "theory" is. I understand the Scientific Method. I have a strong science background, since it has been a subject of great interest to me for 35+ years.

You can check with Coyoteman, who is a professional in this area, to see if my understanding of the material at hand qualifies me to speak to the subject.

When someone says "it is just a theory" they are essentially saying "I have no idea what I am talking about." It is like talking to mathematicians without understanding what pi or imaginary numbers are. Can you picture saying to a mathematician "after all, they are only IMAGINARY numbers."

There is a bar at the gate. Doing nothing more than reading Genesis does NOT qualify someone to speak to scientific subjects.

The ID "challenge" that macro-evolution is no more testable than ID also shows they don't understand (and in the case of their references, frequently purposefully misunderstand) how science works and what "testable" means.

Nevertheless, when someone with a physics degree speaks on evo and doesn't toe the party line, all he's criticized for is not being an expert in that field. Lots of people have degrees in science with a strong scientific background. The qualifications you give yourself are not a whole lot different than mine. But all I keep hearing is that I don't understand ____. You even told someone with a PhD in the Biological sciences that they didn't understand what a theory was because they were a creationist. Obviously, for an evolutionist, the criteria for understanding science is not the level of education achieved and their success in it, but whether or not they agree with the ToE as put forth by people like the evos on FR.

So is your degree in evolutionary science? Are you qualified by education in that field to speak on it? You never answered that question. I don't really care what field it's in if you're not inclined to reveal it because that's personal info but a yes of no wouldn't be revealing too much.

I see there is some challenging of credentials going on.

On the internet, you are what you post. If you post some nonsense, all your posts will be suspect.

If you post solid data and well-reasoned theory, and do this consistently, your posts will generally be well-received. Similarly, if you post challenges with no support, your posts often will not be well received.

I have found freedumb2003's posts to be pretty accurate.

Oh, my credentials? Ph.D. in Anthropology, half in physical anthropology (evolution, human races, human osteology, etc.) and half in archaeology.

Not that this will make any difference on these threads, because the anti-evolution folks generally do not respect hard-earned knowledge. On these threads I have found that the anti-evolution folks frequently know little science, and what little they do know is often wrong. They disagree with some of the findings of science, and are out to discredit the entire scientific method as a result. In short, they generally don't trust science as a legitimate field of knowledge.

But that doesn't stop them from having strong opinions on everything from the big bang to biology, paleontology, geology, genetics, and the rest of the sciences.

The ID "challenge" that macro-evolution is no more testable than ID also shows they don't understand (and in the case of their references, frequently purposefully misunderstand) how science works and what "testable" means.

Agreed; about 98% of the Christians out there don't understand the point you are making. I do. I am a Christian.

The possibility exists that ID is correct, however. Because of the nature of a Creator, being inherently untouchable through our limited senses, through our limited means of exploring the universe through science (because science can only reach out and touch, verify, and test those things bound within the confines of our own universe), the Creator may be forever un-verifiable.

Thus, the need for (1) General revelation, and (2) Special Revelation.

General Revelation: Noting that, hey, shucks, there shure are a buncha coincidences that occur in physics to make this planet habitable.

Shucks, there shure are a buncha coincidences in biology and chemistry and astronomy.... Darn! Bet it ain't all no coincidence, huh?

I, for one, believe that O.J. killed Nichole and that other guy. Why? Because there shure were a buncha coincidences you'd have to believe in if you concluded he was NOT guilty. I, for one, didn't believe they were all coincidences. They were evidence for the existence of a murder.

I believe that all the coincidences in the sciences that show how "wonderfully and fearfully made" the human body is (to quote the Bible), and in astronomy (with regard to the "Goldilocks" position of the Earth being "just right"), down to the fact that chemicals and atoms combine the way they do...all indicate INTENT.

I don't believe they are coincidences. I'd be a fool to believe O.J. Simpson isn't a murderer. I'd likewise be a fool not to believe in God, or, at least, some Creator.

Maybe I wouldn't be a fool. Perhaps, like many, I'd just be arrogant. ;)

Yes, folks: There's an Ant Farmer. We're the ants. Look around: things are just too perfect. Put two and two together.

Sauron