Replies

As to the Ark, I'm just using a legal prerogative that eyewitness accounts trump circumstantial evidence most times.

Your disputants on this particular point maintain that the "not-an-Ark" site is more than circumstantial evidence.

I don't know since I didn't click on that link if the references cited therein are "peer-reviewed" but they would in some sense be "forensic" -- I'm not quite sure if they'd be treated as "hearsay" or how "chain of custody" issues would be resolved.

Would it help explaining to Californiajones that the posting of a website counter to his expectations is not just (so to speak) "We'll, you've got a website, and here's mine, so we're EVEN !" ^TM.

Perhaps a discussion of the importance of peer review, of Occam's razor, what have you--that the scientific approach is specifically used in order to WEED OUT things which sound good but can't be substantiated, or which may even be false...even with the best of intentions?

Cheers!

Actually, I you misunderstood me entirely. And I'm a girl, btw.

I wrote that my personal eyewitness account or that other Evo's personal eyewitness account on Mt. Ararat would trump both of our posting to external websites.

I didn't mean to infer that any of the websites noted were eyewitness accounts.

And I'm all for scientific processes. Also love Socratic methodology. I'm just saying that EvoThink does not hold up until an Evo can demonstrate/recreate its purported processes. (the kink in EvoThinking seems to be that "over a serious amount of time, things can spontaneously create themselves" so Evos are loathe to commit to any quick demonstration.) And I'm saying that these purported evolutionary processes would naturally relate to the process of creating something out of nothing, i.e. creation itself.

It is Evos who claim to have deconstructed a creative force of the universe; therefore they need to prove it by reconstructing or creating something. So until an Evolutionist can create something out of nothing -- they can talk all they want.

All this talk about Darwin never talking about God per se, or declaiming the Bible, or that one can believe in the God of the Bible, just divorce Him from what He said or what is written -- just leads me to believe that EvoThink it a religious belief in an of itself -- an anti Judeo Christian belief.

However categorized, Evolution is a cold and pleasantless belief -- they lose the grandeur and beauty of Creation because they disbelieve that a loving and intelligent God might have simply made the earth and all its potential goodness for our good pleasure. I think about that every time I eat a piece of ripe fruit or have fallen in love. God made it good. For us. Very cool.

Every person I admire out of history believed in a Christian God. Lincoln, Washington, Tolstoy, Frank Capra, Reagan.. To me, that is the mark of exalted intelligence. As to the men of history who have not believed in a Christian God -- Marx Nietzsche, Hitler Stalin Mao have left horrorshows of bloodshed in their swath.

Ye shall know them by their fruits.