Posted on 01/04/2009 5:39:47 AM PST by PurpleMountains
I watched it happen.
It is a fact that Dating methods rely on assumptions- it is a fact that the fossil record shows a connection between like kinds out to the point of discontinuity, and it is a fact that Macroevolution goes beyond the science by presuming that species are commonly connected all through hte species kinds, and it is a fact that science shows IC (and that both sides have an opinion on this), and, Despite Miller’s deceitful ‘breakdown’ of IC systems, where he reduced ONLY the REDUCIBLE parts, that the IRREDUCIBLE parts can not be reduced, and it is a fact that there are billions of differences between chimps and man (and htis hsould be pointed out and explored in more scientific depth in classes instead of ignored or downplayed liek it is), and it is a fact that Vestigial organs, which were once thought to be, and trumpeted as, useless, are not infact useless, and had specific purposes, and it is a fact that——and and and.
I'm more inclined to see it as coming from eyewitness testimony from folks who either had no reason to lie or could have suffered severe consequences for telling the truth to folks who were the highest trained truth seekers, skeptics and naysayers. The gospels were told to people that had the tools, names of witnesses, places, etc in order to verify (falsify if you will) the veracity of the witnesses and their recitation of the events.
Do you really want your religion dissected in front of high school students?
Religion no. God absolutely. God and His Word do not need defense.
I'll add a few decimals of precision to the question then. Is it possible that the event itself was misinterpreted at the time, or that the natural laws involved were simply not well enough understood yet to account for it? Is it possible to get a direct answer to this question?
The ‘Net,’ I’m told, is loaded with those types of forums (try DC, although I understand it is obsessed with attacking certain people who frequent this forum. Maybe you can elevate the quality of discussion over there). This is Jim’s forum – he isn’t obliged to provide you with a custom-tailored soapbox. But he’s a nice guy, so he might. Have you had any discussions on that subject with him?
”I have asked about four times in the last couple of days exactly what religion has to contribute in a science classroom. Exactly what would be taught if a state had a law like Louisiana's that permits teaching of alternatives.
I'm still waiting for an answer.”
And I’ve asked innumerable times why anyone would demand public funds and then expect their enterprise not to be subject to the turbulence of public policy, and have yet to receive any reply except whining. So, what?
You have never studied logic? Facts are easily attainable in this current world. Learning to reason, apply logic and to understand the effect of our own presumptions is not something that can be googled. It is better to teach a child how to think and solve problems than it is to feed him facts.
Your answer is absolutely. The problem comes in timing. Somehow a chemical process may exist whereby water is changed to wine in seconds or a loaf of bread is multiplied in seconds or the wind could hold a man above the water or a child could be raised from a coma. All these could have been done by natural forces yet to be discovered.
However, as I have stated numerous times on this thread it leaves some nagging questions. If a coincidence why then and why so often? If not a coincidence, how did Jesus or Moses or others obtain the knowledge to do those things and why is it lost to our superior scientists and why didn't someone in that time point out it was doable? How did these precise set of miracles support and reinforce so well the various theological templates that existed in the old testament and simultaneously support the new revelations made by Jesus? Could someone have been so clever as to orchestrate an unknown physical process, at precise times with a horde of skeptics following him, done in a way that supported predictions made by prophets thousands of years before.
And we all know how notoriously unreliable eyewitness testimony is.
> All this is generalization. What facts would you teach?
Hopefully *not* “facts” like those in the original article.
It claimed: “Among the millions of fossils found, only three or four have, arguably, offered the possibility of being transitional forms.”
This page offers 9 examples: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/miller.html
There’s a good one here: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/IAtransitional.shtml Particularly good since it’s existence was hypothesized well before the exemplar was found.
“Science is about ‘truth’, in that it is an attempt to explain what is, ie, come up with the best explanation that fits the facts. Truth does not equal ‘proof’. A theory can be viewed as true even if not ‘proved’.”
Check out cm’s homepage and then take it up with him and the folks at caltech.
“Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said “Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths.” Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. “
Source (http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/LiU/resource/misused_glossary.html).
Thank you.
Accounts of Biblical events are going to be virtually impossible to investigate because whatever physical evidence there was no longer exists, so any determination one way or the other is going to be conjecture.
The "observer problem" apparently doesn't provide for exceptions.
I'm betting there are several ways this could apply, but let's use these two, which are most pertinent:
1. Where there is any perceived conflict between natural science and another field (in aims, knowledge, etc.) natural science wins, period.
2. Moral authority. For example, believing that the findings and practice of natural science are so much better for humanity than the other fields that those practicing it have a moral authority to ignore, supersede or eliminate those fields.
From whence does dignity or sanctity spring? From an ever changing, randomly mutating DNA strand? There is no dignity, no sanctity, no law apart from a Creator. Any ideas you may have about dignity or sanctity have meaning only with respect to an Authority.
Neither one explains if we’re talking about legal authority or being considered authoritative for purposes of scientific inquiry.
I said: “Nothing Darwin describes takes away from the dignity and sanctity of human life.”
You said: “There is no dignity, no sanctity, no law apart from a Creator.”
Yes. Sanctity is by definition derived from Godliness, but human life is not Creator but Created, and it has a dignity and worth. So God’s creation’s have dignity and that is not taken away even if a theory springs up about species.
Your argument is more against atheism than evolutionary theory.
” Any ideas you may have about dignity or sanctity have meaning only with respect to an Authority.”
I agree. My point is that a description that tries to explain the fact that some species have come and gone doesn’t take away from that. One can believe in God and still see evolution, like gravity or the weak atomic force, as a part of that Creation.
Such a belief reconciles both common-sense understanding of science and value-based faith in God.
“Someone once said “Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths.” “
Yes, well what’s wrong with that understanding?
The point is that ‘proof’, ‘certainty’, ‘absolute truth’, etc. don’t comport well with a framework that is more about coming up ‘here is the closest explanation for reality that we can come up with now, and tomorrow we may have a better one’, which is what scientific ‘truth’ is all about.
I believe in something more dangerous than evolution. I believe in Quantum Mechanics.
So, based on that we cannot make any claims about history? Like who the roman emperors were?
“Who says hte world was around millions of years ago?”
Who says it wasnt? What evidence do you have for the earth being less than 4 billion years old?
I don’t recall asking for a change in forum rules, but I’m not aware of any rule against asking for change or against describing the situation as it is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.