You did not start your post as you claim here. You said,
"...the past is not a readily observable phenomenon."
Here's what I replied,
"The study of Science is not only about the study of the past."
You contradict yourself, sir, and therein you are simply found to be wrong.
I have to assume tyo read everything, including the Bible, with the same care.
Actually, yes I do. It is your own writing that you need to read with considerably more care and hopefully prior to the time you ultimately decide to post.
"Again, you describe forensic science, not Science, itself." Something I've said hundreds of times on these threads, and I know you've posted on these same threads. Why do you bother arguing this?
Answer: Because you too often carelessly equate "Science" with what is only it's subset, forensic science. You did it again and I called you on it. You play far too loose with your terminology, and that's where you become confused and your arguments fail.
The opposite of fraud is integrity. Integrity is the result of one's consistent and unwavering demonstration of trustworthiness. Trustworthiness may only be established by unwavering demonstration of one's truthfulness and honesty. Do we agree with all the above statements, beginning with the statement, the opposite of false is true?
Fails to to answer. Point surrendered and awarded to Agamemnon.
If you want to know what institutions are most trusted, ask yourself whether ID is trying to present itself as a science or as a religion.
Here we are back to the concept of trust, and hence back to credibility and the concept of truth as the underpinning of "trust" again.
What can you claim to know about trusted "institutions," when the thing you call "science" is not in pursuit of the truth?
I submit that on the basis of this tortured distinction you make between the study of Science and the pursuit of truth you are unable to think truly scientifically about anything, because you can't think truthfully about Science in the first place.
Has ID become an "institution" now? Like evolution, I consider ID a premise. One is a premise founded in things Science may study, the other is founded on a thing called faith.
Since ID states the obvious about what is readily observed in the present, and Science studies that which can be readily observed, the premise of ID may be considered a premise founded in that which Science may study.
Evolution on the other hand is a premise defining a subject that has never been readily observed either chemically or physically, and of which no credible evidence exists either past or in the present. Hence, evolution is not a premise founded in that which Science may study. It is founded merely on faith.
Faith is the cornerstone of religion. From the writer of the biblical book of Hebrews we read, "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen...."
ID has nothing to do with faith, and therefore has no particular reason to be required to have anything at all to do with religion. This stands apart from what may be one's desire, which often wells up from inside onesself to openly praise the Creator of this marvelously complex universe. ID, itself, doesn't mandate such adoration of the Creator. ID merely states the obvious, and has nothing to do with faith, because ID is so obvious.
On the other hand, evolution has everything to do with faith, and therefore, religion, because there is no evidence, just the enduring hope by it's less-than-rationally thinking devotees that man is his own creator, that he will someday create life from non-life, that he will evolve himself into the superman his primordial and primate "ancestors" intended him to be, but he'll do so only... if only we'll believe he can....
Takes more faith for your side to believe what it does than it takes for my side to readily observe and study what it does.
We'll see alot of evolutionists loosing their religion before too much longer, I suspect. They'll be toppling the alter of Darwin, and bolting for the "church" doors, as reformation enters their thinking, and they head over to the only logical, enlightened, and abundantly obvious side of this argument.
ID is to evolution what the Swift Boat Vets were to the Kerry campaign.
Standing ovation!
Bravo, good fellow! Well put!
Since I started my post by saying that historical biology and geology were branches of their sciences, I cannot imagine why you would start a post by arguing against something I haven't said.You lying sack of dingo kidneys. Here's how Post # 398 started out:You did not start your post as you claim here. You said,
"...the past is not a readily observable phenomenon."
the past is not a readily observable phenomenon. Biology and geology have large branches devoted to history. These cannot ever produce an absolute, complete and final truth.
You mean, a well-orchestrated attempt to torpedo a long-standing discussion from out of left field?
Thanks for the Ping!