Posted on 05/23/2005 3:29:06 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
You snuck this by me. That's a problem with your stuff. Essentially every sentence is complete BS. The eye of the critic glazes over and some of it goes unparsed and thus unrebutted. Happily, Right Wing Professor caught this.
There is nothing that fits your description in the fossil record until long after Archaeopteryx. Read what you posted, then go back to the dumb-ass pamphlet you're cribbing from and read that again.
Wrong on both counts.
That's all right. Butting into other people's conversations is a personal favorite of mine :-)
Why certain folks want to masquerade under the name of science while they present fanciful versions of unrecorded, unobserved history is no mystery, but a shame.
"No. What I submit is that we operate a great deal more on the basis of faith than we do on certitude. We trust propositions made to us by science without testing for ourselves whether the statements are true. With respect to the speed of light, that is something science can observe in the present day, though it only treats of one small aspect of light. Even in the matter of the speed of light, the average person lacks the tools and intelligence to measure it."
Ok, I still don't really understand your point. Consider...all of these things, discoveries, scientific principles, etc. are and have been verified by thousands of people who have put forth the effort to study and understand them. In fact, anyone who wants to do so can slog through the educational process in order to verify them for him or herself. Back to the example of the speed of light, none of the thousands of scientists who have studied, understood, and measured it have said, "nope, not verifiable!" or "nope, untrue!"
You seem to be marking the above scenario as the equivalent of religious faith. I see an enormous difference between the two. A Christian takes the messages of the Bible on faith because there is no way, short of some kind of time machine, to verify what is said. On the other hand, scientific principles are verifiable to any person with the inclination to study, and have been verified in such a manner over and over and over and over again. How can you say those two scenarios are even remotely similar?
Wrong and wrong. The quantum mechanical description of light is satisfactory and complete; and the speed of light is constant, according to relativity, which is accepted by the consensus of physical scientists.
You can find a few fruitcakes, of course, who believe the earth is llat, or even (are you sitting down?) that the earth was created six thousand years ago, but this is true nutball-level stuff.
The average person in what century?
So you don't know nuttin' 'bout no science but you know your granddaddy weren't no ape. Science has left details of the history if you ever do want to reconstruct how it got to where it is.
It is OK to decline to review this. The main point of educating yourself thoroughly in a scientific specialty is to prepare yourself for a career, bringing yourself up to the edge so you can push the envelope in your research. People who don't intend to be scientists themselves will more likely confine themselves to layman-level presentations.
However, declining to learn even the first things about science somewhat undercuts your claim to knowing that science has everything all wrong.
I agree, its too bad ignorance cant be used as an excuse though. One day we'll all have to answer for it. Maybe I'll see you then??
Not quite. The amount of observation and reporting of current history lends certitude where scientific statements are made. Nevertheless, we operate with less knowledge than we care to admit. Science is far more ignorant than it pretends to be. To suggest that I might be ready to deny facts of physics, biology, chemistry etc. because I do not believe in an unobserved, unrecorded rendition of history is merely to suggest a red herring. I'm used to it.
Grow up. If your statement above is any indication of your ability to read, comprehend, and critically assess an issue, then I suggest you stay away from scientific pursuits until you have the capability to refrain from overgeneralization.
Perhaps according to the sources whom you choose to trust.
I trust my own understanding of physics.
Your argument seems to go: I'm too stupid or lazy to understand physics, so any judgement I make must trust someone else, so I'll trust this old book instead.
Argumentum ad stupidum; well, at least you've concocted a new fallacy.
"To suggest that I might be ready to deny facts of physics, biology, chemistry etc...."
But that's exactly what you were doing in your earlier posts regarding the speed of light and the quantum mechanical description of light. It's there in your posts. I may not be a physicist, but I can read as well as the next person.
Projection of ignorance seems rampant among creationists.
"Only" a theory? What else would it be?
You shouldn't generalize from personal experience (or lack thereof).
And easily followed up by Peep Wars!
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.