Posted on 05/23/2005 3:29:06 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
"That's like being called ugly by a frog."
-- Bert Lance
Of course not. But how many people do? Or, to put it another way, have you searched out, tested, and personally verified every scientific proposition placed into your hearing? Do you know anyone who does?
I am not saying what one must "do" in order to have any certitude over common facts. I am saying that commonly accepted facts are often taken on the faith that the reporter is honest. If it isn't your own reason and senses taking the measurement and doing the experiment, then you are relying upon the research of someone else. I reckon in most cases that research has been properly done.
But when someone posits a billion year old earth as a "scientific fact", I must ask, how many untestable assumptions were made before coming to that conclusion? When they insist their version of history is the only one worthy of acceptation in the classroom I must ask, "Who died and made you God?"
It has become clear to me over the past few years: Dogmatic evolutionists do not like questions.
To: VadeRetroThat keeps this thread from getting too big.I would much rather see a FReepers own thoughts and let them excercise their God-given intellect than click on a link and read someone else's stuff. Sorry.
354 posted on 05/23/2005 9:47:09 PM EDT by Fester ChugabrewTo: RadioAstronomerHow about never.You forgot the citation.
359 posted on 05/23/2005 9:50:53 PM EDT by Fester Chugabrew
No, Fester, it is you who is incapable of thinking critically for yourself, or accepting concepts, lofty or otherwise, that don't fit in with your peculiar understanding of what you imagine God wants you to do. Maybe it's a fear of rebuke.
The best way to get someone "dethroned from the science classroom" -- interesting word choice there -- is to show how the data are misinterpreted or the science is wrong. Sitting back and demanding "equal time" for the unscientific won't impress anyone but the choir, and only a few of them.
Whatever it is, it ain't science.
Great! Do tell. The working scientists on these threads would give worlds to know where they're getting it wrong.
I can hardly wait for Fester's list of Nobel Prize winners who have disproved evolution.
I can hardly wait for Fester's list of Nobel Prize winners who have disproved evolution.
It didn't get any funnier the second time.
You didn't like my parody?
It has become clear to me over the past few years: Dogmatic evolutionists do not like questions.
For your consideration, I propose that it is not legitimate questions that evolutionists do not like. It appears from the record that what evolutionists do not like are questions that are answerable and to which the answers are verifiable, and that have been answered, over and over again, but keep getting asked despite the fact that the answers already exist and are verifiable. Like this one for instance:
But when someone posits a billion year old earth as a "scientific fact", I must ask, how many untestable assumptions were made before coming to that conclusion?
As noted prior...the answers to this question are out there for you to find, if you are fact truly interested in the answer. I'm sure that one of the more scientifically educated among the posters could provide you with links and citations to studies and papers showing the evidence for an old earth (which you will promptly ignore, I know). But really, refusing to examine the evidence does not mean that it does not exist.
I know you took this suggesting poorly before, but really, why not take a couple classes in astronomy or geology if you are truly interested in determining what the evidence is?
That tree was already in your head, Fred. Your teachers put it there for you, along with a few parrots. You inherited and watered a tree based on the assumption that like things necessarily have common substance and history, while no one was available to test and observe whether the relationships from leaf to branch to trunk to root have basis in reality.
Please keep up your good work in chemistry so the rest of us can enjoy the benefits of your sweat, and keep your hopeful renditions of history as an imaginary tale of rich proportion. For one who is ready to deny intelligent design as an agent of your creation you sure make good use of the same.
IOW, if I did enough research, I could determine how many untestable assumptions were made in determining a billion-year-old earth. How about we just deal with a simple untestable assumption, namely that intelligent design is not an agent in the processes currently under observation by science?
Whereas anything you know is the real actual unvarnished TRUTH!
How convenient for you.
Your response appears to be another demonstration of the incapacity to interpret and apply evidence. Par for the course.
"IOW, if I did enough research, I could determine how many untestable assumptions were made in determining a billion-year-old earth."
Not exactly what I meant. I should have phrased it better. I assumed that by your original question you meant whether the assumptions made in determining an old earth (I think the figure is something other than 1 billion) were in fact untestable, and I meant that you could find that out for yourself if you did the research.
Bated breath...............
No more research needed there, then. Looks like you cleared that up.
I was WRONG!
Quasar it was!
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.