Posted on 11/12/2004 4:54:43 AM PST by fr11
> the creationist would say that the design of the foot proves a designer was necessary for the very foot that made that footprint.
So you're saying that if you saw footprints in snow you'd think that God put them there?
I qualified it; they didn't. You can't argue that some in the scientific community are not involved in the education by indoctrination agenda. Evolution is a simply a front on that battle.
I will be the first to admit I don't know much about the science of evolution. I will leave it to you guys that seem to enjoy studying that day in and day out. Its not that I am less smart or less intellectual, its just that I find other things more interesting to spend my time learning. I am confident I have the capacity to learn whatever you biology PHDs out know, given the desire to learn it. BTW, most people are no different from myself either in reqards to capacity to learn what we enjoy studying.
But all christian freepers need to understand something. These evolutionist on this board are not the anti-christ or even trying to debunk our faith. They are simply stated scientific evidence to what they have studied. I still haven't seen where science is contra to christianity anyway. As a matter of fact, when all science is taken into account along with historical documents and archeology, it seems to compliment and enforce what we believe.
To me, the Bible is amazingly accurate, written by humans describing things in the way they knew how to describe things at the time. It is divine, but the purpose I believe is to know God, not science. Most important I believe, is what happened 2000 years ago, and not what may have happened anywhere from 4000 - 4 billion years ago, our time.
No, it's not. There is no other reasonable explanation for human footprints in snow other than "a human put them there." One doesn;t need to be absolutely, 100% certain; one simply needs for the evidence to be unrefuted.
No, it's not. There is no other reasonable explanation for human footprints in snow other than "a human put them there." One doesn;t need to be absolutely, 100% certain; one simply needs for the evidence to be unrefuted.
Hmm. Double post.
It isn't Christians that are embarassing; it's Creationists along with Flat-Earthers, Hollow-Earthers, Astrologers, Palmists, etc.
Unfortunately for you, the original poster never mentioned a species from which the footprints came.
> Unfortunately for you, the original poster never mentioned a species from which the footprints came.
Indeed? "Question for you: If you see footprints in the snow, can you logically conclude that somebody walked through there previously?"
How often do you refer to non-humans as "sombody?"
Not at all. Circumstantial evidence is no less determinative than direct evidence, from a logical point of view. Just because you have to take an additional step to reach a conclusion does not make that conclusion any less valid.
I hope you are just being a smart-alec.
If the person I was addressing could recognize that footprints were evidence that a foot made them, due to the diminishing likelihood that they just formed all by themselves, then he/she should be able to recognize that the foot, (not God, the foot) that made the footprint was even less likely to have come into being through a chain of accidents.
He could see the design of the footprint was obviously left by a foot, so it should not be too hard to recognize that the astronomically more complex foot is evidence of a designer.
Somtimes.
It doesn't really matter who or what the footprints belong to. The point is, we can conclude that something walked through the snow. Based on what the footprints look like, we can also determine whether that something was a wolf or a human.
Creationist logic would prevent us from using circumstantial evidence to make either of these determinations.
Thanks for the ping!
The first part of your statement is correct. The second part is not. There is no logical way to use the evidence of the existence of a footprint to prove the existence of a cosmic designer.
> If the person I was addressing could recognize that footprints were evidence that a foot made them, due to the diminishing likelihood that they just formed all by themselves, then he/she should be able to recognize that the foot, (not God, the foot) that made the footprint was even less likely to have come into being through a chain of accidents.
Unless, of course, the person you were addressing was actually educated. Then they'd laugh at you.
> so it should not be too hard to recognize that the astronomically more complex foot is evidence of a designer.
Or, more likely, evidence of the end result of the evolution of that foot.
That would be a vaild conclusion if the foot prints indicated walking, your first conclusion would not be.
Sadly, the premise is parroted as settled fact by some of today's supposedly elite scientists, even in the face of an increasing body evidence to the contrary that they too often willfully ignore. Intellectual honesty begs that they should really find a better model. Even the atheist and pan-spermia advocate, Francis Crick, of DNA helix discovery fame, had to admit to an Intelligent Design model. What are the self-anointed supposedly scientific thought leaders of Georgia so worried about?
Scientific existentialists worship at the altar of their own grey mater, stroke their collective self-importance, and ignore that which impales their settled orthodoxy. They do this, only so that their self-validating materialistic view might survive and that they might hoist their own intellects to the point of foolishly believing that they are they are their own creators, and thus they are the masters of their fates. Their reasoning then entitles them to become their own little gods, answerable only to themselves and their sycophants.
The premise of evolution stifles the search for truthful, reasoned explanations for observed phenomena, because those that adhere to it fear that to contemplate another model other than the evolutionary one will destroy the false sense of self-validation they have erected for themselves. As anyone who has wandered into a creation-evolution thread on FR knows, one cannot have an open and honest scientific discussion with such individuals who are themselves so willingly self-deceived. It is why they so often respond defensively and condescendingly to those that challenge the evolutionary model. It is not the scientific observations and the explanations thereof that they wish to debate, and that I as an accomplished scientist myself, would happily debate with them.
Clearly, there are several accomplished scientists here at FR, some with whom I agree, others with whom I disagree. We post to each other collegially.
Unfortunately, too often one encounters egos merely dressed up with the pretense of "science," however, many of whom are merely influenced by the intergalactic make-believe of Hollywood. In that sense, their frequently bile-laced and embittered utterances are out-workings of their childish school-yard style defense mechanisms that they have felt they must develop in order to hide behind the skirts of Darwin. They attempt to color themselves with "science," but when one looks closely and challenges their premise, it too quickly becomes painfully obvious that it is merely their own egos which they seek to protect.
What a comfort it must be for the evolutionists who post to FreeRepublic to now have as the vanguards of their egos the likes of Maureen Dowd, Paul Krugman, the New York Times, the MSM, and the ACLU! It's the company you keep sometimes, I guess.
As for Creationists, they can continue to keep company with all those esteemed biblical Creation adherents, whose names encircle the buildings of MIT.
Thanks for your post. It is much appreciated.
The probability of rolling a 6 on a die is 1/6 but doesn't preclude the fact that you may get a 6 on ONE roll!
OTOH, rolling a weighted die ...
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.