Posted on 12/18/2004 5:56:30 PM PST by PatrickHenry
Then why does the world give every indication that it took far, far longer to form?
I'm not a scientist,but if I were,I would probably look at the various methods used for dating.
For... what?
There is definately a way to reconcile it to the biblical account of creation.
So you've assumed your desired conclusion and then just sit back certain in your belief that there must be "definately [sic] a way" to support it, but no need to actually do so? How is that different from what we see liberals do all too often?
It just has not been done.
Because the evidence points to the contrary, actually.
As it stands now,it may never be.The antagonism is too great.
Is that the excuse you're going to go with for why your belief hasn't been supported by the evidence, and for why the evidence points to a different conclusion?
Isn't this what liberals do when they postulate a big conspiracy or something in order to "explain" why their beliefs about things aren't being confirmed on a daily basis?
Earlier you wrote:
The truth I accept is based on scripture.Any truth outside of that is a lie,conjecture or opinion unless supported by scripture.But isn't your own belief about *which* "scripture" might be "the" scripture something that is "outside of that [scripture]"? After all, all scriptures, present and past, claim to be "the" (or at least "a") scripture. But the problem is that their self-proclamations are entirely circular, just like the letter from Hank.
In any case, because "scriptures" can be corrupted by man, or well-meaning scribings of ancient oral myths originating from simple storytelling (or deluded "revelations"), or self-serving missives by self-appointed "prophets" (as you probably believe about the Koran, for example), it seems to me that the only truly reliable source for information about the Universe is the Universe *itself* (including, of course, the Earth and what is in/on it).
So my own personal epistemology is closer to:
The truth I accept is based on reality. Any truth outside of that may just be a lie, conjecture, or opinion unless supported by reality."Evidence", of course, is just another word for "reality" -- it's what we have found by examining the real world. And the scientific method is, in a nutshell, just a collection of methods for doing reality-checks on ideas, by comparing them against the real world and seeing if they hold up when measured against reality.
His point is that although you say that you rely on "scripture", as if there is one, there are actually many competing "scriptures" claiming to have "the" truth -- by what process have you settled on just one, and how do you know it's the correct one (or that any of them are "the" truth)?
You are under the mistaken impression that I am concerned about being wrong or right.
No, that's not the impression I have of you.
I can assure you that I am not here to prove how intelligent I am or how much vast useless information I have acumulated.
Nor am I. I'm here to provide useful information, and to correct misinformation.
I am simply stating what I believe.
And I'm curious about your beliefs.
Odd -- the more I learn about it (i.e., the "harder I look at it"), the *more* sense it makes. How do you account for that?
Which parts of it have you "looked at" and found to not "make sense"?
But as a lot of folks make clear, there are an endless number of bad ways to deny it.
No it doesn't.
Evolution is the same thing. It shows how finely tuned the entire universe is toward the existance of life, and has been from its inception.
Actually, it shows how life finely tunes itself to whatever conditions it's in.
That design speaks far more persuasively to me than some trivial reduction to 'God did it.'
I've never been too impressed with the, "I find it amazing, thus it must be God" argument.
Science needs more than slogans.
Is that *your* slogan?
Science has *far* more than slogans. Check out any decent research library and start wandering the aisles. Bring a map so you don't get lost, they're *HUGE*. And there's a lot more in them than "slogans".
You are mistaken. You made a few straw-man broadsides which showed that you actually know very little about evolution (and what you think you know is incorrect).
You stated your belief as, "That is why when [evolution is] challenged on the merits no rational argument is presented" -- but I'm afraid that making a few misrepresentations about evolution (or themodynamics) is hardly "challenging evolution on the merits".
Would you care to try again?
Those web pages are not intended to be "convincing enough" all by themselves. They're just an overview of the several dozen independent lines of evidence by which evolution is confirmed.
Note that each section just gives a few quick examples, and then points the reader to links or citations by which the reader can delve deeper into each subject in order to look at the *massive* amount of specific evidence (and methods) by which evolution is repeatedly confirmed. The more you look into the gritty details of each kind of evidence, the more convincing is the "evolutionary connection".
Presenting even a single one of those topics in enough detail to be more "convincing enough" would cause most readers' eyes to glaze over, unfortunately.
Furthermore, any one of those lines of evidence could perhaps be explained some other way (by some variant of "Last Tuesdayism", if nothing else). But it's the fact that *all* the different lines of predictions from the theory of evolution bear such vast numbers of fruit that really indicates that evolution is clearly well on the right track.
Finally, one thing that gets overlooked a lot is that there's no sensible alternative for why the evidence overwhelmingly falls within the types one would expect to find if evolution is how modern life came about. Note how many of the lines of evidence in those pages are very specific in their predictions and how easily actual results could have fallen within a "non-evolutionary" pattern if evolution had not actually taken place. This leaves anti-evolutionists with a very uncomfortable question -- if God (or whatever/whoever) didn't generate Earthly life via evolution, then why the heck would he/it produce *only* the kinds of results that evolution would? Especially when a different process or designer would have so many other kinds of options available? The conclusion seems to be that either a) evolution actually was responsible for life, or b) whatever/whoever actually made life sure seems to be trying to "fake us out" by making it *look* like evolution did it...
The Johnny Cochran version.
Knowledge of American Culture really has declined in the last few years, hasn't it?
Actually, it doesn't take any faith at all. It takes knowledge, understanding, and evidence.
If you play at dice and hope to get rich,
Luck's rarely a lady, but mostly a bitch.
Mark Twain once said, "Of course truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction, after all, has to make sense."
Wow! Thanks for the warning. I was gonna go out and buy a couple of case of dog food for my dobies, but if time's that short, I guess I'll just spend the dough on some Viagra and go out with a flourish.
In the appendix of James Randi's book, "The Mask of Nostrodamus", there's a *looong*, hilarious list of all the times and places that the end of the world was confidently and publicly predicted to be "real soon now" -- usually with specific dates predicted. The list of *hundreds* of "the end is night" predictions spanned over several thousand years. Needless to say, unless I missed something the world failed to end at the appointed times.
I'd say it's an example of the "royal we".
Thanks for the ping.
Thanks for the ping!
For... what?
Companionship, possibly leading to a committed, long-term relationship. Many scientists had problems with dating during their earlier days...
Oh...that dating. "Never mind" ;-)
Or even the "editorial we" or the "nurse's we."
You must try to keep in mind that there are certain pro forma elements to these threads, formalities that must be attended to before the chaos can properly begin - much like playing the National Anthem before a Cubs game, in fact. The Hitler-as-creationist bit is, by now, a stock refutation-by-analogy to the creationist argument that pops up quite regularly, that some prominent atheist/communist/cannibal/what-have-you also believed in evolution, hence evolution invariably leads to/causes/promotes atheism, communism, cannibalism, gay marriage, white pants after labor day, and failing to put the seat up prior to urination. Of course the Hitler-as-creationist story is absurd - that's the point - but I'll wager if you work backwards on that thread, you'll find the yin that preceded that yang somewhere ;)
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.