Posted on 06/22/2006 1:28:41 PM PDT by Tim Long
The point here is that, in criminal forensics, the evidence must still be reviewed and decided by a jury. This is a metaphysical process. You merely confirm my statment.
As you have admitted, there are no facts that cannot be interpreted in both a creation and an evolutionary framework, therefore evolution remains metaphysical.
That's exactly why OJ was found 'not guilty'.
It *was* a metaphysical question.
You also confirm my statement.
Again, it is only because you *assume* that 'lions and opposums' are 'distantly-related' that you have a 'puzzle'.
That lions and house cats are closely-related is not questioned.
Small differences that do not affect function are the happy consequence of a robust, fault-tolerant design. That you do not recognize that, but choose to see common descent is the result of your 'a priori' commitment to naturalism.
The creator is not trying to trick you. He has given you plenty of evidence of his presence and design of life. You choose to reject it and instead focus on evidence that you can interpret according to your will.
The essence of Hebrews 11:6 is that the potential for unbelief must always exist. Always.
Apparently inactive?
Just a matter of turning them on?
Shouldn't be a problem.
That's correct.
Past planetary positions that are not observed but based on calculations extrapolated from current observation are metaphysical.
You are starting to understand.
Good.
If similar genes do not mean similar function, then common descent truly is meaningless. Especially in light of your 'convergent evolution' claim.
If 'convergent evolution' is true, then 'evolution' can produce similar genes without 'common descent' and 'common descent' has been falsified.
You either have no understanding of the meaning of the word metaphysical, or I think you smoked too much dope in your youth....
Wait. You said it was the fact that past, unobserved events were the subject of inquiry that made something "metaphysical". Now you're saying that reviewing and drawing conclusions from evidence is "metaphysical".
Which is it? The latter would make ALL of science "metaphysical," since the logic of drawing inferences, or testing theories, is the same regardless of when the subject events occurred. (And, as noted by the jury example, the former would make many things considered purely rational to be metaphysical.
That is not correct.
"The point here is that, in criminal forensics, the evidence must still be reviewed and decided by a jury. This is a metaphysical process."
Please tell us what YOU think metaphysical means.
Ok. Then I misunderstood.
Since that is not your point, perhaps you can provide some examples of inferences from physical evidence that you consider warranted and reliable.
It's about time - it's not like there's one missing link - all the links are missing between species.
Perhaps it is you who has a limited understanding of the degree of metaphysical conjecture that is involved in 'evolution'.
Metaphysical merely means the conclusion is based on "abstract thought". It means 'interpretation of evidence'. The opposite of "abstract thought" is "concrete evidence".
This is what I have been trying to teach you boys for several days now.
There are no *facts* (concrete evidence) that falsify YEC. There are only 'interpretations of evidence' involving 'abstract thought' (i.e., metaphysical explanations).
Unless there is a witness who can testify, the event is past and unobservable.
And yes, drawing conlcusions from *facts* is metaphysical because it involved 'abstract thought'. The only way you can avoid this is to observe 'concrete evidence' (a fact).
I have explained this previously. It should not be a surprise to you.
And 'all of science' would not be metaphysical, as you claim. If an event can be repeated and observed (I drop the ball and it will hit the ground), it is not metaphysical. It is a concrete fact.
If you are opining on the positions of the planets millions of years ago, you are clearly applying abstract thought to a current observation (where the planet is today) and the conclusion is metaphysical.
Got it?
I was right - it's got to be the "too much dope" thing...
I'm reminded of the Animal House line about the whole universe being one atom in the fingernail of some giant being.
By the way, which previously banned YEC'er are you? I see you haven't been registered long, but you sure seem to use the same style as most of the long-term Genesisists.
Genes can duplicate and then diverge in function. These are called paralogs. Bioinformaticists trace their common descent by the pattern of sequence divergence. Many proteins are sequentially homologous without being functionally similar.
If 'convergent evolution' is true, then 'evolution' can produce similar genes without 'common descent' and 'common descent' has been falsified.
You are confusing sequence convergence with functional convergence. Evolution predicts the latter will occur without the former. Evolution's prediction is borne out by bioinformatic analysis.
Or, Creationist Dialectics Applied to Hiroshima
1. Atomic theory is "just a theory."
2. No one has ever seen an atom, and certainly not one that explodes.
3. The second law of thermodynamics prohibits atom bombs.
4. There are no atoms mentioned in the bible.
5. Even if individual atoms decay, that's micro-fission. There's no proof for macro-fission.
6. Atomic theory leads to fear, depression, sexual promiscuity, and world domination.
7. There is no evidence that a so-called atom bomb destroyed Hiroshima.
8. Just because a so-called bomb dropped when the city blew up proves nothing. Correlation does not equal causality.
9. Many scientists believe that Hiroshima may have been destroyed by an encounter with Rodan.
10. Rodan's existence is well-documented and has never been disproved.
11. Atom bomb-ism is a product of materialism and a Godless, naturalistic worldview.
12. It takes more faith to believe in Atom bomb-ism than it does to believe in the Tooth Fairy.
13. More and more scientists are turning to "Rodan Theory" (RT). Atom bomb-ism is a theory in crisis!
Atomic explosion or Rodan? "Teach the controversy!"
I would put it closer to the present.
So if there is a witness to a past event, that witnessed-past-event somehow mutates into a present and observable event? (And note, eyewitness testimony is universally regarded as less reliable than physical, circumstantial evidence. Why do you suppose that is?)
And yes, drawing conlcusions from *facts* is metaphysical because it involved 'abstract thought'. The only way you can avoid this is to observe 'concrete evidence' (a fact).
A knife, a gun, a footprint, a fingerprint -- all are "concrete evidence" ("facts" as you would have it). How does observation of these "facts" mean anything in the absence of inference?
A fossilized dinosaur bone is "concrete evidence." Of what use is this "fact"?
In short, how do you "avoid abstract thought" by observing these "facts"? And of what use are these "facts" in the absence of abstract thought?
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.