Posted on 02/22/2007 6:22:34 PM PST by Boxen
Sorry my friend the but if you are nauseated you should use Peptobismal or quick posting responding to topics the involve evolution or creation.
The debate about whether the earth is 6-10k years old was over 100 years before Darwin published "Origin of Species".
It is, therefore, not an "evolution or creation" question.
It's an unsupported myth vs observable reality question.
Well, maybe it is the same, that way :)
Maybe you'd like to reopen the old argument about whether the earth moves about the sun or the other way 'round, as long as you're opening up debates that biblical literalists lost centuries ago?
Well, by their own statement, the designer is too complex to have come about by itself--who designed the designer???
That sort of logic would prevent the Chevy engine from having necessarily been designed as well and amounts to an exercise in arguing from the realm of metaphysics into the realm of reality, which is a known logical fallacy.
Sorry to see you have such low opinion of yourself. ;-)
However, I did not make an argument, merely an observation. Also, I didn't intend to be clever, but quite on point to the question posed. Intelligent design is not intelligent, but it is a cowardly way to promulgate a valid point of religious faith while attempting to hide behind pseudo-science.
> but it is a cowardly way to promulgate a valid point
> of religious faith while attempting to hide behind
> pseudo-science.
These are precisely my thoughts about Evolutionism.
And I used to be an Evolutionist.
.
>>What by the dating methods of man. Fossils date the rocks, rocks date the fossils, wow that is science.
Or do you mean by the flawed methods of decay dating that assume that the material that is dated was pure at one time, that assume that the decaying magnetic field does not have an effect on the decay rate of the elements.<<
You would think that if a magnetic field changed the rate of of decay that we would be able to the decay rate in the lab since we can produce magnetic fields many times stronger than the earth.
Trivia: Decay was very confusing to me until I learned about the proton and neutron drip lines. The forces that hold the nucleus together are in balance based on mass and charge.
If you have too many protons you have too much charge for the mass (the proton drip line) if you have too many neutrons you have too much mass for the charge and you fall below the neutron drip line.
Basically the forces in the nucleus need to be balance for the atom to not decay and heat or magnetism doesn't compare with forces from the protons and neutrons so the decay rate is constant unless you do something nuclear, like shoot in extra neutrons.
I doubt very seriously that what I posted precisely matches your views on evolution. I'm sure you didn't intend to make the mistake you made in your response to me. Or do you really mean to say that evolution is a VALID "religious" point of view? (I'll leave aside the fact that it isn't a religion at all.)
Nothing about an old earth or evolution proves, tends to prove, or INTENDS to prove that there is no God. Nothing about an old earth or evolution is an attack on religion per se.
To frame the debate in those terms is ridiculous, stupid, and bordering (very narrowly bordering) on the insane.
To the extent that your holy books contradict observed reality, one of three things is true:
1) You do not understand your holy books.
2) Your holy books are wrong.
3) Both (1) and (2).
A prime example is those who (disregarding the sage advice of Augustine to inquire of astronomers about astronomy) insisted that Copernicus' theory on the motion of planets was "against scripture".
Don't follow their ridiculous example.
Name one imperfect design! In the early 1900s evolutionists use to make claims that there were all kinds of vestiages of sorts and they have long been shown to be false. From the appendix to well we have a tail bone so that must mean we at one time had a tail, no evidence junk science, thats all evolutionist ever come up with!
Who in the world are you kidding?
1) Knee.
2) Lower back.
(Do I get any change?)
Scientific journals are overwhelmingly biased for the the propaganda machines of evolutionists!
>>You may ask how do I know God is real, well it would be because men saw him and wrote about him, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John just to name a few. There were also those who did not follow the teaching of Jesus who saw him and the miracles and resurrection.
I would also have to say that nature speaks of organization that could not come from random acts of chance, symbiotic relations is one great example, how you can believe a flower decided to have insects move the pollen to propagate the species is beyond me.<<
For me, it was seeing the organization that helped me be ready but it was only through a personal experience with God that I believed.
An evolutionists would open the hood of a car and say in his arrogance, the wind lightening and happenstance put it together! Talk about mytho-logical!
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.