Posted on 07/28/2007 6:00:30 PM PDT by blam
Now trying to determine if footprints were made by Robert Byrd or Harry Reid.
You completely missed my point. But I'll answer your question anyway: No.
The whole idea that there is a natural world that is knowable by reason because it is an ordered, rational, law-biding whole is fundamentally a religious idea. What has become modern science got its start in the monasteries of the late Middle Ages, because religious men believed in this idea, and moreoever believed that to study and understand the creation was pleasing in the sight of God.
You are looking in the wrong direction. The effort was not spent attempting to falsify the Bible, but to demonstrate its literal truth.
Geology was founded for the purpose of demonstrating the global flood of Noah. A century or so went into the effort until, about 1830, the effort was pretty much given up. The reason was simple. The evidence was overwhelmingly against it.
And all the evidence has come to light??? We are sure of that? The future holds no surprises along these lines?
What do you expect to find? And based on what theory or what belief about the past?
hmmm- funny- becasue I see all kinds of counter arguments in those threads where the antichristiaN posters say some pretty heavy negative stuff- Your accusation leaves out hte fact that those that do get zotted were nothing more than personal attacks such as Doc does here- trying to shut down any opposing views. So I’ll state htis again:
Thisi s a public forum- if folks can’t handle a public discussion about articles and aren’t secure enough in their own beleif to handle counter points and counter opinions, then perhaps a public forum isn’t the place to be posting articles of interest. Folks like Doc might like to be able to go unchallenged on a forum that is obviously counter to what they themselves might beelive, but soryy- aint gonna happen.
noone’s ‘given up on it’. There is constant new eivdences comingto light and has been for quite soem time- You may dissagree with what the information suggests, and that’s fine- but to state that they ‘gave up on it essentially’ is misleading.
there are at least two posters on these threads that argue the universe revolves around the earth -- or at least that there is no difference between a Newtonian universe and a geocentric universe.
So I am not surprised that people still argue for a global flood. When I implied that geologists gave up on it, I merely intended to say that those capable of understanding the evidence had given up.
Apparently you are immune to direct contradictory evidence of your claims.
[[Posts such as Ichneumon’s and mine deal with the science of things, ... by distorting,]]
Mmmm. like distorting hte fact that there is no evidnece to show macroevolution? Distortions like placing fragments of skulls next to others and claiming- without any strong corroborating evidnece to do os, that trhe two are related, distorting the fact that biologically, macroevolution is impossible- htose kinds of distortions?
[[ignoring,]]
Ignoring htings like the biological impossiblities? Ignoring htings like the difference between micro aND macro, and tryign to assert the two are equal? Ignoring hte mathematical impossiblities? Ignoring the counter-evidences which show hte problems with macroevolution? Ignoring hte evidences of a possible world wide flood?
[[or otherwise abusing science.]]
Abusing science like blinding others to counterevidences? Suppressing those evidneces in schools?
[[and point out the errors made by folks seeking to reinforce their religious beliefs]]
Gee wiz- ya got us there.
[[When I implied that geologists gave up on it, I merely intended to say that those capable of understanding the evidence had given up.]]
Ah- and here I thought you were insinuating that only dolts continued to discover evidences for global flood-
Btw- the evidences have been for cenmturies conveniently waved away- ‘understanding the evidences’ you say?
I’m sorry— you presented contradictory evidnece showing that posts get deleted for simple dissagreements and not outright flamewar inducing rhettoric? I musta missed that part in your post
I wouldn't use the word dolt. Refusal to look at evidence is not diagnostic of stupidity.
What I said, and what I mean, is that those capable of looking at the evidence abandoned the global flood scenario around 1830. In the same manner that people gave up on a geocentric universe.
Not so fast! You evidently think that everything that can possibly be known about this subject is already known. Nothing new can ever come to light. That seems a rather unseemly statement, coming from a scientist. There is no possible way you can know this for a fact, unless you claim to be some kind of seer.... But then you would not be speaking as a scientist.
I have no theory here. My belief about the past is the same one I have of the present, and of the future: The universe was created in a divine act, and is structured according to divine laws that are not completely deterministic, but leave room for change, development, and not least, human creativity and above all human freedom.
God is Truth, and so cannot lie. And His Truth is what sets us free, as persons and as creative agents. There is nothing in His creation that contradicts any of the other revelations He gave us (i.e., the Incarnation, the Presence of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Scriptures). The revelations are given, so that we may further explore them, thus to better know our Creator and His purpose in creating.
If your thinking is at all consistent with science, you will have a theory, or at least a conjecture.
Do you consider the vast array of geological observations to be unrelated pebbles, having no causal connection to each other or to history?
Furthermore I posted the specific guidelines that prohibit such disagreement and debate and that is not an anecdote of mine that is what is actually posted on that thread daily. Ignoring that I posted that doesn't make it go away it just makes you dishonest. I can assure you that simple disagreements that go nowhere near "flame-rhetoric" are not tolerated on that thread. That's fine with me. The point is that you were absolutely wrong when you said "Folks like Doc might like to be able to go unchallenged on a forum that is obviously counter to what they themselves might beelive, but soryy- aint gonna happen." It does happen. Those folks ask for respect and they get it. That is a fact and it contradicts your statement. Your denial of it is, again, dishonest.
Apparently posters on science threads cannot ask for respect and expect to get it without the heavy hand of a Science Moderator.
Sounds like science has outgrown the parent. It's not falsifying any document, merely putting into context. If you see it as faith shattering, that is your problem. And scientists commonly cite similar, if not the same original source material. No one is making arguemnts for anyone else. They are just using the same facts. And science isn't a cultural feature, as much as you'd like to put it in that context. Another example of creationist deceit.
What relations they have one to another are pretty much the ones we impute to them.
You've got that all wrong, doc30: I see science as faith-affirming, not faith shattering. It is arrogant (and foolish) of you to impute motives to me.
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.