Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Rick.Donaldson
"Truth"? What do you mean by "truth"? I had this same damned argument with a Conspiracy theorist, who claimed "My truth is different than your truth"... we're not talking about "Truth" in a religious sense. We're talking about FACTS.

The "Truth" is what actually happened to cause us to be here, regardless of what anyone thinks. My "truth", your "truth", it's all irrelevant to "THE truth".
No, I'm RIGHT. It is a KNOWN FACT based on written records of the heights and weights of various peoples, in various times.
You said "pre-history". I was assuming that you meant before there were such things as "written records". Sorry if I misunderstood your statement.

I can see that you're not really understanding my position, just as I may not be clearly understanding yours. The "facts" that you presented could just as easily be interpreted to support the theory that God created the earth just the way He said He did in Genesis 1. Most scientists don't believe that however because they first presume that the STORY of how we came to be here must be explained by purely naturalistic processes. This presumption is not scientific. Science is observation of the facts, and ancient history cannot be observed, only the remnants of that history can be observed and the STORY that is told to explain them is firmly based faith.

You're correct to point out that we've strayed from the subject of the thread, however your simplification of "life" for the benefit of those who don't like to read sort of got me started. Thanks again for the discussion. Good day.

58 posted on 01/25/2008 11:56:33 AM PST by Sopater (A wise man's heart inclines him to the right, but a fool's heart to the left. ~ Ecclesiastes 10:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies ]


To: Sopater

Again, the “truth” is ‘factual information’, not beliefs. Beliefs can be based on facts, but facts can not be based on belief.

I did say pre-history in one sentence. In another sentence I said “medieval” I was specifically talking about medieval people, those living before, during and after the darkages.

I do see your point exactly. I don’t agree with it, and I think you might be seeing mine as well. However, you’re assuming that scientists make these assumptions about creation stories as well. Some perhaps do, many do not. However, every theory must start with a hypothesis - and educated guess - a statement that is boiled down to it’s most basic format and then it must be proven, or disproven. And this is where people typically get confused about “all encompassing science”. Science is simply NOT an encompassing doctrine.

Instead, science is built up on little pieces of real knowledge, and then upon a foundation of KNOWN information, things that can been seen, felt, tasted, manipulated in some manner — and once as many facts that are possible are know, then a hypothesis can come into existence from the mind (brain that God gave us) of thinking people.

Then and only then can science use the rest of the process to gain MORE information.

Evolution is not an “all encompassing theory”, nor is Darwinism (which is basically modified from the original theory to what we’re referring to as “Evolutionism” now).

I’ll say this again, I was brought up believing in Creationism in Sunday School. In public/private schools I learned sciences... and there is a difference in the presentation. They are not, however, in my mind mutually exclusive like so many people chose to believe.

The fact is many scientists are Socialists in their thinking, and they are (I know, I work with them day in and day out) severely “security inhibited”. They hate security procedures, they hate security, they think all information should be open to anyone and all.

I guess my point is that “presumptions” are often where science starts, and sometimes those presumptions are wrong - but, because of the scientific process, they do not remain incorrect presumptions and thus a hypothesis is either proven as correct or it is proven incorrect. It is this little tiny thing that I’d ask all people who place science in the “believe it or not” spectrum to take a closer look at a subject before poohpooh it right off as wrong (or based upon misconceptions).

Sopater, if you notice, I write a LOT. You can see plenty of my writing and dissertation on other sites that are more along the lines of what we’ve discussed today. Sometimes, I can indeed fly off the handle at people because they are purely being stupid and ignorant (or simply ARE ignorant). This site is much different and 98% of the folks here will have a conversation without name calling, but I think if you look you will find that ALL of us, 100% of us sometimes misread, misunderstand or take a different meaning from something another has said once in awhile. That generally starts a fight and that’s not good.

Thanks for the discussion and see you around :)


64 posted on 01/25/2008 12:52:05 PM PST by Rick.Donaldson (http://www.transasianaxis.com - Visit for lastest on DPRK/Russia/China/Etc --Fred Thompson for Prez.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson