Posted on 09/25/2009 8:34:35 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Sept 24, 2009 — The evolutionary story of human origins is often told like a cultural myth that is intuitively obvious. Humans emerged in Africa after their ancestors came down from the trees and walked upright. They began to hunt with stone tools and used fire. They migrated north out of Africa and populated Europe, overtaking the Neanderthals who lacked the brain power and culture of their more evolved cousins. How much of this story is based on actual evidence? How much is interpolation of what “must” have happened based on an evolutionary view of natural history?
As part of its celebration of the Darwin Bicentennial, PNAS invited a special series of papers on human evolution, called Out of Africa: Modern Human Origins. A careful reading of these papers reveals more gap than knowledge, more bluffing than evidence...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
The implicit answer seems to be that it can only be "science" if it confoms to a specific theology. Are you willing to say that explicitly, and specify what theology must be used, and who gets to determine if it is in compliance?
But I suspect that you are.
Can you explain why you won’t come right out and say what it is you’re hoping that other people will infer?
Can't you read a post and make your own conclusion about what was stated?
I think what I stated was pretty darn clear.
Do you believe in God?
It was clear enough to provide the implication, and vague enough to provide "plausible deniability" if you're accused of wanting to make science the exclusive domain of your religion.
Do you believe in God?
Is agreeing with you a test of faith?
Was that your objective?
No. It just turned out that way.
If arguments consistently “just turn out that way”, do you think it’s reasonable to start to wonder if it really is inadverntent?
Illogical...
Evolution requires change over a period of time. Time then, by deductive reasoning, must also have a beginning.
Evolution is entirely dependent on a succession of events over time.
This whole thing about reference frames might have some merit to this case if he hadn’t already been outside of the reference frame of Earth.
I’ve read all that, and it’s just another series of mental gymnastics to try to support the scientific errors of the Bible.
Now come on, give me some evidence that the Earth is flat, too.
Nope. You just don't understand that when Einstein says, "The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless." he means meaningless. That is, without meaning. You try to impose meaning where Einstein says there is none. That is an error.
Born said, "Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Copernicus are equally right." This means that they are equally correct, as stated. Your attempt to imagine some inequality is wrong.
Hoyle said, "Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense." This means that there is no meaningful physical difference. Your attempt to imagine some meaningful physical difference is wrong.
Ellis said, "For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations." This means that you cannot disprove it based on observations. Your attempt to invoke some imaginary observation that would disprove either one is wrong.
You just can't bring yourself to admit it.
"Now come on, give me some evidence that the Earth is flat, too."
Now come on, give me that evidence that rats are generated spontaneously from garbage and that maggots are generated spontaneously from carcasses.
I have never been anything else. I only believe that God created and then used exquisitely complex and perfect processes in the creation of the universe and man. I also believe that scientific pursuit that results in the discovery or revealing of things never before observed by man bring us closer to the God who created them.
For some this is experienced in a stunningly beautiful sunset, or a mountain meadow in bloom, or seeing the face of your departed mother in the face of your newly born granddaughter, for me it is all of the above and the wonders of math, physics, and biology.
I believe you share your philosophical approach to science with the likes of Newton. What I have seen coming from the leftist universities in the last century has been an atheistic philosophical approach to science that a priori categorically excludes any deduction that what you see in the microscope or in the existence of atoms or their "natural" properties is the result of any kind of supernatural guidance. So as a result those who state that what they see in the microscope is evidence of intelligent design are, like they are here on free republic, ridiculed and scoffed and attacked not for what they observe in nature, but what they conclude by those observances.
Now I don't go on these crevo threads too often, but whenever I do I am mocked and ridiculed. Generally I don't even state what my own philosophical or scientific conclusions are, I generally just question those who find it necessary to ridicule people who have a different opinion in regard to their philosophical approach to scientific data and observations.
FWIW I have a rather quantum physical approach to the subject. I believe that God created a 6 billion year old earth in 6 days. He could have done it quicker, but he wanted to take his time. :-)
This is a good example of how you're so focused on identifying trees that you have no concept of the forest, just like with your quest for fallacies.
Evos always assume that since applying the philosophical assumption of naturalism works for technical experiments
Work on grasping the difference between philosophical and methodological naturalism.
I believe that God is timeless. He always was and always will be. Linear time is an artifact of the limitations of human perception. In God's creation process time is only a witness.
All GR says is that no one point of reference is preferable over any other, thus technically making geocentrism possible in strictly GR terms.
But then there’s all the other observation and science that shows geocentrism is false. We have actually had a spacecraft go beyond the heliopause — oops, that would be geopause according to you. We have been far enough away from Earth to know for a fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun.
You still haven’t answered the flat Earth question. Should I assume it’s because the answer is too embarrassing?
Since I was just using your rationale for not committing quote mining, this would be a good example of how you're so focused on identify trees that you have no concept of the forest. Just like your inability to understand logical fallacy.
"Work on grasping the difference between philosophical and methodological naturalism."
Work on grasping the difference between assuming evolution and observing adaptation.
Wrong. GR says that they are physically and observationally indistinguishable. Thus making geocentrism and geokineticism physically and observationally equivalent.
"But then there’s all the other observation and science that shows geocentrism is false. We have actually had a spacecraft go beyond the heliopause — oops, that would be geopause according to you. We have been far enough away from Earth to know for a fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun."
Misrepresentation is possible, or ignorance. I can't tell which is more likely.
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.