Posted on 03/09/2002 4:05:28 PM PST by Pokey78
As to T-Rex, there was a thread here which pretty much blew that supposition out of the water for one thing we do not have the vaguest idea of the size of their muscles, for another some of the fastest animals have very skinny legs. It is interesting that in spite of these great differences evo paleontologists throw all dinosaurs into the same classification. Truth of the matter is that we know very little about extinct creatures but phony scientists keep putting the many varied species into a procrustrean bed of their own making.
You've got a scoop if Aristotle was a monotheist, much less a Christian. You want the St. Thomas Acquinas distillation of Aristotle, titled Interesting Ideas I Stole From the Pagans Without Getting Burned at the Stake.
Acquinas interpreted the works of Aristotle, and had to walk a fine line when deciphering a materialistic philosophy based on reason, into terms acceptable to a culture founded in spiritualistic theology based on revelation, and governed by a church which fervidly enforced religious dogma. Acquinas so brilliantly accomplished this synthesis of antithetical views that he was not only Sainted, but his doctrines later became the official doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church; yet his preservation of the essence of naturalistic reasoning, contained in Aristotle's works, was effective enough to lead to the revitalization of reason over dogma which contributed greatly to the fruition of scientific inquiry engendered in the subsequent Renaissance and Enlightenment eras.History of Naturalistic Ethics.
So here's what I can conclude from this...Something has always existed and the question is WHAT...I certainly agree with the law of physics, but it perplexes me that since we both can not observe or proove WHAT existed, since it has never been observed or prooved, only documented by superstitous conjecture, your BELIEVE is that it is something other than what you believe to be superstitious conjecture, eventhough you have to make the same form of superstitious conjucture about WHAT existed just as anyone else.
(Am I good at run-on sentences or What!!?)
But that is just irrational in my view, here's why. You have all these differnt explanations, not just from the supernatural, but from SCIENCE. I love science because is does have to follow the strict guidelines to follow a proof, however when it can't be proved or observed the stated hypothesis has no more of a plausible opinion than anything else. All of it becomes either FAITH or CONJECTURE. And the arguments of Supernatural and Evolution both have to rely on FAITH at some point, and you just can not deny this. You can only go so far with both before you have to guess in this realm, do you agree?
Did you know that most of the world thinks that "evolution" is a theory about change in living populations over time? Only in these kind of discussions does "evolution" mean modern geology, the Big Bang, astronomy, stuff that only overlaps here and there with biology.
There figure to be limits to what we will ever know from science about things like the origin of the universe. That doesn't take faith to realize.
It takes faith to think you know more than you do. It takes faith to think that all the evidence you have is wrong and people are crazy to follow the evidence.
From these discussions, I get the impression that faith gives you something akin to psychiatric delusions. I'm not real big on faith. The evidence I see daily of its effects does not speak well of it.
What Dinosaur was small enough to fit under a shady tree?
I make no superstitious conjecture. None at all. I reach what seem to be logically valid conclusions, based on demonstrable principles of physics. Unlike theologians, my conclusions aren't fixed for all eternity; they are subject to revision when new information indicates the need for revisions. As I said, because of the apparent nature of the big bang, there is no evidence of conditions during the prior state of affairs, and I won't speculate as to what such conditions may have been -- but I do maintain (because of the conservation laws) that there was a universe of matter/energy then, as there is now. I can't go any farther than that. And I know that many physicists disagree with me about the existence of a "prior universe." I may very well be wrong. Such is life.
Swamis, gurus, and other assorted con-men may rush in at this point, seeking to profit from the absence of evidence, as their pronouncements about "outside of time and space" are beyond testing and falsification.
You've got a scoop if Aristotle was a monotheist, much less a Christian.
This is the sort of irrelevant nonsense which you call a refutation. It does not matter whether Aristotle was a politheist, a monotheist or a raving atheist. His theory presented a third version of the origins of the universe. He called it the prime mover. Whatever his theology might have been, it fits well with the Christian belief that God was the Creator of all things. His philosophy has withstood 2,000 years of philosophic examination.
Don't be too shocked; I looked Repo's "refutation of the entire argument against punc-eek contained in my little 'God hates idiots' post yesterday and all I saw was a one-sentence description of punc-eek for dummies. Figures...
Many of Aristotle's ideas were deemed to be verging on subversive at the time. He argued strongly that there was a divine being, what he described as a Prime Mover, who was responsible for the unity and purposefulness of nature. In Aristotle's view, God was perfect, and therefore the aspiration of all things in the world was to perfection, since all beings desired to share such perfection.But, he added that there were many Prime Movers in the Universe, and that the Prime Mover was not very suitable for religious purposes.You'd better stay away from Aristotle.
FROM HERE.
>Aah, punk-eek, one of my favorite evo theories. The one where all the species were hiding out in Hawaii so that no one could tell they were evolving. It is such a farse that it really is a disproof of evolution.
No evidence means that all else is conjecture and there is no way to say that one conjecture is more valid scientifically since neither can bring forth evidence in its support. Your "refutation" is therefore total nonsense.
When you put it that way you got my attention. Why are they so outraged?
Are they that insecure with their belief system they cant stand the thought of someone challenging it?
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.