Posted on 02/15/2003 4:18:25 PM PST by PatrickHenry
No, its a sloppy quote from an observation made by someone else (very little of my material is original to me - there is nothing new under the sun.) But since most of the people I debate here are idiots it doesn't matter that it is a sloppy quote.
More precisely, all the mechanisms of machines mimic natural processes within human beings. It doesn't matter to me whether you see this or not, understand it or not.
I have long since given up the idea that the majority thinks. Very few even know what true thought really is. Most think it is just words running around in their heads, and this is the problem.
Thought is so very much more.
As Henry Ford said:
Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is why so few engage in it. (another sloppy quote)
Who established this principle and what is their proof?
So the point in posting here is to answer this question:
Have you read anything by an apologist?
I have literally hundreds of hours listening to the greatest modern apologist, Dr. Walter Martin. He was also a superb logician.
At least he was honest enough to make the distinction between science and faith, and made no bones about it. I respect him for that. Rather than trying to prove the unprovable, as contemporary creationists do.
It was from him that I learned, if creationism can be proven, it destroys the concept of 'faith' upon which the religion is built. This is why you will always be doomed to fail, or will fail if you succeed.
I have no time for fools.
And I suppose you have a definituon of machine that excludes screwdrivers? Lasers? Nuclear reactors?
I'm not aware of any apologists who take the position that there can or should be no logical evidences for God having created the universe, in order to preserve faith, and I doubt that Walter Martin made such a statement either, just as I doubt you can provide me with the source and proof of the remarkable principle you assert. Christian faith is about salvation and heaven and what Christ did on the cross and this cannot really be the source of scientific investigation. The idea that God being the source of creation "must be about faith" and therefore cannot have any basis in logic or evidence is another way of avoiding difficult problems with evolution.
I suppose some creationists do this. Perhaps not as many though as evolutionists who claim something is proven, when it is not. I'm sure there are reasons for fools and that fools reason. However I don't imply that you are a fool.
You may be interested in this thread by betty boop, for considering what is and is not demonstrated by our physical surroundings. You'd have to use your imagination! If metaphysics and irrational mental exercises are foolishness to you, though, even for the purposes of becoming well-reasoned, you probably won't be interested.:
I have gone over this claim with Rachumlakenschlaff several times on this very thread. Here for example.
Then I turn around and the same claim pops up again. I'm telling you it's like rabbits around here.
Once again, and for the record:
This is so basic to science, but screaming about "unproven" is so basic to creationist propaganda ...
You just can't be a creationist and a scientist at the same time.
Sinner condemned in Tartarus to an eternity of rolling a boulder uphill then watching it roll back down again.
Another description:
For a crime against the gods - the specifics of which are variously reported - he was condemned to an eternity at hard labor. And frustrating labor at that. For his assignment was to roll a great boulder to the top of a hill. Only every time Sisyphus, by the greatest of exertion and toil, attained the summit, the darn thing rolled back down again.
It seems you may not be getting much from this thread, FRiend VR? Tell me if you wish, just how it is that someone cannot believe in our Creator (who has given us our unalienable rights, to life, liberty, etc.) if one believes in some form of evolution.
Also, have you seen that newer thread from betty boop? You might find it thought provoking.
Blessings, Arlen
scientist
\Sci"en*tist\, n. One learned in science; a scientific investigator; one devoted to scientific study; a savant.
fm. Webster's Unabridged
Someone who starts with data, asks the questions, and researches the answers. (As opposed to starting with the answers, ignoring the data, and asking "Any questions?")
But wait, Condorman, if you please. I confess I didn't go very far in the sciences, but I do remember something from my grade school education:
The empirical process moves from hypothesis, to observation, to theory, to experiment, to fact. (I was immediately stubborn about this as a child, in saying that there had to be observation before a hypothesis, too. Even now, I believe that was right, while qualifying that exercises of the imagination can substitute for observation.)
Did they change it after all these centuries? Like "The New Math?" Anyone care to address?
Highest reg's
I see. Kind of reminds me of Carl Sagan. ;-)
Tell me if you wish, just where I said that. I believe that I would argue the opposite, since many counterexample are known to me. (Junior and Lurking Libertarian come prominently to mind.) But so many people who say they believe, for one example, "ID, which is not creationism, is completely compatible with evolution" also demand that a lot of completely bogus "evidence against evolution" (heavily borrowed from the ignorant Luddite YECs) be taught in the schools. Why?
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.