 |
So you think science should proceed on the strength of the sorts of assumptions we make in our everyday life? Surely science should be more rigorous than that. The mere fact that someone may be prepared to assume a designer without ever having had perceptual commerce with the designer shows only that we are not epistemically rigorous much of the time. You can't think science should canonize these habits.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
WHAT? What could it even mean to say that there could be physical evidence for something which is non-physical? What on earth do you mean by "evidence"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Also, the designer of the computer was, or is, physical. So your argument, such as it is, is invalid. The absence of perceptual commerce with the designer isn't evidence of a non-physical designer.
I have never seen you ask before - enjoy!Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vie...ownload&id=660
He indwells me.Quote:
Last summer I was dating the person who invented the first laptop computer.
Will God go on a date with me?
I have no evidence that he is an expert in this area.Quote:
Akoue is the expert in this area, not me.
Then you have not read the past threads on the topic.Quote:
But I haven't seen any physical evidence of God's existence. Anything you can point to can be explained more easily by ordinary events. I thought the whole point of God was to have faith without looking for proof or demanding miracles...
That is what I oppose. Evolution is based largely upon unproven assumptions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
We just went through that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Yes, but have you seen or touched or do you have any physical evidence of the person who designed or built your computer? No, you don't so how do you know that they exist?Quote:
Also, the designer of the computer was, or is, physical.
Physical evidence of that which you have never sensed directly in any physical way.
Well, I've never seen an electron, or Andromeda, either. The idea that each person must, individually, have direct cognitive contact with each existent in order to be justified in the belief that it exists is, well, it's kind of bizarre, frankly. We have division of labor and it works well because then we get different people specializing in different things. I don't have to have seen China with my own two eyes in order to be justified in believing that China exists. And my evidence for the belief that China exists isn't anything non-physical. So, just to be clear: My belief that China exists has for its object something physical (China), and the causal-informational linkages that warrant, and even justify, my belief that China exists are likewise physical. In the case of the computer, I don't even need the causal-informational system, since it is part of the concept of a computer that it is an artefact and it part of the concept of an artefact that artefacts have artificers. So that belief is a priori and probably analytic. For someone who prides himself on logical acumen, you are going off the rails in a pretty big way here, Tom. This all just basic logic meets basic epistemology. One needn't have a naturalistic epistemology in order to accommodate what I've said, but everything I've said is perfectly consistent with a naturalistic epistemology. Don't you agree?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
I notice you didn't answer the question about the relation of second-order functional properties and events that supervene on first-order physical properties and events. I'm beginning to get the suspicion that it is because you "dare" not to.
Well that is truly odd, since I remember you being asked--by asking--on the evolution thread just a few weeks ago. In fact, I remember you being asked repeatedly by a number of people, including asking. And I know that you saw the request, because you quoted it in some of your own posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
What *evidence* do you have for this claim:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Is this epistemically on all fours with the claim that God exists, or are they in different epistemic categories? I trust that the claim that God "indwells" you is not something you would adduce as evidence that God exists since that would be begging the question.Quote:
He indwells me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Once you again, all you are doing is supporting my contention that something which is not physical can be demonstrated to existed by evidence resulting from the existence of that item or person. You do not need to physically touch and feel the exact subject of your investigation to be able to prove its existence.
The same is true with God. We can indeed find evidence of His existence, contrary to your prior statement that one can only see evidence of God if He was physical.
I've responded to all your comments. I note that you don't read my comments carefully. You seem to miss a lot.Quote:
I notice you didn't answer the question about the relation of second-order functional properties and events that supervene on first-order physical properties and events. I'm beginning to get the suspicion that it is because you "dare" not to.
There is so much and far too much to summarize on a single post. Part of the problem being that it depends upon exactly what aspect of evolution you are speaking of - because there are assumptions made for each area. If you had to following this and the last thread, you will see that I went over a number of the assumptions regarding the age of the earth. My suggestion, if you are really interested in learning about the topic is to grab a copy of the book "Edge of Evolution" by Michael Behe - you might learn a great deal. Of course, some folk who do like being confronted with fact that they don't agree with simply attack the book without so much as cracking the cover. I hope that you are not one of those.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
This sounds painful!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Indwell "Pertaining to a catheter or other tube left within an organ or body passage for drainage, to maintain patency, or for the administration of drugs or nutrients."
You probably have no direct evidence that your local congressperson actually ever goes to Washington, D.C. either. Or possibly even that he or she exists. But you have indirect evidence. I have substantial indirect evidence that Akoue exists and knows what he's talking about.Quote:
I have no evidence that he is an expert in this area.
I even think that you are real, since your prose style is consistent over a long period and others have attested that they have encountered you elsewhere on the Internet. Although I don't know anyone who has ever seen you.
Hello again, Tj:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
I'm one of those.
Michael J. Behe, a central figure in the Intelligent Design movement, is professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture.
Intelligent design is creationism. I don't need to know any more about ID than what has been proposed here numerous times by you and others; It's TOO complicated for nature, therefore God did it!
For anybody who truly understands evolution, there really isn't ANY cogent argument against it. I wouldn't take the time to read a book that offered "evidence" of the Tooth Fairy, either. I just wouldn't.
excon
Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vie...ownload&id=660Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
This 2001 list of scientists who don't agree with evolution has been thoroughly debunked. Only 20% are [Edit: are listed as] biologists. Those that have some biological training represent a tiny fraction of biologists world wide; their reasons for disagreeing are religious, not scientific; and their institutional affiliations are often fraudulent (e.g. Jonathan Wells is not affiliated with UC Berkeley, but with the Discovery Institute itself). And as I mentioned before, he got his PhD in molecular and cell biology, with the express purpose of giving himself credentials to use in his fight against evolution, not in ecology and evolutionary biology.
A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Furthermore, you have still not introduced an alternative scientific hypothesis that explains the facts as well or better than evolution. Needless to say, creationism is not a testable scientific hypothesis, nor is there any scientific evidence in support of it. In science, alternative hypotheses always have at least some modicum of evidence in support of them and they make some kind of sense--even when they turn out to be wrong. Creationism has not scientific evidence in its favor.
-->There is no credible evidence against evolution.
-->There is no testable alternative scientific hypothesis that explains the facts as well or better than evolution.
-->The few biologists who the Discovery Institute claims doubt evolution are mostly or entirely not practicing biologists. I have not analyzed the entire list myself, but I certainly am not interested in the opinions of people who may not even be real. I picked one "biologist" on the list at random and his college appears not to even exist and he does not have a web page anywhere on the internet. His only existence appears to be on the discovery institute's apparently fraudulent list.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
I actually did take the time to read some of Behe's book. I reject his arguments entirely, as have biologists generally.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
As for Creationism's God-is-in-the-gaps arguments, I might just as well argue that because I can't understand how my car works that it must have been designed by God, because nothing less than a celestial being could possibly create something that I cannot explain in its entirety.
I agree with excon.
Not sure what this means: "Something can be demonstrated to exist by evidence resulting from the existence of that item or person."Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Do you mean to say that X is evidence for the existence of X? If so, that's trivially true. "From X I can deduce that X" is a tautology and so is not informative. Let me try to make this even more vivid: From the premise "X" I can deduce that "X". While deductively valid, it is circular and is therefore epistemically useless.
That's true, so long as the thing whose existence you are proving is itself physical (like China, in my example). This won't work for proving God's existence so long as the evidence is physical since physical evidence can't prove the existence of a non-physical existent.Quote:
You do not need to physically touch and feel the exact subject of your investigation to be able to prove its existence.
No, the same isn't true in the case of proving God's existence. Evidence that we can see has to be physical (vision is a perceptual system and cannot detect non-physical objects). You can ARGUE by means of inference to the best explanation that the existence of God is the most rational explanation for what you see, but that's a different animal.Quote:
The same is true with God. We can indeed find evidence of His existence, contrary to your prior statement that one can only see evidence of God if He was physical.
I've just re-read the thread and notice that since I corrected your use of "mental state" you have not addressed my question in any way. If you don't have an answer just say so and I'll let it drop. But since you were the one who mentioned thoughts being non-physical I am interested to know how you understand the relation of second-order functional states (like thoughts) to their first-order physical supervenience bases.Quote:
I've responded to all your comments. I note that you don't read my comments carefully. You seem to miss a lot.
I'm not sure why you changed the subject in this way. My question was: Do you have *evidence* for the claim that "God indwells" you? You answered by not answering, i.e. by talking about evolution (see quoted post above). Please, do you have evidence that God indwells you and, if so, what is that evidence?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
This seems to be the one that proponents of Intelligent Design pass over with the greatest frequency. They're willing to make their case that evolution is deeply flawed, but they don't seem to appreciate that Intelligent Design cannot count as an alternative scientific explanation of the data since it isn't a *testable* hypothesis. At the same time, these proponents of ID claim that evolution isn't empirically verified (testable) despite the fact that scientists have made plenty of predictive claims on the strength of it, claims which have in turn been empirically verified. It starts to look a bit like a shell-game.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
Not at all. But an eternity in hell wo0uld most certainly be painfulQuote:
Originally Posted by asking
I know for a fact that my congressman does not exist. We are an independent country and in fact won the last war between our countries.Quote:
You probably have no direct evidence that your local congressperson actually ever goes to Washington, D.C. either. Or possibly even that he or she exists.
No actually you don't. Akoue could be simply another userid for someone else. But if you accept that as evidence, I have 66 books of evidence that God exists.Quote:
But you have indirect evidence. I have substantial indirect evidence that Akoue exists and knows what he's talking about.
Of course, "Akoue" is a userid, as is Tj3. But I can engage both Akoue and you in conversation in which my very specific questions and comments generate a coherent response that is, furthermore, specific to userid. For example, Akoue's responses are consistently articulate and scholarly, indicating a significant academic background. I would estimate that Akoue's control of English language is 99th percentile. In essence, Tj3 and Akoue both pass the Turing test.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
The Bible, in contrast, is a static entity that does not respond to my specific queries any more than any other book. No book can past a Turing test. A book is made of paper and ink. It is, in essence, a fossilized remains of human thoughts. It is not, in itself, an intelligent or living entity.
Well, you cans peak for yourself, but I am always suspicious when someone elects themselves a spokesperson for others. Why don't we get into details on the book "The Edge of Evolution".Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
Cannot comment - never heard of that argument.Quote:
As for Creationism's God-is-in-the-gaps arguments
Yes, but for all you know, it could be one of a multiple userids of someone else, and may not be a separate person at all. What evidence do you have to the contrary?Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
That is an matter of opinion.Quote:
Akoue's responses are consistently articulate and scholarly, indicating a significant academic background.
Fossil evidence, and indeed any other evidence that we find in nature that relates to the past does not respond to queries either - do you reject all of that as evidence?Quote:
The Bible, in contrast, is a static entity that does not respond to my specific queries any more than any other book. No book can past a Turing test. A book is made of paper and ink. It is, in essence, a fossilized remains of human thoughts. It is not, in itself, an intelligent or living entity.
I saw no sense because so many of your questions do not have seem to be serious. Yes, I do have evidence. I know God personally and I have His promises, and I have had His guidance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
But the statement had zero to do with the topic at hand. It was in response to Askings comments about dating God. It seems that you are trying to build a new distraction based upon her distraction from the topic.
Macr0-evolution is also not testable, which is a point that far too many evolutionists reject. Many good scientists have pointed this out, but far too many people (who are likely for the most part do not have a strong scientific background) feel that macro-evolution has been proven - which it has not and cannot be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
It has everything to do with the topic because it speaks to your view regarding what counts as evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Many good scientists also reject the distinction between macro-evolution and micro-evolution. I certainly see no meaningful distinction between the two.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Ah, so you don't think that anyone is a good scientist unless they are a biologist. I am sure other scientists would be most interested in your declaration!Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
So, if a scientist uses his expertise in a way that you don't agree with, then you also delcare him to be not a good scientist.Quote:
Those that have some biological training represent a tiny fraction of biologists world wide; their reasons for disagreeing are religious, not scientific; and their institutional affiliations are often fraudulent (e.g. Jonathan Wells is not affiliated with UC Berkeley, but with the Discovery Institute itself). And as I mentioned before, he got his PhD in molecular and cell biology, with the express purpose of giving himself credentials to use in his fight against evolution, not in ecology and evolutionary biology.
Then you have completely ignored all the discussions that we have had on this topic.Quote:
Furthermore, you have still not introduced an alternative scientific hypothesis that explains the facts as well or better than evolution.
All this is that you reject any evidence which disagrees with your belief - that is religiobn, not science. Many good scientists, including evolutionists will freely and openly admit that there are problems with theory.Quote:
-->There is no credible evidence against evolution.
Your approach, as shown above, is hardly either scientific nor objective.
Somewhat. But not entirely. For example, you have a very strong position that is consistent from post to post and identifies you as a particular person. Likewise, your posts have large numbers of misspellings, typos, and words out of order or missing. You often use the passive voice instead of the active. Even if you used a different userid, I think I would recognize you by your style of arguing and by the specific writing errors you make. Your posts are consistent and recognizable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Akoue's posts demonstrate much smaller numbers of such errors. Akoue uses sentence constructions that are unusual at AMHD and a specialized vocabulary accurately and consistently. The kinds of topics and arguments that interest Akoue are fairly distinctive.
All of this is supporting evidence for my hypothesis that you are both recognizable as human type people and recognizable as specific people. I have no reason to think that either id is a composite of different posters or is in fact computer generated.
I am not aware of any contrary evidence, although I am open to it.
The question was whether the Bible is an intelligent interlocutor such as Akoue or yourself. Clearly it is not.Quote:
Fossil evidence, and indeed any other evidence that we find in nature that relates to the past does not respond to queries either - do you reject all of that as evidence?
No, it truly is. His input on Biblical Greek and science and other topics, along with the need to abuse those who disagree with him are not indicative of what you describe as articulate and scholarly. If I wanted that, I could find that in any bar.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
I have noticed similar things about many of your posts, but unlike you, I have not taken to being picky about typos and other similar things in your posts. Again, rightly or wrongly, that comes across as someone less interested in a real discussion than someone who is quite judgmental and has no interest in an exchange of ideas.Quote:
For example, you have a very strong position that is consistent from post to post and identifies you as a particular person. Likewise, your posts have large numbers of misspellings, typos, and words out of order or missing. You often use the passive voice instead of the active. Even if you used a different userid, I think I would recognize you by your style of arguing and by the specific writing errors you make. Your posts are consistent and recognizable.
Not always using the term appropriately or in the right context, but if you are impressed by someone who uses big words, then so be it. I am more impressed by the content of the message and the ability of the person to carry on a respectful discussion. But to each his own.Quote:
Akoue's posts demonstrate much smaller numbers of such errors. Akoue uses sentence constructions that are unusual at AMHD and a specialized vocabulary accurately and consistently. The kinds of topics and arguments that interest Akoue are fairly distinctive.
Remember the show "Cheers"? There was a guy on there (Cliff) that used big words and made lots of claims to impress people. I have had the distinct privilege to know a handful of people in my life whose scholarly abilities, and indeed their intellect ranked amongst the highest that you could even hope to meet. One was ranked as one of the top in intellect in the province that I was in. And not one of them had to blow their own horn. Not one of them was abusive and ignorant to those they disagreed with. Not one flashed around "big" words to make people think they knew more than they did. Every one could and speak to anyone at any level treated them with respect. Truly brilliant and scholarly people have no need to make people think that they are. And discerning folks see through the veneer of those who are not.
Actually, if you have a look at the original comment, you have twisted what was said. And I notice that once again, you have ignored the actual question:Quote:
The question was whether the Bible is an intelligent interlocutor such as Akoue or yourself. Clearly it is not.
Now if you are done with trying to discuss folks on here, [perhaps we can get back to the topic:
I am looking forward to your answer.Quote:
Fossil evidence, and indeed any other evidence that we find in nature that relates to the past does not respond to queries either - do you reject all of that as evidence?
One last question - why is it that every thread which a small group of people choose to join must always end up in discussions about people instead of the topic. Is it absolutely impossible for you and others just to discuss the topic?
Nice paragraph.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
More of the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
So it appears neither you nor asking have an answer to the question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Science needs proofs,that is evidence.whatever is true in reality,is now being proved by the scientific.I admit that religion needs faith but also for you to believe in your religion,you must have seen something different from other religion.that is,there must have been some fact.science is only trying to prove you but it is also true that in whatever they said is in the Bible or Koran.I think most are found in the Koran.now it depends on you,on your faith,on your understanding to see what is right and wrong.but whatever it is,we have to pray ONLY to the one who created us.
Because if ever we are going ti the wrong way,I hope that it will not be too late in realizing our misunderstanding.
Bye
God Bless
TRUE science needs proof. That is not always the case in practice. For instance, despite claims, macro-evolution has not been proven. Also a study several years ago wanted to find out whether there was any manipulation of data and test results to obtain grant dollars, and the finding (which was published in one of the scientific journals the name of which escapes me at the moment) found that to one degree or another, data manipulation was found in about 10-15 of the published papers. There was quite a famous case a few years ago that hit the new year. The majority of the cases are probably not outright fabrication, though the study did find a few, but simply making adjustments or failing to use proper controls to ensure that the results looked promising so that finding would continue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aliena
Science is found in the Bible and God exhorts us to avoid false science:Quote:
I admit that religion needs faith but also for you to believe in your religion,you must have seen something different from other religion.that is,there must have been some fact.science is only trying to prove you but it is also true that in whatever they said is in the Bible or Koran
1 Tim 6:20-21
20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.
KJV
The word here refers to knowledge, and thus true science is the study of God and His creation, and true science will complement what the Bible says. As a Christian and as a man of sceince, I have found this to be true. There is a great deal of validation for the truth of the Bible:
1) Science
2) History and Archeology
3) Prophetic declarations in scripture and their fulfillment
Hello again, Tj:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
That's what YOU say true science is... True scientists, don't say that...
But, we could cut to the chase here, by you just saying that there are holes in evolution. Nobody is arguing that there isn't. You just want to fill those holes with religion.
You will NEVER change your mind. You're not INTERESTED in changing your mind. You're not INTERESTED in the arguments of those who disagree.
The same can be said for those of us who are arguing with you. You are arguing ID. ID is fine, but it's NOT science.
I don't know what you miss about science stuff being "testable". I really don't know why that slips over your head, and never even gets a remark from you. Maybe that's because you're not dumb, even though you are fully indoctrinated.
excon
Yeah,but what is being proved by the scientific is true.it has already been mentioned before and therefore science is only proving it to us.now,it depends on us,whether to believe in a religion and its book without proof only or a religion who has his book and evidence along.
The problem here is that by definition, anyone who disagrees with what you believe is not a true scientist.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
To some degree what you say is true - there are massive holes in the theory of evolution which simply do not agree with the known facts. The Biblical explanation fits the facts better.Quote:
But, we could cut to the chase here, by you just saying that there are holes in evolution. Nobody is arguing that there isn't. You just want to fill those holes with religion.
I see that once again, it has to get personal. The truth is that I have changed my mind. I used to be more like you, arguing against these folk who hold to the Bible. I could not undersatnd why they would not accept what science was saying - until I checked out the facts for myself and found that I was the one who was not looking at the fact. That is when I changed my mind. The facts convinced me evolution is wrong.Quote:
You will NEVER change your mind. You're not INTERESTED in changing your mind. You're not INTERESTED in the arguments of those who disagree.
Show me the tests that prove macro-evolution.Quote:
I don't know what you miss about science stuff being "testable".
I do not believe in a book without proof - do you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aliena
You are reversing cause and effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
I'd like to see you defend this assertion. How does the Biblical explanation account for 580 million year old fossil embryos found in China? How does the Biblical explanation account for the existence of millions of extinct species that do not appear in any historical accounts or the Bible? How does the Biblical explanation account for Australian's huge fauna of marsupials, none of which are mentioned in the Bible? What does the Bible have to say about duck billed platypuses and giant ground sloths?Quote:
The Biblical explanation fits the facts better.
I find this an extremely dubious assertion.Quote:
The truth is that I have changed my mind. I used to be more like you [excon], arguing against these folk who hold to the Bible.
Anyway, we are not arguing "against these folks who hold to the Bible." We are arguing against pretending that the Bible can be any sort of basis for science.
Believe what you like but (1) don't call faith science and (2) don't attack ordinary science and call if faith. George Orwell called this doublethink.
No, it has become clear time and time again on here.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
First show me the proof that the fossils are 580 million years old.Quote:
I'd like to see you defend this assertion. How does the Biblical explanation account for 580 million year old fossil embryos found in China?
Who ever claimed that the Bible provided a complete catalogue of every species that ever existed?Quote:
How does the Biblical explanation account for the existence of millions of extinct species that do not appear in any historical accounts or the Bible?
First you need to explain where you see the problem. I do not even see that there is a an issue to be accounted for.Quote:
How does the Biblical explanation account for Australian's huge fauna of marsupials, none of which are mentioned in the Bible? What does the Bible have to say about duck billed platypuses and giant ground sloths?
Well, this gets to the root of it. Like I said, any scientists who disagres with you, you reject as scientists. Anyone who agrees with you, even if they demonstrate a lack of knowledge in this area, you accept as an expert and scholar.Quote:
I find this an extremely dubious assertion.
Since my personal testimony conflicts with what you want to believe, you have to suggest that I am lying about it.
Rejecting anything which disagrees with what you want to believe is a religion not science.
That is what George Orwell called "doublespeak"Quote:
Anyway, we are not arguing "against these folks who hold to the Bible." We are arguing against pretending that the Bible can be any sort of basis for science.
By requiring that people must believe what you think to be true is religion, not science. Your reasoning is circular. If someone who is a scientist disagrees with you, you say that he is not a scientists (no matter what his qualifications), and thus you say that what he puts forward is not science. That way, everything that you want to believe is the only thing that falls into what you call science.Quote:
Believe what you like but (1) don't call faith science and (2) don't attack ordinary science and call if faith. George Orwell called this doublethink.
Whereas those scientists and the scientific evidence which disagrees with you is left outside of your "science" definition. You are creating a religion of science, where only those scientists and others who agree with you are qualified to be the priests of your religion.
For "Asking", who seems to not believe that it is possible for a person to accept the evidence and reject evolution, once again here is my personal testimony of the topic (posted earlier in this thread):
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me take a few moments to summarize what I went through to bring me to where I am today. Some of the challenges that I was faced with from those who disagreed with me at that time took more research. While I was doing my research to refute these people who, I thought at the time, were so obviously ignoring the evidence, I discovered things that I could no longer ignore, both in scripture and in science.
It took a while, and for a while I fell back to a more comfortable position which I felt covered the problem, and that is theistic evolution. The belief that God used evolution, that the earth really is billions of years old and that Genesis was the story of evolution being described as the stages of creation, explained away by the phrase "a day is as a thousand years with the Lord". But as I tried to defend that position, I found it was the least defensible, and instead of holding to that position for the long period of years that I believed in evolution, my stint in theistic evolution was short.
As a Christian, a man of science, a researcher, and a man of logic, I simply could no longer fool myself into accepting evolution. I made a 180 turnaround into a position that I have now held for as long as I was an evolutionist.
You will find that those who oppose the YEC (Young Earth Creationists) most often use ridicule as their response. We have seen it on here, ridiculing how anyone could possible be so ignorant. And yet do you see any validation of their position? I asked the evolutionists on many threads, on many boards (including this board) to provide evidence of evolution, and to date nothing.
For Christians, evolution or OEC (Old Earth Creation) is a problem because if the story of Adam and Eve is false, then what happens to the gospel? How did sin enter the world? Why does the New Testament deal explicitly with Adam as a real man, even placing him in the genealogy of Jesus? If Genesis is just a story, where does the story end and history begin - show me the verse.
These are some of the issues that I dealt with from a theological perspective. From a scientific perspective there are some equally big hurdles. I have raised some of the questions on this board and others and so often the same answers come back - ridicule, but never a solid scientific response.
There are many excellent scientists, many of the secular who are quite open about admitting the problems that evolution brings with it. Some other scientists are less open and prefer to not admit the issues but rather staunchly close their eyes and say that it has been proven. If so, where is the proof?
Some people say that we cannot know either way. I disagree with them, but I find that a more honest position than to deny the issues and claim that evolution is a fact. I don't mind people who say that they don't know. If a person will admit that, then they may be able to look at the evidence objectively.
Anyway, sorry for the long-winded story, but it may help those who are interested to know that my background is not that of a YEC, but rather of an evolutionist who was dragged kicking and screaming into accepting the evidence which was contrary to what I wanted to believe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I indicated in this post, those who oppose YEC most often use ridicule rather than scientific evidence to try to refute YEC. This can be seen in the most recent post by "Asking" where she implied that I was lying about this testimony. Accepting the fact that knowledgeable people with a scientific background might disagree with them is apparently unthinkable to such folk.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:51 AM. |