Posted on 12/03/2003 4:53:26 PM PST by Pharmboy
You are joking, right? Please say yes.
I know we are God's children, but I have this feeling God wants us to grow up and quit acting like children (much like earthly parents do). While some of us are mature enough to begin exploring the universe, there are still a few who revert to infantilism when confronted with reality.
The meek shall inherit the Earth. This is what God promised. However, He failed to mention everything else will go to the bold.
Despite what you see in college professors, this is not correct. God-fearing evolutionists are in the majority.
Sounds like a good tag line...
Ah but you miss the point.
The point is not that there have been hoaxers......
The point is that the vast preponderance of people in this field are easily taken in, whether by very crude hoaxes or by sloppy "science."
The follow-on to Piltdown is Hesperopithecus, in which a dim-witted goofball named Osborne, who ran the presigious Museum of Natural History in New York, lifted a pig's tooth to the light and testified in rapturous tones that it was obviously a hominid fossil. From this hogstooth was construed a whole industry of hogwash, including "scholarly" papers, touring lectures and reconstructions. This from the "best and brightest" paleontologists in the world.
And there is more.... I would continue with, uh, so much to choose from, how about with Ramapithecus?
.....But I have to get to work, with all my fellow yahoos, so I'll let y'all figure that one out.
Empirical proof of the essential identity of Creationism and PostModern-Deconstructionism. Both deny the validity of scientific inquiry and use beliefs as the standard of objectivity.
Belief in which scripture is internally self-consistent? How does one choose which scripture to believe? (Consulting a haruspex would internally consistent by this definition of consistent.
To see the usefulness of empirical evidence, one should study the consequences of the contrapositive.
Well, logically, a theory or idea (whether creationism or evolution or craterism) must be able to stand up to independent criticism. Anyone is free to hold whatever personal belief they want. However, for those beliefs to have any meaning to other people, they must be able to survive criticism.
At least belief in scripture is internally self consistent.
Using Bible verses to prove the validity of other Bible verses is not a legitimate debating tactic. If you want to prove that the events mentioned in the Bible are true, you have to provide independent proof. Otherwise, it's just a question of faith, not fact.
You can't even claim that much for stand alone science if you can't provide empirical proof that empirical proof is valid.
Creationists want a double standard in this debate- Creationism only needs to be internally consistent with the Bible, while evolution needs to provide hard evidence that survives peer review. You can't have it both ways- either Creation must be subject to independent peer review or evolution need only be internally consistent. Under peer review, creationism loses. Unless, of course, you can provide me independent proof of the existence of Noah's Ark.
That's certainly your right. However, if you're going to make such an assertion, you have to back it up with evidence as to why you don't believe in evolution.
"I'm not speaking for creationists, intelligent design movement or anything else. I do not believe in the theory of evolution, and that I share any common ancestry with a monkey. That's all I am saying.'
My sentiments exactly, Cy. We should start a new movement and call it "ITSETT" = "It's Still To Early To Tell."
The evolution of life forms over time.
OR
The sudden and spontaneous generation of new life forms.
Subsection 1: All life forms were created at at single moment in time and no alterations are possible.
Subsection 2: New life forms are constantly being created as others die out.
So far, I have not seen a single example of a new life form being spontaneously created.
If you have a valid example of such an even, I would be very interested in viewing the evidence.
That's kind of passive-aggressive. If you're not a creationist and you don't believe in evolution, that doesn't really leave any theory for where we came from.
What would you consider to be conclusive evidence?
It's true Gould was a hard-core atheist. But like you said, he died and all his earthly problems have been solved.
However, all that's needed to bring down evolutionary biology is a billion year old human fossil.
And how is belief in objectivity any more objective? Can you demonstrate that objectivity is "objective" without resorting to belief?
Belief in which scripture is internally self-consistent?
The Old and New Testaments.
How does one choose which scripture to believe?
Innate knowledge, testimony of the Holy Spirit, track record.
(Consulting a haruspex would internally consistent by this definition of consistent.
Only haruspexs who made no mistakes in their predictions are candidates for internal consistentency.
To see the usefulness of empirical evidence, one should study the consequences of the contrapositive.
It's not a question of the usefulness of empirical evidence. The question is whether or not it is possible to demonstrate the "objectivity" of a reliance on empirical evidence in the search for knowledge (truth, facts, etc.), and only empirical evidence, without resorting to a belief, the truth of which has no empirical evidence to support it.
lol. Watch Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett jump off the roof and smash each other over the head with lawn chairs!
Frank quote of the day...
There is no such thing as hell....there is only....FRANCE!
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.