Lets say its all wrong then for argument sake.
There is so much more evidence around us. The cratered moon, our own world with millennia of erosion, our cratered surface long gone, fossilized past life long gone, moving from simple to complex in the fossile record, there is just so much more evidence that things have been around a very long time.
There would have to be a massive willing conspiracy by so many for hundreds of years in so many different disciplines it is simply not possible.
But lets forget all that too, for argument sake.
Faith in the unseen, unmeasurable, unprovable is still required for belief in any religion.
I can't go there. That is my choice. I need evidence and sound theory tested by consensus. That is my nature, it is who I am, how I look at the world. And I am astonished at how much we have learned and what is yet to learn. Supernatural beings? entities? creators? animals? Which ones? There are thousands. And all of them the same when it comes to evidence of their existence. Faith. Isnt that the requirement of all such beliefs? I am just not wired that way. I however respect most people of different faiths. The country was founded by people of faith and most people hold belief in a creator. Most of the time it is a positive thing for society. Just not for me.
To: Names Ash Housewares
'Millenia of erosion' is, of course, consistent with a 6,000 year old earth. 'Millenia' being 1,000 years. I think you meant something different, but you did not state it correctly. Or perhaps you meant YEC because that's what you said.
And please, don't give us the 'evolution is teleological' argument. Evolution is not teleological and has no bias toward complexity.
Conspiracy is not required. Merely an 'a priori' assumption of naturalism. This *requires* long ages simply because 'evolution' cannot create humans in 6,000 years.
Faith in the unseen (abiogenesis, big bang, millions of years) is required for all religions, even pantheism.
You merely say that you believe that you must limit your acceptable theories to naturalistic ones. That's fine. You admit what most don't. In the end, it is a metaphysical choice. One that will definitely return the wrong answer if, in fact, you are observing a supernatural creation.
Are you able to understand that your metaphysical choice will return an incorrect answer if you are actually looking at a supernatural creation?
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson