Posted on 01/16/2006 8:20:59 AM PST by dead
Short of a video tape documenting the birth of the planet, I doubt we will solve this issue. So both sides should be taught.
LOL. "Some of my best friends are [fill in the blank]."
I never make mistakes. I thought I did, once, but I was mistaken........
In an ideal world, yes. But about 99.99% of the scientists I've encountered operate on Faith: I believe the Theory of Evolution has been proven to the extent that only a moron doesn't accept it. I believe that the universe is obviously billions of years old. I believe that radiocarbon dating is well-understood and reliable.
It's all Faith.
The difference: Those who believe in Creation, also believe that science can make spaceships that work. But scientists, who believe the Man is descended from an ape, just laugh at the beliefs of others, and sling insults at them.
Someone's Faith blinds them to a wider world.
I wish some creationist would explain how kangaroos got from Mt. Ararat to Australia.
It's all Faith.
Actually it is not faith--it is science. Anytime you want to discuss radiocarbon dating let me know. I do quite a lot of it.
He obviously believes that science, not the supra-rational, gives a true account of the whole.
How's that for being fair and balanced?
Or for that matter the precept of "love, "hate," appreciation of beauty" -- ANY emotion.
How does science explain the non-physical in the context of "matter"?
It can't and won't ever.
THAT is THE empirical proof of "Creationism."
You do net seem to understand what fittest means in an evolutionary sense.
Well, he does have one belief with two complementary components. About that belief he will brook no challenge: It is this: Darwinist materialism is the one true science; ID is theology.
He may be open-minded and "without belief" on many subjects. Evolution is not one of them.
God CAN move mountains. And obviously has.
I disagree with this pretty completely. It's true that rather than studying every scientific topic myself, I do have faith in the peer-review process. I guess that leaves me open to a vast conspiracy of hundreds of scientists working together to hide a world-shaking truth from me. But because of that one bit of faith, you can't say that I am then taking proven scientific theories on faith. As long as the peer-review process remains valid, the results that pass it can be accepted, so that's the only bit of faith I need.
So I guess if you don't believe in the peer review process, you might look at scientific knowledge and think that people have faith in each bit of knowledge independently, but really it's just faith in the process.
False.
If an offspring raised by two adults has a survival advantage over one raised by only one adult, then there is evolutionary pressure for things like "love" and "commitment" that will cause the father to stick around after his woman is pregnant.
Now, go to the local housing project and tell me how those one-parent kids are doing.
The strong rarely, if ever, rule.
How else to explain over a hundred years of idiot socialism?
You seem unable to deal with the question of why blindly self-selecting evolution considers altruism to be an attribute of the "fittest".
Ah yes, there is Dawkins "Selfish Gene"! The extended phenotope that reaches outside of our bodies to manipulate others!
Pure science, of course.
An oxymoron. A scientist needs at least two beliefs:
1. There is absolute reality (for, without absolute reality, experimentation is meaningless. For example, without absolutes, the fact that humans need oxygen to live may be true in one person's reality, but not another.)
2. The reality with which science deals must be discoverable to the scientist (for without this, it does not matter how absolute the truth is, science will fail, as we cannot discern it through science in the first place).
Note that neither of these preclude God in either way. One fact remains: everyone, no matter how vehemently they deny it, operates on axioms. Axioms, in Geometry for example, are taken to be true and cannot be proven. These are then, in turn, used to deduce theorems. The difference between the Christian and the Atheist, then, is the set of axioms.
Atheist:
1. There is no reality beyond our senses.
Christian:
1. There is a God.
2. The Bible is his inspired word to us.
The true debate, then, is whose axioms are correct.
(Alternately, this could be boiled to one, depending on how you look at things: The Bible is infallible)
Hint: The Christian's.
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.