Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
All the observable evidence we have corroborates. It tells us, simply, that the planet is ancient and that natural forces made everything in it and on it. One or two scientists outside the consensus might disagree on the precise mechanisms. There is, however, no evidence that contradicts that the planet is ancient and that natural forces made everything in it or on it.
We are debating the interpretation of the evidence right now. Not the evidence itself, but what the evidence says. Just because popular opinion interprets it one way, does not mean it is correct. (As has been repeated many times about the american voters)
I would invite you to present any you have. I can guarantee you without equivocation that I can demolish it, and that any 'evidence' you might present, if curious, cannot possibly question the consensus achieved by the last century of scientific research, not in any serious way.
As I said, we are inspecting the interpretations of the data, not in a war in which we throw data about at each other. Every interpetation you give me I could counter, it's just which one fits the data better. (And this is, for the most part in the current topic under debate, highly subjective)
The evidence is utterly, profoundly, overwhelming. I am writing this; you are reading it; the sun came up today; the world is round; water is made from hydrogen and oxygen.
Actually, modern physics says that the entire universe is actually a peturbation in spacetime, and that therefore technically, "matter" does not exist as we think of it. But this borders on semantics and philosophy. Also, the earth is not perfectly round, and the sun "did not come up". The earth rotated so as to make it appear that the sun came up. Again, semantics, but they go to show how I can interpret the same data in a subtly different way (in this case, more accurately).
When I write that there is an explanation that accords with the evidence given us by all those scientific disciplines it is a fact. If you choose to deny it we may as well end this right here.
You are so funny! We don't even know why gravity "works". We call it a law because every time we test it, it performs in exactly the same way. To say that anything
in science is "simple" is to truly miss the point. The universe is exeedingly complex.
And yet, evolution of the species is considered a "fact", even though it has never been observed.
Because it is true. Archeology, genetics, geology, cosmology, physiology, paleontology, climatology and even linguistics all accord that the planet and our cosmos are ancient, that singular forces shaped it and continue to shape it, and that many of these forces are observable, or predictable if they are not.
Again, you are taking the data and looking at it through naturalistic goggles. I've already covered this point. Deal with specifics, or this thread will quickly spiral into pure semantics.
Again I invite you to offer any serious contradiction in any of the scientific fields I've listed above that disprove the vast, cross-collaborating evidence turned up in the last century of research.
Well, for starters, I've been harping on cellular evolution quite heavily. Let's start there shall we? If you have an area of expertise, pick something from there and I'll do some research into it. Any knowledge is good knowledge.
I'm trying to convince you that you are wrong. I tell you this straight.
I figured that out a while ago. People in my department try doing that every day. I have had some excellent and very level headed discussions with them.
No. There are some things which are just axiomatic. The theory of gravity, for example.
As I said earlier, it's an axiom because every time we test it, it has proven true. However, that doesn't stop researchers from finding out why it's true.
That, sir, is the key. Not to be content with merely assuming it's true, but why
it is so (and hopefully, how to harness it).
Aeronautical scientists don't look to cosmologists when they design aircraft in order to find the 'defining proof' that will let their designs stay up in the air. They make aeroplanes. Geologists don't concern themselves with geneticists. Geneticists don't read cosmologists' peer-reviewed journals. But all the evidence accords that the planet is ancient, that the cosmos is ancient, that the forces that made it are measureable and often observable, and that it was not made 10,000 years ago in six days by an invisible force.
Aeronautical scientists do not look to cosmologists for advice, because aeronautics has very little to do with the cosmos. However, paleontology and genetics do: Evolution. Paleontology expects to see the fossil record change over time, whereas geneticists look for genetic change in living organisms (usually). The natural sciences tend to have that one theory in common: evolution. As I said before, its a paradigm.
Creationism is the difficult, unmanageable, contradictory 'theory' riven by counter-intuitive explanations and impossible-to-prove precepts. Not physics, biology, geology, genetics and archeology (which we call 'science'.)
Difficult? hardly. Unmanageable? Only to those who don't like to think that something out there is a whole lot more powerful than we can comprehend.
Contradictory? Only to the current interpretation as held by many.
Impossible to prove? Go to rcsb.org and download a few protein structures. You'll find blatant design crawling all over them.
Science is only a tool. It's a way of critical thinking.
Where. What. Links, references, titles, authors. Anything.
Actually, I'm going to give you a page written by evolutionists. They do a pretty good job of going over the current "Intellegent Design" theories, as well as refuting them. It should save you some time. link
If any of the evidence you are about to present me in the field of geology means that we must count out the sum total of the cross-collaborating evidence from the fields of genetics, physics, paleontology and cosmology because that's what you have to do to prove that the Bible is right and that God made the planet and the things in it then this thread will win you a Nobel Prize and you are the greatest genius alive today.
Well, although I'd like a Nobel prize, I'm not going to attack it head on because it's not my field of expertise.
However, as you know, geology has to do with primarily the study of the earth's crust, and it's strata and convolutions. As such, we have just scratched the surface of starting the scientific process in geology, and are limited at this point to observations and hypotheses. (Because we are unable to test them at will). As an example of hypotheses needing to be changed, until very recently it was thought that the very fine striations seen in hardened sediments was proof of a long period of time (this is still accepted as true today by many people). However, the pyroclastic flow of mount st. helens proved it can happen in minutes.
It all boils down to the delusion that a scientist can come to a unifying theory that ties all the evidence together in a single field with only observations. (let alone all of science as a whole)
Nothing in this paragraph is true. I don't care whether or not you believe it. Nothing in this paragraph is right.
You know, your simply saying that doesn't make it so.
So. God makes this universe. It's awesomely vast and beautiful; it's perfect.
"Look at what I've done! Look at the beauty and majesty of what I've made for you!" he says.
"Not now, God," you say. "I'm reading a Book."
Well, that the great thing about being where I am right now. The books I read apply directly to his creation.
As for the rest of you, you'll have to wait till I get home.