|
RCC -> RE: the earth (2/1/2008 6:57:59 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Doctors frequently make inferences about events that no one has observed directly (e.g., etiology of a patient’s illness, events at the molecular level). This really doesn't make sense, RCC. Obviously every patient is a unique individual, but I assure you that careful observation using scientific methodology has proven beyond a reasonable doubt (a seemingly firmest conclusion) that when someone has a sore throat, fever of 102, pus on tonsils, and a positive Strep culture, that person will benefit from penicillin. There's no "inference" about it!
This makes no sense. "Inference" means the drawing of a conclusion from known or assumed facts or statements. Thus when a doctor observes these symptoms and then concludes on the basis of medical research that penicillin will benefit this patient, he is making an inference.
Even children understand that one can come to reasonable conclusions about unobserved past events based on present evidence. If you came home one day and found a broken window, your home trashed, and your TV and stereo missing, you would not suspect a burglary and call the police about it unless you believed that reasonable inferences could be made about unobserved past events from observations in the present. Detectives can solve crimes without eyewitness testimony.
quote:
On the contrary, there is no scientific experiment, controlled study, or observational method to prove anything firmly conclusive about the origin of the universe other than its cause must have been greater than the resulting effect.
We were not discussing the origin of the universe, we were discussing the age of the earth and the origin of the diversity of life on earth. The history of the earth and the life upon it have left many traces in the present, which can be studied scientifically to draw reasonable conclusions about the past.
quote:
quote:
God, after all, presumably could have created the world to look as if it were billions of years old and as if all organisms were descended from a common ancestor. No, He did not since His Eyewitness account ststes otherwise.
I.e., what you claim is God's eyewitness account.
quote:
quote:
Argue that God, who is presumably always truthful, has said that He created the Earth and all “kinds” of organisms in a literal six-day period. That’s a tough one, and I would like to see some actual arguments, as opposed to mere assertions, for this. This discussion centers on Biblical interpretation and should be posted in The Bible thread. I'd be delighted to meet you there.
This forum deals with scientific questions, and you brought up a theological argument (that God says thus-and-such about the matter) to support a position on the scientific question of the age of the earth. No, you don't get to bring up an argument in this forum and then tell anyone who disputes the argument to go dispute on another forum. So you need to either argue in support of your position (that God has said that he created the earth and its life forms <10,000 years ago) here, or state that you decline to do so.
quote:
It won't be much of a contest with 1800+ years of traditional Christian hermeneutics supporting the YEC position. Of course, that's "according to the vast majority of [Bible scholars] in the relevant fields" which you hold to be the standard of truth for human knowledge.
I didn't say that at all.
|
|
|
|