11 Jun 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerNo. They are all based upon assumptions. The important question is "how reasonable are the assumptions." It helps though that the ages are reached by independent methods. Since these methods employ different assumptions, it can be shown that the assumptions of other methods are probably not too stringent.
Would you like to point out any theory used to calculate the age of the earth that is not based on assumptions?
However, since the implications of all of the many methods do not comport with the myth that have been told all of your life, you will never agree with the assumptions if the conclusion is presented to you first. I suspect (and have seen evidence of this) that you do agree with the assumptions when you do not realize that they are the very ones used to support the methods or when you use them to make a different point.
Simple fact of the matter is some ideas cause you to violently react and retreat into extreme skepticism. It's an unfortunate condition that I hope you will be brave enough to overcome someday.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
11 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by telerionI think the question is really whether these assumptions aren't always based on presuppossitions.
No. They are all based upon assumptions. The important question is "how reasonable are the assumptions." It helps though that the ages are reached by independent methods. Since these methods employ different assumptions, it can be sh ...[text shortened]... dition that I hope you will be brave enough to overcome someday.
11 Jun 05
Originally posted by dale21Adding to telerion and David C's comments to the analogy. It is also flawed because evolution is not aiming to build anything. The eye is a good example in this case, as it is often used to point out the improbability of a random design. However evolution would just as well (and have in many occasions) destroy the eye, if this would be benificial for the survival of the species. So you can't look at the end result, and say that this was ment to be all along. For all we know the present eye is equal to a pile of rubble instead of a house in perfect working order.
allow me to illustrate it this way..... what are the chances of me throwing up into the air,bricks,mortar,windows,doors,planks of wood,water pipes,gas pipes,stairs,cement,tiles,wallpaper etc.and all of them falling into place perfectly and in working order to form a house. the notion is ludicrous. you have to admit there is a designer, a mind behind the const ...[text shortened]... t "well give it a couple of million billion years and the house will be made" it simply wont.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
11 Jun 05
Originally posted by nickybuttBut the point is that evolution cannot explain the formation of life from non-life in the first place, never mind the rest.
Adding to telerion and David C's comments to the analogy. It is also flawed because evolution is not aiming to build anything. The eye is a good example in this case, as it is often used to point out the improbability of a random design. However evolution would just as well (and have in many occasions) destroy the eye, if this would be benificial for the ...[text shortened]... e know the present eye is equal to a pile of rubble instead of a house in perfect working order.
11 Jun 05
Originally posted by telerionSo what ? there a lot more evidence supporting science's "assumptions" than there is for the hypothesis' of religion,,in fact there isn't any evidence supporting religion.
No. They are all based upon assumptions. The important question is "how reasonable are the assumptions." It helps though that the ages are reached by independent methods. Since these methods employ different assumptions, it can be shown that the assumptions of other methods are probably not too stringent.
However, since the implications of all of t ...[text shortened]... ism. It's an unfortunate condition that I hope you will be brave enough to overcome someday.
If creation scientist want to prove something , why don't the work on proving their major assumption? Because all they are do now is deceive decent people and make themselves look like idiots and liars.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
11 Jun 05
Originally posted by frogstompChemistry does NOT explain the formation of life from non-life, there is no explanation for this. Thus there is not even a foundation for evolution to be built on.
that's because chemistry explains the formation.. evolution is a process that doesn't start until later.
11 Jun 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerThat's just another of your false assumptions. Chemical processes can , do and did form the compounds of life.
Chemistry does NOT explain the formation of life from non-life, there is no explanation for this. Thus there is not even a foundation for evolution to be built on.
What da heck do you think life is made of if not chemicals?
11 Jun 05
Originally posted by dale21Well, if you mean fact in the conventional sense, then they are based upon fact. Dj2 is talking about assumptions (likely one's you don't even realize) that are made when something is declared fact.
why cant they be based on fact for a change?
For most people, that higher creatures have evolved over time from simpler forms is fact. It is observed in the fossil record. It is supported by genetics. Incremental changes have even been observed in a lab.
For YEC's this is not fact. Instead, everything recorded in a collection of 66 texts is a fact.
11 Jun 05
Originally posted by frogstompAbsolutely.
So what ? there a lot more evidence supporting science's "assumptions" than there is for the hypothesis' of religion,,in fact there isn't any evidence supporting religion.
If creation scientist want to prove something , why don't the work on proving their major assumption? Because all they are do now is deceive decent people and make themselves look like idiots and liars.
