[quote]haney wrote:
I never said .1% of the evidence to prove religion.
I was refering to .1% evidence for evolution.
Of course he was satisfied that the evidence exists. That is what He wants to believe so He is going to fight for it until the end. It is called Presupposition. My point in posting the info. was we don’t have enough evidence to prove evolution yet. So why are we being told it is a fact. .1% is hardly a rock solid case.
I don’t have time to respond to your other post but I will.
Scott[/quote]
Whoops, that was supposed to be .1% to prove evolution. My thoughts and fingers went in different directions.
I went to that site you gave links to. I snooped around and realized it was an apologetics site. I just recently heard of it through a draft chapter from my professor’s upcoming book. I can’t say what he wrote because its just a draft, but he states that apologetics had a problem with manipulating evidence and deciding when science is right and when it is not. I don’t really know how he got to these conclusions, however.
It’s not exactly a presupposition when there is a clear pattern of development between the species that links them. That whole presupposition agrument brought up in the Creation page is flawed to me. Science works with the tangible, God is not tangible so science works as if there is no God. Science works with theories: sometimes they fit the first time and sometimes they end up being wrong, but these theories are not “presuppositions,” they are reasoned from what we know to be true. Going into the intangible and saying there is a God is a presupposition.
At the bottom of that page, he has two cases where he thinks he has outwitted some young men:
-
A young man approached me at a seminar and stated, "Well, I still believe in the big bang, and that we arrived here by chance random processes. I don't believe in God." I answered him, "Well, then obviously your brain, and your thought processes, are also the product of randomness. So you don't know whether it evolved the right way, or even what right would mean in that context. Young man, you don't know if you're making correct statements or even whether you're asking me the right questions."
The young man looked at me and blurted out, ?What was that book you recommended?? He finally realized that his belief undercut its own foundations ?such ?reasoning? destroys the very basis for reason.
- On another occasion, a man came to me after a seminar and said, ?Actually, I?m an atheist. Because I don?t believe in God, I don?t believe in absolutes, so I recognize that I can?t even be sure of reality.? I responded, ?Then how do you know you?re really here making this statement?? ?Good point,? he replied. ?What point?? I asked. The man looked at me, smiled, and said, ?Maybe I should go home.? I stated, ?Maybe it won?t be there.? ?Good point,? the man said. ?What point?? I replied.
1: Evolution is not randomness. There is no “right” way, but there is a “most fit way”, speaking of evolutionary fitness. Also, there is a difference between how our cognitive processes evolved and how valid our conclusions are. If Ham was right, then how could anything be believed anyway?
2: That is metaphysics, and some of the greatest philosophers have pondered about what is real without getting anywhere. I can’t stand metaphysics, it seems awfully trite to me. And so is his inclusion of that encounter.
The case against carbon dating solely relies on the fact that it is not perfect and that the word of God is. It also claims it only works up to 50,000 years. That is still longer than the literal acount of Genesis, and there are other radio-isotopes that have longer half lives for more distant times.
