home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14794 talk.origins:9882
- Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!hal.com!decwrl!csus.edu!beach.csulb.edu!nic.csu.net!koko.csustan.edu!rat!zeus!skroger
- From: skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger)
- Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
- Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
- Message-ID: <1992Aug21.194521.155641@zeus.calpoly.edu>
- Date: 21 Aug 92 19:45:21 GMT
- References: <63ga03Lg59Ze00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> <1992Aug19.124008.16945@pixel.kodak.com> <1992Aug20.171831.346@acuson.com>
- Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
- Lines: 58
-
- lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:
- >In article <1992Aug19.124008.16945@pixel.kodak.com> jeh@raster.kodak.com (Ed Hanway) writes:
- >>Stupid question: if God created everything with the appearance of age,
- >>i.e. exactly as things would look if currently understood processes had been
- >>operating in the past, how is that any different, as far as science is
- >>concerned, from the case where everything really _is_ old?
- >
- >I'm pleased to see that someone is thinking clearly.
- >
- >As far as _science_ goes, there is no difference. This whole thread
- >really centers around a metaphysical issue: Are your
- >senses/experiences a source or truth. Science holds that they are and
- >(from the sounds of this thread) that they are the _only_ source of
- >truth. Religion holds that they are not the only source and may not
- >(depending on specific doctrine) be accurate.
-
- Ahh, religion says that our senses are a source of truth, yet they aren't
- accurate? Aren't religions transmitted through oral/written traditions on a
- lot of what their doctrines are? But if your hearing/sight isn't accurate,
- how can you be sure of the religious doctrine? If a religious doctrine is
- that the senses aren't accurate, how can you be sure that the person
- communicating that doctrine can be relied upon?
-
- >There is another point I've been meaning to bring up on this thread.
- >The anti-faith side of this debate questions why the evidence points to
- >long times, evolution, etc. Perhaps the "evidence" is not pointing.
- >As an example, let me bring up the old "canals" on Mars topic. They
- >were clear evidence that there was an advanced civilization on Mars.
-
- How could they be clear evidence when very few people actually saw them?
- Percival Lowell, and perhaps some people working under him, were just about
- the only ones who saw these canals. This didn't count as very good
- evidence.
-
- >More recent views is that they just happen to be there and aren't
- >evidence of anything. They just appeared to be canals.
-
- >Ask all the questions you want, but don't be so arrogant to think that
- >God must run the universe on your terms.
- >
- >Perhaps I have an easier time with this because I am a programmer. I
- >can think of variables and structures as real while I know that they
- >are just convenient concepts. I look at evolution the same way.
-
- Perhaps you have an easier time with this because you don't deal with
- reality and how it underlies things. I can think of variables and
- structures as just an abstraction, but they still represent something real.
- (Either a physical chunk of memory, or as a representation of a real
- object.)
-
- >Drew Lawson If you're not part of the solution,
- >lawson@acuson.com you're part of the precipitate
-
-
- |======================================================================|
- | Seth Kroger "If God made us in His image we |
- | skroger@pan.calpoly.edu have certianly returned the |
- | Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo compliment." -Voltaire |
-