How can you be scientific in the belief that you and the world are the product of random processes?
That goes against all we know about information and organization theory. This world, the atmosphere, the animal kingdom, your body are all incredibly organized and useful.
Evolution is based on the presupposition that only those things that can be observed, demonstrated, and explained can be shown to be true. That's a faulty presupposition. No one can observe and demonstrate the process of evolution. Nor can anyone observe and demonstrate the process of intelligent design. Only guesses can be made about what really happened.
Of course, we can inform those guesses by observations about the current world, but they in no way can lift the theory to the status of belief. I think you agree it would be NOT SCIENCE if we hold evolution to be true (believe it to be true) if we cannot demonstrate it.
You're referring to the theory that oil was created through the Flood, by the rapid deposit of much vegetative and animal material into oxygen restrictive environments.
I don't know about Flood geology methods for oil exploration --- that doesn't make sense to me. It seems that the normal geologic methods we've studied for finding oil: surface analysis, satellite imagery, gravity meters, magnetometers, sniffers, seismology, etc. would be best.
I don't know that the creationist theory has immediate application to finding oil, as we really don't know where it was deposited, but from what I've read, it is the most logical method of explaining how oil was formed.
As a child, I was taught to love science and to be scientifically inquisitive. As an adult, I continue to be scientific in my observation of the world. As a child, I was also taught creationism. And, as an adult, I continue to believe creationism as it has held up under my and others' scrutiny.
Interpretation of facts is based on presuppositions, which are based on our beliefs. Scientists sometimes presuppose that only those things which can be directly observed, explained, demonstrated, analysed further, and etc. can be shown to be true.
However, that's a faulty presupposition. What about gravity? Energy?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. Again, with respect to you, I hold that you are believing in evolution. Evolution can be neither observed nor demonstrated.
How can you be scientific in the belief that you and the world are the product of random processes?
That goes against all we know about information and organization theory. This world, the atmosphere, the animal kingdom, your body are all incredibly organized and useful.
I do not have to destroy the theory of evolution in order for my theory to be credible.
I have yet to be shown that evolution can be explained by direct observation and demonstrated.
Until I am shown [that], my theory is as good as yours. My theory cannot be directly observed or demonstrated either.
You're right: gravity can be directly observed.
> "But if we are allowed to take our own beliefs in science..."
I hold that you are believing in evolution. It has yet to be demonstrated to me that evolution is directly observable and demonstrable.
Evolution is based on the presupposition that only those things that can be observed, demonstrated, and explained can be shown to be true. That's a faulty presupposition. No one can observe and demonstrate the process of evolution. Nor can anyone observe and demonstrate the process of intelligent design. Only guesses can be made about what really happened.
Of course, we can inform those guesses by observations about the current world, but they in no way can lift the theory to the status of belief. I think you agree it would be NOT SCIENCE if we hold evolution to be true (believe it to be true) if we cannot demonstrate it.
You're referring to the theory that oil was created through the Flood, by the rapid deposit of much vegetative and animal material into oxygen restrictive environments.
I don't know about Flood geology methods for oil exploration --- that doesn't make sense to me. It seems that the normal geologic methods we've studied for finding oil: surface analysis, satellite imagery, gravity meters, magnetometers, sniffers, seismology, etc. would be best.
I don't know that the creationist theory has immediate application to finding oil, as we really don't know where it was deposited, but from what I've read, it is the most logical method of explaining how oil was formed.
As a child, I was taught to love science and to be scientifically inquisitive. As an adult, I continue to be scientific in my observation of the world. As a child, I was also taught creationism. And, as an adult, I continue to believe creationism as it has held up under my and others' scrutiny.
Interpretation of facts is based on presuppositions, which are based on our beliefs. Scientists sometimes presuppose that only those things which can be directly observed, explained, demonstrated, analysed further, and etc. can be shown to be true. However, that's a faulty presupposition. What about gravity? Energy?
It's about time we challenge the presuppositions behind evolution on a larger scale.