|
|
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 154
Graduate Member
|
Hi CTD P.S. Russ you are wrong when you state that "they believe that in only a few million years, every plant and animal alive on the planet today was produced out of primordial mud." The evidence suggests that life has existed on this planet for over 3.5 billion years or 800000 times longer than the claimed period between the ark and the present. No, actually you are wrong. Which part of that statement was wrong? You can say that science has been wrong before, it obviously has, but it was good science that worked that out in almost all cases but the statement above is the current best information we have. It is supported by all sorts of evidence, evidence that you have not yet been able to fault. Can you show me were anything I said was wrong or is it all smoke and mirrors with you? Do you apply the same rigor to all areas of research you undertake? Scary!! Yes I am referring to empirical science. You’ll have to show me the apples and oranges here; it’s all apples as far as I can see. The age of the earth is determined by empirical observations from many different fields of research all of which give consistent answers. The only field which disagrees is human historical records. Humans are fallible beings, subject to flights of fancy and imagination, subject to the whims of deceptions purposeful and pious, is there any real mystery that Chinese whispers from so long ago don’t carry with them accurate historical information? Is there any real wonder that we find historical records written by ancient and ignorant peoples from thousands of years ago to be wanting in accuracy when compared with information that predates them by billions of years, a span of time they could not even imagine in their wildest dreams? An attempt to misplace the burden of proof.
Jeanie, if you're watching, I hope you'll note the large number of logical fallacies.If you read back you’ll see that it was Russ who made the positive claim when he said that “Rocks and water simply do not conspire together to become highly-complex, self-aware, self-reproducing, symmetrical machines.” Now I have to say that that passage was vaguely worded and misleading but I assumed that he meant abiogenesis did not happen and I asked him to support that statement because we have some evidence that suggests he’s wrong. I never said that abiogenesis was true, I don’t know whether it is or not. In short Russ made the positive claim I simply asked him to show us his evidence. That is not shifting the burden of proof that is asking him to put up or … In Reason Russell
|
|
|
|
|
