Hi Stile,
Stile writes:
Or, are you going to argue that this is incorrect?
Why would I argue that if somebody had two marbles in one hand and two marbles in the other hand and he put them all in one hand that he would not have four marbles in one hand?
Stile writes:
That's the entire purpose of science. To phrase questions and make progress in such a way that it is insane to argue against. Because it simply must be.
You mean like my statement.
The universe has always existed in some form or it began to exist?
Stile writes:
I didn't read their minds. I read their statements. I'm sure you've heard of the Wedge Document where they clearly state that their world view is going to be influencing their conclusions.
Only here on EvC have I heard about the Wedge Document. I don't care anything about it.
It is not my Bible.
I did read a lot of Dawkins statements of his world view.
Stile writes:
This is quite easily shown to be false.
Stile says:
quote:
Using standard mathematics (and anything greater than a base-4 system): 2+2=4
But you did not give the base system either was using.
This is what you said.
Stile writes:
Two people can start with the same information (2+2) and end up with differing conclusions (4 or say... 5). But one of them is wrong.
But if you take 4 quarts of water and pour them into a gallon jug which holds four quarts.
You do not have 4 quarts of water in the gallon jug.
Stile writes:
All I said was that the transitional fossils I linked to show a very clear and obvious progression from the picture I showed to modern day horses.
But with the new revised progression by the National Museum they don't show an obvious clear progression.
Source
Stile writes:
Phooey. All I was hoping for was honest discussion... better luck next creation scientist, I suppose.
You must have missed my post in
Message 42 where I was responding to Ned, concerning what I thought about CS fundamentalists.
I am not fond of those who preach CS or ID. In fact I think they have done God a great disservice as I think many churches have.
But when 2 scientist, one believing in evolution and one creation look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions, who is to say which one is correct, or if either is correct?
There are many great scientist of the past that because of their world view came to conclusions that we now know was wrong.
But you want to exempt today's scientist of the possibility of being wrong.
The day could come when everything we consider as almost a proven fact is overturned, then what?
Like this quote from Richard Dawkins.
quote:
The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved out of literally nothing, is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice.
God Bless,
"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
™ Version 4.2
