[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
No, I don't assume that. Their evidence was based off of complete ignorance of the universe. They knew nothing of geology, astronomy (real astronomy, not just things like postions of stars and such), physics, biology, quantum mechanics, etc. While we do not know everything about these subjects today, we know enough to be able to see that the hypotheses about the origins of the unvierse that people came up with 5000 years ago (basis of Christianity) are inherently flawed and can't be relied upon. Even those of 2000 years ago are suspect.

On what basis do you make this claim? There are ancient stone structures that we would have difficulty duplicating today, even with modern equipment. Besides, if you accept the basic Creationist postulate (which, in proper debate, you must unless you first: A: disprove it or B: show that the implications of it do not match the evidence Edit: that is, when attempting to disprove something - I sometimes words in longer Posts, sorry) you must allow for the possiblity of valid divine inspiration. You are also using an ad hominin fallacy here.

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
You have confused hypotheses and theories. Hypotheses are unproven guesses. Theories are ex-hypotheses that have been backed up by lots of evidence and experimentation. Those hypotheses that ended up being right are the exception, not the rule.

No, I'm not confused - I'm just not specifying what goes into finding that it is a better fit.

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
No, it isn't. It is a realistic observation of how people operate. Most people do not use reason in crafting their arguments.

The definitions I was using:Overgeneralization: using the general case that doesn't always apply to attack a specific case. Ad hominin: Latin for "to the man" (although my spelling is probably poor): attacking/supporting an argument based on other people/person who hold it, not on the idea itself - both of which you appear to have been doing.

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Umm... Darwin's theory of evolution was bombarded quite heavily when it was published. It was not simply accepted as fact without contest.

Ah, but not by the "scientific" community, which was what was under question at the time, as I recall.

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

And, Darwin's theory of evolution is as much a thoery of the present as it is of the past.

It says more about the past than the present as it requires large time frames; the place to attack it is in the past.

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
The exact date can not be proven, no. But a relative date can indeed be proven.

Not really, as they can't be properly calibrated.

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
You are just ignorant of the details of the methods used to do so (as am I, though not to the same extent). And, keep in mind that "ignorant" in no way means "stupid", just "lacking knowledge of a particular thing". I don't want to start any unnecessary semantics tangents (faith is not a tangent )...

[ May 20, 2003, 00:29: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]