Comments on: YUCD

By: Jan

Jan — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 19:12:55 +0000

I got one more comment:
Smijer said, “Certainly, when someone is WRONG on the INTERNET, it must be corrected.”

This would take a team of about 10,000 working 24-7 and then who will clean up their mess?

By: smijer

smijer — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 18:54:52 +0000

I agree that proof of Creation would be disproof of atheism if Creation is defined as Creation by supernatural means. But, as we mentioned before - proof of Creation has little to do with evolution. Creationism has two aspects - belief in Creation and disbelief in evolution. Most creationist arguments go toward the latter, rather than the former. Even if the latter could be accomplished, it would not help with accomplishing the former.

For the rest of it - just keep reading if you are interested. I’m not interested in rhetoric or generalizations about what scientists do. If you are, then tune in to that. I’m interested in what evidence we have and what it indicates about natural history. So, that’s what I’m going to keep focused on.

By: Jan

Jan — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 18:10:40 +0000

Perhaps it would have been more accurate to say that those who have reached different conclusions are ridiculed rather than saying they are not to be heard.

Also, sorry about the error “that fact that”. It should read “the fact may be used…”

By: Jan

Jan — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 15:04:17 +0000

I do have one comment. If I understand all that you said, you are right. Evolution does not necessarily prove or disprove God. Wouldn’t creation, on the other hand, disprove atheism?

When one discovers a fact in science, that fact that may be used to aid humanity or to understand and subdue the world around him. Frequently it is subject to interpretation. In almost every case, the passing of time will reveal new, different, or broader truths. Sometimes a ‘fact’ has to be discarded in light of new information. This has been going on since history was first recorded.

I think it is presumptuous for scientist of our generation to decide that they have arrived at a conclusion that allows for no other interpretations, discussion, or other conclusions except their own. This seems to me to be exactly what Darwin evolutionist have done. Most average citizens are not well read in science enough to take apart their arguments and those who can are quickly labeled as “inferior” scientist and not to be heard.