Re: All Evidence is Subjective...


"Gerard" <markgerardcat@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1139285397.135247.25010@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Face it. All you need is a goal or an agenda, and then a shovel,
microscope, and bunch of peers with the same agenda.

You've got it! (At least, metaphorically, with the microscope and shovel
trope). Scientists all have the same agenda -- to find the best natural
explanations given the data at hand. Why do you have problem with that?

A bunch of doubting thomases begin to dictate THEIR SUBJECTIVE idea of
what evidence fits the discerning criteria for defining origins of
mankind and all of life. Or something to that effect.

Well, sort of. The evidence is what it is. Everyone's interpretation is
subjective (or is that SUBJECTIVE?), since we must all make inferences from
the evidence. The strength of science is that is brings to bear the informed
judgments of many people. Why do you have a problem with that?

I don't believe in God, I won't accept the mountain of evidence
presented to me and the rest of civilization for creation, so I rewrite
the discerning criteria. I limit it to a purely natural basis of
discernment. Thus, ignoring all of the relative evidence for God.

Many scientists believe in God. They simply restrict their science to
the natural. The tools of science just aren't suitable for anything else.
Why do you have a problem with that?

Forget about an 8 thousand year history of revelation through proper
channels.

Do you accept the Book of Mormon? Isn't that proper revelation? If not,
why not?

Forget about the historical facts which clearly reveal the
biblical settings as reality of their times.

Which are those? There are, for instance, no historical facts that
support the story of the life of Jesus.

Forget about the
tradition, such as Jewish, who hold all of the same truths as other
traditions (Catholicism) but only differ in areas of theological
interpretation.

Either you know nothing about Catholicism or Judaism or both.
Jews do not believe that God every takes any form, let alone a
human one; Jews do not believe in salvation by grace; Jews do
not believe in any intermediary between God and humans. This
is hardly a matter of "only differ in areas of theological interpretation."

Forget about the clearly present, to the natural human
eyesight or vantage point, the distinctive beauty of creation as well
as the design, and detail in design which declare intelligent creator.

Perhaps you could tell us what design is and how to spot it.
"Distinctive beauty" is in the eye of the distinct beholders.

Forget about the authenticativeness of the divine law, in how if
practiced perfectly, would benefit the human race in every way,
including elimination of natural death.

Perhaps some evidence for this? You believe in God, so you believe
in His divine law, which tells you to believe in God. You are free to
accept circular reasoning, but you can't pass it off as logical.

Forget about our intuitive
knowledge of that divine authority, and the concious awareness of good
from evil.

Scientists haven't forgotten about these things; they just don't apply to finding
natural explanations. Science isn't all there is, you know.

Forget about these and many other relative evidences
declaring God's obvious existence and omnipresence in this world.

Let's limit the discerning criteria to natural evidence. What do you
expect to find? Nature, nature, nature.......Natural evolution.

And so we do. Why do you have a problem with this? None of it
denies your God.

No. It's creation in a generative metamorphic process which relates
with the elongated version of evolution, however, time and cause is
different. God doesn't need to reveal the hows and whens of creation
process, but very clearly revealed the fact of creation.

And where did He do that? In a book that someone told you to believe?
A book translated from languages you don't read?

Surely, such
an immense God and His Creation couldn't be mentally comprehended by
us, nor would those details be relevant in our purpose for existence.

Surely such an immense God gave us our intellects to use to plumb the
depths of His universe.

Scientists use things such as similar structures, genetics, fossil
likeness, fossil distribution, distribution of species, in geological
layers and geographical, as well as living distribution of species,
apparant extinctions to the point of 90% of all life, microscopic
strains evolving or changing called mutations, carnavorism, disease,
due to lack of observed change they resort to a lengthy and slow
process, interpret findings accordingly, use radiological tests which
fit the current timeframe theory, use a time marker which is clearly
guesswork(isotope ratios a point of creation) and many similiar ideas
to build their case and argue it. With so many tools to build with,
they can change at whim when a certain area is debunked.

Sort of. When new data is discovered, explanations must change.
Why do you have a problem with that? I'm gonna guess that you
haven't taken the time to study enough radiometrics to understand,
let alone criticize the subject. I'm gonna guess that someone just
told you it was guesswork. How'd I do?

They are as elusive as the mutated bacterias, viral strains, and
cancers. However, those things which evolve and change were ordered by
the creator to be elusive, so as to keep death and disease as a
constant truth and consequences of original sin, and a call to
redemption in the cultivation or salvation program by God.

Maybe yes; maybe no. Why would any of that preclude understanding
how these thinks work biochemically?


The evolutionists remain elusive, only to decieve themselves and
innocent children in our educational systems, to plant their seed of
doubt, and to undermine Gods clearly revealed, clearly obvious creation
and work in cultivating the souls of the earth for a merit eternal
spiritual state.

If you'd like to live in a theocracy, there are plenty around. Check
one out.


They, in their subjective search for alternative evidence, subject
themselves to a horrible judgement day due to their daily and lifelong
sins of omission.

But God forgives all sins. So theres still time to repent.

And when you stand before the Throne of Judgment, and God asks
"Why didn't you use the mind I gave you?" what will you answer?
"I'm sorry, O Lord, I thought that you were as small and petty as I was"?

Deadrat

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The thing about ID...
    ... Some personal beliefs (e.g. the existense of God) are not ... >>> testable and cannot be studied by science. ... so all evidence must be held as contaminated and invalid. ... It isn't hampered because the believing scientists deliberately ignore what ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Re: funny creationsist
    ... But there ISN'T any direct evidence - not one single scrap/ Care to ... is the supposed effect on other bodies, an effect for which scientists ... Your god isn't needed. ... Your never having had a supernatural event occur in your life has no ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The thing about ID...
    ... Some personal beliefs (e.g. the existense of God) are not ... >> testable and cannot be studied by science. ... >> be drawn from evidence consisting of observations and experimentations. ... as many of the greatest scientists believed ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: funny creationsist
    ... God is an emotional state? ... of another, I do need evidence. ... >Anyway, here's a short list of scientists, some of whom are herein ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: funny creationsist
    ... >>Same with God. ... But the inference for God's existence is readily verifiable. ... > of another, I do need evidence. ... >>Anyway, here's a short list of scientists, some of whom are herein ...
    (talk.origins)