Quote:
Originally Posted by JMS
12th, evolution is tested and proven, otherwise it wouldn’t be accepted theory in the scientific community. scientific theory is based on facts, it explains facts, it deals in facts, tested and proven. intelligent design, even if you ignore the fact that its based on religious belief, is pure, unadulterated conjecture. Im all for that. make kids have 9 to 5 days like everyone else. I’m sure working parents would love that. i would love for kids to learn more - i think it would be great.
|
To me, this post hit on something I would consider essential.
Two people at Covance are discussing drug interactions. On the table is a drug combination of Lexapro, Effexor and Tramadol known, that if combined could raise serotonin to dangerous levels (serotonin syndrome). They know that hyper-serotonin levels in a human being can cause irreversible coma or death. The information they used to determine this, was science at its best. Whether or not either one of these men believed that God created human beings or not, has NO bearing on their analysis. They came to the right conclusion because they were both good at what they do. I know of excellent doctors who are atheists. I know of excellent doctors who are evangelical Christians. This is a silly argument to have, because rational people understand the differences between apples and oranges.
Now enter another type of scientist. He's a forensic pathologists. He walks into a court room and testifies that, yes, for all intensive purposes, the victim died of natural causes. However, we have no explanation for how she got outside. There are no other clues that tell us how she could possibly die, and then be set on the ground, outside the house. We know that someone, not something, moved her there. We know that she was unconscious when she was laid there, and we know she died, while laying in the yard.
The defense says, "How do you know someone moved her?"
The witness says, "Because, there are no signs she moved herself." And the scene inside of the house, indicates she wasn't conscious when she collapsed onto the kitchen floor."
What is the doctor doing. He is removing plausible causes to arrive at a conclusion that in the absence of any convincing proof to the contrary, we are going to assume that someone moved the body. Then he is going to cite all kinds of things, missing, in order to make his point. The fact that the body was in the yard needs an explanation as to how it got there. Science can tell you, it wasn't an animal, it wasn't a naturally occurring phenomena, it wasn't the victim. Even though there is no credible evidence to suggest that a person moved the body, it scientifically reasonable and admissible to conclude that someone did.
If I follow your line of reasoning. Then witness should recues himself because he's a Christian, he believes in six literal days, and he made a deduction in the absence of evidence.
I rest my case.