Glenn wrote:
> "Richard Forrest" <richard@plesiosaur.com> wrote in message news:1119116139.608324.327240@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > Glenn wrote:
> > <snipped>
> >
> > Hey! It's Glenn again!
> > Now let's get back to a question you have been very conspicuouly not
> > answering:
>
> You think too much of yourself, weasel.
My word! Resorting to insults from the start!
> >
> > You accept that the evidence from the natural world tells us that the
> > Universe is very ancient - of the order of 15 billion years - and that
> > the earth is over 4 billion years old.
>
> No, I do not accept that the "evidence tells us" anything. We interpret data and make inferences. The data *appears* to support the concept that the Universe and the earth as much older than a few thousand years. I'm not a YEC, and have never given you any indication that I am. That probably won't fix your broken record, however.
So we have one clear statement from you which you have not made before:
you are not a YEC. There's a start.
> >
> > Do you think that this is a false impression, or do you think the world
> > is truly of this age?
>
> Truth is what science is about, troll.
Emm..no. Science is not about truth. It's about the interpretation of
evidence.
Surely a troll is someone posting under a false identity, starting an
argument, and then running away? Have I ever done any of those things?
> >
> > You have made it clear that you don't know why the earth has this
> > appearance of age. Fine. That's an honest answer. However, why should
> > anyone believe that the impression given by the evidence of great age
> > is false?
> >
> However, that is not an honest statement.
In what way? Is my statement that you have made it clear that you do
not know why the earth has an appearance of age not honest? I'm merely
reporting on a previous posting you made. I can provide the link if you
don't believe me, or can't remember your own words.
Or is my statement that you gave an honest answer not honest?
The last sentence is a question, so it can't be that.
At no time have I said anything about wondering why the earth has this
appearance of age. I do know a little about it. At least I'm not as
ignorant as you to be continually making statements that are either
contrary to what you say or haven't said at all.
The difficulty we have in dealing with you, Glenn, is that you very
rarely make it clear what you believe about anything. So would I be
correct in stating that you accept that the earth is ancient, and that
the scientific evidence supporting that age is sound?
I'm just trying to find out where you stand on this matter.
> >
> > Now, my expectation is that you will try to change the subject, go off
> > on an irrelevant tangent, resort to invective chosen from your rich
> > repertoire of evasive manoevers.
>
> Save the fancy words for someone who you think will be impressed.
Did you think they were directed at you?
> >
> > So why not prove me wrong, and give a straight answer to the question?
> >
> > Go on. Dare you.
> >
> If you're not careful, your head will pop.
Well, slowly and reluctantly, we seem to be getting somewhere:
So you accept that the earth is ancient in accordance with the findings
of science, though you appear to be somewhat confused about the nature
of science: it is not a search for truth.
Let's try to find out more about what you believe then:
Do you think that God interferes with the ordered running of the
Universe to create life, and to guide evolution?
RF
|
|