From: skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 21 Aug 92 19:45:21 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:
>In article <1992Aug19.124008.16945@pixel.kodak.com> jeh@raster.kodak.com (Ed Hanway) writes:
>>Stupid question: if God created everything with the appearance of age,
>>i.e. exactly as things would look if currently understood processes had been
>>operating in the past, how is that any different, as far as science is
>>concerned, from the case where everything really _is_ old? 
>
>I'm pleased to see that someone is thinking clearly.
>
>As far as _science_ goes, there is no difference.  This whole thread
>really centers around a metaphysical issue:  Are your
>senses/experiences a source or truth.  Science holds that they are and
>(from the sounds of this thread) that they are the _only_ source of
>truth.  Religion holds that they are not the only source and may not
>(depending on specific doctrine) be accurate.

Ahh, religion says that our senses are a source of truth, yet they aren't
accurate?  Aren't religions transmitted through oral/written traditions on a
lot of what their doctrines are?  But if your hearing/sight isn't accurate,
how can you be sure of the religious doctrine?  If a religious doctrine is
that the senses aren't accurate, how can you be sure that the person
communicating that doctrine can be relied upon?

>There is another point I've been meaning to bring up on this thread.
>The anti-faith side of this debate questions why the evidence points to
>long times, evolution, etc.  Perhaps the "evidence" is not pointing.
>As an example, let me bring up the old "canals" on Mars topic.  They
>were clear evidence that there was an advanced civilization on Mars.

How could they be clear evidence when very few people actually saw them?
Percival Lowell, and perhaps some people working under him, were just about
the only ones who saw these canals.  This didn't count as very good
evidence.

>More recent views is that they just happen to be there and aren't
>evidence of anything.  They just appeared to be canals.

>Ask all the questions you want, but don't be so arrogant to think that
>God must run the universe on your terms.
>
>Perhaps I have an easier time with this because I am a programmer.  I
>can think of variables and structures as real while I know that they
>are just convenient concepts.  I look at evolution the same way.

Perhaps you have an easier time with this because you don't deal with
reality and how it underlies things.  I can think of variables and
structures as just an abstraction, but they still represent something real.
(Either a physical chunk of memory, or as a representation of a real
object.)

>Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,
>lawson@acuson.com                you're part of the precipitate


|======================================================================|
| Seth Kroger                       "If God made us in His image we    |
| skroger@pan.calpoly.edu               have certianly returned the    |
| Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo             compliment."  -Voltaire        |
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14350 talk.origins:9509