------------------------------------------------------------------------------ well, actually, God says in the Bible that He will prove that He is inspiring the words. He has a prophet tell what is going to happen in the future and history bears it out.... one of the bigger pitfalls for human thinking is the rejection of correct answers just because they are really simple. Call me intellectually lazy or whatever but if somebody wants to cut to the chase and short circuit a tremendous amount of intellectual work for me and just present a nice proof for my listening pleasure, who am I to argue? We live in space-time, eternity is outside of space-time, God lives outside of space-time.. that is proven by His ability to tell us what is going to happen hundreds and thousands of years before it happens... I just think that is cool and I noticed that He invites all of us to come and live with Him.. I want to do that..
That's only playing with semantics again. In the question of truth, I don't get to build definitions, no one does. Truth is based on fact. A true fact is not a personal one. You just don't get to maintain personal facts above actuality . That's known as belief , or even delusion. Attempting to apply the word truth in place of personal belief - is a notion. To be clear, science is not and never has been a definition of truth . That's your claim. And you won't invent truth by an argument for need of sufficiency. You can't . Not truthfully.
You are wrong .Scientific studies in origins of life (abiogenesis) are based upon established fact. Otherwise it wouldn't be science. You are wrong. Occam's razor is the recommendation, when all the things which are being considered are equal , select one with fewest extra assumptions. You are wrong. Macroevolution is evolution with the effects of microevolution. Both are scientific. Both based on the same standards of scientific proof. You are wrong. Calibrating of the geologic column uses two scientific methods. Relative time and radioactive decay of an element. Thanks for starting out with explaining how clever you are though, as it isn't clear from what you've been saying. Apparently as far as you're concerned, misunderstanding science for some weird reason seems to be your free pass to religion. Maybe you feel consoled however by Ricter's suggestions, which would notionally define truth as being no more than the attainment of your own sufficiency from just believing you are right.
From Richard Dawkins' book, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, Chapter 6, "Missing Link? What Do You Mean, 'Missing'?", page 155: It would be so nice if those who oppose evolution would take a tiny bit of trouble to learn the merest rudiments of what it is that they are opposing. As for an earlier reference to "circular logic" in the case for evolution, that is simply not so. The only circular logic is in the argument for creation. Anyone who thinks the argument for evolution has circularity in any form has not troubled himself with the merest rudiments to which Dawkins refers.
I pointed out that all thought about origins is speculation. There are two speculative sides to the argument. That makes them equally speculative. I toss out the one that has the most assumptions..
Not really. "Science" just points to microevolution and says "There, that proves Macroevolution and anybody that can't see it is stupid"
More circular reasoning!! There are assumptions in the use of the relative time and radioactive decay... What is really laughable is that when the strata doesn't match up with the column "science" just ignores it!! They own the venue for the debate so if they want to ignore something, well it's ignore away and full steam ahead!!