quote:
God has proved to me personally his existance, his love and that God answers prayer, mind you not always the answer you want, but an answer none the less. I can't test this for the masses(sp?)but I know these things to be true and unchanging.
The thing is, you haven't tested this for yourself at all. Not in the same way anything in science is tested, including the ToE.
...not that it has to be, mind you. Faith is not about scientific tests.
However, then you go on to say:
quote:
The toe has been tested, but could always be subjected to other tests and found to be false yet.
That is true of every single other scientific theory in existence.
Do you hold every other scientific theory to this same standard? To remain consistent, you would need to have similar reservations about the Theory of a Heliocentric Solar System, or the Germ Theory of Disease, or Gravitational Threory, or the Atomic Theory of Matter, or Relativity Theory, etc. etc.
quote:
I have my doubts about this tested theory and they are based on a few key things, 1.The probability of life beggining on it's own is so incredibly slim
Holy cow, Funky, don't you read anything on this forum?
Where life came from has
nothing to do with what happened to it after it got here.
God could have created the first life and evolution could still be valid.
quote:
2.Even if the earth is only 6000 years old we have only been really been making an organized effort to study it for a few hundred of those years.
It wasn't until the end of the 19th century that the Germ Theory of Disease was (nearly) universally accepted. That's only a little over 100 years ago.
Should we be wary of such an idea because we haven't studied it long enough?
How long do you propose is "long enough" to study Biology, Genetics, Paleontology, Geology, etc. before we can trust any of the science in all of these fields?
(Tell me, do you go to the doctor? Have you ever taken antibiotics or had a throat culture done? If you do and have, you are a hypocrite.)
quote:
3.I know we have collected a huge amount of data, excavated many areas, and studied many formations on the earth. However this seemingly large amount of data is incredibly small in comparison to how much has not been studied, excavated, and the data base is relatively small especially in the case of an old earth.
So, what you seem to be saying is that you are perfectly prepared to completely ignore this huge amount of data because we do not have perfect knowledge.
Well, then you must also be prepared to reject all of modern science because we don't have perfect knowledge of anything.
You prefer to believe something that has zero evidence to support it and reject the vast amount of physical evidence which happens to contradict your preferred (evidenceless) belief.
Are you sure your God wants you to, well, be so willfully ignorant?
The best part of all is that you hold your own belief to no kind of stringent standard in the least, yet you point to the fact that we do not have all knowledge as a major reason you do not accept the data we DO have.
quote:
Schraf, it's not so illogical to doubt the toe.
It is quite illogical to doubt common descent with modification if the reason you are doubting it is because we do not have perfect knowledge.
Look, scientists are incredibly conservative with regards to new paradigms and new research. They do not embrace and accept new research results until they have been tested and retested over and over again, no matter how impressive or interesting the initial results.
The ToE is a scientific theory, and like all such theories, is subject to change.
However, it is also one of the
most tested theories in all of science, and definitely the most tested theory in Biology.
How stupid do you think scientists are, anyway? Why do you think that these hunderds of thousands of really smart people would support a theory which didn't work, or that failed to be supported over and over and over and over with every new fossil or genetic pathway we discover?
quote:
It is subject to change. The amount of data collected is too small in comparison to the enormity of the conclusion.
We probably have more data in support of the ToE than we do in support of any other single theory in all of science.
It is a "grand unifying theory" which ties many fields together by explaining what we find in all of them.
How long do you propose we keep gathering data before we can draw any conclusions?
quote:
God and his answers to prayer are not subject to change in this way, God always has and always will answer prayer.
What a double standard you hold!
Why don't you hold your claims about prayer to the same standard of evidence that you hold the ToE (and all of science) to?
™ Version 4.2