For example, suppose someone demonstrates that it is possible for a large canyon to form over just a few thousand years. Is it fair to then say that all canyons on Earth were formed in such a way?
Why or why not?
Show your work; partial credit will be given.
2007-12-30 11:54:24 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Apologetics is usually applied to religion. They will usually make some assumptions about what constitutes valid authority, and then do a logical analysis. It only works as convincing proof if you accept the assumptions made.
Please remember the difference between evidence and proof. Evidence is what is presented to you; proof is what you call it if it succeeds in convincing you.
The easy way to remember it is evidence is what the lawyers present at a trial. Then the judge tells the jury about the standard of proof to be applied, and it is up to the jury to decide who has "proved up" their case.
2007-12-30 12:05:35 · answer #1 · answered by auntb93 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. Just because something is possible, doesn't mean it actually happened that way. You have to look at all the evidence and decide for yourself. As a general guide, though, if something is said to be proven by science, but people are hurt and fired for questioning it, then it might not be true. This is what is happening with evolution.
2007-12-30 20:01:32 · answer #2 · answered by Kissthepilot 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Sorry, what?
Quite a leap from "It's possible for one to have been" to straight out "all were"...
If the process would be similar.. and there were no variables, it'd be possible to go as far as "all could have been"
All canyons are different, georgraphy, the rocks, the rainfalls; there's simply no realistic way that all would follow the same rules, each would have to be examined individually.
....can't go on....
eyes closing.... bored...
ZzzzZzzzzz...
2007-12-30 20:20:21 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋