(November 20, 2009 at 10:56 am)rjh4 Wrote:
Now there is an open mind. You run into one thing that has another possible answer and conclude the author is wrong and it is not worth your time. That is certainly your prerogative. But could it be that your own bias, assumptions and presuppositions are kicking in and not allowing you to look at the entire case being made with an open mind? Maybe you don't even recognize your own bias in reading such material (or maybe you do??) The facts are the facts. The question really is which interpretation is more consistent with all the facts. Certainly one argument is not enough to make a valid case on either side because some facts do seem to fit one interpretation better while other facts seem to fit the other interpretation better.
Maybe you're right, maybe I should have read the whole thing and maybe I will. But you see, this is the problem with starting off with what you think is a fact and then trying to get the evidence to fit it. In this case, either the fact is wrong or the evidence. This of course can never make any sense as to arrive at a fact you must first have the evidence and if the evidence contradicts your fact then you must assume that your fact is at fault.
It's a bit like saying that we know that the Universe is only 6-10 thousand years old so how is it possible that we can see objects that are million and even billions of light years away especially as the evidence for the latter is beyond all reasonable contestation.
Even if you hate the idea of the universe being that ancient you cannot simply reject the evidence or try to twist it to fit your own personal theory as this way lies ignorance. We must never fall in love with our theories and if contradictory evidence arrives then we must abandon them but we will have learnt something in the process.
This is how we grow, no matter how unsavory it may seem.
![[Image: cinjin_banner_border.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=oggtheclever.com%2Fcinjin_banner_border.jpg)
