 | | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) I don't have a problem if someone believes in a higher power, wants to attend a church, etc. This is America and you have that personal right. I DO have a problem when lawmakers in Ohio try to push their religious views into public school (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) I think this is the attitude that James B. was referring to. Let me ask you, what's not "valid" about Creationism? I don't think 'science' can or will be able to disprove it-- although I don't doubt that it will find mounds more evidence to (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) Only in part. I was partly refering to the trend to dismiss faith-based arguments, but I was more speaking to the further dismissal of anyone bringing forward faith-based arguments. John (Neal)'s borne the recent brunt of this, but he's by no (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
|
(...) Well, you're making several different points here, so let's take them one by one; First off, John R's not saying Creationism isn't "valid;" he's saying that it's not a "valid scientific theory," and he's 100% correct. Creationism is not (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
|
(...) Disagree-- but you won't like the answer. (...) Sure it is. It's just that *IF* most Creationists were presented with conflicting data, they'd choose to ignore or dismiss it. Just like you ignore or dismiss the Bible as evidence against (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
|
(...) Actually, no it's not. At least, not Christian Creationism, which is really what we're talking about. The presence of an omnipotent being by definition eliminates all falsifiability or empirical verification--two necessary criteria for a (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
|
(...) What? Of course the Big Bang theory makes predictions. Virtually any model makes predictions. You then see if observable data matches the predictions - in the case of the Big Bang, are galaxies (or more properly galactic groupings) moving away (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
|
(...) I think you reversed the prediction with the evidence. The evidence was (IIRC) that galaxies are all moving away from each other, and the *conclusion* was that the Big Bang happened. There is no "Therefore, BECAUSE the Big Bang happened, X". (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
|
(...) But I could say the same about the existence of an infinite Being. <snipping here> (...) This is because science is using a loaded bat (to continue the metaphor). The presuppositions of science are that if you can't test it, observe it, (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
|
(...) Well, that's not the part that's falsifiable. And, I agree-- if we take the absolutemost non-literal translation of the Bible and say 1 day = 8.6 billion years or what-have-you, then yes, you're right, it may *not* be falsifiable. Certainly (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
|
(...) Seriously? Where'd you get that stat? Chris (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
|
(...) Okay, but it's still not scientific. My claim that I just came back from the men's room is falsifiable, but that's not really scientific, either. (...) The flood story? the GLOBAL flood story? Not hardly. And anecdotal examples of failures of (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
|
(...) <goad> Well, it's because the other 33% are Hindus and Jews, and the rest aren't really humans. </goad> The figure is closer to 30-35%, by the way. (URL) best LFB (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
|
(...) I cited one aspect of the Big Bang, that's all. You usually have some kind of evidence, contruct a model, and then see if you can find new evidence to confirm or deny the theory. I spoke from the standpoint of the model, not the actual linear (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
|
(...) Yep, thank you for clarifying that for the audience. I suppose I could have emphasized the term "scientific" rather than "valid", but it seems perfectly clear to me the way I originally wrote it. I don't oppose the teaching of creationism, I (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
|
(...) Chris (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
|
(...) rather than 1/3 which is I think what I heard the stat as... sorry 'bout that one... DaveE (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
|
(...) Well, the point on this one was that I think Dave! insinuated that in order for a theory to be 'scientific', one requirement was that the theory must be able to make predictions. And I disagreed with that assertion. That's where this one was (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
|
(...) I don't think what makes a theory scientific is as hard and fast as some would like to indicate. Does it have to "helpful" to be scientific? Why would it have to? (...) Basically, Creationist Theories don't fit the known evidence. (...) (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
|
(...) I know this ever-so-rarely ever happens, but I think I'm going to switch gears and join your team on this one, based on something that struck me after writing this post: (URL) that the Biblical Creation story *does* have evidence to support (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
|
(...) In an arena of two competing theories, the one that is able to make testable predictions is stronger than and therefore preferable to the one that is not so able. If the theory does not make testable predictions, you can't really perform (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
|
(...) Question is, is it still "scientific"? I'd still want to say yes. (...) Alright, fine. Switch the example then (we can play this game for a while yet to come). Suppose we *don't* know the chemical makeup of Halley's Comet, because it gets (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
|
(...) Are you asking if post hoc reasoning is scientific? No--it's actually one of the hallmarks of pseudoscience, like palmistry or astrology or Creationism. (...) For the umpteenth time in this debate you have presented the falacy known as "the (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
|
(...) I think the issue here was my interpretation of your specific problem with Creationism wherein you said: (...) The issue I was attempting to discuss here (if you trace back) is with the 2nd item in your list: "does not make any predictions (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
|
(...) Again, I've been basing my argument on the notion of the Xtian interpretation of Genesis re: infinite Creator. All bets are off once an infinite entity steps into the equation, so my objection stands. This is also, by the way, why studies into (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
|
(...) I'll still argue that Biblical Creationism is falsifiable-- it's just that CreationISTS tend to either bend with the evidence, or refuse it. If, for example, we were able to "prove" that humans preceeded the Earth, out goes Biblical (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
|
(...) See my previous point that falsifiable theories that are proven false have no explanatory scientific value. This is the case with biblical creation. The "day-lengths" thing--to which you correctly refer as disproven--was by the way a classic (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
|
(...) Apparently without a 2nd thought, sadly :( It still rather catches me by suprise that the 1st instinct isn't "Oh! We might be wrong!" but is instead "Oh! We must have misinterpreted!". The justification, BTW, is just that: 'Our former (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
|
(...) Yaay, another Larritarian! I expect a love offering from you, acolyte. Took you long enough though. (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
