Subject:
|
Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 11 Jul 2002 22:51:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5189 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> 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". That I know of. Regardless, even if there were,
> pretend there weren't for a minute-- would it still be scientific? I'd hope so.
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 time frame of the evidence vis a vis the theory. I think
you are merely dodging the point for purposes of debate, or perhaps playing
a semantics game. If you really feel the Big Bang theory predicts nothing,
then I invite you to look into it further.
>
> > It is currently not supportable by the evidence in hand, so it has no
> > scientific standing. Merely coming up with a theory is not a claim to it
> > being scientific in nature.
>
> Oh, the point was that Creationism *IS* falsifiable.
If so, then it still has no scientific standing. I'm not sure what you are
driving at, then.
> CreationISTS, however,
> don't always hold it in such a way. Anyway, as for evidence in hand, sure,
> there's evidence, we're here, aren't we? The Bible says it's true, doesn't
> it? And don't myths often have basis in fact? 66% or so of humans are
> Christian, does that help? Now, of course, these are flimsy pieces of
> evidence in comparison to Evolutionary theory... And Creationism by its very
> nature isn't very capable of having evidence to support it-- but I'm not
> sure that makes it non-scientific.
It is tedious to rerun why the Bible is not scientific evidence. I'm sure
you know the reasons why. But claiming a lack of deniability is the same
thing as a proof is disingenous. So yes, lack of evidence to support it
makes it non-scientific.
>
> > What is the agenda of creationists? It's a valid question. They aren't
> > following scientific principles - indeed, they don't seem to understand them
> > and often willfully ignore them [...snip...]
>
> Well, certainly I agree that we can discuss the Creationists themselves if
> we want to... but I don't think it's really the issue at hand, unless you
> want to support the idea that it's ok to be condescending to them.
Do you still deny beating your wife? That's the argument you just used. An
attempt to discredit the viewpoint without really answering it.
>
> > > Disagree. They're under no pressure to prove their theory-- they're only
> > > under pressure (I think) to accomidate empirical evidence by either
> > > abandoning or altering their theory.
> >
> > If they wish to introduce it into science texts, then they are under
> > indisputable pressure to prove their theory. Don't confuse the process with
> > the end result.
>
> Eh, I don't think so. I think I'd argue that *IF* they want Creationism
> taught in schools, they have to give equal attention to *ALL* Creationist
> theories, since, if we're extending textbooks' arm to include things that
> don't require evidenciary support, they need to equally include more than
> just *1* such theory.
1: They don't have to give equal attention. 2: They *won't* regardless. 3:
Yes, you DO have to provide proof.
>
> > Agreeing to disagree doesn't have a darn thing to do with science. We've
> > already have had the "relying on the senses" debate, and they are part and
> > parcel of the scientific process (I may rely on my senses, but the other 100
> > guys producing the same results and observations didn't depend on *my*
> > senses, and many tests literally try to remove the human senses from the
> > equation). Dave is correct that the argument is like a petulant child
> > refusing to yield the point and looking for any escape to defend the ego.
>
> Oh, in some cases it may be just that-- But by contrast saying that someone
> *must* accept a particular interpretation of particular evidence is
> similarly childish. They may be perfectly able to withdraw from debate, but
> the end result is that neither you nor they "won".
I'm not speaking of a hypothetical case, but a specific one. You concede
that case, the rest is not germane (not that it isn't a worthy point, it
just has little to do with the particulars here).
Bruce
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
395 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
