Subject:
|
Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 12 Jul 2002 02:32:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5216 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> 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.
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 going. So, assume for a moment that the Big Bang theory told us
nothing "helpful" scientifically, but was the only valid explanation for
various aspects of the universe that we observe. Would the theory therefore
be non-scientific?
> > Oh, the point was that Creationism *IS* falsifiable.
>
> If so, then it still has no scientific standing.
Agreed-- some Creationist theories, like *strict* Biblical Creationism have
little-to-no scientific standing as various methods have invalidated certain
aspects of it. Less strict Creationist theories haven't been disproven yet;
but depending on their nature, may be falsifiable. I will grant that not
*all* Creationist theories are falsifiable though-- perhaps I should have
clarified that at least...
> 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.
Eh, I think the bare minimum for all Creationist theories is that we're
here. The universe exists. That some "creator" created it is a logical
conclusion. Now, I'm not up on what order Genesis scores in the events on
what days, but IIRC the general order that Genesis puts the events of
creation has been proven pretty accurately by science. First there was
light? There's scientific evidence to support that (Big Bang). The Earth
forms sometime after that? There's more evidence to support that. Beings
appear on Earth next? There's evidence to support that. Final
creation=humans? There's evidence to support that (IE that humans didn't
preceed other animals/the Earth/light etc). Etc. Supports that the story is
right, if interpreted rather loosely.
> > > 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.
Not really. Essentially I asked if you wanted to support the idea of being
condescending to them about Creationism/science in general, since IIRC you
haven't weighed in on that one. If you think it's ok, then I'll debate you.
If you think it's not, then we agree. I never assumed your position, but
that was the area of the post you weighed in on here...
> 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).
Heh, I'm all about the hypothetical. I'm not sure which specific case we're
talking about here then, so you may indeed be right-- dunno if I'll weigh in
on that one without reading a specific example more. Point in general though
is that just because someone withdraws doesn't mean you win... Though it
certainly could be the case, depending on who's judging and who's
participating. I can easily recall a bit of each case here on Lugnet...
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
