Subject:
|
Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 12 Jul 2002 06:00:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5634 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> 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?
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?
>
> > > 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...
Basically, Creationist Theories don't fit the known evidence.
>
> > 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.
Ironically, Genesis supports evolution more than it repudiates it. :-)
> > 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...
IIRc again (Yahoo can be so useful) If I recall correctly. Now I can proceed...
Okay, forgive my response then. Are Creationists somehow lesser than me?
No. Misguided? Perhaps. Overzealous? Perhaps. Willful liars? Some
definitely yes (I don't include anyone here in that group). Often don't
have a clue as to what constitutes science? Yes. But I never say that they
wrong for believing in God. I don't claim that God didn't create anything
or everything. Heck, I don't even claim that Yggdrassil isn't the source of
creation (Valhalla! - I'm a closet Viking/Druid/Animist/Christian anyway -
I'll let God figure that mess out, I sure as hell can't). I don't even deny
multiple Gods. All I claim is that science seems the best and most
consistent way of explaining the physical world around me, and please don't
try to redefine Philosophy X, or Religion Y, or Mythology Z as science,
'cause it ain't.
>
> 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...
There's withdrawing, and withdrawing while petulantly sticking your tongue
out and saying, "nyahh, nyahh, nyahh". I tend to agree with Dave! that the
latter is an admission of defeat, no matter how vociferously it is denied.
Bruce
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
