Subject:
|
Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 12 Jul 2002 14:56:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5155 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> 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.
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: http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=17095
Essentially that the Biblical Creation story *does* have evidence to support
its validity, *BUT* it *DOESN'T* have evidence to support that it was a
Creator at the helm. Which is basically what you had been trying to bash me
over the head with (I think)-- I was just missing it. Although I'll still
argue that it's logical to make such a conclusion.
> > Now, I dunno about microwave radiation, but wasn't the red shift evidence
> > *of* and not a prediction *of* the Big Bang? Regardless, even if there were
> > no useful information that came out of knowing that the Big Bang happened,
> > would it no longer be a scientific discovery?
>
> Well, here are a few others:
> [snip]
Well, I'll still pop in on this one. Point still is (I think) that a
scientific theory need not make verifiable predictions in order to be
scientific.
Let's see if I can conjure up an example:
Suppose we find an group of asteroids somewhere. We analyze the chemical
makeup of the asteroids, we analyze their trajectories, and discover that
there once was a planet, which matches all their trajectories. We date the
collision that created it, and find out when it happened. A few years
earlier (or, have we already done this?) we get a chemical composite for
Haley's Comet. Flash back to the future. We notice that Haley's Comet has
the same chemical compounds (matches 99.99%) as the ateroid grouping, and
that the trajectory of the comet also matches. Conclusion? Haley's Comet
came from the ateroid grouping. Now, offhand, I can't think of any
predictions we could further make from this theory, but I'd still call it
scientific...
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
