To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 26269
26268  |  26270
Subject: 
Re: You have got to be kidding me...
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Fri, 22 Oct 2004 02:57:02 GMT
Viewed: 
1482 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote:
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote:
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
I absolutely support a person's right to pretend that the flood created the
Grand Canyon, but the government has no business giving its endorsement to
a work of religious mythology such as this one.

Hm. But the government DOES have business endorsing a book that would
support the theory that the GC was created by erosion? Why should the
government support NASA research (say), as opposed to religious research,
apart from the actual measurable gains that it gets out of scientific
research?

Because geologic theory is based in testable science rather than non-testable
religion, and the Fed's choice to endorse an article of religious faith is
manifestly unconstitutional.

Although I doubt it's the case, what if the book were written using scientific
methods?

Let's suppose for a minute there were some evidence (albeit alternately
explainable evidence via "regular" science) that supported the claim. The
article I pointed at had 1 such tidbit I noticed (that geologic evidence in a
couple places looked like certain bits happened in catastrophe's rather than
gradually), but it had nothing else short of refutation of the "regular"
erosionist theories. But suppose there *were* more slight bits of evidence in
that line, which, although not numerous, and explainable in other ways by
science, still pointed to a conclusion that just happened to mesh with the
religious argument of being created by the Flood?

IOW, taking a true scientific approach towards a conclusion that just happens to
also be religious. Does the fact that it coincides with religion, or that the
theory itself was inspired by a religious belief change the scientific
legitimacy of the theory, thereby making it unconstitutional? If the book is
actually written scientifically (and I'm not saying it is), is it not still
valid?


Ha ha ha, well, I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but the thought occurred
to me that this almost seems to go into a realm related to Moral Relativism.
Instead of seeing morals as relative, we are seeing the scientific evidence in
different ways. From what little I know of Creationism, they take the pieces of
scientific facts, and much in the same way that I did in my biological
anthropology and Archeology classes, piece them together to try and discover
what may have happened. They (creationist scientists) have gotten quite good at
it and can be very convincing. I know that there are several branches of this
religious science whatever, but I imagine that they are all doing the same
thing.

It's a case of all in how you look at it. There are the same irrefutable facts,
they just came to a different conclusion than mainstream science. Thus, their
work is held up to review and testing. Although, sometimes their conclusions are
more off target than at other times. And that is how they pull the rabbit out of
the washing machine. Sometimes, their conclusions are quite parallel to
scientific findings, depending upon the church and school of thought and such.

-Avery



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: You have got to be kidding me...
 
(...) Excuse me for lamely replying to my own post, but... I had another thought and that was that the Creationists of course take the belief of God as a fundamental truth of the universe much in the same way you accept the nose on your face. So, (...) (20 years ago, 22-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: You have got to be kidding me...
 
(...) Although I doubt it's the case, what if the book were written using scientific methods? Let's suppose for a minute there were some evidence (albeit alternately explainable evidence via "regular" science) that supported the claim. The article I (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

21 Messages in This Thread:











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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR