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
|
|
|
|
