Subject:
|
Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 22 Oct 2004 17:54:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1581 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Avery Christy wrote:
> 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
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, when they take the scientific facts like the
Grand Canyon was formed by large amounts of water eroding away the rock, they
then put these pieces together to form the explanation that the water came from
the great flood and that the flood waters eroded away the dirt and rock through
its sheer strength and immense power (like mining with a water cannon), not
through time.
I do not know if that is what they say, but it was an example of how they work.
As an Archeologist/Anthroplogist, I took pieces of this and that from the dirt,
and facts from descendent people, and pretty much put together a picture of what
happened in the past. Once I did this, I wrote up a sterling paper using all the
little pieces I unearthed to convince others of the "findings" or "conclusions"
that I came to. These findings were of course based upon what I believed to have
happened. This paper was published and my theories went from personal theories
to community held facts.
Now, there are always disagreements amongst a community, and some of my findings
could have been refutted, but they were not. And so, students now researching
and learning about a certain historical place or people learn my beliefs as
fact. As long as those who have accepted my beliefs as fact all agree and don't
raise a rucus, or go along with what I said, then those beliefs can be more
fanciful than truthful.
Its all about what I can get away with as long as it is supported by the
community. You know, like starting a war with another nation. (Not that I would
do that, just an extreme example of what one person can get away with when
others accept all or part of what that person does.)
The only way for my conclusions to be contested and thrown out is if they were
wildly off mark from other people's findings. But, otherwise, I can slip in my
own personal insanity into the history books.
So, if people believe in God, then that community has no problem with a theory
that involves the active participation of God in the creation of the world and
the forming and shaping of the earth. Therefore, creationism theories are taken
as fact, are published in books, and with a government that realizes that a huge
number of its citizens accept this new wind of change, then it too will blow
(with the winds of change). And the books will be sold side by side with other
ideas about how things came to be. And, to keep things politically correct, the
government will referr to all of this as "various views of creation".
By the way, there are some Islamic sects that have an idea of creationism kinda
similar to some of the ideas in Christian Creationism. So their books would not
be much better in a National Monument visitor center.
I said earlier that I was a Christian. And, I do not accept Creationist theory.
I know many Christians who do, but then with so many churches, Christians have
their own moral relativism within their beliefs. So, that's a whole 'nother can
of worms I don't want to get into.
-Avery
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
| (...) 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 (...) (20 years ago, 22-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
|
|
|
|
