 | | Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture! —David Eaton
|
| | | (...) Eh, I think the counterargument goes that 1) what *you* call an "actual" scientist doesn't necessarily match what others might call an "actual" scientist 2) why should this be classified as "science"? Calling it "history" might be what (...) (20 years ago, 30-Mar-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture! —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) You're attempting to repaint the issue along purely semantic rather than functional or philosophical lines, and thereby you're casting your vote in favor of creationism. An actual scientist is someone who practices actual science, as opposed (...) (20 years ago, 30-Mar-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture! —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) I'm gonna skip down to here, because here's the meat of the argument, I think. Proof is in the eye of the beholder. *DISPROOF* is far more objective. I'm thinking of a number sequence. The first number is 1. A creationist (I'm gonna go back to (...) (20 years ago, 30-Mar-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture! —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | (...) **snip of example** I figured that you and I had been through all this already before. Proof in scientific terms is most certainly not in the eye of the beholder, but "proof" in that context doesn't mean the same thing as "proof" in a (...) (20 years ago, 30-Mar-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture! —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | (...) I'll hold off here-- is that what you meant to say about a scientific theory being proven? IE that no contradictions "prove" it (and accepting that it is a falsifiable theory) (...) See, there's the bit that I was getting at: "reasonable (...) (20 years ago, 31-Mar-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture! —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) That's right. I know I've mentioned it in previous debates, and I thought I'd re-mentioned here, but apparently I hadn't. (...) This dredges up math classes that I haven't had in well over a decade, so forgive me if my answer isn't rock-solid. (...) (20 years ago, 31-Mar-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture! —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | (...) Essentially, just saying that nature throws this string of numbers at us. Not sure what it represents. We see the 1st number is 1. We have to wait 500 years to see what the next number is. During those 500 years, what do we think the next (...) (20 years ago, 31-Mar-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture! —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) ***snip*** (...) I think I gave my answer in the post to which you replied: (URL) summary, it's entirely possible that no quantity of numbers is sufficient to prove that the theory is true as long as other potentially disproving numbers have (...) (20 years ago, 1-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture! —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | (...) sake of argument :) (...) Exactly correct, effectively. IE that any creationist must assume that at SOME point, your great-great-<insert greats here>-great-grandparents DIDN'T exist, because the generation after that was the first to appear, (...) (20 years ago, 1-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture! —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) The problem with this example, though, is that once we posit the existence of a WayBack Machine, we have allowed for time traveling marvels in our universe. What's to prevent some creationist with a WayBack machine of his own from going back (...) (20 years ago, 1-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture! —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | (...) Well, the point is really "what if you could see into the past", not necessarily "what if you could travel to the past and do unspeakable things to temporal continuity, as great of an April Fools that would be". Again, let's say the WayBack (...) (20 years ago, 1-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture! —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) The latter option is the one that they invariably choose, and sometimes they add that the veracity of the bible is not subordinate to a conflicting reality. Alas. (...) The difference with Helga is that (barring some odd preferences on your (...) (20 years ago, 2-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture! —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) We've already passed this part of the debate, but I stumbled upon this article: (URL) seemed relevant. Dave! (20 years ago, 1-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture! —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) Ha! Well, as an odd sidenote, my sophomore year of high school (when I took Biology), there was an NSTA (National Science Teachers Association) in Boston, right near my High School. And as it turns out, my bio teacher was the official head (...) (20 years ago, 1-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
