 | | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality? —John Neal
|
| | | (...) Everything that exists had to come from something. Whether you want to call Event 1 "God" or just "Some Random Occurance", neither fit into the model of Science. Even if you want to say that "the universe always was", that is still beyond (...) (19 years ago, 6-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | (...) That's a false dilemma. The current (and correct) response is: "We currently don't have enough data to answer that question." (...) Suppose that one says "Current data suggests that the universe has always existed, in some form." How is that (...) (19 years ago, 6-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality? —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) But that's a disengenuous assertment. There will never be enough "data" to answer that question. It is unknowable. (...) Because there isn't or never will be any such data. The scientific method cannot explain the origin of something without (...) (19 years ago, 6-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) Let's throw out the term "Creation" in this context, because it stacks the deck in favor your argument. Additionally, we've previously discussed the imprecision of term "Science" with a capital-S, so can we refer instead to science? The (...) (19 years ago, 6-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality? —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) I don't think that's quite right. On the one hand, let's think about lightning for a second. We have a pretty good idea how that gets generated nowadays. But for a long time science had nothing to say on the matter. Not enough data. Hence, to (...) (19 years ago, 6-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
