Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 19 Jan 2001 21:29:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1228 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > Or do you doubt that I did it at all? What's to prevent it from being a big
> > hoax unless you actually go out and PROVE that I did the experiment?
>
> Try and write up a fake experiment and get it published in Scientific
> American. Odds are you don't have any credentials to give your creditablity
> and won't get past the circular file; if you do have credentials, then you
> experiment itself will be judged by experts; and if you really do have
> credentials, can fake specious but creditable results, you are simply
> commiting professional suicide. Further, I may still not accept your
> results. Prepared to be judged, not accepted on faith. Accepting things on
> faith in science is a trap: see Piltdown Man.
So-- you're basically saying that experiments quoted in Scientific American
are very likely to be accurate, yes? Ok, to me, that's faith. You have faith
in the fact that Scientific American's experiments are usually valid. Why do
I call it faith? Because it's not based on firsthand experience. It's based
on a logical analysis of previous related experiences. And so, (I'd argue)
might be God. Depends on what experiences you've had.
> I guy at work saw David Blaine levitate on TV. It was real, he swore, it
> really happened. I immediately levitated for him right there, no props, no
> preparation. Then I showed him how it was done (purest of illusions). He
> still thought Blaine really levitated. That's faith! :-)
So he believed that David Blaine and television shows in general are
credible, much in the same way that you believe Scientific American to be
credible, yes? Or are you making the distinction that unless it's 100%
assurity of a fact, it's not what you would call faith?
> > And, just to draw the parallel, you feel threatened by the opposite.
>
> Improper parallel. Note I didn't refer to a specific person. You did (me).
> Youy presume to speak for me on a number of ocassions.
As you presume to speak for 'them', yes? The only difference being that
you're here to correct me :)
> > If God
> > existed in the manner Steve suggests, that would threaten YOUR beliefs.
>
> No, it doesn't. Think about it carefully. Perhaps you mean if God acted in
> the manner Steve suggests. Even then, it wouldn't threaten my beliefs,
> because the evidence would be different, and I'd have different beliefs.
You ASSUME the evidence would be different. You assume that if what Steve is
suggesting were true that the evidence would not be as it is. Let's say that
it WAS still true, AND the evidence were the same. Would that not invalidate
your theory? Or can you show me exact places that absoloutly refute
Christian beliefs? I.E. no "very high probability" statements allowed. I'd
be very interested to hear such, because I think Christianity is flexible
enough to avoid scientific confrontation.
> I came here for an argument! ;-)
No you didn't! :)
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) See above: I don't always agree with a scientist's findings. So, no, I didn't take it on faith. And there were a fair number of creditable scientists that confirmed the cold fusion experiment (the problem not being the results, but the test (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
