Subject:
|
Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 25 Jan 2001 03:46:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
713 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Culberson writes:
>
> Dave Schuler wrote:
> >
> > What I see is that he "completed 60 credit hours toward a major in math
> > and science", which means that he didn't get a degree. "He then transferred
> > to Midwestern Baptist College to double major in Bible and education."
>
> HOLD ON! Did you stop reading there or did you just deliberately skip
> the following sentence so as to be misleading:
>
> "While he taught math and science at Christian high schools for the next
> fifteen years, he earned his Masters (1988) and Doctorate (1991) degrees
> from Patriot University."
It is interesting still further that he doesn't specify the subject in which
he received his degrees. For instance, numerous fly-by-night organizations
offer two-week doctorates in "divinity," so until and unless he specifies, I'm
no more impressed than I was four hours ago.
Further, you're falling directly into his trap, designed to ensnare
non-critical thinkers. You're not evaluating what he states; you're inferring
what you choose to infer. Nowhere does it indicate that his doctorate is in
science, and even the brief mention of what his dissertation "dealt with"
doesn't mean anything. If he got his doctorate in "Bible," whatever that
means, then he's no more qualified (in terms of schooling) to refute science
than that Tarot-card lady you see on late night infomercials.
> Did you miss the "Dr." title in his name?
Dr. Dre has the "Dr." title in his name. My English professor had a Dr.
title in her name, but that doesn't give her any scientific expertise. A
doctor by any other name is no more guaranteed to be a source of legitmate
science.
> As I mentioned, I figured that you would question his credentials no
> matter what. So now as Jon mentions, why don't you take a look at what
> he has to say and decide where the lack of credablilty is there. You
> obviously do not feel that anyone inside the "REAL" scientific community
> would listen to him, so let's leave alone the fact of his person and
> move on to what he says.
One of the first things I see is that he blames genocide on evolution, which
is baseless, inflammatory, and simply ill-informed. I can elaborate further if
you need me to, but that will entail further reading of his pseudoscience.
> Jon and I (as I think we're the only ones on the Creationist side of the
> fence) will continue to ask you - PLEASE show us a specific example of a
> direct Biblical contradiction that fits the definition of EMPERICAL
> science.
Well, this question is meaningless no matter how many times you or Jon asks
it; the Bible isn't about science, regardless of how deeply you wish it were.
As such, the text of the Bible is not something that can be refuted as a
scientific proposal. Do you claim otherwise--that the Bible should be
subjected to the same rigorous standards applied to actual science?
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
78 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
|
|
|
|
