Subject:
|
Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 6 Apr 2001 15:17:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
525 times
|
| |
|
|
Bruce Schlickbernd:
> This is the same old Creationist dodge: (X) scientific theory isn't PROVEN
> (nothing is in science - it simply shows you don't understand science when
> you say such things) so it's just as much an article of faith as religion.
> Except one is based on observation and application of the evidence at • hand,
> and the other doesn't depend on it at all. It DOES mean that you hold the
> mutually exclusive position that science can't prove anything while
> simultaneously attempting to use science to prove your point when it suits
> you. Then why ever bring up scientific "proofs" of Creationism? You have • to
> accept that one of your arguments is specious by definition.
Evidence I gave did not *prove* creation, nor did I say that it did. But
the evidence can *support* creationism. Here's a few premises:
Facts exist
Man discovers facts using the scientific method
Evolutionists say these facts fit the evolution model
Creationsists say these facts fit the creation model
There are no "mountains of evidence that contradict the Bible" (to quote
Jeff Stembel) that can't be interpreted from a creationist point of view to
support the creation model. It just so happens that these facts are
interpreted more often from an evolutionary point of view to support the
evolution model. Therefore, how can you be absolutely sure that what the
evolutionist scientists say is true, rather than what the creationist
scientists say? The answer is that you can't. Everyone has to choose to
believe each origin model by faith. This doesn't need to be blind faith,
however. We can determine some validity of theories by using reason.
Thus:
We are all familiar with entropy, whether consciously or not. We know that
our cars will break down, paint on our houses will peel and we will have to
continually maintain them to make them last longer. Basically, entropy says
*all things wear down, disintegrate, become less complex, etc.* Now what
evolutionists claim is that things evolved from simple structures to more
complex structures, becoming better. Doesn't this go against a very
undeniable law of the universe: entropy? (1)
The way I see it, that argument should be enough to make anyone think twice
about the claims of evolutionists. It is a logical argument.
Observation (A) clearly says entropy (B) must be true.
The evolution model (C) describes a condition where B is false.
Therefore the evolution model (C) is false. (Or our observation is grossly
wrong!)
Also consider DNA. DNA is such a detailed and comprehensive code,
containing enormous amounts of information that has, according to
evolutionist scientists, come about by natural processes. With the Search
for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence going on, people are seeking some
indication through radio signals that there is other life out there. That
indication would be some sort of code, implying the existence of
intelligence. So why are they assuming that one little bit of code coming
from space indicates intelligence when the most complex code on earth, DNA,
is assumed to have come into existence by means other than intelligence?
(Especially since no one has ever observed information coming from
non-intelligence.)
--Ryan
(1)"No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been
found--not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the 'first law'),
the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models
must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter
is composed of interacting particles." (E.G. Lieb and Jakob Yngvason, "A
Fresh Look at Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics," _Physics
Today_, vol. 53, April 2000, page 32)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)
|
| (...) I would modify this as follows: Facts Exist Man form hypotheses and theories which he tests via the scientific method Evolutionists find that their hypotheses do not always fit the facts, so they re-evaluate and re-formulate those hypotheses (...) (23 years ago, 6-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)
|
| This is the same old Creationist dodge: (X) scientific theory isn't PROVEN (nothing is in science - it simply shows you don't understand science when you say such things) so it's just as much an article of faith as religion. Except one is based on (...) (23 years ago, 5-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
126 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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
