Subject:
|
Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 6 Apr 2001 18:19:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
502 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ryan Farrington writes:
> 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:
The point is that you attempt to invalidate science on one hand, but it's
suddenly valid when it serves your purpose. You do this very thing below.
>
> 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
The last willfully misconstrue evidence, take it out of context, ignore what
is inconvenient, and simply run onto a new attack when the old one is
invalidated so as not to be pinned down.
>
> 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.
Please go check out my explanation of sea-floor spreading and polar reversal
and explain that to me in a 6000 year time frame. I have also presented the
"links" between man and ape on this board three times and have never
received a creationist responce to that.
> It just so happens that these facts are
> interpreted more often from an evolutionary point of view to support the
> evolution model.
...more often from a scientific point of view, rather than a religious (or
pseudo-science) point of view.
> Therefore, how can you be absolutely sure that what the
> evolutionist scientists say is true,
Scientists. Saying "evolution scientists" somehow carries the implication
that they are being faced by "creation scientists" rather than religious
fundmentalists. Further, I have already said that nothing is absolutely
certain in science. That nothing is absolutely certain does not mean
everything has equal validity.
> rather than what the creationist
> scientists say?
I shoulda looked ahead - at least I was right on where that was going. :-)
> 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.
Science is based on *lack* of faith (test it, observe it, question it, then
do it all some more). The creationist model came up with a theory in a
complete vacumn of facts and only under duress is trying to retrofit what is
convenient for its purposes, and blatantly ignores what is inconvenient. It
isn't about convincing scientists - it's designed to create doubt in Joe
Blow's mind so they can slip religion into the science class, an exceedingly
dangerous proposition.
>
> 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)
There are any number of web-sites that will carefully explain the fallacy of
the creationist 2nd law of theromdynamics argument to you. It's been
covered here enough not to present it again.
>
> 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.
No, not in the slightest. Have you talked to a physicist about this?
>
> 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.
It's been covered here before. Chemicals like to go together in certain
patterns. Yes, it is a natural process, and biologists agree on that.
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.)
False analogy.
Bruce
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)
|
| (...) Science can't prove whether it is a "young earth" or an "old earth," so everyone has to *believe* that one of them is true. So it is a "belief" thing for everyone. (...) I understand where you're coming from and what this means, so I take no (...) (23 years ago, 6-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
|
|
|
|
