|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Blasphemy in Science | |||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
You baba's r going to give ma a hernia. Bring back Unseuly unreuly!
Jack the ripper was also born - probably of a decent human.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 505 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
mike the wicked... I mean wiz writes:
Hello!?! My rights are being violated by the same people that claim the bible teaches love and tolerance. Being an "infidel," I plan to poke the bible to death. The Gospel is true - even you know it, this is why you fight against it so. Oh yeah, did I mention the fact that I plan to sit on christianity using my infidel arse?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 505 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
mike writes:
Probably?
Jack the ripper was also born - probably of a decent human.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4396 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
I'm a creationist and I never hear the word blasphemy and science mixed by us.
All this stuff about origin subjects being involved in science however is where one contention is. You say science theories are thrown aside when better evidence comes along. Well we say there was no evidence in the first place to justify Toe etc as a subject of science or dealt with as science. Not just that the weight of evidence is not there but that the scale reveals precious little evidence to begin with Rob
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MrPhy42 Inactive Member |
Anyone who says that there is no scientific evidence either does not understand the subject, wishes not to understand the evidence or most often has not even studied the fields involved and takes the word of other creationist who deem themselves professionals.
The fact is that it is out there. It is public knowlege, easy to find, but the fact is the majority of people have little understanding, and do not take the time nor effort to study the evidence and how it works in the first place. You are also exactly right that there is no such thing as blasphemy in science. Not only does the word not exist, but there is no concept of such a thing. Science does not ignore evidence just because it does not fit withen preconcieved notions... people who are deffendign their faith do. Since they do that, and seem oddly convinced that science is a religion rather than varying feilds of study involving the natural world, then they seem to often assume that the practitioners of these fields must also protect their beliefs as the religiously faithful do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4396 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
People are people. And Toe'ers have the same human motives as anyone.
And these motives are pride, faith issues etc. Creationists have always found our opponents (of coarse some not all) to defend thier views not with logic but instead a desperate desire to be right. Perhaps your different and more confident. For example Toe is all about conclusions of past unwitnessed events. So then evidence must be weighty enough to persuade mankind Toe knows what happened. Well creationists say where is the evidence? They say well its data and the scientific method that leads to a theory. We say there is to little data(no fault of you)to have a careful examination (Scientific method) applied to it. We press home the pont and tell mankind Toe is not science and is but a subject like history. Intelligent, prestigious but not science. What should be clear to any observer is the evidence for Toe is scanty and not testable and so not science. now why then do the small circles in these fields insist they deal in Science? Rob
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MrPhy42 Inactive Member |
No, evolution is not directly testable in the sense that you seem to be using. It is largely a historical science and must imply other means of testing to confirm the theories involved.
With historical sciences and the theories therein, we must look at the idea, and determine what we should see if the theory is correct. The theory of evolution (as it began) was vague, and held little in the way of known fact, more of speculation. Still, it did give us the ability to determine what we should see in the fossil record if it were correct. The idea was that if the theory of evolution were correct we should be able to find fossil records of animal forms that are related to each other (and in the case of species that exist today) find a time line of the changing life coming ever closer to the forms that we see currently. Still, it is not enough to simply find fossils of creatures that may be in some way related. After all, if in the future fossils of modern horses, and zebras were found, it would not work to assume that zebras were a specie sthat later evolved into horses. The next key lies in where they were found, and what testable properties we can directly observe, such as determining the age of a fossil. If the transitional animal forms fit into the correct genetic category and that coincides with the geological, and other testable time lines, then it is possible to create a determination based on observable evidence. To say that all evidence must be observed from beginning to end is a fallacy that does not fall under most any scientific criteria. We cannot physically observe the growth of a human in the womb as a constant, and especially not 100 years ago. Still the stages of growth were observable in other fashions. We cannot directly observe the core of our planet, but through other indirect observations, we are able to determine within a certain realm of accuracy what it is made of, and how it works.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MrPhy42 Inactive Member |
And as for pride, a desperation to be right and issues of faith are concerned... if that were the case many non-creationists such as myself would still be attending the churches that we grew up in trying to defend the beliefs we were raised with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 505 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
in another thread, almeyda writes: And this intelligence does not come from premeval ponds. And fish do not turn into people, not matter how many magic wands of 'billions of yrs and chance' are thrown around. This is the kind of strawman about evolution that bothers the heck out of me. Besides the fact that almeyda is criticizing evolution as some kind of "magic wand" and turns around and expects us to believe in another magic wand, evolution ain't only about chance and time alone. Hey admins, can't we do something about this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4396 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
Wow. You are the first Toe'er I've seen on this forum to say that we are dealing here with history. Historical sciences as opposed to something else. Progress.
As you said it must employ other means of testing to confirm the theories involved.And this is important. Those means must be substantive enough to justify a claim that testing has taken place to justify a theory being held. Of coarse we would say Toe doesn't fit the bill. Now you put forth the idea of what should be found in what layer as a test of Toe. I would say this would not test Toe but only a a prediction of Toe. a minor one. One that only barely touches on the subject of biology. In short its a fallacy to think fossils in sequence can be a test of a great theory of biology.All other kinds of explanations can account for fossil sequence. And it is all specualtion by its very nature. Also of coarse the geology is itself speculation. Premise onpremise. The test you suggest does not qualify to say Toe has been tested. even if the test worked and indeed was right. Rob
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: The operative word being 'science', of course.
quote: What would be 'substantive enough' for you?
quote: And, of course, you will fail to back up your statement.
quote: Okaaaaaay. This is silly. So a prediction is not good enough for you. Why does it work then?
quote: LOL! It wasn't so minor two hundred years ago when William Smith started predicting rock types and fossils on the horizon. To you this is 'minor', but flood geology failed miserably at this task of explaining fossils. Which one would you bet your paycheck on?
quote: It barely touches on quantum mechanics also. So what? Above, you were saying that evolution is 'history' now you say it is biology. Which is it?
quote: If that's all you think evolution is then you are probably hopeless.
quote: Such as?
quote: More nonsense. In fact, you just mentioned that it was predictive. Funny how all those speculations actually work! How do you explain this? Coincidence?
quote: It does work. Explorationists use it every day. Why do you think that is? More coincidences? Tell us what YEC would predict about the fossil succession. Then tell us who actually uses it. And please tell us who you are to decide what is appropriate scientific procedure. Who gives you the authority to judge what is a 'minor prediction' or a 'major test'?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MrPhy42 Inactive Member |
Well, I wasgoing to ask those things, thanks for taking care of it for me edge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: I'm sure you will get your chance. Robert will be on my ignore list with another post like that. Everybody starts out the same with me, but I have a low tolerance for cognitive dissonance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Robert,
Well we say there was no evidence in the first place to justify Toe etc as a subject of science or dealt with as science. That's a bit rich, Robert. When I showed you the correlation between cladistics & stratigraphy you said it was too hard for you (words to the effect of). How can you possibly put yourself in a position to say the above? Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4396 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
The operative word in fact is historical. It defines the difference from the other subjects that actually use science correctly and so have credibility to make thier claims.
To test Toe which makes great claims requires substantive evidence and testing. Everyone knows when this has occured or not. The little things done at present in Toe are not testing the Idea but dealing with minor aspects of it. You asked me who I think i am to question authority here. well we have the authority the Bible. And if people claim by evidence that it is not true then we take them on. Toe etc has done this and in the name of professional confidence. (science) . So we strive, and very well, to show it has no right to make such claim. It is just speculation and not a learned endeavor.Rob
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024