Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   One creationist version of science
John
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 18 (33163)
02-25-2003 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by bambooguy
02-25-2003 2:50 PM


quote:
Science cannot prove 'Cause and Effect' because causes & their effects cannot be directly observed.
Something like that... as per David Hume.
quote:
Something other than science must prove science's foundation, 'Cause and Effect'.
No logical structure can prove itself. Good so far...
quote:
Christianity is the only philosophy that does this
But this is silly... Christianity is the only philosophy that can ASSUME premises? That makes no sense.
quote:
that is why you see science in the christian west and not in China, India, or Saudia Arabia
And this is a misrepresentation of history, though, granted it is a pervasive myth and is even taught in US schools as if it were true. Good old fashion 'christian' science would not be here if its foundations hadn't been laid by the Chinese, Indians and Muslims. Up until about 250 years ago the Christian West was on the bottom of the scientific barrel. Nearly all of the great early discoveries were borrowed and often plagiarized from non-western, or non-christian, sources. Pick up a book titled 'Lost Discoveries' by Dick Teresi.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by bambooguy, posted 02-25-2003 2:50 PM bambooguy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by bambooguy, posted 02-26-2003 10:41 AM John has replied
 Message 8 by bambooguy, posted 02-26-2003 11:06 AM John has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 18 (33172)
02-25-2003 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Coragyps
02-25-2003 3:12 PM


quote:
Non-obscene words fail me.
Lol...... pure poetry
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Coragyps, posted 02-25-2003 3:12 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 18 (33272)
02-26-2003 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by bambooguy
02-26-2003 10:41 AM


quote:
I am not speaking of science as mere observations
"Mere observation" is a dead end. "Hmmm.... Its raining." <-- concept.
quote:
like the Chinese inventions of gunpowder, kites, or printing presses (this is what you're referring to, right).
Technology implies at least a practical understanding of the principles that underlie it. "Oh sure, you built a rocket, but do you understand rocket Science ( with a capital S )?" You are building a false dichotomy. You don't get a clock to work without understanding principles of gearing and ratio. You don't get multi-stage rockets to work without understanding something about chemistry and aerodynamics.
No webpage found at provided URL: http://library.thinkquest.org/23062/frameset.html?tqskip1=1&tqtime=0226
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by bambooguy, posted 02-26-2003 10:41 AM bambooguy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by bambooguy, posted 02-27-2003 10:46 AM John has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 18 (33373)
02-27-2003 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by bambooguy
02-27-2003 10:46 AM


quote:
The Chinese may use the laws of cause and effect without having a reason to.
Sorry??? Certain reactions appear to consistently follow certain actions. Gee, seems like a good reason to me.
quote:
They have to use the law of cause and effect because that's the way the world works.
Lol.... no kidding. But somehow, only Christians understand this? That's silly.
quote:
But they may not understand why there is a law of cause and effect because their philosophy contradicts it or doesn't attempt to explain it.
Why? "God poofed it into existence" does not tell us why. Statements like that are vacuous, and that is the only "why" I can think of that Christianity can give. Besides, nearly every religion has a "< insert deity > poofed it into existence" clause. Hence, any religion can answer 'why' in the same manner.
I can't see any argument here besides "Its that way 'cause my religion is right." Sorry. I am not impressed.
You don't really know much about Chinese religion or Chinese science or culture do you? Come on, 'fess up.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
[This message has been edited by John, 02-27-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by bambooguy, posted 02-27-2003 10:46 AM bambooguy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by bambooguy, posted 03-02-2003 8:54 PM John has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 18 (33615)
03-04-2003 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by bambooguy
03-02-2003 8:54 PM


quote:
Eerdman said that the fundamental statment in Chinese religion is, "Heaven has concern for us." In other words they don't concentrate on myth or science per se.
I can't help but think that you are still looking at this wrong.
How much of the NT actually deals with science? How much with cause and effect? Not much. Most of it deals with how people should live. Yet you seem to be focusing on this in the case of the Chinese but not the Christian.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by bambooguy, posted 03-02-2003 8:54 PM bambooguy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024