|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Fact Theory Falacy | |||||||||||||||||||||||
KingPenguin Member (Idle past 7910 days) Posts: 286 From: Freeland, Mi USA Joined: |
i get it now, and that explained everything. thanks
------------------"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
toff Inactive Member |
quote: What famous scientists who were creationists (POST darwin, if you please, preferably in the last 50 years or so)?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
quicksink Inactive Member |
KingPenguin- if oil was drained from the planet, oil prices would soar. The result would be that humans would be forced to conserve and find new energy sources, We are capable of this, and it could be accomplished with great urgency.
Thank you
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5221 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Quicksink,
If you look at the bottom of a post there is a reply option. If you use this, then a poster can 1/ see who has replied to their post, & 2/ If they see your reply, can see it was in response to them, & the message no. in particular. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
quicksink Inactive Member |
Thank you very much. I'm still learning.
>I'm not quite sure what you mean as your signature. Occams razor, if im not mistaken, is the premise that the simple answer is the correct one. What do you mean by "occam's razor is not to be shaved with? Thank you!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5221 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Occams razor says if you have a body of evidence, then the best hypothesis is the one that explains ALL evidence, & doesn't try to explain more. eg The Biblical Flood may explain SOME features (&most of those features are debateable), if it can't explain them all, then it is a poorer model than the mainstream geological one.
If you looked at an ox bow lake on a river, you would look at existing meandering bows, examine their depths etc & conclude that an ox bow lake is a "cut off" bow of a river which may/may not have dried out. To attribute more than the evidence implies means you are trying to make a point that actually has no relevance to the information you have. ie conclude that an ox bow lake is a "cut off" bow of a river which may have dried out, & that God guided the river to cut the bow off from the main river. By "Occam's razor is not for shaving", I mean be careful what you conclude from evidence. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by mark24, 02-15-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
quicksink Inactive Member |
Thanks for the clarification. You learn something new everyday.
Thanks
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"What famous scientists who were creationists (POST darwin, if you please, preferably in the last 50 years or so)?"
--This is a good book on the subject: In Six Days - Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation - http://shop.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/AIGUS.storefront/en/product/10-2-117 ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
KingPenguin Member (Idle past 7910 days) Posts: 286 From: Freeland, Mi USA Joined: |
quote: i would still be able to sell the oil for a rediculous amount of money and still collect the ransom. its not like the entire world can go from gas to water in even a year. ------------------"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"i would still be able to sell the oil for a rediculous amount of money and still collect the ransom. its not like the entire world can go from gas to water in even a year."
--If oil source were depleted to that degree, naturally produced oil would be worth more than platinum. I don't really get the point of the argument, but oh well (shrugs). ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
KingPenguin Member (Idle past 7910 days) Posts: 286 From: Freeland, Mi USA Joined: |
i dont think there is a point
------------------"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"i dont think there is a point"
--I think we strayed way out of the context of the intended usage of this thread, it seemed to start its backdrop way back towards post #3 of this thread! ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
wj Inactive Member |
quote: TC, note that toff asked about FAMOUS scientists who believe in creationism. The 50 cited in John Aston's book are hardly famous, except some for being creationists. Here is an interesting review of Ashton's book by Colin Groves: http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/cg_in_six_days.htm He makes the following interesting and pertinent observations about the 50: "There are 9 biologists, 13 others connected with the life sciences, and 28 working in other sciences. Of the "other life scientists" (not strict biologists), five were trained in biochemistry, two in medicine, two in horticultural/agricultural science, and one each in genetics, organic chemistry, forestry and orthodontics. Of the 28 - the majority - trained in some field other than the life sciences, we have six trained in chemistry (not organic), five in some form of engineering, five in some branch of physics, three in meteorology, three in geology, two in geophysics, and one each in mathematics, geography, hydrometallurgy and information science." It appears that creationsists in fields directly related to evolutionary science are a bit thin on the ground. "Put them in perspective a bit. Of those nine biologists, five were trained at least in part at religious foundation universities or colleges of one kind or another: one at Loma Linda, one at Pacific Union College, one at both Andrews University and George Mason University, two at Wheaton College (and one of them at Houghton College in addition); only four received their entire training at what I’d call "proper universities", and some of them specify that their classes in evolution were poor in some way - a hectoring or poorly prepared lecturer, for instance. Of the 12 (excluding Hosken) others connected with the life sciences, four were trained at religious institutions (Loma Linda and Andrews again, Dordt College, and Loyola University), and eight at "proper universities". Of the other 28, only three trained at religious institutions (Loyola again, Loma Linda yet again, and Phillips University), and all the rest went to mainline universities, polytechnics and so on. Could there be some significance here? Might it be that a biologist is much less inclined than others to be a creationist unless actually trained at an institution with a creationist tendency?" "And how did they become creationists? ... Of those who do give their histories, no fewer than 17 were brought up as creationists; one was converted while he was in the U.S.Navy, before starting university; five were converted during their university careers; four were converted later in life (one of them by his wife). It is fair to say that, inasfar as one can tell from reading their own words, all of those who were converted were already devout, and simply waiting to be pushed... Let us note that not one of them purports to have become a creationist as a result of his or her own research." Groves' analysis of why the 50 scientists are creationists is also revealing but I leave it to the interested reader to pursue for themselves. But one piece is worth repeating here: "Less forthright, but still quite a cut above the usual dismal crowd, is Elaine Kennedy, who begins her chapter, "As a geologist, I do not find much evidence for the existence of a fiat creation. I just have not found any geologic data that convinces me that God spoke and 'it was'" (p.293). She then goes on to say how she struggled with radiometric dating and has finally concluded that such dates are interpretations, not data, but "Those of us who believe in a short chronology and a six-day creation do not have an adequate explanation for radiometric dates" (p.294)." It appears that those creationists with good scientific training have to go into a state of denial to enable them to reconcile scientific evidence and 6 day creationism. I suppose Ashton did the best he could with the material he had available to him. The end result is hardly a ringing endorsement of a convincing scientific basis for creationism and against evolution by probably some the the best scientifically qualified creationists alive today.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
toff Inactive Member |
quote: I'll try again, since my last attempt failed. I didn't ask for a book about creationists who had some scientific qualifications. I asked WHAT famous scientists who were/are creationist (post darwin, preferably in the last 50 years)? Can you even supply ONE?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
wj Inactive Member |
Toff, I am afraid that, like many things which creationists are unable to provide a satisfactory answer to, a position of denial has been adopted. If your question is ignored for long enough, it will simply disappear from view and can be safely forgotten, as if the question had never been asked, and the awkward lack of an answer will not linger, to raise doubt in the minds of the thoughtful and uncommitted.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024