Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9071 total)
63 online now:
dwise1, kjsimons, nwr, PaulK, Percy (Admin), ringo, Tanypteryx (7 members, 56 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Upcoming Birthdays: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 893,106 Year: 4,218/6,534 Month: 432/900 Week: 138/150 Day: 8/23 Hour: 0/2

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?
Member (Idle past 79 days)
Posts: 973
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013

Message 227 of 2058 (733565)
07-18-2014 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by Percy
07-18-2014 9:51 AM

I was hoping someone would say this. What creationists actually mean by "observational science" is that observations are only valid when an event is witnessed first hand. Observations of the evidence left behind after an event are not accepted as valid.

By this creationist definition of "observational science," if you observed someone shoot someone else, that's a valid observation.

But if all you did was make observations of powder burns, fingerprints and rifling marks for analysis, those are not valid observations.

You know, this begs the question: if observational science, as creationists allude to, requires direct observation of the event in order to classify it as fact, than how precisely can they claim with all certainty that Genesis and The Flood happened as absolute facts if they were not there to see it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Percy, posted 07-18-2014 9:51 AM Percy has seen this message

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Coragyps, posted 07-18-2014 11:40 AM Diomedes has taken no action
 Message 229 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-18-2014 11:43 AM Diomedes has taken no action
 Message 230 by NoNukes, posted 07-18-2014 12:14 PM Diomedes has taken no action

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022