Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,845 Year: 4,102/9,624 Month: 973/974 Week: 300/286 Day: 21/40 Hour: 2/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The problems of big bang theory. What are they?
DubyaDeeEm
Junior Member (Idle past 4601 days)
Posts: 13
Joined: 09-09-2011


(1)
Message 380 of 389 (632845)
09-10-2011 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 374 by Pressie
09-09-2011 12:43 AM


Re: ad populum
Trial transcript: Day 11 (October 18), PM Session, Part 1
Q: Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?
A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.
Remember, this is Dr. Michael Behe testifying under oath. . . .
There you have it, Dr. Behe calls astrology a "scientific" theory.
Sorry. This is an unfair appraisal of what Behe said. Astrology was "at one time" a proposed explanation of physical observable data. He didn't say it qualifies now as a "current" scientific theory. He was referring to the things "throughout the history of science." This would include alchemy and the flat-earth beliefs of people in the middle ages, and the beliefs of both common and educated and "scientific" minds back then that mens bodies had air instead of blood circulating. And of course it includes the beliefs of Darwin and his followers (both back then and today) which we "now think to be incorrect" and "nonetheless fit that."
So if your star sign is a virgo and your daily horoscope predicts that you are going win a million bucks later today, ID would classify it as science.
No. And this is a bogus extrapolation of what Behe said as well. He never said there was any scientific validity to astrology, nor is there, really, in Darwinism.
They don’t follow the scientific method. Therefore not science. Therefore not peer-reviewed.
It is Darwinists that don't follow the scientific method, actually. And it is Darwinism which isn't science. Peer review only has any value when there are people in the group that don't suffer from the same delusion as all the others. And, btw, there are creationist peer-review publications.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by Pressie, posted 09-09-2011 12:43 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 381 by Panda, posted 09-10-2011 6:09 PM DubyaDeeEm has not replied
 Message 382 by Chiroptera, posted 09-10-2011 11:35 PM DubyaDeeEm has not replied
 Message 386 by Pressie, posted 09-11-2011 10:13 AM DubyaDeeEm 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