instead of looking at specific arguments for and against creation and evolution, maybe you should look into the nature of science. your comment "But honestly we have to be sincere with ourselves. I have always said neither creationism or evolution can be proved 100%. Serious doubts remain on both sides and the interpretation of one law like for example the 2nd law of thermodynamics depend on where you stand." leaves me thinking that you are not exactly sure what science actually is. what do you know about the nature of science? what do you know about creationism and ID? read the final chapters in some of those creationist diatribes to find the real reasons behind their search for truth.
to gilgamesh i give much thanks...
[This message has been edited by hitchy, 01-15-2004]
nice to hear a thoughtful conversation that contains no hostility.
if i may chime in--creationists look at it as "why can't we be accepted or at least heard in scientific circles? it is only fair that both sides are given equal time so people can make up their own minds." that might work if you are arguing about matters of "taste" like should slot machines be legalized in maryland. people can give pros and cons to both sides and then let the public decide.
however, science is not a public debate forum. the uses of certain technologies, such as nuclear power or cloning, can be debated b/c these topics are a matter of opinion. on the other hand, the hypotheses and theories that led up to harnassing nuclear power or cloning are not a matter of debate. either the evidence supports the idea or not. if not, time to go back to the drawing board. if a hypothesis is supported, then it is tested again, and again, and again, and again...
to believe in creationism or not is a matter of opinion. however, it is not science. several others have already commented on how creationism is not science, so i won't go into detail. the fact of the matter is that most creationistic claims are not falsifiable or testable. the overall idea that genesis is historically accurate has been overwhelmingly disproven time and time again by evidence gathered through the fields of geology, anthropology, archeology, paleontology, etc. even if evolution were not introduced until the very end of a symposium on creationism, elvis would have already left the building.
saying that Evolution is scientific and no other view on the origin of life is scientific is dangerous
if another view on the origins of life on Earth is put forth and is scientific, it would be heard. i am sure several have. why don't we hear about them while we still hear about evolution? in over 150 years, no one has been able to scientifically disprove evolution or provide a better explanation. evolution is a robust scientific theory that has defeated all comers. the danger lies with accepting pseudoscience as actual science based on appeals to emotion. also, which creation myth should we choose? science is a great equalizer of opinion. either x is supported by the evidence or it is not.
to say that scientists don't listen to the creationist side of the story is overgeneralizing. i cannot speak for everyone, but i have looked into creationism and have found it lacking.
process of explaining natural phenomena through observation, experimentation, and peer verification. science deals with natural phenomena that can be explained through natural laws. empirical observations are used to form hypotheses that must be testable and falsifiable. a theory is an tentative explanation of related natural phenomena that is based on many hypotheses that have been tested and supported many times.
dictionary version: a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena. c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
if anyone wants to add anything, i would appreciate it.
in the article, both sides of the issue are given and the results are somewhat inconclusive. the front cover of that particular issue, however, is very misleading and has been addressed by several people and organizations, including CSICOP. the contributing writers of the article had no input on the cover.
i am sure, though, if you look in one of the little side-bar stories you will find the words, "stephen" "is" "delusional" hidden in the text. all you have to do is turn the magazine upside down and skip every fifth letter on the diagonal opposite the picture when turned clockwise. or something like that.
[This message has been edited by hitchy, 01-21-2004]
[This message has been edited by hitchy, 01-22-2004]
"most of you see science as not merely the investigation and testing of empirical data to find truth, but rather to find a material explanation for what we see. But how can it be shown that only the material exists?"
science can only deal with "real" situations and evidences gathered in nature. "real" being the operative word here. what is "real"? i say reality is "what can be objectively detected repeatedly by anyone." for example, the grass is green. a blind man cannot see that the grass is green. however, if we extract the green pigment from the grass and analyze it, it will show that the light reflected off of the pigment falls in the wavelength range for the color green. that info can then be communicated to the blind man orally or through braille or whatever...
anyone with any other thoughts on reality?
[This message has been edited by hitchy, 01-22-2004]
"I work for Jehovah, who sends a spirit of delusion on all those who do not receive the love of the truth. As His servant, I delight in deluding those He hates."
ok, so your god spreads delusion on those he hates. i get that, that is not a problem. i am comfortable with being hated by deities. shiva is still pissed at me for my "meatless" lasagna!
anyway, everything you say leads me to a few basic conclusions:
1) you need professional help 2) your hubris blinds you to the truth that you say you possess 3) you are making up for feelings of inadequacy and/or powerlessness by trying to wield the sword of the "truth" that you "know" b/c it comes from your god (any truth other than yours is not truth) 4) you care nothing for the scientific endevours that have kept you alive up to this point 5) you scare me...i mean, you actually scare me. you sound like someone who would bomb an abortion clinic 6) you break some of the commandments in order to save others 7) you belong back in the middle ages 8) you need some professional help
one more thing: scientific theories are tenative, not inconclusive. they can be 99.9999999% correct, but we always leave a little space just in case. the results of their studies were inconclusive. saying science is inconclusive doesn't hold much water. think about how inconclusive science is the next time you are flying in an airplane or simply drinking some pathogen-free water.
almost forgot...saying that you know the truth, 100% truth, automatically tells me that you do not have a scientific mindset. also, god doing a lot of undetectable and untestable things makes no difference. if i am wrong and burn in hell for it later, fine. i hate the cold
when i was speaking of the results being inconclusive, i meant that no conclusion could be reached from the evidences gathered. the two positions in the article were prayer helps and pray has no affect. we could discuss prayer having a negative affect, but that was not the crux of the article. the conclusion, then, that you would reach would either be prayer has no affect or prayer has a positive affect. the evidence provided pointed to "prayer a little positive" in some cases and "prayer having no affect" in others. therefore, according to the study on which the article was based, no conclusion could be reached--the study was inconclusive.
tentative works on conclusions. no conclusion was reached. the evidences were not tentative, they were the results. more evidence would have to be gathered to draw a conclusion from this study. then we could say that we hold that conclusion to be tentative. sorry if that bored anyone...