brennan
Argumentative Brit
No it isn't.
No it doesn't. it describes night and day.
So it's wrong, basically. Even when you're incredibly generous with your interpretation.
What is creation science?
- Thread starter Agent327
- Start date
I think Berserker's post is an example of the thread's question.
Start with an assumption : the Bible is pretty much correct. Then shoehorn observational evidence to support your conclusion. QED
Start with an assumption : the Bible is pretty much correct. Then shoehorn observational evidence to support your conclusion. QED
Berserker misses an important point.
Nearly any random sequence of numbers will look like some things are in the proper order.
38419762
It's not magic or prescience that the 3 was before the 4 or that the 8 was before the nine. It's just the nature of random sequences. If you're astounded that some mystic got a sequence kinda right, it's the wrong instinct. As long as they generate a sequence and put it into some type of order, components of that sequence are going to look correct.
And being astounded at the correct ordering of 3, 4, 9 is even more of a mistake
Granted 123465789 is kind of impressive. And 987654321 would be the RedRum of mystical abilities. But, the point stands.
Nearly any random sequence of numbers will look like some things are in the proper order.
38419762
It's not magic or prescience that the 3 was before the 4 or that the 8 was before the nine. It's just the nature of random sequences. If you're astounded that some mystic got a sequence kinda right, it's the wrong instinct. As long as they generate a sequence and put it into some type of order, components of that sequence are going to look correct.
And being astounded at the correct ordering of 3, 4, 9 is even more of a mistake
Granted 123465789 is kind of impressive. And 987654321 would be the RedRum of mystical abilities. But, the point stands.
Perfection
The Great Head.
Why does it not matter?
Perfection
The Great Head.
Such as?
classical_hero
In whom I trust
Here's you and your like.
Start with an assumption that there is no God and shoehorn any observation that supports your conclusion.
I mean the Big Bang is the biggest assumption made. When there is evidence that contradicts it, just make an ad hoc solution. I mean inflation is a great example, because it means that all laws of physics had to be working in reverse for a time period tat we don't know how it started or it finished.
Well I just lost a long reply that took me about 20 mintues to write. Crap.
c_h: What's all the evidence against the Big Bang Theory? You mention Inflation, but you can't be serious. There's observational evidence confirmed by multiple lines of evidence supporting that. That's not an ad hoc solution at all.
So what's the evidence against the Big Bang?
c_h: What's all the evidence against the Big Bang Theory? You mention Inflation, but you can't be serious. There's observational evidence confirmed by multiple lines of evidence supporting that. That's not an ad hoc solution at all.
So what's the evidence against the Big Bang?
brennan
Argumentative Brit
No it's a hypothesis based upon the evidence.
Don't be silly. Inflation is required to explain the evidence.
Get the Lazarus plug-in. There's no reason not to have it.
As opposed to the laws of physics and biology simply working entirely differently to allow for the stories of the Genesis patriarchs to be accurate history, right?
You seem to think that evidence for 6-day creation would be evidence for the existence of the Christian God.
I just realized something ironic - how often we see science doubters trot out lists of famous scientists who were believers, as if that somehow invalidates the science. And here you're saying that our assumption is that there isn't a god??
Quite the contrary - the fact that I don't believe in a god is not a starting assumption. I was a believer for many years, until I started to realize that there's no way the bible could all be true and be consistent with what I was learning in school. My lack of belief is a consequence, not an assumption.
But that's irrelevant.
EDIT: just came across a great post by one of my favorite science bloggers. He takes a critical look at common arguments against the big bang.
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/08/09/why-the-big-bang-wont-work-won/
He also has another post called "how sure are we that the big bang is correct?" (note that this post is 5 years old and some of the stuff he mentions is out-of-date)
It is deeply ironic that I can change just four words in your quote and thus describe the entire 'creation science' movement. Essentially, you are attacking Berserker's assorted idiosyncracies for precisely the same thing that you do.
The laws of physics have been based on observation. It has already been proven that, for instance, in quantum physics these laws seem not to work 'as they should': a new observation.
As to your original assumption: whether there is or is not a God has no effect on the laws of physics. Which is as it should be, since scientifically speaking God is an unknowable and indeterminable variable.
Berzerker
Deity
I still dont see a rebuttal
brennan
Argumentative Brit
Overdue for an eyetest perchance?
Posts 201 and 204.
Berzerker
Deity
"No it isn't" aint a rebuttal, nor is something about random numbers.
