Re: Things I've Noticed About Intelligent Design/Creationist Proponents


NashtOn wrote:
> Lee Jay wrote:
> > NashtOn wrote:
> >
> >>There is evidence for evolution, but evolution is not observable. Any
> >>scientific experiment that cannot be observed ceases to be scientific
> >>and is in the realm of speculation and wishful thinking...
> >
> >
> > Ignoring for the moment the fact that evolution *is* observable, you
> > are arguing that the observations of black holes are not science
> > because black holes aren't observable. If you observe their effects
> > (tidal forces tearing apart stars, gravitation causing fast orbits,
> > accretion, radiation, magnetic fields, etc.), and you can't see the
> > object itself where it should be, you *can* conclude that it's a black
> > hole.
> >
> > Electrons aren't observable. Does that mean you don't believe in
> > lightning (an observable effect of electrons on other molecules)? Does
> > it mean you don't believe in the electricity running the computer you
> > are currently using (another observable effect of electrons)? Does it
> > mean you don't believe in chemistry (which is really the study of
> > electrons)?
> >
> > Lee Jay
> >
>
> Do people who study black holes and other astrophysical phenomena also
> xpost to atheism ngs? ;)

Killer argument!
If people who study black holes post to atheism ngs, black holes can
not exist.

We'd better cross-check the logs of those groups to resolve the problem
with which physicists have been struggling for decade. What a waste of
time for academics like Steven Hawkin to spend their lives trying to
figure out the mathematical conundrums of quantum physics: all he
needed to do was to wait for the invention of the internet, and see who
posts on the newsgroups.

RF


>
> --
> Nicolas
>
> "The reason the theory of evolution is so controversial is that it is
> the main scientific prop for scientific naturalism. Students first learn
> that "evolution is a fact," and then they gradually learn more and more
> about what that "fact" means. It means that all living things are the
> product of mindless material forces such as chemical laws, natural
> selection, and random variation. So God is totally out of the picture,
> and humans (like everything else) are the accidental product of a
> purposeless universe. Do you wonder why a lot of people suspect that
> these claims go far beyond the available evidence?" Phillip E.Johnson,
> The Church Of Darwin

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Do creationists believe in black holes?
    ... Are creationists happy with their kids being ... the evidence for both), but has no problem with cosmologists ... black holes than there is for evolution. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Mutation
    ... Go on, I dare you, find a hole in evolution that you can ... let's say that evolution has never been ... Of course, neither have black holes, or quarks. ... This is because instead of direct evidence, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Things Ive Noticed About Intelligent Design/Creationist Proponents
    ... >>There is evidence for evolution, ... > because black holes aren't observable. ... > Electrons aren't observable. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Things Ive Noticed About Intelligent Design/Creationist Proponents
    ... >> There is evidence for evolution, ... >> scientific experiment that cannot be observed ceases to be scientific ... > because black holes aren't observable. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Daily Rpt #4575
    ... Mapping the FUV Evolution of Type IIn Supernovae ... or externally modulated gas inflows that feed central black holes or lead to ...
    (sci.astro.hubble)