Re: Apparently JQ doesn't know the proper form of an analogy AND doesn't have a clue about empirical science

On Apr 14, 9:07 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 13 Apr 2007 17:34:41 -0700, "JQ" <jac...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I believe in pink unicorns that live on Mars. My proof is in the fact
that there are big furrows across the surface of Mars, clearly dug by
long unicorn horns.

1. It is the atheists who largely cling to the pipe dream that life
exists on other planets not creationists.

So, finding life on another world prove creationism false?

[snip]

2. Problem here is that creationists ACCEPT the vast majority of our
background scientific knowledge whick includes a vast array of
scientific theories in every discipline. Creationists only discard a
handful of theories underpined by an atheistic metaphysical doctrine
which conflicts with Christian ones AND because these handful of
theories have serious scientific flaws.

Of course, they wouldn't have any scientific flaws if they didn't
contradict some random interpretation of some particular religion's
holy book.

1. Scientific methodologies are efficacious ONLY where material
cause and effect are observable; that is, the events or processes must
be recurring or reproducible in the laboratory. In other words if we
can't observe the events or processes then such events are outside the
direct competence of empirical science. At best we can determine what
empirical consequences are implied and try to find them, but this is
exactly what Creationists attempt.

2. NeoDarwinian theory is largely an historical theory; that is, it
is an attempt to reconstruct unique, non recurring, non
experimentally reproducible and UNOBSERVABLE events. Unfortunately
these sorts of hypothesized events are OUTSIDE of the direct
competence of empirical science specifically because they were
a. WERE NEVER OBSERVED.
b. HAVE NEVER BEEN OBERVED.
c. HAVE NEVER BEEN OBSERVED IN THE LABORATORY.

So, according to TP (hmmm...) we cannot show that apples actually fell
from trees in the past by using our knowledge that F=m1m2G/r^2. We
have no knowledge of what was going on with planetary orbits, sea
floor pressure, atmospheric convection, or apples falling from trees
in the night before that formula was developed since none of them were
directly observed in a laboratory.

Fortunately, actual scientists are smarter than Tony by an
indeterminate factor (the whole dividing by zero thing).

Lee Jay

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Apparently JQ doesnt know the proper form of an analogy AND doesnt have a clue about empirical s
    ... It is the atheists who largely cling to the pipe dream that life ... Creationists believe on faith in the initial condition that life ... Because of Popper, scientists tend ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Vestigiality is a placeholder for secular ignorance not evidence of evolution
    ... so I have been brushing up recently on evolution. ... I noticed numerous and extensive rebuttals from creationists ... Any of the atheists present who can lay out the darwinian ... it means that scientists follow the evidence and draw their ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: holocaust
    ... still say it's impossible for atheists to be scientists. ... Your demands for even more faster progress are typically ... creationists were still shitting in their drinking water in the middle ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: What would they be teaching now?
    ... You have only to look at Answers in Genesis' website to see how science would be taught--eventually: ... The moon moves about an inch and a half further away from the earth every year due to this tidal interaction. ... all students would be learning that ID is the consensus theory among scientists. ... Some young-earth creationists are persuaded by Bible-based arguments that there are gaps in the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11. ...
    (talk.origins)