how creationists think about science
bpuharic
center'...it describes how creationists approach knowledge and what
they think about science. it pretty well ties together the incoherent,
piece by piece bullshit that pagano, all seeing, and other science
haters say about science:
http://www.pre-trib.org/article-view.php?id=377
quote:
this is the crucial point, directly trying to observe something over a
duration longer than one's lifespan or longer than record-keeping
human history is impossible. If one discards the Bible's claim of
eyewitness observations of the past, one is thereby left to infer what
observations of the past might look like. This method of generating
surrogate observations has to make conjectures about the physical
environment such as the uniformity of so-called natural law throughout
all space and time and the cosmological principle that any particular
region of the universe looks the same as any other.[7] These extra
requirements of historical science distinguish it from laboratory
science. One has to reflect critically on attributing the credibility
of the latter to the former.
----------------------------------
guess creationists kind of forgot that god is supposed to be the same
yesterday, today and forever. if he wrote the laws of the universe,
and they change with time then they aren't laws. they're just random
occurrences...the very thing they are fighting against
and if the universe HAS changed over time, where's the evidence? why
do stars give the same characteristics of physics (spectra, etc) that
we can create in labs which tell us about the mechanisms powering the
stars?
and what mechanism CAUSES this change? if the universe was so
radically different in the past, how did this happen? They don't say
the article differentiates between 'lab' science and historical
science. to me, a chemist, this is a distinction without a difference.
if the laws of nature ARE uniform then we can take what we learn in
the lab and apply it to the world
to creationists, the regularity of nature...the order...stops at the
lab door. doesn't do much for the idea that god is a lawgiver if his
laws stop at the lab door
another fault with creationism is that every single scientific fact
they reference....ALL of them...from the existence of atoms to the
laws of relativity...were discovered, not by creationism, but by the
methods of science
so creationism is filled with contradictions...fatal contradictions.
adn creationism is a parasite ideology that is unable to tell us
ANYTHING about the world at all. in fact, if creationism is true then
the world makes no sense at all and god does not exist.
All-Seeing-I
> found this little gem at the aforementioned 'pre trib research
> center'...it describes how creationists approach knowledge and what
> they think about science. it pretty well ties together the incoherent,
> piece by piece bullshit that pagano, all seeing, and other science
> haters say about science:
>
> http://www.pre-trib.org/article-view.php?id=377
>
> quote:
>
the quote says it all
John Harshman
More to the point, if they aren't uniform, we can't. How dare you assume
that chemistry outside the lab is the same as chemistry inside the lab?
After all, directly trying to observe something outside the range of
your vision or that's too small to see is impossible. You are therefore
left to infer what observations of things outside your vision or too
small to see might look like. One has to reflect critically on
attributing any credibility to any science that involves things you
can't see. I'm guessing that parts of Galilean mechanics are OK. But all
that other stuff has to go.
[snip]
bpuharic
my wife is a defense attorney
eyewitness evidence means nothing.
and why do protestants disregard catholic events like lourdes? you
guys seem to be very selective. eyewitness accounts seem to vary by
religion
but we already knew that
richardal...@googlemail.com
Do you think that the two different accounts of creation in Genesis
are eyewitness observations?
More to the point, by your logic one of those accounts must be a lie,
which rather undermines the reliability of "eyewitness observations".
Which is it?
RF
Mike Dworetsky
A lot of Genesis must be unreliable by the eyewitness standard, if only
because Adam and Eve were not created on the first day, and even if they did
leave an account, it could not have been sworn testimony as there were no
Bibles.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
TomS
<neidnZT7EfhoQZbW...@bt.com>, Mike Dworetsky stated..."
I am not aware of anywhere in the Bible is there a claim that the
creation accounts of Genesis are "eyewitness observations". I am
aware of a claim for eyewitness testimony in Luke 1:2, John 19:35,
John 21:24, and 2 Peter 1:16-17 but these are not about anything
in Genesis.
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
bpuharic
>
>I am not aware of anywhere in the Bible is there a claim that the
>creation accounts of Genesis are "eyewitness observations". I am
>aware of a claim for eyewitness testimony in Luke 1:2, John 19:35,
>John 21:24, and 2 Peter 1:16-17 but these are not about anything
>in Genesis.
all seeing claims it was an eyewitness account because adam and eve
were told by angels
so it was hearsay, 3rd party account but in creationism that's an
eyewitness account
but they reject the repeated experiments of science because that's
just science talking
Kermit
Reality, for them, is a social construct. The USA, the value of a
Euro, the legal definitions of "narcotics", "people", and "marriage"
are what we all agree on. Why not the history of the Earth, or the
nature of mental illness?
When they seem to tell lies while arguing with us on the nature of
reality, they don't see it as a case of "lying for Jesus"; it is
instead merely a rhetorical device which they are using to *construct
or maintain *reality. They are preventing us from replacing their
Godly reality with our decadent and self-indulgent reality. This is
much like their doing every trick in the book in the US to maintain
the nature of marriage, a legal definition which actually can be
changed by argument. If they succeed in defining marriage as a union
between one woman and one man, then that *is the (legal) nature of
marriage.
Arguing about the nature of reality is, or course, easier if we could
just dispense with that whole pesky epistemology issue first.
Hence, among other things, they learn the form of our arguments, and
throw our own assertions back at us, to wit "You guys don't have any
evidence". Of course this is insane when we actually *do have
evidence, but they see the presentation of it as simply a rhetorical
device on our part.
Kermit
TomS
<q7png5dk541qpo7j7...@4ax.com>, bpuharic stated..."
>
>On 24 Nov 2009 05:35:33 -0800, TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>I am not aware of anywhere in the Bible is there a claim that the
>>creation accounts of Genesis are "eyewitness observations". I am
>>aware of a claim for eyewitness testimony in Luke 1:2, John 19:35,
>>John 21:24, and 2 Peter 1:16-17 but these are not about anything
>>in Genesis.
>
>
>all seeing claims it was an eyewitness account because adam and eve
>were told by angels
I would not be surprised to hear of making stuff up.
I would not be surprised to hear of 3rd-hand reports (angels telling
Adam and Eve who tell Moses who writes Genesis, supposedly) being
called "eyewitness". (BTW, do angels have eyes with which they witness
things?)
>
>so it was hearsay, 3rd party account but in creationism that's an
>eyewitness account
>
>but they reject the repeated experiments of science because that's
>just science talking
>
Desertphile
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
Yep. It is impossible for a book to be an eyewitness. You cult
nuts put more faith in your paper god than you do what your own
eyes tell you.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
Since when?
Desertphile
wrote:
> found this little gem at the aforementioned 'pre trib research
> center'...it describes how creationists approach knowledge and what
> they think about science. it pretty well ties together the incoherent,
> piece by piece bullshit that pagano, all seeing, and other science
> haters say about science:
>
> http://www.pre-trib.org/article-view.php?id=377
>
> quote:
>
> this is the crucial point, directly trying to observe something over a
> duration longer than one's lifespan or longer than record-keeping
> human history is impossible. If one discards the Bible's claim of
> eyewitness observations of the past, one is thereby left to infer what
> observations of the past might look like.
No: one is left ignoring the issue completely. No need to "infer"
that which there is no evidence of.
> This method of generating
> surrogate observations has to make conjectures about the physical
> environment such as the uniformity of so-called natural law throughout
> all space and time and the cosmological principle that any particular
> region of the universe looks the same as any other.[7] These extra
> requirements of historical science distinguish it from laboratory
> science. One has to reflect critically on attributing the credibility
> of the latter to the former.
Ah, the ole "Nobody saw O.J. Simpson murder anyone, therefore
Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman ain't dead" argument. Why, that's
the fifth time I've not fallen for it this week!
> ----------------------------------
>
> guess creationists kind of forgot that god is supposed to be the same
> yesterday, today and forever. if he wrote the laws of the universe,
> and they change with time then they aren't laws. they're just random
> occurrences...the very thing they are fighting against
Maybe the gods just got bored during the first 9,000,000,000 years
and just changed the laws of the universe so that Earth and life
on it could form.
> and if the universe HAS changed over time, where's the evidence? why
> do stars give the same characteristics of physics (spectra, etc) that
> we can create in labs which tell us about the mechanisms powering the
> stars?
Indeed, we know the speed of light has not changed any time within
the past 50,000 years or so.
> and what mechanism CAUSES this change? if the universe was so
> radically different in the past, how did this happen? They don't say
>
> the article differentiates between 'lab' science and historical
> science. to me, a chemist, this is a distinction without a difference.
> if the laws of nature ARE uniform then we can take what we learn in
> the lab and apply it to the world
>
> to creationists, the regularity of nature...the order...stops at the
> lab door. doesn't do much for the idea that god is a lawgiver if his
> laws stop at the lab door
>
> another fault with creationism is that every single scientific fact
> they reference....ALL of them...from the existence of atoms to the
> laws of relativity...were discovered, not by creationism, but by the
> methods of science
>
> so creationism is filled with contradictions...fatal contradictions.
> adn creationism is a parasite ideology that is unable to tell us
> ANYTHING about the world at all. in fact, if creationism is true then
> the world makes no sense at all and god does not exist.
Mark Isaak
The fact that that quote "says it all" to ASI says it all. Creationists
are scared shitless that they might have to "discard the Bible," which
really means having to admit that their reading of the Bible might be
wrong, because their reading tells them that everything is unbelievably
wonderful, and they won't die ever. Of course, by worshipping the book
as much as they do, they have already discarded God by putting the Bible
in his place. They have no faith whatsoever in a God who is the
slightest bit different from what they want him to be. Which means they
have no faith.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume