[leegao]

Quote by: gallo What ad hominem are you talking about? Moreover, how to they help to "prove" points. Pointing out ignorance is not an ad hominem attack.

Pointing out ignorance of the side that is negating your statement is ad hominem the last time I checked

Quote by: gallo Not true. Creationists believe that the "natural orders", as well as all life in the current form, were created by an invisible, unknowable, all powerful, all knowing, and eternal magical being.

Which intervened with the natural order in the barren land to magically or “divinely” create life. Make the story however you want, it’s got no direct impact to my point.

Quote by: gallo But I'm not against that idea. I just don't see any evidence that supports it. I just don't seem why we should postulate magical beings to explain natural phenomena. That is especially true when there are perfectly logical explanations based on empirical evidence that explain it better.

Here’s what you’ve just said:
I’m not taking sides in this argument, but I still don’t see why anyone would take the side of creationists when there’s more empirical evidence that appeals to my taste better. Is it just me or does this sound like self contradiction?

Quote by: gallo How interesting. Rather than base their ideology on their beliefs, they will base it off of their beliefs. On the other hand, scientists (those you label as evolutionists) don't base their ideology off of a book. Science is a matter of offering tested explanations for observed phenomena. I'm not sure what book you are talking about.

Ok then, let me rephrase this point to better fit your view then.

The creationists base their ideology off of their religious/superstitious beliefs. The Scientists, or let’s just call them the empiricists, base theirs on tested explanations and observed phenomena, also known as empiricism. Still, my point stands that the creationists believe that their superstitious beliefs are right and the empiricists believe that their empiricism is right. Still conforms to my point.

Quote by: gallo It isn't a contest. Unless you educate yourself as to what the science you oppose actually says, you are speaking from ignorance.

I never did say this was a contest, merely a debate. Last time I checked a debate has at least 2 sides, a structured one only has 2, a for side and an against side. Now you might say that the points I’m making are made out of ignorance, well, I’m sorry but a typical 16 year old never takes up the interest to find out all they can about the big bang. Contrarily, while you’re more educated in the area, it doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re not speaking from ignorance unless you are an expert studying in this particular field of physics. Anyways, as I said before, due to the fact that I am not attacking or upholding either side, merely making an observation on how this debate should go, I do not think the fallacy that you’re accusing me of really holds.

Quote by: gallo I have done so many times. Natural phenomena should be explained by natural explanations. There is actually no need to offer magic where perfectly logical natural explanations are sufficient.

Yes, but you also need to support it in a way that both sides agree. Just because empiricism works out better for you doesn’t mean the same if you were going up against a theologian. Either way, until someone can universally prioritizes one ground over the other, the debate won’t progress much.

Quote by: gallo Science or superstition.

Either way, no direct impact to my point

Quote by: gallo You have no idea what science is or how it works, do you. Science isn't an ideology. Does gravity rest on ideology? How about atomic theory? Are nuclear power plants operated by ideology rather than nuclear theory? What is the ideology behind Sodium Chloride?

How about empiricism? Empiricism is the grounds on which science lies. It’s how scientists accepted Newton’s 2nd law, it’s how we came to Keplar’s way of viewing the solar system. Yet it’s not the same ground that the creationists hold for this debate. As I pointed out before, you’ve still not touched the fundamental part of my point yet.

Quote by: gallo But why would you or anyone expect religion, based on belief without evidence, to explain natural phenomena?

Because they believe in this little book that tells them so. If you take them for ignorant then so be it. But to them religion/superstition works for them. Like I stressed before, you have to prove to them that empiricism must supercede superstitious beliefs before we can have a clear-cut debate.

Quote by: gallo But such arguments have no scientific merit. Why should they be given consideration in the study of science?

The creationists do not consider science to have the highest value in this debate. For one thing they’re usually not scientists. Those who actually do believe in the creationist theory, as pointed out in the torah or elsewhere, firmly believes in that book. Of course it doesn’t hold any scientific value. That’s the difference that I was stressing all this time.

Quote by: gallo Actually, several polls have shown that creationists are generally less educated than non-creationists. They tend to be more rural, southern, and work at menial jobs. Even Gallup polls reveal that - Gallup himself is a young earth creationist and was very upset by the results of his own poll. On the other hand, scientists don't claim to be right. They claim to offer the best natural explanations of natural phenomena that they have been able to devise. The have arrived at these explanations by observation, hypothesis, prediction and testing.

That’s a bit one-sided. How much of the Bible have you read? Also, I live in Texas and all of only 2 people that I know are creationists.

Quote by: gallo That's just misrepresentation. Creationists don't "believe" it because they believe that they know the truth before looking at the evidence. They rely on a book of the mythology bronze age, nomadic herdsmen.

And the empiricists today rely on 20th century space-tech age ideology that was actually originally a platonian favorite. But we still rely on Plato’s A Priori and A Posteriori style of thinking. Of course nowadays we’ve advanced to use Kant’s synthetic empiricism. Nonetheless, most creationists don’t use empiricism when it comes to their belief just like how most empiricists don’t rely on a book that they believe to have no factual value whatsoever. Now I say most because Newton was an empiricist, he was also a creationist, you see, he created the clock-maker theory that most enlightened philosophers adhere to.

Quote by: gallo That's nonsense. You aren't going to give up your book of mythology without evidence and I'm going to look at the evidence and the science every time.

You know what, that’s exactly how this debate has been going. Neither agrees with the others view and both are just blindly pasting up support that only work one-sided, which explains why this topic has spanned over 100 pages. So far, only a few points have made impacts to both sides and the rest are all for Science or all for Religion.

Quote by: gallo It would be nice if you were going to talk about science, you would use the definitions that scientists use. Just because you haven't bothered to educate yourself on the topic to know that the word "theory" does not mean what it does in your church. I did not redefine the word. I gave the definition that has been used by scientists for more than 100 years. If you don't understand that after it has been explained to you, then your ignorance is your own fault.

It would also be nice if we can win an argument by merely stating that you have the definition of a subject word wrong but refuse to go into how it has an impact on the point. Likewise, here you appeal to some unknown authority, saying that your definition of theory has been used by scientists for more than 100 years, yet you’ve never shown any support of this. And if you did you’ll still need to explain how the author of your definition is vastly more credible than those negating your definition.

Keep in mind I’ve never stated that I’m for creationists or evolutionists. I’m only making an observation on how this debate is going.