Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Plaything48 · Jan 23, 2004, 11:47 am

God created the Earth in seven days, literally and exactly seven 24-hour days. And if you don't like it, you can go to hell. That is, you can literally go to Hell.

In all the world's rich panoply of religious and spiritual pursuits, there's nothing quite so inspiring as watching people desperately tie their entire view of the moral universe to an idea that's obviously wrong. Creationism is a particularly entertaining variant on an age-old theme. (Remember when Galileo was excommunicated for the ludicrous idea that the Earth goes 'round the sun and not the other way around?)

Creationism is pretty much summed up in the first sentence of this article. Creationists like to call their belief system "creation science" and would like to have it taught in school alongside the theory of evolution.

Now, it's certainly possible that some God or other created the world in seven 24-hour days. Any sentence that contains the word "God" is pretty much wide open to debate. But is it science?

Oh, wait, that sounded like a rhetorical question. It actually has an answer. No, it's not science. It's religion. Nothing wrong with religion, lots of people have it. Often very smart and well-educated people.

But beliefs based solely on the text of the Bible aren't science. Science is the "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation." There is no scientific test which will show that Adam and Eve existed. At least, not according to the commonly accepted definition of science. However, if creationism is about anything, it's about language.

Western civilization has believed the seven-day theory for about 6,000 years longer than it's believed in evolution. The weight of that history is great indeed. Although Genesis was originally a Jewish scripture, the Christians were responsible for institutionalizing its contents as the undisputed truth about the world's origins.

The original notion of evolution dates back to the ancient Greeks, but early thinking on the subject was crushed by the Church of Rome. By the 17th century, however, the Protestant revolution and the whole Galileo fiasco had given the public reason to think that the Vatican was not necessarily the best source for scientific information.

Nevertheless, the idea that people had somehow evolved from a lower life form was abhorrent to most people, right up through the Victorian era. "Man" (and specifically the white male) was considered the highest possible form of life on earth, elevated above all others.

When Charles Darwin came along in the middle of the 19th century, all hell broke loose. Although Darwin outlined a progression of primitive man through modern man, the average joe looked at his chart and made the immediate mental leap that men essentially came from monkeys. The Victorians were not amused.

A violent religious backlash arose in response to the theory. Nearly 150 years later, depressingly, the backlash continues.

The theory of evolution quickly gained traction in scientific circles, but the common man held out for a lot longer. As it does with virtually all issues of any importance in the world, the United States responded to the controversy with litigation.

The state of Tennessee passed a law in 1925 banning schools from teaching any theory of human origin that conflicted with the Biblical account. A biology teacher named John Scopes defied the ban and was brought up on charges. A legal battle of historic proportions resulted, as Clarence Darrow stepped up as attorney for the defense; William Jennings Bryan came to the assistance of the state.

The "Scopes monkey trial" wrapped up with Darrow calling Bryan and staging a virtual debate over the issue of evolution vs. creation under the guise of cross-examination. It would have been great television, had there been television at the time.

DARROW: I will read it to you from the Bible: "And the Lord God said unto the serpent, because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life." Do you think that is why the serpent is compelled to crawl upon its belly?

BRYAN: I believe that.

DARROW: Have you any idea how the snake went before that time?

BRYAN: No, sir.

DARROW: Do you know whether he walked on his tail or not?

BRYAN: No, sir. I have no way to know. (Laughter in audience).

DARROW: Now, you refer to the cloud that was put in heaven after the flood, the rainbow. Do you believe in that?

BRYAN: Read it.

DARROW: All right, Mr. Bryan, I will read it for you.

BRYAN: Your Honor, I think I can shorten this testimony. The only purpose Mr. Darrow has is to slur at the Bible, but I will answer his question. I will answer it all at once, and I have no objection in the world, I want the world to know that this man, who does not believe in a God, is trying to use a court in Tennessee...

DARROW: I object to that.

BRYAN: (...) to slur at it, and while it will require time, I am willing to take it.

DARROW: I object to your statement. I am exempting you on your fool ideas that no intelligent Christian on earth believes.

In his closing remarks, Darrow conceded that his client was guilty and that he couldn't in good conscience plead otherwise, but that a higher court would have to decide the issue. These inspirational remarks led to the expected guilty verdict, which was later overturned on appeal for a technicality. Aside from the high drama, the trial accomplished pretty much nothing, since the technicality superseded the constitutional issue. The law remained on the books until 1967.

The bad publicity that came out of the trial left other states unenthusiastic about mandating creationism in the schools, but that didn't stop Protestant fundamentalists from rallying around the issue for the next 80 years.

Weirdly, although the whole issue had stemmed from an overly literal intepretation of the Bible, the second wave of creationists began madly embellishing the Biblical accounts of early man in an effort to get around some of the more undeniable evidence, such as dinosaur fossils.

The dwindling pool of modern creationists now tries to paint a picture of a Fred Flintstone-style Garden of Eden in which cheerful velociraptors traipse around with Adam and Eve like oversized puppies. According to these revisionist-literalists, pretty much any reference to a generic animal in the Bible is inclusive of dinosaurs.

The modern crop of creationists is often perceived as a bunch of harmless cranks, like Jerry Falwell and the Attorney General of the United States. Sure, harmless! They run wacky organizations like the "Institute for Creation Research" and the "Center for Scientific Creation," which contain arguments like "Evolutionists raise several objections. Some say, 'Even though evidence may imply a sudden creation, creation is supernatural, not natural, and cannot be entertained as a scientific explanation'" and "Teaching scientific evidence for creation has always been legal in public schools. Nevertheless, many teachers wonder how to do this."

If you're thinking that you don't know a lot of evolutionists who say evidence implies a sudden creation, or teachers who are wondering how to teach said evidence, welcome to the club. But then, it takes a special kind of thinking to keep ancient anachronisms alive and kicking.

A special kind of thinking of the sort perpetuated by the aforementioned Attorney General John Ashcroft, who launched a Justice Department investigation of a Texas professor for demanding that future medical students truthfully tell their opinions about the origins of human life before he would agree to write recommendation letters for them. But hey, who wouldn't want a doctor that believes women can be extracted from your ribs?

Meatros · Jan 23, 2004, 12:26 pm

I agree, creationism is a religious position and definitely not a science.

Impenitent · Jan 23, 2004, 02:50 pm

science is a religious position as well...

there is no truth except in language

Meatros · Jan 23, 2004, 03:57 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
science is a religious position as well...

there is no truth except in language<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Not if you are using the definition of science and the common vernacular.

I mean, sure you could say that science is a religion in the same vein as I could say that a car is really a planet. In any event, those who express opinions such as yours often do not know what science is.

I mean, since when has religion enabled you to type on a keyboard to strangers across many miles?

It hasn't.

shunyadragon · Jan 24, 2004, 12:43 am

The current arguement from the point of view of 'Creation Science' centers around the critical issue of 'TIME'. There is a lot effort recently to disprove the radioactve decay methodes commonly relied on by scientists to date rocks.

**Pooeypants** · Jan 24, 2004, 07:01 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (shunyadragon,)
The current arguement from the point of view of 'Creation Science' centers around the critical issue of 'TIME'. There is a lot effort recently to disprove the radioactve decay methodes commonly relied on by scientists to date rocks.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Well I remember the old Polium Ring thingies from whatishisface, which was easily refuted ofc. Whats the latest on fundie horizon now?

Plaything48 · Jan 24, 2004, 07:39 am

As an undergrad partly studying physics (amoung other things), I've been doing a lot of work on radioactive decay, and I only hope people stop trying to go against such a proven method of dating.

Impenitent · Jan 24, 2004, 09:06 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Meatros,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
science is a religious position as well...

there is no truth except in language<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Not if you are using the definition of science and the common vernacular.

I mean, sure you could say that science is a religion in the same vein as I could say that a car is really a planet. In any event, those who express opinions such as yours often do not know what science is.

I mean, since when has religion enabled you to type on a keyboard to strangers across many miles?

It hasn't.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

nor has "science"... it is a computer...
belief in future events requires a leap of faith as does belief in religion...
the leap may not be as big, but it required nonetheless...
and no, a car is not really a planet...

read hume

meowmeow · Jan 24, 2004, 09:39 am

Men wrote the bible.

**Pooeypants** · Jan 24, 2004, 11:21 am

Inpen, don't get too philosophical in here, there's a separate section if you want to do that.

Meatros · Jan 27, 2004, 08:29 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
nor has "science"... it is a computer...
belief in future events requires a leap of faith as does belief in religion...
the leap may not be as big, but it required nonetheless...
and no, a car is not really a planet...

read hume<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Oh my...do you honestly think computers came out of thin air? Do they grow on trees or something? What exactly are you saying here???

Belief in future events is one thing, one thing neither of us has mentioned-unless you are further twisting the definition of science to include 'psychics' in it.

I have read some Hume. I have no idea what you are talking about.

Impenitent · Jan 27, 2004, 09:17 am

no, computers were made by men... since when has science enabled you to type to people many miles away? it is a glorified morse code machine, nothing more...

the inductive fallacy...

science works on induction... science is based on an error...

Meatros · Jan 27, 2004, 09:34 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
no, computers were made by men... since when has science enabled you to type to people many miles away? it is a glorified morse code machine, nothing more... <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Wow...I honestly don't know what to make of you.

How did these men create computers? Magic? Who cares if it's a glorified morse code machine-that's a strawman fallacy of distraction ;)

Impenitent · Jan 27, 2004, 09:51 pm

then don't make anything...

computers are nothing but boxes filled with sequenced on/off switches... and no, it isn't a straw man, it is what it is...

and you ignored the salient point about the inductive fallacy

Meatros · Jan 28, 2004, 08:30 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
then don't make anything...

computers are nothing but boxes filled with sequenced on/off switches... and no, it isn't a straw man, it is what it is...

and you ignored the salient point about the inductive fallacy<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

It is a strawman.

In any event, what 'salient point' did you make about inductive fallacies? You do realize that just because something is inductive does not make it a fallacy-right? In addition, science works on a number of principles.

Then again, you seem to think that computers were made by magic and that they aren't complicated...

Impenitent · Jan 28, 2004, 01:02 pm

no it is not a strawman, computers were made by humans and no, they aren't that complicated... build one sometime... an abacus is a computer

the salient point was that science works on induction... science is based on an error...

some inductions are mere probabilities while others are outright errors... neither is based on universal fact

**Pooeypants** · Jan 28, 2004, 02:37 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
no it is not a strawman, computers were made by humans and no, they aren't that complicated... build one sometime... an abacus is a computer

the salient point was that science works on induction... science is based on an error...

some inductions are mere probabilities while others are outright errors... neither is based on universal fact<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
You are comparing a semiconductor device which works via the principle of quantum mechanics...to a thingy with counting beads. Now if thats not over simplification I don't know what is.

damnrad · Jan 28, 2004, 04:41 pm

The biggest current scam on the Creationist front (I capitalize Creationist to refer to those who reject science, not to include those who accept science but still believe that everything was still created by God) is 'Intelligent Design.' It's a particularly-slimy creationism that tries to hide it's religious roots by claiming that life must have had a designer but disclaiming any knowledge of or interest in said designer. It wants to put on the trappings of science, but it has no scientific agenda, no research program, no hypothesis testing. Instead it makes philosophical claims that 'undirected naturalism' could not have produced life as we know it (or any life, for that matter), and then claims that if it can disprove 'Darwinism,' then it wins by default. In this, it basically depends on an argument to ignorance, although it tries to obscure that as well.

Some of the old Creationists reject ID as insufficiently Biblical, but many have jumped on its bandwagon because in it they see a promise of getting around judicial rulings against Creationism, including 'scientific creationism' -- i.e., in ID's hiding of its religion behind a cloud of obfuscation. Thus, many of the newer attacks on evolution (e.g., most recently in Ohio, Texas, Minnesota, and Missouri) have come at least to some extent under the rubric of ID.

shunyadragon · Jan 28, 2004, 08:13 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (damnrad,)
The biggest current scam on the Creationist front (I capitalize Creationist to refer to those who reject science, not to include those who accept science but still believe that everything was still created by God) is 'Intelligent Design.' It's a particularly-slimy creationism that tries to hide it's religious roots by claiming that life must have had a designer but disclaiming any knowledge of or interest in said designer. It wants to put on the trappings of science, but it has no scientific agenda, no research program, no hypothesis testing. Instead it makes philosophical claims that 'undirected naturalism' could not have produced life as we know it (or any life, for that matter), and then claims that if it can disprove 'Darwinism,' then it wins by default. In this, it basically depends on an argument to ignorance, although it tries to obscure that as well.

Some of the old Creationists reject ID as insufficiently Biblical, but many have jumped on its bandwagon because in it they see a promise of getting around judicial rulings against Creationism, including 'scientific creationism' -- i.e., in ID's hiding of its religion behind a cloud of obfuscation. Thus, many of the newer attacks on evolution (e.g., most recently in Ohio, Texas, Minnesota, and Missouri) have come at least to some extent under the rubric of ID.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I am interested in this, because ID has been in direct part of the arguement from 'Creation Science' for a long time and a general belief of Theists that hold to the evolution model as the way God created existence.

Does this change in emphasis or strategy change the basic thrust of central role of the Bible in the 'Creation Science' view.

Do you have some references to help me.

One thing I have seen lately is 'Creation Science' supporters have been trying to clean up their 'Act' and improve the basis of their scientific arguements.

Impenitent · Jan 29, 2004, 12:14 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pooeypants,)

You are comparing a semiconductor device which works via the principle of quantum mechanics...to a thingy with counting beads. Now if thats not over simplification I don't know what is.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

oversimplification? have you ever heard of binary? what do you think your "semiconductor device" conducts? the only difference is in the number of beads (abacus) or switches (computer)

they both work in exactly the same way

Jan 23, 2004, 11:47 am	#1 (permalink) (top)
Plaything48 Igneous Magma Location: London baby, yeah! Posts: 198	God created the Earth in seven days, literally and exactly seven 24-hour days. And if you don't like it, you can go to hell. That is, you can literally go to Hell. In all the world's rich panoply of religious and spiritual pursuits, there's nothing quite so inspiring as watching people desperately tie their entire view of the moral universe to an idea that's obviously wrong. Creationism is a particularly entertaining variant on an age-old theme. (Remember when Galileo was excommunicated for the ludicrous idea that the Earth goes 'round the sun and not the other way around?) Creationism is pretty much summed up in the first sentence of this article. Creationists like to call their belief system "creation science" and would like to have it taught in school alongside the theory of evolution. Now, it's certainly possible that some God or other created the world in seven 24-hour days. Any sentence that contains the word "God" is pretty much wide open to debate. But is it science? Oh, wait, that sounded like a rhetorical question. It actually has an answer. No, it's not science. It's religion. Nothing wrong with religion, lots of people have it. Often very smart and well-educated people. But beliefs based solely on the text of the Bible aren't science. Science is the "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation." There is no scientific test which will show that Adam and Eve existed. At least, not according to the commonly accepted definition of science. However, if creationism is about anything, it's about language. Western civilization has believed the seven-day theory for about 6,000 years longer than it's believed in evolution. The weight of that history is great indeed. Although Genesis was originally a Jewish scripture, the Christians were responsible for institutionalizing its contents as the undisputed truth about the world's origins. The original notion of evolution dates back to the ancient Greeks, but early thinking on the subject was crushed by the Church of Rome. By the 17th century, however, the Protestant revolution and the whole Galileo fiasco had given the public reason to think that the Vatican was not necessarily the best source for scientific information. Nevertheless, the idea that people had somehow evolved from a lower life form was abhorrent to most people, right up through the Victorian era. "Man" (and specifically the white male) was considered the highest possible form of life on earth, elevated above all others. When Charles Darwin came along in the middle of the 19th century, all hell broke loose. Although Darwin outlined a progression of primitive man through modern man, the average joe looked at his chart and made the immediate mental leap that men essentially came from monkeys. The Victorians were not amused. A violent religious backlash arose in response to the theory. Nearly 150 years later, depressingly, the backlash continues. The theory of evolution quickly gained traction in scientific circles, but the common man held out for a lot longer. As it does with virtually all issues of any importance in the world, the United States responded to the controversy with litigation. The state of Tennessee passed a law in 1925 banning schools from teaching any theory of human origin that conflicted with the Biblical account. A biology teacher named John Scopes defied the ban and was brought up on charges. A legal battle of historic proportions resulted, as Clarence Darrow stepped up as attorney for the defense; William Jennings Bryan came to the assistance of the state. The "Scopes monkey trial" wrapped up with Darrow calling Bryan and staging a virtual debate over the issue of evolution vs. creation under the guise of cross-examination. It would have been great television, had there been television at the time. DARROW: I will read it to you from the Bible: "And the Lord God said unto the serpent, because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life." Do you think that is why the serpent is compelled to crawl upon its belly? BRYAN: I believe that. DARROW: Have you any idea how the snake went before that time? BRYAN: No, sir. DARROW: Do you know whether he walked on his tail or not? BRYAN: No, sir. I have no way to know. (Laughter in audience). DARROW: Now, you refer to the cloud that was put in heaven after the flood, the rainbow. Do you believe in that? BRYAN: Read it. DARROW: All right, Mr. Bryan, I will read it for you. BRYAN: Your Honor, I think I can shorten this testimony. The only purpose Mr. Darrow has is to slur at the Bible, but I will answer his question. I will answer it all at once, and I have no objection in the world, I want the world to know that this man, who does not believe in a God, is trying to use a court in Tennessee... DARROW: I object to that. BRYAN: (...) to slur at it, and while it will require time, I am willing to take it. DARROW: I object to your statement. I am exempting you on your fool ideas that no intelligent Christian on earth believes. In his closing remarks, Darrow conceded that his client was guilty and that he couldn't in good conscience plead otherwise, but that a higher court would have to decide the issue. These inspirational remarks led to the expected guilty verdict, which was later overturned on appeal for a technicality. Aside from the high drama, the trial accomplished pretty much nothing, since the technicality superseded the constitutional issue. The law remained on the books until 1967. The bad publicity that came out of the trial left other states unenthusiastic about mandating creationism in the schools, but that didn't stop Protestant fundamentalists from rallying around the issue for the next 80 years. Weirdly, although the whole issue had stemmed from an overly literal intepretation of the Bible, the second wave of creationists began madly embellishing the Biblical accounts of early man in an effort to get around some of the more undeniable evidence, such as dinosaur fossils. The dwindling pool of modern creationists now tries to paint a picture of a Fred Flintstone-style Garden of Eden in which cheerful velociraptors traipse around with Adam and Eve like oversized puppies. According to these revisionist-literalists, pretty much any reference to a generic animal in the Bible is inclusive of dinosaurs. The modern crop of creationists is often perceived as a bunch of harmless cranks, like Jerry Falwell and the Attorney General of the United States. Sure, harmless! They run wacky organizations like the "Institute for Creation Research" and the "Center for Scientific Creation," which contain arguments like "Evolutionists raise several objections. Some say, 'Even though evidence may imply a sudden creation, creation is supernatural, not natural, and cannot be entertained as a scientific explanation'" and "Teaching scientific evidence for creation has always been legal in public schools. Nevertheless, many teachers wonder how to do this." If you're thinking that you don't know a lot of evolutionists who say evidence implies a sudden creation, or teachers who are wondering how to teach said evidence, welcome to the club. But then, it takes a special kind of thinking to keep ancient anachronisms alive and kicking. A special kind of thinking of the sort perpetuated by the aforementioned Attorney General John Ashcroft, who launched a Justice Department investigation of a Texas professor for demanding that future medical students truthfully tell their opinions about the origins of human life before he would agree to write recommendation letters for them. But hey, who wouldn't want a doctor that believes women can be extracted from your ribs? A man has two reasons for doing anything --- a good reason and the real reason. Let us be thankful for the fools. But for them the rest of us could not succeed In spite of the cost of living, it's still popular.

Jan 23, 2004, 02:50 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	science is a religious position as well... there is no truth except in language "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Jan 23, 2004, 03:57 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
Meatros Molten Ash Posts: 41	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) science is a religious position as well... there is no truth except in language<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Not if you are using the definition of science and the common vernacular. I mean, sure you could say that science is a religion in the same vein as I could say that a car is really a planet. In any event, those who express opinions such as yours often do not know what science is. I mean, since when has religion enabled you to type on a keyboard to strangers across many miles? It hasn't.

Jan 24, 2004, 12:43 am	#5 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	The current arguement from the point of view of 'Creation Science' centers around the critical issue of 'TIME'. There is a lot effort recently to disprove the radioactve decay methodes commonly relied on by scientists to date rocks. The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Jan 24, 2004, 07:01 am	#6 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,471	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (shunyadragon,) The current arguement from the point of view of 'Creation Science' centers around the critical issue of 'TIME'. There is a lot effort recently to disprove the radioactve decay methodes commonly relied on by scientists to date rocks.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Well I remember the old Polium Ring thingies from whatishisface, which was easily refuted ofc. Whats the latest on fundie horizon now? War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Jan 23, 2004, 12:26 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
Meatros Molten Ash Posts: 41	I agree, creationism is a religious position and definitely not a science.

Jan 24, 2004, 07:39 am	#7 (permalink) (top)
Plaything48 Igneous Magma Location: London baby, yeah! Posts: 198	As an undergrad partly studying physics (amoung other things), I've been doing a lot of work on radioactive decay, and I only hope people stop trying to go against such a proven method of dating. A man has two reasons for doing anything --- a good reason and the real reason. Let us be thankful for the fools. But for them the rest of us could not succeed In spite of the cost of living, it's still popular.

Jan 24, 2004, 09:06 am	#8 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Meatros,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) science is a religious position as well... there is no truth except in language<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Not if you are using the definition of science and the common vernacular. I mean, sure you could say that science is a religion in the same vein as I could say that a car is really a planet. In any event, those who express opinions such as yours often do not know what science is. I mean, since when has religion enabled you to type on a keyboard to strangers across many miles? It hasn't.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> nor has "science"... it is a computer... belief in future events requires a leap of faith as does belief in religion... the leap may not be as big, but it required nonetheless... and no, a car is not really a planet... read hume "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Jan 24, 2004, 09:39 am	#9 (permalink) (top)
meowmeow Sedimentary Rock Posts: 13	Men wrote the bible.

Jan 24, 2004, 11:21 am	#10 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,471	Inpen, don't get too philosophical in here, there's a separate section if you want to do that. War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Jan 27, 2004, 08:29 am	#11 (permalink) (top)
Meatros Molten Ash Posts: 41	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) nor has "science"... it is a computer... belief in future events requires a leap of faith as does belief in religion... the leap may not be as big, but it required nonetheless... and no, a car is not really a planet... read hume<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Oh my...do you honestly think computers came out of thin air? Do they grow on trees or something? What exactly are you saying here??? Belief in future events is one thing, one thing neither of us has mentioned-unless you are further twisting the definition of science to include 'psychics' in it. I have read some Hume. I have no idea what you are talking about.

Jan 27, 2004, 09:17 am	#12 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	no, computers were made by men... since when has science enabled you to type to people many miles away? it is a glorified morse code machine, nothing more... the inductive fallacy... science works on induction... science is based on an error... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Jan 27, 2004, 09:34 am	#13 (permalink) (top)
Meatros Molten Ash Posts: 41	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) no, computers were made by men... since when has science enabled you to type to people many miles away? it is a glorified morse code machine, nothing more... <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Wow...I honestly don't know what to make of you. How did these men create computers? Magic? Who cares if it's a glorified morse code machine-that's a strawman fallacy of distraction ;)

Jan 27, 2004, 09:51 pm	#14 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	then don't make anything... computers are nothing but boxes filled with sequenced on/off switches... and no, it isn't a straw man, it is what it is... and you ignored the salient point about the inductive fallacy "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Jan 28, 2004, 08:30 am	#15 (permalink) (top)
Meatros Molten Ash Posts: 41	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) then don't make anything... computers are nothing but boxes filled with sequenced on/off switches... and no, it isn't a straw man, it is what it is... and you ignored the salient point about the inductive fallacy<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> It is a strawman. In any event, what 'salient point' did you make about inductive fallacies? You do realize that just because something is inductive does not make it a fallacy-right? In addition, science works on a number of principles. Then again, you seem to think that computers were made by magic and that they aren't complicated...

Jan 28, 2004, 01:02 pm	#16 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	no it is not a strawman, computers were made by humans and no, they aren't that complicated... build one sometime... an abacus is a computer the salient point was that science works on induction... science is based on an error... some inductions are mere probabilities while others are outright errors... neither is based on universal fact "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Jan 28, 2004, 02:37 pm	#17 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,471	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) no it is not a strawman, computers were made by humans and no, they aren't that complicated... build one sometime... an abacus is a computer the salient point was that science works on induction... science is based on an error... some inductions are mere probabilities while others are outright errors... neither is based on universal fact<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You are comparing a semiconductor device which works via the principle of quantum mechanics...to a thingy with counting beads. Now if thats not over simplification I don't know what is. War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Jan 28, 2004, 04:41 pm	#18 (permalink) (top)
damnrad Igneous Magma Posts: 264	The biggest current scam on the Creationist front (I capitalize Creationist to refer to those who reject science, not to include those who accept science but still believe that everything was still created by God) is 'Intelligent Design.' It's a particularly-slimy creationism that tries to hide it's religious roots by claiming that life must have had a designer but disclaiming any knowledge of or interest in said designer. It wants to put on the trappings of science, but it has no scientific agenda, no research program, no hypothesis testing. Instead it makes philosophical claims that 'undirected naturalism' could not have produced life as we know it (or any life, for that matter), and then claims that if it can disprove 'Darwinism,' then it wins by default. In this, it basically depends on an argument to ignorance, although it tries to obscure that as well. Some of the old Creationists reject ID as insufficiently Biblical, but many have jumped on its bandwagon because in it they see a promise of getting around judicial rulings against Creationism, including 'scientific creationism' -- i.e., in ID's hiding of its religion behind a cloud of obfuscation. Thus, many of the newer attacks on evolution (e.g., most recently in Ohio, Texas, Minnesota, and Missouri) have come at least to some extent under the rubric of ID.

Jan 28, 2004, 08:13 pm	#19 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (damnrad,) The biggest current scam on the Creationist front (I capitalize Creationist to refer to those who reject science, not to include those who accept science but still believe that everything was still created by God) is 'Intelligent Design.' It's a particularly-slimy creationism that tries to hide it's religious roots by claiming that life must have had a designer but disclaiming any knowledge of or interest in said designer. It wants to put on the trappings of science, but it has no scientific agenda, no research program, no hypothesis testing. Instead it makes philosophical claims that 'undirected naturalism' could not have produced life as we know it (or any life, for that matter), and then claims that if it can disprove 'Darwinism,' then it wins by default. In this, it basically depends on an argument to ignorance, although it tries to obscure that as well. Some of the old Creationists reject ID as insufficiently Biblical, but many have jumped on its bandwagon because in it they see a promise of getting around judicial rulings against Creationism, including 'scientific creationism' -- i.e., in ID's hiding of its religion behind a cloud of obfuscation. Thus, many of the newer attacks on evolution (e.g., most recently in Ohio, Texas, Minnesota, and Missouri) have come at least to some extent under the rubric of ID.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I am interested in this, because ID has been in direct part of the arguement from 'Creation Science' for a long time and a general belief of Theists that hold to the evolution model as the way God created existence. Does this change in emphasis or strategy change the basic thrust of central role of the Bible in the 'Creation Science' view. Do you have some references to help me. One thing I have seen lately is 'Creation Science' supporters have been trying to clean up their 'Act' and improve the basis of their scientific arguements. The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Jan 29, 2004, 12:14 am	#20 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pooeypants,) You are comparing a semiconductor device which works via the principle of quantum mechanics...to a thingy with counting beads. Now if thats not over simplification I don't know what is.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> oversimplification? have you ever heard of binary? what do you think your "semiconductor device" conducts? the only difference is in the number of beads (abacus) or switches (computer) they both work in exactly the same way "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...