Comment Re:Very disingenuous argument (Score 1) 279
But I am open-minded enough to see that the serious creationists raise some very scientifically valid points.
No, they don't. Let me explain why - If theory X is wrong, that doesn't prove theory Y is right.
Or specifically, if evolution has drawbacks, that doesn't prove creationism.
Basically, all the "scientifically valid points" of creationism consists of pointing at loopholes in scientific theories, that's pretty much it. Let me explain another fallacy of creationists - you think that because nobody can disprove your theory, it's correct. This is totally stupid
I can claim that the universe was created today at 11 AM by God, with all the fossils, memories and things in motion. There, prove me wrong. Or I can claim that there there is a purple jello ball at the center of Pluto. Nobody can prove me wrong, so it must be right.
Do you understand this? In science, you try to prove something, you don't make a claim and assume it's correct unless someone disproves it.
that anyone with a religious worldview is automatically excluded from consideration
Nobody is excluding anyone based on this. If you have any evidence, submit it to a recognized journal. It gets peer reviewed and published if it's valid. What you are doing is NOT SUBMITTING any evidence and then claiming you're being dismissed. This is a little like throwing your article in your desk drawer and whining that every newspaper is ignoring you.
although science reveals certain truths, our understanding of them is often woefully incomplete
Wait, what are you saying - that religion explains everything?
I get tired of hearing this over and over - of course science is incomplete! Who said science is total and explains every fucking thing that exists? When William Harvey explained the cardiovascular system, it explained just that - it doesn't explain the entire universe and astrophysics. When Dirac explained anti-matter, it explained precisely that - nobody is claiming that it explains everything in existence.
OTOH, religion explains nothing at any level, of any phenomenon. It just puts forth a hypothesis and claims it is correct unless someone disproves it. (Read the purple jello example above for why this is stupid).
I strongly disagree with your assertion that only the quantitative is true. There are many things in life which are demonstrably
true but which cannot be quantified, including (but not limited to) all things which have an as-yet-undiscovered scientific explanation.
I didn't say only the quantitative is true - I said a valid theory has to be quantitative. OTOH, vague subjective theories can neither be proved right nor wrong - like your statement above.
Science...attempting to force-fit it is a bit like driving screws with a hammer.
To explain biological phenomena with science is force fitting? Then why do you go to a doctor or dentist? that's all they use.
The only thing science is being fit into is factual phenomena. It's only the religious wackos who think otherwise. Maybe you can correct me...
flood waters went was a prticularly bad choice in light of the fact that I included a link in my original post
Read it. It says that water is seeping into the mantle.
Does this prove the flood? Of course not, but it should make an open-minded person think, at least.
So you're saying it doesn't prove anything. Just wondering...why did you ask me to read it then? Just to bring us all up to date on geophysics? :)
Wooly Mammoth.
PS - I still have to get any evidence or factual stuff. If you give me another link about water movement and ask me to think about how creationism is valid, I'll give you a link about Saturn's movement and ask you to think about Heaven's Gate...
No, they don't. Let me explain why - If theory X is wrong, that doesn't prove theory Y is right.
Or specifically, if evolution has drawbacks, that doesn't prove creationism.
Basically, all the "scientifically valid points" of creationism consists of pointing at loopholes in scientific theories, that's pretty much it. Let me explain another fallacy of creationists - you think that because nobody can disprove your theory, it's correct. This is totally stupid
I can claim that the universe was created today at 11 AM by God, with all the fossils, memories and things in motion. There, prove me wrong. Or I can claim that there there is a purple jello ball at the center of Pluto. Nobody can prove me wrong, so it must be right.
Do you understand this? In science, you try to prove something, you don't make a claim and assume it's correct unless someone disproves it.
that anyone with a religious worldview is automatically excluded from consideration
Nobody is excluding anyone based on this. If you have any evidence, submit it to a recognized journal. It gets peer reviewed and published if it's valid. What you are doing is NOT SUBMITTING any evidence and then claiming you're being dismissed. This is a little like throwing your article in your desk drawer and whining that every newspaper is ignoring you.
although science reveals certain truths, our understanding of them is often woefully incomplete
Wait, what are you saying - that religion explains everything?
I get tired of hearing this over and over - of course science is incomplete! Who said science is total and explains every fucking thing that exists? When William Harvey explained the cardiovascular system, it explained just that - it doesn't explain the entire universe and astrophysics. When Dirac explained anti-matter, it explained precisely that - nobody is claiming that it explains everything in existence.
OTOH, religion explains nothing at any level, of any phenomenon. It just puts forth a hypothesis and claims it is correct unless someone disproves it. (Read the purple jello example above for why this is stupid).
I strongly disagree with your assertion that only the quantitative is true. There are many things in life which are demonstrably
true but which cannot be quantified, including (but not limited to) all things which have an as-yet-undiscovered scientific explanation.
I didn't say only the quantitative is true - I said a valid theory has to be quantitative. OTOH, vague subjective theories can neither be proved right nor wrong - like your statement above.
Science...attempting to force-fit it is a bit like driving screws with a hammer.
To explain biological phenomena with science is force fitting? Then why do you go to a doctor or dentist? that's all they use.
The only thing science is being fit into is factual phenomena. It's only the religious wackos who think otherwise. Maybe you can correct me...
flood waters went was a prticularly bad choice in light of the fact that I included a link in my original post
Read it. It says that water is seeping into the mantle.
Does this prove the flood? Of course not, but it should make an open-minded person think, at least.
So you're saying it doesn't prove anything. Just wondering...why did you ask me to read it then? Just to bring us all up to date on geophysics?
Wooly Mammoth.
PS - I still have to get any evidence or factual stuff. If you give me another link about water movement and ask me to think about how creationism is valid, I'll give you a link about Saturn's movement and ask you to think about Heaven's Gate...
