15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry?? Creationism & science part II

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by ~The_Chosen~, Aug 22, 2002.

  1. ~The_Chosen~ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,047
    This was a response to 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

    15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry: A point by point response to Scientific American

    Interesting enough. I'd like to know people's opinions.

    One thing is pointed out though, they attack evolution but never review themselves in a critical manner...how sad...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    LMAO!!!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Funny...well, let's get the debate on!!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Adam §Þ@ç€ MØnk€¥ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,415
    Why didn't they just called it "15 ways to deny reality"?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,109
    From another article linked to from the article linked above: "If God created the universe, then who created God?" --Jonathan Sarfati
    As if the question is more illogical than the reasoning: We say god exists (though it can't be proven), and we say god exists outside time and space (though it can't be proven), therefore god exists outside time and space (though it can't be proven), therefore god is timeless and uncreated (though it can't be proven), therefore to ask how god came to be is illogical because our definition automatically renders it so (in part, because it can't be proven). QED"

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    And that is the well-spring of creationism and of creationists logical defense of it, as well as their opposition to naturalism and materialism.
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2002
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. wet1 Wanderer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,616
    After reading the link provided by ~The_Chosen~, I wonder if Tony1 was around at the writing of the responce. It has remarkable overtones of which we see the like of within sciforums. In fact much to my amazement, it looks a lot like what goes on here.
     
  8. le coq Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    75
    Data, please?

    Which are two different forms of scientific process. To observe gorillas in the wild to confirm a hypothesis about their behavior, you don't capture them and put them in a lab. Your conclusions are still subject to the same standard of peer review as a repeatable experiment.

    I could go on, but alas... I'm tired of reading this kind of stuff. My hats off to the soldiers out there in the courts and schools keeping this crap from passing as science.

    This article is a political and moral tract, a refutation in Christian argumentative terms (preaching to the choir), but hardly a logical analysis of Mr. Rennie's statements. This isn't even a scientific article, just an article about a scientific article.

    le coq
     
  9. Adam §Þ@ç€ MØnk€¥ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,415
    USA? Most scientifically advanced nation? HAHAHAHAHA!!!!
     
  10. Clockwood You Forgot Poland Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,467
    America is only so advanced because we have a lot of previously unexploited land that is arable and mineral rich, and a government that cant afford to be OPENLY corrupt.

    In other words, we have had it good from the start. England, on the other hand, had to make do with a tiny piece of land that has been molested for the last 2000 years.
     
  11. Voodoo Child Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,296
    Then you would suppose that American science was at its greatest back in the days of the Puritians, buckles and The Crucible.
     
  12. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,109
    Okay. I'll bite.

    Give us the OZ perspective on which is the "Most scientifically advanced nation", if it's not the USA?

    This I've got to hear.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. Adam §Þ@ç€ MØnk€¥ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,415
    Given our concentration of population in rather new cities, Australia beats the USA.

    For general literacy and numeracy, USA is beaten by Australia, Sweden, Japan, and a bunch of other places.

    USA Probably wins on sheer volume spent on research, but all benefits are not distributed among the society.
     
  14. Clockwood You Forgot Poland Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,467
    countries on previously virgin land always have more vitality than older countries. Why? Because they have more unused rescources, no archaic and crippleing laws, fewer nonindustrial or residential buildings, and those who live there are of a pioneer mentality.

    Due to its core of unarable land Australia will eat the rest of us alive soon enough. (metaphorically)
     
  15. Adam §Þ@ç€ MØnk€¥ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,415
    Unfortunately you're very right. We're already facing this now.
     

Share This Page