You tellin' me you ain't Amish?awip2062 wrote:17th Centrury?Nunavuter wrote: If only Creationists could move beyond the 17th Century, we'd be getting somewhere.
*looks about her house, at her clothing, at her computer....*
Bird Flu Hoax
Moderator: Priests of Syrinx
Do look around your house and ask yourself how it is that all those things exist.awip2062 wrote:17th Centrury?Nunavuter wrote: If only Creationists could move beyond the 17th Century, we'd be getting somewhere.
*looks about her house, at her clothing, at her computer....*
The business of science is the process of determining how things work in the natural world. The application of discoveries in thermodynamics, mechanics, electromagnetism, chemistry, materials science, and myriad other disciplines make those things possible.
But more profound than the production of technological toys is the knowledge of the interconnectedness of the principles governing nature. This was the great conceptual breakthrough.
The laws of gravitation that determine how an apple falls from a tree govern the motions of planets in orbit. The behaviour of electrons in a chemical reaction are congruent with those properties that govern the behaviour of circuits, including the complex circuitry of computers. Genetics unifies the laws of heredity long known by animal breeders and botanists with the processes that govern the emergence of new types of disease and strains that resist antibiotics.
As late as the 1700s people would store gunpowder in churches in the notion that god would not allow harm to befall a church, and therefore the gunpowder would be safe. Many a church was reduced to kindling after lightning struck the steeple. Ben Franklin would later demonstrate that lightning was a form of electricity, and it became apparent that the tallest structures in a given area were more likely to be hit due to the nature of electrical currents. A lightning rod to channel the current safely into the ground was the answer.
Creationists have no problems with the discoveries of science when these provide them with computers, cars and airplanes. They trust that radar actually works to help guide planes and track weather fronts. I'm sure that few doubt the reality of nuclear power plants, or the ability of geologists to locate oil deposits in the Earth's crust.
But if the Doppler shift that helps police catch speeders also suggests that the universe is vast and expanding, they cry foul. They believe science might know enough about the behaviour of atomic particles to build a nuclear reactor or an MRI machine, but it must be clueless when it comes to radiometric dating. Geologists can judge the prospects of locating oil in a stratigraphic layer based on the fossils they find there, or monitor mountain formation, earthquakes, volcanoes and track the motion of the continents using GPS, but surely their theories regarding the formation processes and the timelines involved are mistaken.
The selection by Creationists of the scientific theories that must be wrong is not based on the relative strengths of the theories, but rather the degree to which a given theory conflicts with their interpretion of a religious text.
The twin ironies in this exercise are both their need to find scientific "proofs" of their religious faith, and the false dichotomy that if a given scientific idea can be demonstrated to be false then their religious belief must be true. (The possibility that a different scientific theory or even a different religious concept might be more accurate is not entertained.)
As for the 17th century, that was when Bishop Ussher made his now famous calculation regarding the age of the Earth. It was also the century that saw the beginning of the scientific revolution.
Nowhere Toronto, nowhere to hide
-
ElfDude
- Posts: 11085
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 1:19 pm
- Location: In the shadows of the everlasting hills
- Contact:
Well... I dunno 'bout any of that. I ain't had much formal edumacation myself. Grampa taught me how t'mix whitewash, but we didn't git much further than that. The horse still needs shoein an the barn's roof is powerful leaky these days an I dunno how t'fix either o'them things.
But it seems to this ol'boy that the real question is did y'all come t'this here forum t'make friends or just t'fight with awip?
But it seems to this ol'boy that the real question is did y'all come t'this here forum t'make friends or just t'fight with awip?
Aren't you the guy who hit me in the eye?
I don't know if you came here just to have fun with everyone or just to fight with me, but this statement is something I want everyone to read a rebuttal to because it is a blanket statement and untrue as well.Nunavuter wrote:
The twin ironies in this exercise are both their need to find scientific "proofs" of their religious faith, and the false dichotomy that if a given scientific idea can be demonstrated to be false then their religious belief must be true. (The possibility that a different scientific theory or even a different religious concept might be more accurate is not entertained.)
While there may be some people out there who feel the need to have science "prove" their faith, I can tell you most definitely that is not the case with every single young earth creationist I have spoken with or read works by.
We don't NEED science to prove to us what we already believe. We believe.
Alos different scientific theories ARE looked at. The vast body of research done by YECs shows that to be true. (Not sure what you are meaning different religious concepts, other faith's concepts or other concepts within Chrisitianity?)
Onward and Upward!
LOL! Megadeth rocks! \m/CygnusX1 wrote:I'm with you Elfie...
my daddy told me long ago that I wazzint responsabull....I told him "not responsabull? I go to court when I havta!"
What do you mean, "i hurt your feelings"?
I didn't know you had any feelings.
What do you mean, "i ain't kind"?
I'm just not your kind.
What do you mean, "i couldn't be president, of the united states of
america"?
Tell me something, it's still "we the people", right?
Onward and Upward!