I say again, "creationism" is not a theory (not falsifiable) and flies in the face of observation. See my last paragraph.
The bible is not a theory. The bible is not an authority. It is a badly written portmanteau of borrowed mythology. It certainly is not "peer reviewed". Quoting it, even for things like "beams and motes" contributes nothing to discussions and certainly has the potential to offend others who do not subscribe to the same myths as yourself.
re "He is simply buying into and blindly following current, popular scientific thought." "Blindly following" is not a scientific concept at all. It is a religious one. The scientific method works by invalidating old ideas and subjecting proposals to peer review. So all good science is always both "current" and in a sense "popular". Seek for new epithets.
The following quotation is as close to a classic example of "straw man", "Ad verecundiam", "ad ignorantum" and incorrect capitalization as I have ever seen wrapped up into one sentence. Evolution does not speak to "seeing" DNA, nor to the existence of Darwin. While the idea of a god or gods is the prime mover behind the myths of most religions. As for "seeing gods", who cares. Hallucinations are easily generated. A solitary "vision of god" would do nothing other than casting some doubt on the sanity or veracity and certainly the common sense of the viewer.
I often hear the argument from evolutionary types; "Have you ever seen God"; the same argument can be applied to atheists; "Have you ever seen a double helix?"; "Have you ever seen Darwin"? To the former question--few, the latter--NOBODY.
Have you ever had "flu" before? Do you expect to have "flu" again? Don't you develop antibodies to the "flu" the 1st time round [Yes]? Why don't they protect you the next time around? Could oit be that the "flu" has changed enough to bypass your immune system [Yes]? What is this an example of [Evolution]? Are there more examples of evolution at work [Many]? Are there theories to explain these examples [Yes]?
TheHermit
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com]On Behalf
Of MICHAEL.FULFORD.HD2O@statefarm.com
Sent: Monday, February 08, 1999 12:16 PM
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: Re: virus: 'Faith' in science.
On 2/8/99 11:05, MICHAEL.FULFORD.HD2O@statefarm.com said this-
>Is there any fundamental difference between this example and a religious
>person who reads the bible and accepts it as truth?
Yes, there is. Now, it's your job to tell me, since I do not want to hear a ventriloquist.
morbius@channel1.com
wade_smith@harvard.edu
**************************************
Well, all puppetry aside, I'm not exactly sure that there is a
difference--in
the example I gave. If a Christian has a goal of defending creationism and
quotes the bible or another apologetic source then he himself is just
propogating another's work or theory. When an atheist does the same (a la'
"If
you want to defend evolution, buy The Blind Watchmaker"), he is being no
more
"rational", "logical" or "scientific" than our religious friend. He is
simply
buying into and blindly following current, popular scientific thought.
I often hear the argument from evolutionary types; "Have you ever seen God"; the same argument can be applied to atheists; "Have you ever seen a double helix?"; "Have you ever seen Darwin"? To the former question--few, the latter--NOBODY.
I don't think the proverbial "proof" is always in the pudding.
Tag, you're it!
Michael Fulford
Devil's Advocate