RE: Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)
January 8, 2011 at 2:32 am
(This post was last modified: January 8, 2011 at 2:54 am by orogenicman.)
"all of which are found within our solar system"
Correction. That should have read "all of whioch are found within our own galaxy". Sorry for the typo.
No one said the vatican is infallible, Statler. The point is that the Vatican observatory is a well respected scientific organization that conducts a broad range of astrononimcal research which is peer reviewed in respected scientific journals. And like every other astronomical observatory on the planet (none of which are run by creationists), they subscribe to the big bang theory and the fact that the universe is very very old.
As for the Apollo Space program, even if that were true, so what? Administrators at NASA aren't necessarily scientists, and they don't set space science policy. Congress does.
Perhaps you could enlighten us as to who, exactly, these creationists are who have worked at some of the most prestigious labs and observatories in the world. The only one I am aware of WAS Dr. Francis Collins, the former director of the human genome project. The bad news for you is that he has renounced creationism.
And Statler, actually, none of those models work because there is no evidence for any of them. Why? Because they need facts, they need to be verifiable/repeatable, and none of those "theories" fit the prerequisites for sound science. And Statler, distant starlight is actually a death sentence for YEC. Frankly, that you would even bother to try to promote such nonsense is just sad.
Statler, I'm still waiting for you to address my post #232. Well?
This is a false statement. The entire argument of creationism can be boiled down to "God did it". And there is nothing physical or scientific in making such an unsupportable axiomatic declaration.
Ahem. "God did it" doesn't explain anything. Got anything else?
Correction. That should have read "all of whioch are found within our own galaxy". Sorry for the typo.
Quote:I was beginning to think maybe you had fallen into a tar pit or something somewhere. The Vatican is not infallible. Actually several creationists have worked at some of the most prestigious labs and observatories in the world. After all, the Apollo space program was headed by a YEC. As to your other posts, actually all three of those models work perfectly fine; we are just waiting to see which one presents itself as the best explanation. Distant starlight is not a problem to a biblical creation. Good to see you again though OGM, I like the avatar.
No one said the vatican is infallible, Statler. The point is that the Vatican observatory is a well respected scientific organization that conducts a broad range of astrononimcal research which is peer reviewed in respected scientific journals. And like every other astronomical observatory on the planet (none of which are run by creationists), they subscribe to the big bang theory and the fact that the universe is very very old.
As for the Apollo Space program, even if that were true, so what? Administrators at NASA aren't necessarily scientists, and they don't set space science policy. Congress does.
Perhaps you could enlighten us as to who, exactly, these creationists are who have worked at some of the most prestigious labs and observatories in the world. The only one I am aware of WAS Dr. Francis Collins, the former director of the human genome project. The bad news for you is that he has renounced creationism.
And Statler, actually, none of those models work because there is no evidence for any of them. Why? Because they need facts, they need to be verifiable/repeatable, and none of those "theories" fit the prerequisites for sound science. And Statler, distant starlight is actually a death sentence for YEC. Frankly, that you would even bother to try to promote such nonsense is just sad.
Statler, I'm still waiting for you to address my post #232. Well?
Quote:Creationists are using a systematic approach to obtain knowledge about the physical world.
This is a false statement. The entire argument of creationism can be boiled down to "God did it". And there is nothing physical or scientific in making such an unsupportable axiomatic declaration.
Quote:Creationism provides an explanation for the natural and physical world so I am sorry, by definition it is a physical and natural science.
Ahem. "God did it" doesn't explain anything. Got anything else?
'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.'
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "
- Dr. Donald Prothero
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "
- Dr. Donald Prothero
