nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 65:
Line 65: + + + + +
→Secular Science: Newton's laws not a valid analogy
:::::I'm going to combine my literal/allegorical interpretation response below. As for why would they reject a reliable source: if you were to reject Newton's laws, and start from observation and the scientific method, you would still result in deriving Newton's laws. If creation scientists can't reject the Bible and still conclude it is correct, how do they know it is even an accurate resource? They have faith that it is, but faith is not science. And despite the fact that we are talking about history, you can use science to investigate history. You can't determine everything with 100% certainty (at least until we invent time travel), but you can certainly get a good idea of what is happening.
:::::I'm going to combine my literal/allegorical interpretation response below. As for why would they reject a reliable source: if you were to reject Newton's laws, and start from observation and the scientific method, you would still result in deriving Newton's laws. If creation scientists can't reject the Bible and still conclude it is correct, how do they know it is even an accurate resource? They have faith that it is, but faith is not science. And despite the fact that we are talking about history, you can use science to investigate history. You can't determine everything with 100% certainty (at least until we invent time travel), but you can certainly get a good idea of what is happening.
:::::I don't care if you find the explanation hard to accept; this entire discussion you have been interpreting everything I say in the most difficult possible way. How hard is it to understand that if one studies "science" they are a "scientist?" If you buy it for one you must buy it for the other, otherwise you are just being argumentitive. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 14:05, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::I don't care if you find the explanation hard to accept; this entire discussion you have been interpreting everything I say in the most difficult possible way. How hard is it to understand that if one studies "science" they are a "scientist?" If you buy it for one you must buy it for the other, otherwise you are just being argumentitive. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 14:05, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::: The difference between Newton's laws and the origin of the world is that the Newton's laws are ''observable''; the origin of the world is not. That's why the latter is "history" and the former is not history. Thus your analogy is invalid.
:::::: How do creation scientists know that creation is correct without referring to the Bible? As scientists, they can't, just as evolutionary scientists can't know that their story is correct. But unlike the evolutionary scientists, they have reliable historical documents that reveal the history to them.
:::::: I'm sorry if you think that I've been interpreting your comments "in the most difficult possible way", but I've encountered so many people who, for example, simply reject that creation scientist are scientists ''simply because they are creationists'', that I find that I have to drill right down to what they are actually thinking and challenge their presuppositions before it's possible to properly discuss the issue.
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:07, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
== Failure to include information ==
== Failure to include information ==