nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 498:
Line 498: + + + + +
→"Many" atheists edit: More on eyewitnesses
::::::::::: That's begging the question, because according to those (us) creationists, there ''have been'' eyewitnesses, such as Adam, Noah, etc., and of course God. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:01, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::: That's begging the question, because according to those (us) creationists, there ''have been'' eyewitnesses, such as Adam, Noah, etc., and of course God. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:01, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::And many biologists would claim to be witnesses to evolution, and geologists would claim to be witnesses to a 4.5 billion year old earth. How are you choosing who counts as a witness and who doesn't? --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 18:19, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::And many biologists would claim to be witnesses to evolution, and geologists would claim to be witnesses to a 4.5 billion year old earth. How are you choosing who counts as a witness and who doesn't? --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 18:19, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::: It is absolute nonsense to suggest that biologists have observed the evolutionary family tree from first cell to human, or even any stage of that like dinosaurs turning into birds. The same applies to the geology. No geologist has seen the supposed 4.5 billion years of the Earth's history. Virtually all of these events supposedly occurred before humans appeared on the planet, so that claim is abusing the term "eyewitness". If a person claimed to a judge that they witnessed a bank robbery because they saw the sign on the door saying that it was closed because of a robbery he would likely be charged with contempt of court. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:20, 2 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::Not sure why you insists so much on eyewitnesses. It is known that they are particularly reliable sources of evidence. Either way, in empirical science nothing is absolute certain. People who believe that a scientific theory is absolute certain can't be scientists. Only religion tries to give absolute certainties. You can't apply the mindset of religion to science. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:07, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::Not sure why you insists so much on eyewitnesses. It is known that they are particularly reliable sources of evidence. Either way, in empirical science nothing is absolute certain. People who believe that a scientific theory is absolute certain can't be scientists. Only religion tries to give absolute certainties. You can't apply the mindset of religion to science. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:07, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::: In one sense, eyewitnesses are all that you have. Even current scientific research of, for example, chemicals, is eyewitnesses (the scientists) reporting what they have seen (through the microscope). For historical events, such as events in ancient Rome, eyewitnesses are virtually all we have to go on (or later accounts based on earlier accounts going back to the original witnesses; but even there the closer the accounts are to the original, the more accurate they are generally considered to be). Archaeologists can glean some information from stone artifacts, pottery fragments, etc., but the best source of information is written documents, i.e. written accounts by eyewitnesses or based ultimately on eyewitness accounts.
::::::::::: Scientists will claim/admit (depending on the circumstances) that nothing in science can be absolutely certain, but when it comes to evolution and long ages (among other things), they ''effectively'' say that it is certain. Evolution is no longer a "theory" (in the layman sense of "uncertain"), but "fact", and no alternative view (creation or intelligent design) is allowed to be considered.
::::::::::: I agree that you can't (shouldn't) apply the principles of religion to science, as "religion" claims certainty because it is the revelation of the omniscient and infallible God, which science isn't. So why does science claim that God got it wrong?
::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:20, 2 December 2007 (EST)
==Tides and the earth-moon distance==
==Tides and the earth-moon distance==