237
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 946:
Line 946: +
Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (view source)
Revision as of 13:52, November 16, 2008
, 13:52, November 16, 2008Thats right, you are absolutely wrong
:::: "''...and because of that we got very little science done because people were happy saying that God did it...The God hypothesis is a science stopper...''": Absolutely wrong. Most of the founders of modern science were creationists and were scientists ''because'' they were creationists. Rather than it hindering their science, it was ''[[natural science#beginnings|responsible for]]'' modern science.
:::: "''...and because of that we got very little science done because people were happy saying that God did it...The God hypothesis is a science stopper...''": Absolutely wrong. Most of the founders of modern science were creationists and were scientists ''because'' they were creationists. Rather than it hindering their science, it was ''[[natural science#beginnings|responsible for]]'' modern science.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:21, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:21, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Can you list one possible observable anything that is inconsistent with the "divine hypothesis?" is there anything at all that it cannot encompass? Modern Evolution could not account for a snail with more genetic similarities to a human than to another snail, or a layer of fossils on top of younger fossils, or a number of other aberrations from the evidence. Given enough time I could probably generate a list of 1000 ways to test evolution, to test naturalism, can you think of one single way to test "God-did-it"? And yes the early scientists were all creationists, no other option existed, and oddly enough when there science left off they always wrote in "god-did-it" at the end, Newton figured out gravity but couldn't figure out how the different planets interacted, so at the end he wrote in that god steps in and realigns things every few hundred years, sadly that is counterevidence to your claim that scientists made progress because they assumes that God set up steady laws. I would stop this argument if you could show me the places in there papers where they write that they are assuming the laws of the physical world are constant because God Makes them that way, all I have seen to date are christians applying their own feeling to how the early scientists felt to the early scientists and claiming it as proof. I am open to the idea, but until that point I'm going to use Ockams razor and say that [1 scientists believes in god, 2 scientist assumes (for no apparent reason) God makes the laws stable, 3 scientists assumes that the laws are stable] introduces an extra and unneeded step and there for isn't as good as [Scientists assumes the laws are stable]. And yes clearly those are two quotes about a commitment to naturalism, because as I have said before, we cannot study the supernatural, we cannot test it there for we cannot develop testable hypothesis. It is possible that the entire universe was created only last thursday, but we cannot test it so we a priory assume that not to be the case, its a science stopper. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 08:52, 16 November 2008 (EST)Thats right, you are absolutely wrong