nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 605:
Line 605: + + + + +
→Creationist Scientists - Oxymoron: rerunning experiments and artifacts occurring naturally
::::::::::::::Incidentally, the indent is getting slightly absurd; if you don't have any objection, I'll move this discussion to its own section. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:29, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::::::Incidentally, the indent is getting slightly absurd; if you don't have any objection, I'll move this discussion to its own section. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:29, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::You may not be able to ''directly'' observe what happens in a cloud chamber, but it ''can'' be observed, with instruments measuring what's happening, etc. And you can run the experiments as many times as you like to test alternative hypotheses. As I said, you can't "rerun the experiment" of dinosaurs turning into birds to observe (measure) what happens.
:::::::::::::::ID doesn't speculate about ''who'' the designer is, but it does propose ''some'' things about the designer, such as being intelligent and capable of designing genetic systems. I don't think that this is much different to a human designer, about whom archaeologists may not know much, other than that the human designer is capable of creating the stone tool. In some cases they may know more (e.g. what type of tools particular people groups produced), but in other cases, it is enough to simply propose a human designer on the basis that the artifact could not occur "naturally" (i.e. by non-human means).
:::::::::::::::I've no objection to you moving the discussion.
:::::::::::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:24, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
::I just don't see how you can use the term "scientist" when creationism involves no science and cannot be tested. I would also think that, for all the venom that is slung at science by the supporters of Creationism, that they wouldn't want that label attached to their cause.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 10:58, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::I just don't see how you can use the term "scientist" when creationism involves no science and cannot be tested. I would also think that, for all the venom that is slung at science by the supporters of Creationism, that they wouldn't want that label attached to their cause.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 10:58, 26 March 2007 (EDT)