Talk:Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong

From Conservapedia
This is the current revision of Talk:Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong as edited by TerryH (Talk | contribs) at 22:41, December 25, 2007. This URL is a permanent link to this version of this page.

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

"I reject your reality and substitute my own !" -- Mythbuster -- Terryeo 14:30, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Cute. I gather you think that I am faking reality. But who's to say? Under postmodernism, everyone makes whatever reality feels good to him, no?--TerryHTalk 14:36, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Render unto Caesar's science adviser?

Leave to science what is science and to God what is Gods. Why do they need to conflict? I'm guessing you are trying to back up creationism here. Reality is reality, there may be more than two ways at determining how to solve a mathematical equation; The solution will always be the same though. ModerateCatholic 16:12, 25 December 2007 (EST)

The only reason why I do not reject the above as irrelevant is that it serves as a near-perfect illustration of what I mean by the basic problem. Creationism does not accept uniformitarianism, gradualism, or any of the other schools of thought that produce tremendous ages for the earth. Nowhere is uniformitarianism or gradualism definitely established; these are merely asserted. The time during which such assertions would be acceptable as "just-so stories" about the early earth is past.
The mathematical equation might indeed have a fixed solution set. But how do you know that you have the right cofactors and constants for it? How do you know that the constants are truly constant and that first derivatives are not actually second, third, or fourth? Making predictions about a duration of history that goes far beyond any written (as in, by man) record is hazardous at best.--TerryHTalk 17:41, 25 December 2007 (EST)