As a result of viewing the Hot Deals forum posts, it seems that many Anandtechers believe in "creation science." I would just like to know why.
Creation Science?
- Thread starter DielsAlder
- Start date
Creation science is an oxymoron. Those that spout such gibberish can skip the oxy. :disgust:
Just MHO. YOMV
Just MHO. YOMV
I think this sums up my opinion of the so-called "creationists" and their ridiculous attempts to disprove the findings of real science:
"I am sometimes accused of arrogant intolerance in my treatment of creationists. Of course, arrogance is an unpleasant characteristic, and I should hate to be thought arrogant in a general way. But there are limits! To get some idea of what it is like being a professional student of evolution, asked to have a serious debate with creationists, the following comparison is a fair one. Imagine yourself a classical scholar who has spent a lifetime studying Roman history in all its rich detail. Now somebody comes along, with a degree in marine engineering or medieval musicology, and tries to argue that the Romans never existed. Wouldn't you find it hard to suppress your impatience? And mightn't it look a bit like arrogance?"
-Richard Dawkins
"I am sometimes accused of arrogant intolerance in my treatment of creationists. Of course, arrogance is an unpleasant characteristic, and I should hate to be thought arrogant in a general way. But there are limits! To get some idea of what it is like being a professional student of evolution, asked to have a serious debate with creationists, the following comparison is a fair one. Imagine yourself a classical scholar who has spent a lifetime studying Roman history in all its rich detail. Now somebody comes along, with a degree in marine engineering or medieval musicology, and tries to argue that the Romans never existed. Wouldn't you find it hard to suppress your impatience? And mightn't it look a bit like arrogance?"
-Richard Dawkins
NART
Please use the search function, download the 5,000 threads on this subject, print them out and go roll around in them like a dog in excrement. That is all they are good for.
Please use the search function, download the 5,000 threads on this subject, print them out and go roll around in them like a dog in excrement. That is all they are good for.
LOL, you are correct sir. Brevity is a rare gift, and one that I (and R. Dawkins) hope to one day possess.I think that's what I said, but in far fewer words.
Real Science? There is Factual Science,that which can be repeated in a lab, and Theory which is just that, theory....So, I guess you are guilty of a 'ridiculous attempt!'
*sigh* Must I explain the difference between the term "theory" as understood by a layperson and that used by scientists? Your post only serves to prove my point that "creationists" do not have the slightest understanding of even the most basic scientific terminology, much less more complex issues like evolution.
Rather than type up yet another explanation I'll just post Isaac Asimov's thoughts on the topic of scientific theories:
"Creationists frequently stress the fact that evolution is 'only a theory', giving the impression that a theory is an idle guess. A scientist, one gathers, arising one morning with nothing particular to do, decided that perhaps the moon is made of Roquefort cheese and instantly advances the 'Roquefort-cheese theory'.
"A theory (as the word is used by scientists) is a detailed description of some facet of the universe's workings that is based on long observation and, where possible, experiment. It is the result of careful reasoning from these observations and experiments that has survived the critical study of scientists generally. For example, we have the description of the cellular nature of living organisms (the 'cell theory'); of objects attracting each other according to fixed rule (the 'theory of gravitation'); of energy behaving in discrete bits (the 'quantum theory'); of light traveling through a vacuum at a fixed measurable velocity (the 'theory of relativity'), and so on.
"All are theories; all are firmly founded; all are accepted as valid descriptions of this or that aspect of the universe. They are neither guesses nor speculations. And no theory is better founded, more closely examined, more critically argued and more thoroughly accepted, than the theory of evolution. If it is 'only' a theory, that is all it has to be.
"Creationism, on the other hand, is not a theory. There is no evidence, in the scientific sense, that supports it. Creationism, or at least the particular variety accepted by many Americans, is an expression of early Middle Eastern legend. It is fairly described as 'only a myth'."
-Isaac Asimov
Whatever it is, it shouldn't be a science. It should be renamed "Creation Belief..." although Creation Hoodwink would be a better description.
Oh? Forgive my complete ignorance of science! I get it now. You are saying all Theory is fact! Now wasn't that easy?:disgust:
Tominator -- Just so we have our terms straight:
A theory is a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of observed phenomena which have been verified to some degree. It takes only one disproof to blow a theory apart.
A theorem is a proposition that is not necessarily self-evident, but that can be proven by accepted premises or scientific laws so that it is accepted as a law or principle.
Science is systematized knowledge derived from obsevation, study, and experimentation undertaken to determine the nature or principles of that which is being studied.
For example, the theory of evolution is supported by observable and observed phenomena. It is supported by repeatable and repeated experimentation, and it has never been disproven, even once. That is why it remains a valid theory.
Creation "science" is NOT science by any stretch of the imagination, and its underlying "theories" are readily disproved by observation.
A theory is a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of observed phenomena which have been verified to some degree. It takes only one disproof to blow a theory apart.
A theorem is a proposition that is not necessarily self-evident, but that can be proven by accepted premises or scientific laws so that it is accepted as a law or principle.
Science is systematized knowledge derived from obsevation, study, and experimentation undertaken to determine the nature or principles of that which is being studied.
For example, the theory of evolution is supported by observable and observed phenomena. It is supported by repeatable and repeated experimentation, and it has never been disproven, even once. That is why it remains a valid theory.
Creation "science" is NOT science by any stretch of the imagination, and its underlying "theories" are readily disproved by observation.
Good definitions Harvey, but where did I EVER, in this thread or another, call Creationism science?
Or you could download hivemasters ~95 posts and get the same effect. It would be a lot quicker though.
He assumed something that was wrong. Just like most theories are assumed to be correct, most over time are modified to a greater or lessor extent. You cannot modify fact by definition.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 9K
-
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter