Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: grey_whiskers

Too shallow...perhaps it'd be better to say as "necessarily both necessary and sufficient" for proof.

No, I stated my reasoning. The above would be another discusion.

However I will give that creationests attempt to use science to disprove science.

If you have a flawed theory of how to build an airplane, and you insist on the theory, the airplane will correct it by crashing to the ground."

I would ask how many airplanes were built on faith?


321 posted on 07/23/2005 2:14:36 PM PDT by jec41 (Screaming Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies ]


To: jec41

and

and

and

and

I'm still looking for an mpeg of the movie of the guy with the tail strapped to his back attempting to "flap" wooden wings and get off the ground. (He didn't make it).

323 posted on 07/23/2005 2:39:02 PM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 321 | View Replies ]

To: jec41
If you have a flawed theory of how to build an airplane, and you insist on the theory, the airplane will correct it by crashing to the ground."

Too shallow...perhaps it'd be better to say as "necessarily both necessary and sufficient" for proof.

No, I stated my reasoning. The above would be another discusion.

Leave it for now; I interpreted your remarks as saying that *most* or *all* religious people of a certain bent reject experimental evidence; in my experience it is not that they always reject experiment on principle, but that they do not consider experimental evidence to be *absolutely* and *always* the last word...they reserve the right of skepticism towards scientific findings.

Sometimes it is due to the suspicion a given experiment was flawed, or was executed poorly, or they have philosophical reservations.

You can find similar attitudes towards mainstream *medicine* by those who advocate non-traditional, or holistic, or nutritional treatment of diseases. It is not exclusively religious in origin.

I would ask how many airplanes were built on faith?

That wasn't my point--my point is that I was able to quote a well known anti-evolutionary author who nonetheless endorsed empiricism and logical thought. It was a counterexample to the claim you had made in an earlier post.

If you wish to say "many such people" reject empiricism, or even "most anti-evo people on the crevo threads" I'd agree.

Cheers!

324 posted on 07/23/2005 2:39:42 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 321 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson