Ashens #fundie

Ashens #fundie conservapedia.com

You state that "scientific theories are 1) falsifiable. 2) based on natural, not-supernatural, phenomena. 3) based on observation or experiment." With regards to 1, creationism isn't falsifiable because we know it's the Truth and so can never be assumed false. But why should creationism be excluded because it doesn't suffer from the same attributes as Man's fallible beliefs? With regards to 2, if "scientists" arbitarily reject a whole class of theories a priori, can they really be thinking scientifically. Science is supposed to be a search for truth, regardless of what that truth may be. As for 3, creationism IS based on observation and experiment, unlike Darwinism. According to Genesis, animals reproduce after their own kind, which is precisely what we see. What we DON'T see is cats giving birth to dogs, or apes giving birth to humans.

63 comments

old comment by Rat of Steel

"You state that 'scientific theories are 1) falsifiable (...) With regards to 1, creationism isn't falsifiable (...) But why should creationism be excluded because it doesn't suffer from the same attributes as Man's fallible beliefs?"

What's sad is that the OP probably doesn't even realize that s/he answered his/her own question better than anyone else could.

"With regards to 1, creationism isn't falsifiable because we know it's the Truth and so can never be assumed false."

In the immortal words of the Lone Ranger's sidekick, Tonto:
"What do you mean, 'we', paleface?"

"With regards to 2, if "scientists" arbitarily reject a whole class of theories a priori, can they really be thinking scientifically?"

Yes. Moving right along...

"Science is supposed to be a search for truth, regardless of what that truth may be."

*BZZZT!*
You're thinking of philosophy. Science concerns itself with facts, not truth. Trust me; there is a difference.

"As for 3, creationism IS based on observation and experiment, unlike Darwinism. According to Genesis, animals reproduce after their own kind, which is precisely what we see. What we DON'T see is cats giving birth to dogs, or apes giving birth to humans."

Now, this part is simply too chock-full of fail to dignify with any response beyond this one.

old comment by

@Rat of Steel

"You're thinking of philosophy. Science concerns itself with facts, not truth. Trust me; there is a difference."

The sentiment the fundie was expressing was ironically correct - science does indeed attempt to search for the truth, based on the facts (as opposed to creationism which seeks to only look at the evidence that supports a predisposed notion). Science tries to make the best, and most honest interpretation of the facts, which encompasses the idea of searching for the 'truth', e.g.: trying to develop an honest, unbiased understanding of the development of species as with evolution. Obviously, science does not claim infallibility, thus it allows for change.

Admittedly, your point of view does work that way in journalism where the media only cares about the facts, i.e. what everyone is saying, and doesn't necessarily always try to sort the truth from the lies, because even if something's bullshit sometimes the media doesn't care as long as the story sells, but I don't think it applies to science. Good science looks at the facts, and trying to be as honest as possible, comes up with an interpretation of the evidence, attempting to be unbiased. The key word being 'good' here, creationism obviously being bad science.

I think your criticism here is being too bit nit-picky. Just attack the fundie irony next time. >_>

old comment by Paler_Face

1) Falsifiability doesn't work that way. A theory must be potentially dis-provable, and must not be true under all possible conditions, or it explains nothing, just as 'god did it' explains nothing.
Just stating that something is 'The Truth' doesn't make it so.
2) It's not an arbitrary rejection if there is no evidence for your 'theory'. The supernatural can, by definition, not be examined, or proven to exist, and is therefore rejected by science.
Occam's razor is another reason to exclude your 'theories': the theory that invokes the fewest unknown entities is preferred, and the existence of an entire dimension of supernatural things is a hell of a lot of unknown entities.
3) There is no observation of a divine being creating something ex nihilo, and no experiment can be done to show that he/she/it/they ever did.
And evolution doesn't propose preposterous propositions like cats giving birth to dogs. Apes do give birth to humans, if the apes in question are human, because humans are still apes right now.

Ashens #fundie conservapedia.com

63 comments

Confused?