--- In
DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, "E.L. Green" wrote:
>
> --- In
DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, Doug Herr wrote:
> > On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, E.L. Green wrote:
> > > problem. I know what the reality is (i.e., when my filter is
clogged up my bike
> overheats),
> > > and am working backwards towards a theory to explain it. This
is what's called the
> > > "scientific method", as vs. starting off with an interesting
theory then ignoring all
> evidence
> > > if said evidence doesn't match the theory, which is called
the "religious method".
> >
> > Switched over to "NKLR", so that I can bicker:
> >
> > Both induction *and* deduction are part of "scientific method":
>
> It is the "ignoring all evidence if said evidence doesn't match the
theory" part, not the
> induction vs deduction part, which differentiates the "religious
method" from the
> scientific method. For example, there are certain people who
believe that the world was
> created in seven days some 16,000 years ago. Any evidence to the
contrary, such as
> analysis of decay products of radioactive substances showing a much
longer lifespan for
> the planet Earth, is utterly ignored. They pretty much do a
Sergeant Schultz, "I hear no-
> THINK! I see no-THINK!". This is the "religious method".
>
> BTW, my Unitarian Jihad name is Brother Hand Grenade of
Rationality
. (If you don't
> know what I'm talking about, Google "Unitarian Jihad", one of
satirist Jon Carroll's most
> brilliant creations).
>
> -E
Eric,
I'll go out on a limb here--at the risk of a few concerted chuckles:
IRT to your post:
(ERIC'S WORDS) For example, there are certain people who believe that
the world was created in seven days some 16,000 years ago. Any
evidence to the contrary, such as analysis of decay products of
radioactive substances showing a much longer lifespan for the planet
Earth, is utterly ignored.
Yes, those zealots are annoying I am deliberately being kind. It is
actually pointless to engage them in any kind of `faith-based' OR
scientific discussion. Smile. They have forgotten their heritage of
discussion and discovery, as well as searching to know the entire
content or who and what God can do
Enough of throwing stones.
My favorite phrase gleaned at seminary, to those that purport the
thoughts you have suggested,
"Quiet frankly, the evidence God left behind of his creative process,
does not substantiate that theory (literal seven-day creation). Why
would God leave a trail of evidence (geological and astronomical)
that would suggest otherwise?"
And so, we ponder the creation, and marvel at it complexity, its
intricacies, and some suggest that it was all a fluke; a colossal
cosmic accident.
Cough. A fluke? Now that is what I would suggest as preposterous.
YMMV. shrug.
I suppose to some, I am a heretic for saying otherwise, but I easily
see the creation we can observe has been in the process, 15billion+
years in the making. shrug.
How can that be? It is a function of how time is measured. The God
of creation, his time continuum is THE ETERNAL NOW, something that
the human mind has difficulty comprehending, but Einstein was very
close. Suffice to say, God does not measure time as we do. So, a
creation requiring a billion years or a day
--shrug--he is/remains the captain of the eternal now.
Something to ponder has your KLR thumps you towards a day/wekend of
happiness.
revmaaatin. who is still trying to wrap my arms around all the
learning-stuff offered for digestion in my first 52y11m of life