- ... The number of people who believe in homeopathy or acupuncture is irrelevant. For it to be scientifically factual, there has to be a clincal trial. To theMessage 1 of 1 , Aug 5, 2004View Source>I completely agree with the logic in this statement.The number of people who believe in homeopathy or acupuncture is
irrelevant. For it to be scientifically factual, there has to be a
clincal trial. To the best of my knowledge, homeopathy has been proven
>I often witness people citing peer review as a litmus test for determining the validity of a scientific theory. The argument goes something like this 95% of the scientific world has ascribed to this theory, therefore any other explanation could not be science.
For it to be scientifically factual, there has to be a
>Evolution and evolutionary cosmology by the nature of the length of time they claim to span outlast the life span of the scientist. Consider how many key elements of organic evolution and evolutionary cosmology have no observable working model and are accepted by blind faith.
1. Null space, a particle, a singularity, a dense object (Insert guess here) exploding at the moment of the big bang and producing all of the matter and energy in the universe.
2. This rapidly expanding sphere of matter producing all of the observable celestial objects, galaxies, stars and planets. Why would all of the irregularities of the dispersion of matter exist if all matter originated from an explosion at one point. Why according to angular conservation of rotation would some planets and galaxies spin in different directions.
3. In spite of the universally observable principle of entropy would simple elements progress into greater and greater complex organic compounds.
4. In spite of astronomical improbability why would these randomly combine to form complex protein chains.
5. Why would these randomly combine to form a nucleus a genetic code, cell walls and ultimately life.
The system of evolution and its related cosmology has other major gaps that are bridged with conjecture that appears to be bridged with wide steps of blind faith.
>I like this analogy and totally agree with its implications.
At one time, everyone in Europe believed the world was flat. Thousands or
millions of people believed this, or that rats spontaneously arose from
rags. That does not make it true.
>Evolution in its purest form believes that given enough time and the right set of circumstances rats will arise from rags. As a improbable theory it is defended with extreme prejudice as science.
Having been in many waste of time arguments, I found that I was not
convincing any group, though I deluded myself that I was. What it really
boiled down to, in an argument with an individual is that "I'm right and
you're wrong". It as all ego.
>This is where I also agree with you. If I examine my motives for debating most of the things that I have spilled many key strokes it boils down to my own ego.
This is pointless. You can not argue faith into someone. Once someone has accepted something into his core of essential values you can not debate it out of him.
This is observable in Christians, skeptics, evolutionists, and quacks. Evolutionists thump their theories as hard as Christians thump their Bibles.
People over the age of 30, who have extreme beliefs, like the Shroud of
Tourin or creation science are not going to change their minds. They are
powered by the "Lord" and there's just no logic in an argument like that.
>I don't really get the comparison between the Shroud of Turin and creation science. The Shroud of Turin is probably a manufactured middle age relic that is a crutch for the weak faith of superstitious believers. It doesn't prove or disprove a bodily resurrection from the dead and is irrelevant to most believer's faith.
>In all complex mechanisms: A computer, an automobile, a watch, a global ecosystem, a human I see the handiwork of a the intelligence of a creator.
>Calling it blind faith really doesn't bother me, but I don't think that I had to check my brain in at the door to accept this as faith.
If I wanted to change the minds of people I could have done many things,
including writing articles, going to the legislature or some other
activist outlets. That is much more logical than arguing with a single
>Why is activism necessary to crusade for a scientific theory? Is not the crucible of the scientific method enough to validate or invalidate a theory. If the theory is accurate, publish it. Let it stand the tests of criticism. Observe the results, attempt at all points to falsify the theory. Allow yourself to be skeptical, and refine your results to that which is demonstrably true.
Activism is only necessary for matters of faith, which you and I both agree are pointless to debate.
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!