Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Those Two Are Biggies

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Mario Dovalina on May 31, 2002 19:56:15 UTC

Essentially, the distance of stars and the issue of free will are huge. They're huge because you have no wiggle room to reinterpret the data without assuming you're right from the outset. This provides a nice test for me to determine your true position.

Issues that you DO have wiggle room with, the relative scarcity of fossils, for example, you use to the fullest, with SOME justification of scientific reasoning. However, to hold a belief regardless of no evidence for your case, and then to claim to be arguing from objective, scientific grounds on other issues is ridiculous. You can't be objective whenever you have a hint of an argument to make (fossil record), and argue from faith otherwise. (starlight) Your scientific reasoning is simply subjectivity masquerading as reason. The fact that nearly self-contained issues such as starlight and free will have no impact on you whatsoever belies your inherent biases for creationism.

I don't get frustrated at your opinions, I get frustrated when you portray yourself as a scientist.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2023 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins