Comment by UltraSane

Comment by UltraSane 4 days ago

"There are many scientists out there that believe in that. "

Not any GOOD ones.

"They are not scientifically ignorant, "

They are actually.

" they just believe different stuff from you, "

They believe very stupid things directly at odds with all evidence. All of modern technology is a result of the exact same logical thought that led to the theory of evolution. If you reject it where do you draw the line? Do you reject fusion in stars because there is no reason for them to last so long?

"People forget that we often know a lot about stuff, but then we discover more stuff which totally changes the stuff we knew and so on."

arkey 3 days ago

> Do you reject fusion in stars because there is no reason for them to last so long?

No. Why would I?

You see? You're jumping to absurd conclusions. The fact that I don't believe in Evolution does not mean I reject the Scientific Method, or technology, or reasoning, or logic.

I'm an engineer. I like and enjoy Science, building things, researching, learning, understanding, reasoning, creating. Don't try to make it incompatible or exclusive.

> Not any GOOD ones.

Maybe you should review a bit your history of Science.

Reply View 4 replies

aliasxneo 3 days ago

I think the gp's worldview doesn't allow for such a person to exist. It's an anomaly and, therefore, must be fake. Otherwise, I can't make sense of the way they have been arguing in this thread.

Reply View | 1 reply
- UltraSane 3 days ago
  
  Anyone who honestly believes the world was created by God 6000 years ago does not understand how science works.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
UltraSane 3 days ago

Anyone who honestly believes the world was created by God 6000 years ago does not understand how science works.

Reply View | 1 reply
- arkey 2 days ago
  
  I think it's you who doesn't understand how science works, making claims like the fact that Evolution needing something like nuclear fusion to explain longevity of stars, and nuclear fusion existing, must then mean Evolution is real.
  According to the Scientific Method (which I obviously must not understand) an honest researcher would posit an hypothesis (which ideally should be falsifiable, unlike Evolution, or Creation for that matter) and then should rather try to prove that hypothesis false. That's what I do at my SE job. If you are unable to prove a falsifiable hypothesis as false, chances are you're right.
  You see, because Evolution and Creation are not falsifiable, they need a certain amount of faith to be accepted. I acknowledge my faith in God, and I acknowledge that I cannot scientifically and undeniable prove the existence of God or Creation through purely empirical methods. That's actually a necessary aspect of it. I do, however, see a lot of evidence which points me to that way, and it points me to that way because of where (or rather, on who) my faith is placed.
  You, like it or not, do have faith too, but it is placed in a different set of persons and scriptures. You have faith in Modern Science. It's a faith, a 'trust' if you will, you choose to risk having in a lot of data that, by the way, you cannot possibly have had the chance to validate personally.
  I invite you to honestly reflect on that.
  This will most likely be my last response because at this point I am not sure this conversation is constructive at all.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies