Article View: alt.folklore.science
Article #1235Re: Scientism? - Creationism v. Evolution
From: JaBrIoL
Date: Sun, 02 May 2004 00:48
Date: Sun, 02 May 2004 00:48
44 lines
3234 bytes
3234 bytes
--- In creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com, jabriol <Jabriol2000@y...> wrote: > > John Ings (nodamned@s...) > Subject: Re: Scientism? - Creationism v. Evolution > > > On 29 Apr 2004 10:58:32 -0700, Jabriol@e... > (JaBrIoL) wrote: > > >do scientific laws pass the scientific method? > > No. They are observations. Only theories are subject > to the scientific > method. > > e.g. The intensity of light observed from a source of > constant > intrinsic luminosity falls off as the square of the > distance from the > object. > > That's not a theory. It isn't somebody's idea or > proposal. > It's just a fact. Light follows this inverse square > law every time. > > ## You can twist perceptions, but reality won't budge! > > > > > That's a false dichotomy. Noone "observes" the inverse square law. The "observation" is that an object with light intensity L at distance d has an intensity L/4 at distance 2d and even this "observation" is based on theories on the workings of the instruments used to measure the light. The inverse square law is an extrapolation of these "observations" to all light sources and all distances. Furthermore, the justification for this extrapolation is based on theoretical considerations about the transmission of light and the geometry of space. So the inverse square law is no different in this respect than Evolutionary theory.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<d222de3e.0405011648.481578e6@posting.google.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!controlnews3.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mailReferences:
<Ez%9c.2271$oD.668@fe25.usenetserver.com> <40734785_1@news.athenanews.com> <kDUjc.2869$TT.1677@news-server.bigpond.net.au> <caeecb67.0404290923.48a5316d@posting.google.com> <eu3390t4v21d01mr88eqe65psrhphojfvt@4ax.com> <caeecb67.0404300010.501ecea8@posting.google.com> <tk1590dlmdlc31eup02d7u1g82ri6lmu5e@4ax.com> <caeecb67.0404301512.22ccbd69@posting.google.com> <gf7690pg29bsabi0fct60t2f0ol65qpkkb@4ax.com> <caeecb67.0405011059.6f1d244c@posting.google.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 102cdf,975a546dc07fb449 X-Google-Thread: f69b1,237737f085aeb181 X-Google-Thread: f64bc,86435d04433c39e7 X-Google-Thread: 111000,86435d04433c39e7 X-Google-Thread: 100202,86435d04433c39e7 X-Google-Thread: 119db8,9fe0352bcbfe13a9 X-Google-Thread: 100922,86435d04433c39e7 X-Google-Thread: 10e378,86435d04433c39e7 X-Google-Thread: fd648,318d849b6b1dad7f X-Google-Attributes: gid102cdf,gidf69b1,gidf64bc,gid111000,gid100202,gid119db8,gid100922,gid10e378,gidfd648,public Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!controlnews3.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: Jabriol@excite.com (JaBrIoL) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science,alt.paranet.science,sci.anthropology.paleo,sci.bio.paleontology,talk.atheism,alt.history.science,alt.religion.jehovahs-witn,alt.talk.creationism,aus.science Subject: Re: Scientism? - Creationism v. Evolution Date: 1 May 2004 17:48:31 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 44 Message-ID: <d222de3e.0405011648.481578e6@posting.google.com> References: <Ez%9c.2271$oD.668@fe25.usenetserver.com> <40734785_1@news.athenanews.com> <kDUjc.2869$TT.1677@news-server.bigpond.net.au> <caeecb67.0404290923.48a5316d@posting.google.com> <eu3390t4v21d01mr88eqe65psrhphojfvt@4ax.com> <caeecb67.0404300010.501ecea8@posting.google.com> <tk1590dlmdlc31eup02d7u1g82ri6lmu5e@4ax.com> <caeecb67.0404301512.22ccbd69@posting.google.com> <gf7690pg29bsabi0fct60t2f0ol65qpkkb@4ax.com> <caeecb67.0405011059.6f1d244c@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.154.80.57 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1083458911 24468 127.0.0.1 (2 May 2004 00:48:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 2 May 2004 00:48:31 +0000 (UTC)