Science doesn't have an explanation for something wonderful = questioner is being 'incredulous'
Creationist doesn't have an explanation for something wonderful = creation is wrong
No.
Creationist claims science doesn't have an answer for something, and concludes that God did it - Creationist is using the fallacious 'argument from incredulity'.
Creationist doesn't have an explanation for something, but science does, - creationist is rejecting science for religious reasons.
So, are you going to tell us the point of this thread? Were you just trying to prove that science doesn't know everything yet? I don't think anyone will dispute that.
Creationist claims science doesn't have an answer for something, and concludes that God did it - Creationist is using the fallacious 'argument from incredulity'.
Creationist doesn't have an explanation for something, but science does, - creationist is rejecting science for religious reasons.
So, are you going to tell us the point of this thre ...[text shortened]... to prove that science doesn't know everything yet? I don't think anyone will dispute that.
The point is as you (almost state in your post) that science knows very little the universe and yet the attitude here is often that it knows it all or at least what it doesn't know should not be questioned, as JS357 and you demonstrated.
So yes:
Science doesn't have an explanation for something wonderful = questioner is being 'incredulous'
Creationist doesn't have an explanation for something wonderful = creation is wrong
Originally posted by divegeester The point is as you (almost state in your post) that science knows very little the universe and yet the attitude here is often that it knows it all or at least what it doesn't know should not be questioned, as JS357 and you demonstrated.
Where have you seen anyone (other than Dasa) claim to 'know it all'?
Where have you seen anyone claim that what science does not know should not been questioned?
Where did I or JS357 demonstrate this?
Maybe the problem is that I do not understand the question. What is your question with regards to my (and according to Wikipedia, science's) ignorance of how to make a Golgi Apparatus?
Did you read the link given regarding the "Argument from Incredulity"?
Originally posted by divegeester That link is definitely a description of the Golgi Apparatus.
So your real argument goes Creationism is the only way life could have started and developed here on Earth. You really have no interest in actually constructing Golgi's.
I think they call that the strawman argument.
Originally posted by sonhouse So your real argument goes Creationism is the only way life could have started and developed here on Earth. You really have no interest in actually constructing Golgi's.
I think they call that the strawman argument.
Originally posted by RJHinds Yep. I can do that too.
Wow, so you bring up all the things science cannot do at this time and use that as an argument that everything science has to say is totally off the wall. That is like chiding a 3 year old for not being able to do calculus.
Come back in a couple hundred years and see how much science can do, THEN give that argument again.
You do realize science in general is only a few hundred years old, right? That scientists have a lot more to learn and will learn in the future, right? That science is a work in progress?
For instance, scientists cannot make a spacecraft go anything like the speed of light, but would you like to bet that within 200 years or so we might be able to do just that?