Bad science?

The term SCIENCE is being thrown around as being pretty sound in meaning. I disagree. From an old educator who has taught the scientific method to lots of kids; Science is nothing other than experimenting with the evidence that shows repeated similar proofs. That's it.As you can tell, this definition of SCIENCE wipes out both "creation science and "evolutionary science". Neither is proveable by repeated experiments. So the various opinions expressed in these forums are just that. Interpretations of the evidence. Does the evidence change because of our interpretations? No, the evidence is just the evidence. It just lays there waiting for interpretation. Please don't bother to call SCIENCE as anything other than SCIENCE. Period.

---

Lan

Then, why has it been so hard to turn the Theory of evolution into Law?

---

Lan

I need a definition of "falsified". Would't that be more realistically called a "difference of opinion? Waste basket? Or refusal to allow debate and reinterpretation of the evidence? I didn't notice any basis for this "opinion".Lan

---

Lan

Quetzal,
Thanks for the sort of definition -- though without specifics. I would recommend a book for you that answers ALL these sciences. You have probably been through THE GENESIS FLOOD. I believe Dr. Morris was a hydrologist among others. This book probably was the origin of the re-emphasis that creation and the flood have a creditable response to the origin theories of the majority of scientists and their opinions. Once again, it comes down to opinion based on the unchangeable evidences.Please excuse me as I respond to CHIROPTERA. As to the state of public education, I am a throwback not an advocate of how science is taught in schools. You might call me a dinosaur of sorts. I believe in the examination of ALL theories and allowing the students to be able to draw their own conclusions. Would you advocate this approach in education?

Just 1 1/2 centuries? Creation in written form has been around for 4000 years give or take. The oldest documentation of many societies confirm creation, not just the Hebrew Bible. Sorry, I can't discount history even though no human was around to record either. the nearest we come to a historian is someone you don't want to rely on. That was the Creator.My main purpose with going into this is to let the younger ones on this forum know that there is an alternative to accepting a theory just because most scientists accept it as factual rather than just another human opinion based on their perception of the evidence.

---

Lan

Religion and science? One real and one dead? To reply to your challenge, let me first ask you to define religion. This is a loaded question. Be careful.

---

Lan

Chiroptera,
Where would you get the idea that I believe "evidence" can change? I thought I said that evidence doesn't change -- just your perception of it. Evidence is evidence. It just lies there to be interpreted. The soundness of the interpretation is the question.I've noticed that the tendency with some in this forum is to put words into the mouth of opponents; also to assume a lot of things not in evidence. Your opponent may not be as much a dolt as you presume. Then again, it just might be your interpretation of the evidence.

---

Lan

Quetzal,
Since you or your compatriots brought up the opposite of science being religion, it must be O.K. with the admin to pursue it. I'll let you off the hook if you can clarify what you mean by the term "religion" as opposed to science. O.K.?

---

Lan

I won't presume to know the depth of physics but concerning thermodynamics, entropy appears to contradict the central premise of evolution. Correct me if I've been mislead.

---

Lan

Percy,
I didn't bring it up. They did. We are dealing with interpretation of evidence and religion was presented as the opposite of evolution = rational thinking. Don't I get to know what this term means as it involves scientific rationale?

---

Lan

Percy,
It was Quetzal that mentioned, "your religion". How does he know about "my religion" and how does he apply it to what science and evolution are? That is my dilemma.

---

Lan

PaulK,
Then I have been mislead by two evolutionary biologists whom you may be familiar. I'll quote each. In attempting to explain entropy as evolutionists, they seem to be confusing themselves....in order to deny the applicability of the second law, these magnitudes have to be measured, and until this is done, the failure of the law cannot be proven. The principal reason for accepting the second law of thermodynamics is that it has always worked wherever it has been possible to make the necessary measurements to test it; we assume therefore that it holds where we are unable to make such measurements.H.F. Blum TIME'S ARROW AND EVOLUTION, 1951These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible. It is as impossible to turn a land vertebrate into a fish as it is to effect the reverse transformation. The applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique historical processes is severely restricted before all else by the time intervals involved, which far exceed the lifetime of any human experimenter. And yet it is just such impossibility that is demanded by antievolutionists when they ask for "proofs" of evolution which they would magnanimously accept as satisfacory.Theodosius Dobzhansky "On Methods of Evolutionary Biology and Anthropology" AMERICAN SCIENTIST, Vol. 45, December 1957Doesn't sound like there is a way to prove that evolution has happened, even from experts in the field.

---

Lan

Enough of conceptualizing one over the other. Here are those particulars from my own observations that support creation and disastrophism:In driving on I-10 between Texas and California, I've seen several formations that show evidence of severe castastrophy that would indicate a univeral flood. Folded mountains, huge depths of limestone formations, spiral snails atop high desert mountains.And a personal observation right close to home that shows that millions of years would have given us a Kevin Costner Waterworld or something similar to the flood of Noah: We live in the forest of south-east Texas. In trying to slow down erosion, I have stacked young dead pines across paths that water flows over. After a month of those 3" pines laying on the ground, the fill behind them of sand and silty clay had come to the top of those trees. 3 inches of soil movement in just one month. Small scale erosion control. The saplings just down from the first ones near the top also had accumulations of fill. From observation, I can surmise that were there millions of years of erosion, there wouldn't be much, if anything left above water. This small scale experiment shows that the millions of years of degrading of the earth's surface would be evidence that supports only a few thousand years of earth's existence.Note that these just a few observations of the unchanging evidence presented to us all. As I said at first....only a matter of how you perceive the evidence; whether your perception or mine.

---

Lan