|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5909 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Creationist Method | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5909 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
Stile writes:
Actually, there are those who think the evidence is wrong too, such as those who believe nearly all fossils are fakes. This is what Creationists actually say, isn't it? That the evidence isn't wrong, simply the interpretation of it? But perhaps you have a point. By far the majority of creationists challenge the interpretation of the evidence rather than the evidence itself. For example, those who believe readiometric dating to be false don't think so because they think the instruments are faulty, but rather because they think the assumptions behind the interpretation are. I'll make a note of this and change it in version 3, along with my alternative mechanism to determine whether it is evidence or scripture that should be reinterpreted. We seek contributors with a knowledge of Intelligent design to expand and review our page on this topic. Registration not needed for editing most pages (the ID page is an exception), but you can register here!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ikabod Member (Idle past 4492 days) Posts: 365 From: UK Joined: |
sorry Doddy , i did stray way off thread there ,
i got caught up in the moment . so trying to glean some value out of my error ..using it as an example of how scripture can be reinterpreted in light of moden evidence and knowleged .. is it not a good example of how far SOME will go , and yet other creo's will not move ..may be you need another PREHAPS branch to cover this route as well, where reinterpretation does not give an agreed black and white result ... it to an agreed area of uncertainty needing further evidnece / evaulation ..
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
That is not quite true. For instance creationists regularly deny the existence of transitional fossils - or more than a few transitional fossils - rather than admit that there are many.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5909 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
But do they deny the existence of the fossils or just the interpretation that they are transitional?
We seek contributors with a knowledge of Intelligent design to expand and review our page on this topic. Registration not needed for editing most pages (the ID page is an exception), but you can register here!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
The existence. Randman, for instance repeatedly insisted that there were only a few transitional fossils. i.e. He assumed that the commonly used examples were the only transitional fossils known.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
A scientific premise starts with evidence and builds with logical conclusions.
The most infantile and unscientific question is vested in the demand for proof of creation. Mostly, the questioner has no understanding of his question. I would agree that creationists are often clueless and pursue scientific questions in an infantile and unscientific manner. But this thread is not about creationism -- it is about the creationist method used to arrive at conclusions. This is a matter of curiosity among rational people due to the many false and irrelevant conclusions that creationists come up with: it does not appear to follow any kind of logical process. The typical creationist, it appears, cannot even comprehend simple statements of topics, and feel they can talk about whatever suits their fancy - as an example - and then argue that they are on topic when clearly (to a rational mind) they are not.
I suggest that a preamble be established first, then follow its course appropriately. And the place to do that is ON YOUR OWN THREAD. This thread is not about what you think. So start another thread IAJ -- hopefully it will prove more useful or productive than your one on "positive evidence for creationism" (which netted zero evidence but amply demonstrated creation-think). Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3667 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Science, like math and history, are pathways which give greater understanding of a positation or statute. Science was introduced in Genesis - the first scientific account of the universe. The first scientific equation is that a 'Seed shall follow its kind'; humanity has to affirm this by examinations and verifiable affirmations - via science, math or history - whichever fits the criteria. Medicine was also inroduced here. The first separation of medicine from the occult is with the ID and treatment of infectious and contagious malignancies (leprosy). All theologies are not about rituals and dogmas: one even contains science, math, history and all the laws followed by the world today!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4600 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
The first scientific equation is that a 'Seed shall follow its kind'; humanity has to affirm this by examinations and verifiable affirmations - via science, math or history - whichever fits the criteria. Are you willing to be the one who affirms this by examination? A logical first step, since you claim this so often, would be to define "seed". A good second step would be to define "kind". If this is the first scientific equation would you be interested in being the first person in several thousand years to actually explain what it means? If you are to continue saying that science must accept this as a valid premise, don't you think that its about time you put forward what the heck you are saying? How many threads are going to be derailed by your kinds and seeds before we are allowed to understand your use of the language? **Sorry Doddy, this will be my last post here unless I can post something constructive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
One of the side effects of the use of scientific methodology is the identification and documentation of evidence. Every endeavor which is truly scientific (as opposed to sham) will have generated documentation of a body of evidence. That was one of the points I used to raise about the "creation model" in the "Two Model Approach": If it were an actual model, a construct created from observation of the evidence for the purpose of explaining that evidence (which is basically what a theory is), then there should exist a body of evidence for it, so why would creationists do everything they possibly could to avoid presenting any of that evidence that they claimed to have?
In the recent thread calling for the presentation of positive evidence for "creation theory" (which name implicit claims that it was constructed based on the evidence, in which case there exists such evidence), none of the creationists could present any evidence. The best they could come up with was to repeatedly invoke the Bible (which does not in itself constitute scientific evidence, nor could anyone demonstrate that it referenced any physical evidence) and to state that it appears that there is design in nature. So if there's no evidence, how could you claim creationism to be scientific? I agree with RAZD. Propose a new thread for this topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
A scientific premise starts with evidence and builds with logical conclusions. Agreed. In the case of Darwinism: they start with the ASSUMPTION that appearance of design does not indicate invisible Designer, unlike Creationism which assumes the opposite. Darwinism begins with gross illogic and no evidence can ever overcome starting perverse logic.
I would agree that creationists are often clueless and pursue scientific questions in an infantile and unscientific manner. Ordinary Atheist philosophy.
The typical creationist, it appears, cannot even comprehend simple statements of topics, and feel they can talk about whatever suits their fancy - as an example - and then argue that they are on topic when clearly (to a rational mind) they are not. Since you are an evolutionist your opinion is quite predictable with no objective value whatsoever. If a Creationist had said what you had just said then the same applies. The point is, RAZD, is that we know how you feel about Creationists. Mindless and rhetorical insults is the refuge of the intellectually defeated. Ray
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
In the case of Darwinism: they start with the ASSUMPTION that appearance of design does not indicate invisible Designer ... Wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1343 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
hey ray, how's the book coming? i'm looking forward to reading it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
All theologies are not about rituals and dogmas: one even contains science, math, history and all the laws followed by the world today! Except laws against pedophilia, slavery, genocide, torture, arson, blackmail ... But it does have a rule against lending money at interest, which I'm sure we'd all follow if it wasn't the economic basis of modern civilisation. Oh, and a stern prohibition against eating lobsters. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
If a Creationist had said what you had just said then the same applies. The point is, RAZD, is that we know how you feel about Creationists. Mindless and rhetorical insults is the refuge of the intellectually defeated. And yet you make my point by posting completely off topic. It's not an insult when it is the truth Ray. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
hey ray, how's the book coming? i'm looking forward to reading it. Late this year. After reading it you will be enraged and I am looking forward to it. Ray
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024