|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Always a laugh | |||||||||||||||||||||||
toff Inactive Member |
quote: No, that's creation 'science' (which is, in any case, identical to creationism, except that they try to pretend it's 'scientific'). See the quotes from the ICR's principles - the largest creation 'science' institute in the world.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"No, that's creation 'science' (which is, in any case, identical to creationism, except that they try to pretend it's 'scientific'). See the quotes from the ICR's principles - the largest creation 'science' institute in the world."
--Creation Science and Faith are intertwined to form Creationism. Thus Creationism has included faith and science, and is unscientific in its whole, contrary to creation science. Do we see the model here yet? ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LudvanB Inactive Member |
quote: Yeah but without prior belief in the Bible,there wouldn't be any creation science...and since belief in the Bible is completely unscientific,then the very fondation of creation "science" is flawed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"Yeah but without prior belief in the Bible,there wouldn't be any creation science...and since belief in the Bible is completely unscientific,then the very fondation of creation "science" is flawed."
--I guess we still don't understand the full model, but atleast were getting somewhere. Creation science is simply 'science' that is given the name creation science by the perspective of the higher classified 'creationism' in the hierarchy. Creation science and faith form creationism. Creation science for instance, is science, and looked upon as 'creation science' for its interperetation for a young earth, which is fully evidence/science based. When looked upon by Creationism, creationism uses creation science to then apply it to the biblical doctrine, which is why it is intertwined with faith. Thus Creation science is not based on the validity of the bible or faith in it to substantiate it as scientific, it simply is. ------------------ [This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-13-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LudvanB Inactive Member |
quote: But the whole creation science approach the question of human origin with the preconceived and pre-accepted conviction that the earth was "created" by someone,meaning that its comming into being is the result of the act or acts of an intelligent mind. The word creation is in itself a biblical word in this context. The reason why i doubt that creation science IS science is because the conclusion that the world was made by God is reached BEFORE any study of the question is even done. And with that prior conviction in mind,creationists then begin to gather evidence they can interpret in a way that fits their pre-reached conclusion. I call this approach flawed because it will irrevocably taint your interpretation of the evidence you come across,something i pointed out was very evident in your arguments,given that you dont seem to hesitate to latch on just about any possible evidence supporting your position without stopping to consider the likelyhood of it,something that EVERY scientist of every field should always do as a matter of course. It also means that by definition,you will resist evidence that cast doubts on your preconceived conclusion and try to forcibly interpret them in a more acceptable light to your POV instead of examining the evidence for what it actually says and then letting IT guide you to the conclusion IT actually supports,whatever that may be.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
toff Inactive Member |
quote: I see the model, certainly - but it's false. There is no such thing as creation 'science'. There is absolutely nothing scientific about it. It is merely a label put on creationism in an attempt to make it sound more than what it is - a religious belief. Now, if you say it's a religious belief, well and good; to attempt to call it a science is simply dishonest.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Cobra_snake Inactive Member |
quote: Don't you think it could be the same case with evolutionists? If not, why not? What is to stop scientists from interpreting the evidence to fit their preconcieved theory? (Although an opinion, I don't think peer-reviewed articles cleanse the bias, because scientists are usually INTERPRETING facts, not BENDING them. Therefore, it would be hard to identify incorrect work, since it is only an interpretation. What scientists may not always realize is that there is an alternate interpretation.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
The scientific method is designed to test theories to determine which fits the evidence more. This continued reliance on the fiction that different interpretations that are valid is a crutch to avoid discussing evidence. Any theory must be falsifiable and those potential falsifications can be tested. Therefore saying there are different interpretations is rather meaningless. The scientific method was designed to distinguish between inferences that are supported and inferences that are not supported.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"I see the model, certainly - but it's false. There is no such thing as creation 'science'. There is absolutely nothing scientific about it. It is merely a label put on creationism in an attempt to make it sound more than what it is - a religious belief. Now, if you say it's a religious belief, well and good; to attempt to call it a science is simply dishonest."
--So, your argument is, because you don't like my model for whatever reason, (I see it as no doubt, it being too right thus you must attempt to validify your assertion by saying it is false) you think that you can just pass it by and go right back down to ground zero. --Tell me then, what is wrong with the model? For you to argue with Creation science, you must argue with that, do you have any more ammo? ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LudvanB Inactive Member |
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
The thing is that creation science nor evolution deal with the origins, Creationists already have their answer by faith, and Evolution doesn't deal with origins, it is a completely different topic, though it is included in the entirty of these forums. Creation science does not deal with origins.
------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LudvanB Inactive Member |
quote: No they dont have the answer about origins...Faith in an explanation that suits you is not knowledge...Faith cant be taught,nor can it be shared. Its completely insubstancial and unsubstanciated. Have faith in your illogical fairy tales if it warms your heart but dont come here to pretend that this translate into actual knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
toff Inactive Member |
quote: I am arguing (in this thread, at least) about the model you are proposing that differentiates creationism (a religious belief) from creation science (a scientific discipline/area of study). I am not arguing (in this thread) against the beliefs of creationism. My sole point is that creation 'science' does not exist - all of it is merely an attempt to make creationism seem more 'respectable' to the outside world, by making it sound like a type of science. It's not. It's a religious belief. Creation 'science' does not in any way follow the scientific method; it is not a science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"I am arguing (in this thread, at least) about the model you are proposing that differentiates creationism (a religious belief) from creation science (a scientific discipline/area of study). I am not arguing (in this thread) against the beliefs of creationism. My sole point is that creation 'science' does not exist - all of it is merely an attempt to make creationism seem more 'respectable' to the outside world, by making it sound like a type of science. It's not. It's a religious belief. Creation 'science' does not in any way follow the scientific method; it is not a science."
--If it so much does not quallify as worthy of the scientific method, would you care to give a reason besides restating your problem (which isn't the reason)? That is, give explination to your assertion, something to support it. ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5033 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
What will become apparent TOFF is that the shape of the boundary of the organism on the map contains information (Wimla of the Brits suggested that ELEPHANTS were put where human populations WERE NOT)and that via a needed yoking of morphometrics with software testing metrics the Internet II standardization will turn this laugh into cash. We need people who can see this.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024