|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Creation science II | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2137 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
To continue the discussion of creation science.
This thread is not for a discussion of evolution, its supporting data, or any disagreements with that data. It is for discussion of creation science. A wiki definition of creation science is as follows:
It is clear from this that creation "science" does not follow the scientific method. In fact, there seems to be nothing to separate creation "science" from religious apologetics. If you disagree, please show how creation science is science. -----
Note - Previous edition of this topic:
People Don't Know What Creation Science Is Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add link to previous edition of this topic. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kelly Member (Idle past 5526 days) Posts: 217 Joined: |
Creationists have no problem with most sciences, and in fact are the first initiators of much in science. It was a creationist who first pointed to natural selection for example. Creationists deal with all the sciences.. physics, chemistry, astronomy, geology, hydrology, biology, paleontology, genetics, physiology, embryology etc. Where we differ is in the interpretation. Evolutionists believe that these studies all point to a world that has slowly evolved from simpler to more complex over a long span of time. Creationists believe these studies support that life is a marvel of created laws and order. Creationists accept microevolution as a process seen through mutations and natural selection within types.
It is only when scientists branch out with the extrapolation that micro means macro evolution that we disagree. Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Capt Stormfield Member Posts: 429 From: Vancouver Island Joined: |
A theme that seemed to keep resurfacing in the previous thread concerned the nature of the creation "scientist". Posts were made asserting that since Newton, among a long list of others, was both a creationist and a scientist that creationism was therefore scientific. For purposes of this argument let's set aside his many pseudoscientific pursuits.
It is apparent to me that this is an entry level logical fallacy, and I am curious to know if the resident creationists actually believe what they posted, or did they just repeat something without really thinking about it. If they do really think this makes sense, I am curious to know how far they apply it. Many scientists believe in... [Islam, pagan gods, Judaism, Hinduism, Republicanism, Communism, free love etc.]...does that mean that each of those is a science? If not, why not? Capt.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shalamabobbi Member (Idle past 2880 days) Posts: 397 Joined: |
What we need to do first then is come to a consensus on the definition of science, or rather the scientific method. We need to be on the same page there or we end up talking past each other.
Since science must generalize the data in a model that is capable of making predictions based upon that model, we can ask does creation science have a model based upon the evidence. Even allowing the bible as the basis for that model what predictions can be made from the model? What I have seen is attacks on interpretation of data, but none of the attacks correlate with each other in a meaningful way. The basis for rejection may in one instance be self-contradictory with the basis for rejection in a different instance. This is where the creation model fails. It fails to exist. It is instead blind adherence to a particular theological interpretation of the bible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4747 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
Creationists have no problem with most sciences, and in fact are the first initiators of much in science. It was a creationist who first pointed to natural selection for example. Creationists deal with all the sciences.. physics, chemistry, astronomy, geology, hydrology, biology, paleontology, genetics, physiology, embryology etc. Where we differ is in the interpretation. Evolutionists believe that these studies all point to a world that has slowly evolved from simpler to more complex over a long span of time. Creationists believe these studies support that life is a marvel of created laws and order. Creationists accept microevolution as a process seen through mutations and natural selection within types.
It is only when scientists branch out with the extrapolation that micro means macro evolution that we disagree. The statement highlighted in orange, what are these studies you speak of? Presenting these studies is one of the tasks you have steadfastly refused to do. Advance them and you'll advance the debate. The blue is off topic, so ya' know. Genesis 2 17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness. 18 And we all live happily ever after.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2137 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Where we differ is in the interpretation. Evolutionists believe that these studies all point to a world that has slowly evolved from simpler to more complex over a long span of time. Creationists believe these studies support that life is a marvel of created laws and order. Creationists accept microevolution as a process seen through mutations and natural selection within types.
This thread is not about evolution. Please avoid bringing it up in subsequent posts. It is only when scientists branch out with the extrapolation that micro means macro evolution that we disagree. Creationists seem to oppose sciences when they conflict with a fundamentalist or literal interpretation of the bible. How can this be considered science? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 199 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Creationists deal with all the sciences.. physics, chemistry, astronomy, geology, hydrology, biology, paleontology, genetics, physiology, embryology etc. Where we differ is in the interpretation. Yeah, sort of, but … Ya gottta actually come up with the interpretation. And demonstrate how it actualy fits all the evidence as well or better than the maintream interpretation. Which you have steadfastly refused to even try to do for over 300 posts. Understandable, 'cause you can't do it Nobody can. "Creation science" is founded fundamentally on ignoring almost all the evidence and shoehorning the remainder into an obviously mythical/allegorical (but powerful and important) piece of ancient literature.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 765 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Creationists accept microevolution as a process seen through mutations and natural selection within types. Easy question, Kelly: what is a "type?" Creationists use that word (or "kind") a lot, but never define it past, "oh, you know what that is!" Can you offer a definition? I know that you don't seem to like answering questions, but humor me. We can discuss your answer only after you supply one. And since it seems to be involved in the very foundations of Creation Science.... Edited by Coragyps, : tpyo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kelly Member (Idle past 5526 days) Posts: 217 Joined: |
But regardless of what a person's religion is, creation science is a study of the evidence or data left behind from the origins moment--whatever that is, whether creation or slow evolution in the vertical sense.
Before Darwin, most scientists were creationists studying their particular field of interest. Today, just because evolutionary theory has grippied us by the throat doesn't mean that scientists can't still look for the created order and design of our world as opposed to looking for evidence of long slow evolutionary processes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kelly Member (Idle past 5526 days) Posts: 217 Joined: |
to just one half of the equation. As long as the overall topic is creation, we ought to be allowed to say the buzz word, evolution.
I don't know what you mean by asking what are these studies?--since I gave you quite the long list of what these studies are. The difference between a creationist and an evolutionist is not in the actual studies of the evidence itself, but it comes in the interpretations. The methods of science are the same. The difference is in the models and the interpretation of the results of these studies. Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kelly Member (Idle past 5526 days) Posts: 217 Joined: |
I don't know what else I can say to make you see that creationists are studying the same evidence and using the same scientific methods and data as any evolutionist is. We don't oppose any science and in fact agree with everything that is observable.
Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kelly Member (Idle past 5526 days) Posts: 217 Joined: |
I have given many examples of how creationists interpret the evidence differently and why. People here just disagree with our interpretation, but that is a different story. Stop saying that I haven't offered anything because I certainly have.
Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kelly Member (Idle past 5526 days) Posts: 217 Joined: |
I have more than once used that term in conjunction with "species." There are many different types of cats, for example. But a cat is a cat is a cat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 765 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
We don't oppose any science and in fact agree with everything that is observable. That is simply UNTRUE! Creationists nearly always DISAGREE that, for example, the literal and figurative mountains of evidence for a planet that's several thousands of millions of years old is even evidence at all! Believe me, Kelly, it's as exhausting for us as it is for you. When are you going to give your first direct answer to a question? "The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024