|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creation as Science | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hotjer Member (Idle past 4566 days) Posts: 113 From: Denmark Joined: |
Easy dude... that prophecy can prove the existing of God! We can let that happen, traitor! /sarcasm
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4211 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
evolutionists and atheists are all the same, thy will demand one thing from their opponents while distorting their own work to make sure it fits their ideas. If that were true , scientists would still believe in flat earth, phlogiston,The moon is a light, and that a 2kg rock will fall faster than a 1kg rock. Science adapts to new data. Creationism keeps ancient myths, sacred. If we followed your views I would not be typing on this keyboard or viewing the monitor, since they never would have been invented, since it goes against your sky daddy creation. The inventor of the wheel would have executed as a sorcerer. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2127 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
well,i am not going to play your game. if ou cannot legitiaely refute my work then i will consider that i have refuted your arguments against creation as science andhave shown that evolution does not qualify for such status.
{Remarks removed} Edited by Coyote, : Reason: Coersion Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
So let's parse archie's tome.
quote: This is the first false statement and unfortunately, also the first statement in his tome so everything that comes after is based on a false assertion. First, if something can be supported by observations it is no longer speculative but rather a conclusion. Science does not prove things; all conclusions are held tentatively and are subject to change, revision and even being discarded should new data refute the earlier conclusion. Sorry archie, you failed. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped! |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jumped Up Chimpanzee Member (Idle past 4963 days) Posts: 572 From: UK Joined: |
it (Creation) will also not be repeated but then neither can your theory of evolution be repeated either. (My parenthesis above - I believe you were referring to Creation.) Evolution is going on all the time, and all aspects of the theory can be looked for or tested for again and again to see what conclusions can be drawn. Old conclusions can be either revalidated, amended or discarded. There are no absolutes. If we tested all aspects of the theory tomorrow and found them to be wrong, the whole theory would be thrown out. Which is in stark contrast to your own method, which is to state right at the start that the Bible and God is the absolute truth, which makes any subsequent discussion or debate completely pointless.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
no. because how secular science does it methods, omits data and pursues a false conclusion. So describe how the scientific method SHOULD be followed, and why. Perhaps you could use a simple example to illustrate your points.
your ideas in the first paragraph do not allow for variables or variation and thus is too limited to deal with the topic of origins. So how do we determine, in a scientific manner, what variables or variations are in effect?
we do not need to 'create' a hyptohesis for origins because we already know what it is and those who reject that explanation scramble to replace it with some fictional account they cannot prove and leave people without any answers. So creationists are infallible, and anything they say is automatically true without the need to test it? Is that what you are saying?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13017 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.8 |
I suspect that most people are a bit dismayed about the way this thread is turning out. I know I am.
The topic of this thread is the validity of "creation as science." Archaeologist's responsibility is to present and defend his view of how creation is science. The other side's responsibility is to examine these claims. Anything else is off topic. Please stay on topic. Ignore off topic messages or portions of messages. If you've posted before seeing this message then please go back and make fixes so that your messages are in conformance with this request. Initially enforcement will be by hiding the text of off-topic messages. Archaeologist's periods of participation don't often correspond to my own, so I'll probably be following up many hours after posts have been made, but that can't be helped.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Admin writes:
The thread is turning out about as I had expected, sad to say.
I suspect that most people are a bit dismayed about the way this thread is turning out. I know I am. archaeologist writes:
If you think that there are other viable options, it is up to you to present them. I browsed through the thread, but I could not find any.
B). That science is actually limited to the secular definitions and practice. In other words, there are no other viable options.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13017 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.8 |
nwr writes: archaeologist writes:
If you think that there are other viable options, it is up to you to present them. I browsed through the thread, but I could not find any.B). That science is actually limited to the secular definitions and practice. In other words, there are no other viable options. Archaeologist goes on to say:
Archaeologist in Message 1 writes: This work will not be used to explore those options rather it will use the current secular principles and rules to show that act of creation can and should be considered science. I think it would be a big help if Archaeologist would begin his presentation of how creation should be considered part of modern science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
I think it would be a big help if Archaeologist would begin his presentation of how creation should be considered part of modern science. I was also curious as to how archaeologist defines "modern science". We would be going backwards if archaeologist was using a strawman version of "modern science" and then showing how creation fit that strawman.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
archaeologist Inactive Member |
hello, sorry i haven't been here, i am taking a sick day and maybe another one.. i just read some of the comments and will try to make a presentation as best as i can via one of the better responses that keeps things on topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
archaeologist Inactive Member |
Let me preface my remarks with a couple of answers to bluescat.
If that were true , scientists would still believe in flat earth i would disagree. no one has ever believed that the earth was flat. at best, that was an old sailor's tale or bedtime story to scare little children. read Hapgood's 'Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings'.
If we followed your views I would not be typing on this keyboard or viewing the monitor, since they never would have been invented again i would disagree as science did not invent those things. they came about from viewing older , similar versions that were the product of the God-given intelligence men possess. science had nothing to do with it.
Science adapts to new data. which means that its credibility to discover and proclaim the truth is shot and demonstrates that it never knows what the truth is and tellspeople it needs to be ignored. then let's go with that as the foundation for what i am about to present. Iwill support my article's premise by using the theory of evolution as a comparison tool to illustrate why creation can be considered scientific. First, the act:Now the creation act is a one time affair but then so is the origination of the process of evolution and its initial interaction with the original life form. the origin of life and the origin of the process cannot be repeated thus like creation, secularists ONLY study the supposed results of this process, and this takes millions of years, so they say. whereas the results of creation can be studied by anyone at anytime. so thi gives creation the advantage for qualification over the process of evolution. Second, original condition: for creation we know the orginal conditions for say reproduction. a man, woman, a bed or couch. plus we know that the air, the universe, the oceans, the geography were all about the same as they are now (give or take a flood , pollution etc.) we do not need to guess at what conditions were present for reproduction the creation way. BUT with the theory of evolution there is NO WAY to tell what the original conditions were for their idea of the origin of life, for the origin of the process of evolution, nor do they know the original conditions for the supposed changes in the fossils, the evolutionist claims took place over time. there is no ancient record, no ancient civilization, nothing fom the ancient world that reveals the evolutionary original conditions. which means that even if the scientists think they got it right, they would never know if they did or not, for the theory of evolution, it is all a guess and no confirmation. another advantage for creation. Third, replication: now as i said, evolutionists and creationists can only test the results of each. For creationists, that is not difficult and as i have used this example many times before, one just has to visit the nurseries for the life forms inhabiting the planet today and one will see replication in process. We also see the sun and moon rise and fall each day, the stars at night and so it goes. each stage of the creation act we can see take place and we do not even need a test tube to observe it. BUT with the theory and process of evolution, there is no replication of its supposed work because no one can replicate the original conditions to transform a specimen to change like the examples given in the fossil record. now experiments have been done and the chorus of victory has been sung often by the evoltionary scientist BUT there is a problem, the so-called experiemtns that proclaim the validity of the theory are NOT done as the theory is described. they are performed by intelligent men and women who, unlike the process of evolution, have curiosity, thought, and think, among other things. They are NOT following the same format the process of evolution followed thus their experiments cannot be replicating the claimed theory's results or work. these men and women are also jumping the gun. they are taking existing animals and applying foreign substances to see what will take place, but they forget that the process, did not such thing nor had capibilities to perform such acts thus all these experiments are producing false results which are then credited to the theory. to replicate the process and see if the theory is really correct, then the evolutionist needs to create the original conditions for life, then the original conditions for the process to intercede in that lifeform's destiny and go from there to see if the changes take place as claimed. For all the evolutionist knows all they are getting is the result of contamination of God's perfect design of the gene as their predictions, andtheory do not rule out alternatives from producing the same result. Creation does exclude all alternatives, leaving no doubt what produced the result. with humans involved in the experiments, that alone disqualigies evolution from being scientific for all that is being observed is man's interference with life forms NOT the process's. advantage again creation. Fourth, conclusion: from this little sample we can see that creation is more qualified to be considered scientific than the theory of evolution. We can observe it, replicate it, know the original conditions, plus much more and we do not need science to do it for us.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
archaeologist Inactive Member |
p.s. for point number three, the evolutionary scientist is basically doing their own experiments and attributing the results to the theory of evolution. that is not is not testing the results of evolution but making things up to fit the theory one wants because it is an alternative to the Biblical creation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
archaeologist Inactive Member |
I was also curious as to how archaeologist defines "modern science". We would be going backwards if archaeologist was using a strawman version of "modern science" and then showing how creation fit that strawman. i do not. what the original argument and the last post did was use the secular idea for modern science. i have not set up any alternative because some science has its place in the world, not as an authority but it has a place. i do present new rules though. in its present form secular science basically says, 'all science is good science' but that is just not so. for if it were, then eugenics would not be barred, the nazi experimentalists would be hailed for covering new ground and so on. even dr. frankenstein would be hailed as a hero, if he were real, and his grave robbing would be excused because it is for 'science' thus it is good. None of them could be condemned nor banished from the realm of other scientists who stick to some form of morals and ethics, even though those morals and ethics would be moot and meaningless because 'all science is good science.' i propose new rules--truth and error/ right and wrong for all of science and that science starts giving the correct answers not just theories, hypothesis, maybes, possiblys et al. then morals and ethixs would mean something and much would be accomplished for scientists would not be wastign their time on unprovable and unreal assumptions like the theory of evolution and natural selection. Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
This seems so far below the standard of what we would expect even from the dumbest creationist (I name no names) that one has to suspect that it's a legpull.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024