Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 64 (9162 total)
10 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,227 Year: 3,484/9,624 Month: 355/974 Week: 244/130 Day: 38/43 Hour: 0/6

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   A Year In Intelligent Design
Capt Stormfield
Member (Idle past 470 days)
Posts: 428
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009

Message 46 of 50 (844681)
12-03-2018 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Faith
12-03-2018 6:18 PM

Re: Creation Science vs Regular Science
You have built an entire edifice of imaginary pseudoscience and alternative outcomes based on guesses and assumptions you pull directly out of your ass.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Faith, posted 12-03-2018 6:18 PM Faith has not replied

Posts: 9000
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003

Message 47 of 50 (844682)
12-03-2018 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Stile
12-03-2018 2:21 PM

Re: Creation Science vs Regular Science
If you have an undisputed set of observations or facts... then they only ever lead to one single Scientific conclusion.
This is, I think, pretty rare. The set of facts often have multiple possible interpretations. Then there are ongoing arguments, sometimes not friendly, about those conclusions.
Only further facts may finally force a consensus conclusion that may become universal.
I think you have all that in mind with what you subsequently wrote.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Stile, posted 12-03-2018 2:21 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

Posts: 9501
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 5.4

Message 48 of 50 (844688)
12-04-2018 3:35 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Faith
12-03-2018 6:13 PM

Re: Creation Science vs Regular Science
Faith writes:
I think there's sufficient evidence for the young earth but the journals don't, just as you don't.
Not only do the journals (ie science) find insufficient evidence for a young earth, it also finds enormous qualities of evidence for an old earth. It's long been settled science and won't be overturned by pure belief.
So the young earth is an assumption in YEC science
There is no such thing as YEC science, if YEC was science, we'd just call it science.
that is always going to disqualify any scientific work that assumes it from publication in the standard journals.
Science doesn't care where evidence comes from or what people believe about it, it only cares about the evidence. Your problem is that you have no science to publish, not that the publishers won't accept it.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Faith, posted 12-03-2018 6:13 PM Faith has not replied

Member (Idle past 1039 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008

Message 49 of 50 (844710)
12-04-2018 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Stile
12-03-2018 2:21 PM

Re: Creation Science vs Regular Science
The only way for Science to disagree on the conclusion of a test is to do the test again and show an error in the previous test (generally resulting in Nobel Prizes for catching an error.)
Which would still result in only 1 valid test - and only 1 valid conclusion.
I think you have to find an error in something pretty important to get a Nobel prize - if they handed them out every time someone fixed a mistake there'd be a lot more laureates.
Edited by caffeine, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Stile, posted 12-03-2018 2:21 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

Posts: 18280
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1

Message 50 of 50 (844717)
12-04-2018 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Faith
12-02-2018 6:31 PM

Re: Will Faith Answer Me?
Faith writes:
It's simple: I think they are wrong, I'm not looking for snarky explanations for why they are wrong. I'll even say they are honestly wrong, they believe in what they are saying. But I believe they are wrong nevertheless.
And in the future I may well ignore you, Phat, whether you do that particular snark thing on me or not, because I don't like your attitude.
Get ready to ignore me, dear.
Faith writes:
...creationists who don't accept the established findings will come to different conclusions based on their different assumptions.
Keyword: Assumptions.
Faith writes:
Since scientific journals adhere to the accepted framework of the ToE, they are not going to consider anything that comes to them from the creationist point of view, at least if it involves the kind of assumptions I've mentioned above. That is, the scientific thinking IS different even if the basic facts are the same wherever these different assumptions are important to the research.
They certainly won't accept the Bible as evidence if that's what you mean.
Tangle writes:
There is no such thing as YEC science, if YEC was science, we'd just call it science.
Logically I can agree with that. If I were to become a Biblical Innerrantist instead, I would have to ignore my own intuition. Which may be what I need to do, in the final analysis. The jury is out.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Faith, posted 12-02-2018 6:31 PM Faith has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024