|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4716 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: People Don't Know What Creation Science Is | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Capt Stormfield Member (Idle past 456 days) Posts: 428 From: Vancouver Island Joined: |
But I can see that there is alot of closedmindedness here, So you keep saying. Perhaps you could kill two birds with one stone in that regard. You could demonstrate both your own open mindedness and the scientific nature of creation science by telling us some specific type of evidence that would change a creation scientist's mind about their belief, and then following that up with the scientific papers that describe how this subject was investigated. To this point all you have done is recite observations about how the world is and claim that that is what creation science predicts. That isn't science. Science means you have to describe exactly why you think certain observations can only mean the thing you are claiming. This is done by describing all the ways you can think of to prove yourself wrong, and then going out and setting up experiments to test those possibilities. Most of the hard work in science is spent trying to eliminate those possibilities, in trying to prove yourself wrong, not in confirming the observations that you think make you right. I'm sure that you have heard the saying "when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail". Well, in order to earn the right to call your ideas science, (and as a good protestant, I'm sure you don't want your ideas living off some sort of affirmative action intellectual welfare program, which is what they are doing now) you have to explain how you have tried to disprove them. So far, all that you (and to be fair to you, the authors you quote and whom you mistakenly believe to be honest) have done is run around hitting everything you see with your hammer and saying "Oooh look, I can hit it, so it must be a nail!" Just to stretch the welfare metaphor** a bit, since you seem to have difficulty understanding science qua science, have you ever wondered why creationism so often ends up in court trying to get its way? Well, it's for the same reason a lot of people end up there trying to get what they want: they haven't earned their place honestly. If CS had, this thread would be filled with arguments about the scientific papers you had quoted instead of repeated pleas for you to just please, for the love of God, provide some. And again, the book you recommend isn't science. I, among others here, grew up on that stuff. (I inherited one of Morris senior's books from my dad.) Grew up in the church. Grew up in religious colleges. And I can tell you with certainty that the good, Christian men and women who taught me science cringe when they encounter that stuff. I remember very clearly a day early in Biology 101 (at Walla Walla College, Sept. 1970, Dr. Carl Forss presiding) when one of the students asked when we were going to get to the part about proving evolution wrong. Dr. Forss quite delicately explained that while we all believed that the Bible was the literal word of God, and that Christ died for our sins, and that Ellen G. White was his inspired prophet, and so on, that his mission in biology class was going to be to teach biology. He further explained that what that meant was that if we continued in the biology curriculum, we would come out of that program able to converse intelligently with other biologists about the material that was found in the literature of biology. He then further clarified that that literature, for better or worse, did not embrace our certain, faith-based knowledge of God's will and ways. I owe him, and others like him, a debt for providing me with an opportunity to examine my religious beliefs in an honest context with respect to the physical world around me. I am truly sorry, Kelly, that you have fallen into the company of individuals whose view of faith has made them liars. I wish you could have talked to Dr. Forss. ** - yes, yes, I know. Just trying, vainly I suspect, to find something she can relate to. Capt. Edited by Capt Stormfield, : typo Edited by Capt Stormfield, : typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Hi GM,
I know I am on your ignore list, so I don't expect a reply, but I thought I would bring this up anyway.
Granny Magda writes: Who might be a good example of a creation scientist? I would like to offer into consideration Sir Isaac Newton considered to have greater effect on the history of science than Einstein. A quote from Newton:
"Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done." Comment from same article on Isaac Newton:
Newton saw God as the master creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation Source Sir Isaac Newton believed God created the universe. Sir Isaac Newton was a Scientist. Therefore he was a Scientist who believed in creation. I don't think it necessary to mention his contribution to science. Belief in God did not seem to interfer with Sir Isaac Newton's ability to contribute to science. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
From what I can tell, extinction is something that the creation model would predict. What doesn't the creation model predict? What evidence, if found, would be inconsistent with the creation model?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
My intention this far has not been to debate creationist's findings verses evolutions--but to start by getting on the same page as to what is creation science? A big step towards this goal is to help us understand the creation science model. You have asserted earlier that creation science hypothesizes that one should not find fossils that link together two divergent groups of species. So how does one determine if a fossil is or is not a link using creation science? What anatomical comparisons does creation science use to determine whether or not a fossil is a link? Specifically, what characteristics does a fossil need in order to be transitional between humans and a common ancestor with chimps according to creation science?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Capt Stormfield Member (Idle past 456 days) Posts: 428 From: Vancouver Island Joined: |
would like to offer into consideration Sir Isaac Newton considered to have greater effect on the history of science than Einstein. Oh dear. Do you think it might be just a tiny bit relevant that the theory of evolution as it is now understood didn't exist in Newton's day? Newton didn't believe in relativity either. That was because it hadn't been theorized yet either. Does that have any relevance to the evidence for relativity that exists today? What do you think Newton's response to Einstein would have been if the information had been made available to him? Can you think of any good reason his response to the evidence for evolution would have been different than his response to the evidence for relativity? Would a scientist today who ignored the work of Einstein, and those who have expanded on his work, be a good scientist if he proclaimed that he was just "thinking like Newton"? Would a scientist today who ignored the work of Darwin, and those who have expanded on his work, be a good scientist if he proclaimed that he was just "thinking like Newton"? Did your fingers tell your brain about that post before they typed it? Capt.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.0 |
Hi ICANT,
quote: It's not like that. I just felt that you weren't contributing anything of value to the "Bible's Flat earth" thread and that you were leading it up a blind alley that was only of interest to you. I'm quite happy to respond to you on other threads and vice-versa. I'm not going to respond to this post either though, because you're not supposed to respond to closing summations! Ah dammit, go on then... Newton's dead dude. He's like, way dead. If the best example of an creation scientist you can come up with is an alchemist who's been dead for nearly two centuries, you'll have to colour me unimpressed. Mutate and Survive "The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Newton is known and respected for his contributions to science made through the scientific method.
He is not respected for his various anti-science superstitions. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2951 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
"Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."
Newton did not know why gravity existed, he just observed it's effects. That is why he had to postulate an outside governing entity that set it into motion. GOD OF THE GAPS. Einstein explained the hows and whys of gravity, no longer needing to postulate the help of an outside agent. It was perfectly understood. The same is with peoples arguement against abiogensis. Just because all of the details aren't fully understood certain people feel the need to postulate an outside agent/deity/creator, GOD OF THE GAPS. Once it's fully comprehended, like gravity, there will no longer be a need to invoke the creator. However, judging by the history of the God of the Gaps argument, I'm sure it will find some other area to cling onto. Perhaps one day they'll ask, "Ok, but who "created" the first string?". "I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks "I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
To everyone still carrying on the discussion:
PLEASE SEE Message 309. This thread is in summation mode. That means no more discussion, no more replies. Just post your summation, then stop. If anyone would like to propose a successor thread they can do so at [forum=-25]. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Well, summation time I guess.
It has become painfully clear in the duration of this thread that no matter how many times she was asked to provide the creation science methods, conclusions, tests, or other such things, Kelly has been unable to supply them. She then accused us of close mindedness for not agreeing with something she hasn't explained. Too bad, I had some hopes for this one. I hunt for the truth |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kelly Member (Idle past 5496 days) Posts: 217 Joined: |
The methods are the same, the data is the same as evolutionists, but the interpretation is different--as is the model or hypothesis. I believe the data or evidence best fits the creationist's expectations. If you want to know what some of these expectations and findings are, you'll have to search through the mountain of posts here to find it. Or, you can read the book that i have recommended many times, it will have much more indepth answers than I have been able to give.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kelly Member (Idle past 5496 days) Posts: 217 Joined: |
You can simply look back to what contributions and discoveries were made then. I think the contribution has been huge and in fact, I believe it is Christianity itself that made modern science even possible. This does not mean that creation science is a study of Christianity, by-the-way. I keep trying to explain what it really is, but it falls on deaf ears here.
I think ICANT gave you a very good example in Isaac Newton.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kelly Member (Idle past 5496 days) Posts: 217 Joined: |
Creation confirms our faith.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Only summations should be posted from now on.
Each participant should post only a single summation. No one should post a reply to anyone. From now on, only use the large General Reply button. There are two such buttons, one near the top and one near the bottom of each page of the thread. Once you've posted your summation, please do not post to this thread again. A successor thread is already available: Creation science II
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I'm closing this thread for one hour so participants figure out that this thread is in summation mode.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024