[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[b]"First of all, you should know that Creation "science" isn't science. It is religious in nature and has attempted to "dress up" in a lab coat to appear scientific. Howerver, it bears no resemblence to what
real scientists do."
--Please don't make such an inference such as you have constantly made in the 'why creation 'science' isn't science' thread, with your unsuccessfulness to protrude it as being so. If Cobra hasn't taken a look yet, he should skim threw the thread (I think he is actually carrying on some discussion in that thread but with my oh so reliable memory...). A real scientist is not destinguished upon whether they are creationists or evolutionists at all, a rebutable assertion.[/QUOTE]
Real scientists use the scientific method. Please demonstrate that Creation "science" uses the scientific method. A good place to start is with a scientific theory of creation, complete with testable hypothesese, confirming evidence, and potential falsifications.
Remember, to qualify as scientific, all theories have to be able to be incorrect.
quote:
"Whatever you want to believe in from a religious standpoint is fine, of course, but just realize that it most likely isn't based upon evidence found in nature, but upon divine revelation."
--What you believe is a separation of faith and science, faith is not creation science, faith is your faith.
If you believe that the Earth is 6000 years old, despite the vast quantity of evidence that it is very much older than that, AND you try to call this belief scientifically-based, you are holding a pseudoscientific belief.
quote:
"IOW, the leading Creation "science" organizations' and "scientists'" claims are not suppoerted by the evidence."
--First, I thought you said that the meaning of majority is next to nothing, if you didn't, it sertainly a truth.[QUOTE]
Look, if you want to claim that your own personal viewpoint of science and religion all mishmashed up together is science, then fine, I suppose. If something is scientific or not is not relative. There are clear gudelines for determining what is science and what isn't. You claim that Creation "science" is quite scientific, and have quoted various Creation "science" sites as evidence in support of your position. The ICR and CRS are the experts in the field of Creation "science", yet they explicitly violate the tenets of science in their stated policies and philosophy.
quote:
And the scientists claims on their science is nothing short of science unless fraudulent, their interperetation of the evidence is the interperetation, which isn't the science, its what the discovery means with the understanding and contemplation of the human mind to the evidence.
So, are you actually saying that neither Creation "science", nor the interpretations that Creation "scienctists" make, are scientific?
Then how can it be science?
quote:
"Now, here is a good website which deals with radiometic dating from a Christian perspective:"
--Underlying the same assumptions which I still have yet to have an explination rather than, 'these assumptions are irrelevant' without reason or explination.
The one underlying assuption in science is that the forces of nature which are in effect now have been relatively constant. If you want to say that they haven't been constant, then you have to provide evidence.
quote:
"Also have a look at this definition of science:"
--Which holds abosolute credibility and equality to creation science, there is no difference, an attempt to assert it otherwize is unsuccessful.
Look, the people who are the LEADING CREATIONISTS in the world (at the ICR and CRS) violate this definition of science on several points, which has been pointed out to you. If Creationists cannot even agree on how Creation "science" is defined, then what is the point?
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-19-2002][/B]
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-22-2002]