Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation science II
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2849 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 5 of 312 (501724)
03-07-2009 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Kelly
03-07-2009 2:59 PM


Re: Creationists
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Kelly, posted 03-07-2009 2:59 PM Kelly has not replied

shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2849 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 23 of 312 (501805)
03-07-2009 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Kelly
03-07-2009 3:55 PM


Re: still not getting it...
Hi Kelly,
I don't know whether you'll return after your spanking but if so perhaps the following video will help you understand why your approach to science is flawed. Sometimes perspective or vantage point make all the difference.
But regardless of what a person's religion is..
hexagonal patterns prove the creation by Allah!
Disproving Evolution in Minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th7wr9KMu-I&feature=related

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Kelly, posted 03-07-2009 3:55 PM Kelly has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by rueh, posted 03-08-2009 11:29 AM shalamabobbi has not replied

shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2849 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 87 of 312 (502101)
03-09-2009 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Kelly
03-09-2009 11:39 AM


A mark for creation science..
not to argue the data or study itself (I am not really qualified)
...and here is the crux of the problem. You are not knowledgeable enough to recognize the fallacies being passed off on you as science. Until if and when you choose to do something to correct that situation you will continue to be the 'mark' of these con artists who are funded by donations from similar marks like yourself.
(edit starts)
Your argument has been reduced to one of "an appeal to authority", not a surprising approach for a creationist really.
(end edit)
Edited by shalamabobbi, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 11:39 AM Kelly has not replied

shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2849 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 92 of 312 (502126)
03-09-2009 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Kelly
03-09-2009 6:35 PM


Re: No, actually it is based on discrimination
Many have chosen to shun creationist's writings simply because they wrongly believe that it is religion in disguise. This situation exhibits a huge degree of closedmindedness which is quite alien to the spirit of true scientific inquiry.
I think you are projecting here.
The writings are not shunned. Many have come from your background and through evaluation, thought, and mental struggle have arrived at the conclusion that creationism is incorrect.
Many here who now are atheists did not begin as such. They acknowledge that they would gladly welcome the evidence for your viewpoint if any existed.
They simply have a longer history than you upon the subject matter and correctly conclude that the book you have referenced presents nothing fundamentally different to the argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 6:35 PM Kelly has not replied

shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2849 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 185 of 312 (502446)
03-11-2009 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Kelly
03-11-2009 9:49 AM


Re: Is it Science?
I am interested in settling the misconception that creation science is not a science
The Institute for creation research
The Institute for Creation Research | The Institute for Creation Research
Departments -> employment
The Institute for Creation Research has a long history of hiring the best and brightest for our work in the fields of scientific research, education, publishing, and other areas vital to the successful communication of our message.
Please review the jobs listed below. All candidates must agree to ICR doctrinal statements and tenets. All positions will be filled at our Dallas headquarters. Local candidates are preferred.
For inquiries or to submit your resume, please email jobline@icr.org.
Look at hotlink:
ICR doctrinal statements and tenets
The Bible, consisting of the thirty-nine canonical books of the Old Testament and the twenty-seven canonical books of the New Testament, is the divinely-inspired revelation of the Creator to man. Its unique, plenary, verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological.
This is a small excerpt of the list posted there. I was going to post the whole list but did not because of the admins last post. To be employed by the ICR you have to sign off on the their model first. So they are only looking to shoehorn evidence into their model. They start with the conclusion, then look for ways to support it.
By DEFINITION that is not science.
Edited by shalamabobbi, : spelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Kelly, posted 03-11-2009 9:49 AM Kelly has not replied

shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2849 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 243 of 312 (502608)
03-12-2009 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by Sarawak
03-12-2009 12:01 PM


Re: Accomplished What?
Hello Sarawak,
When you think of an answer to your question, please contribute to my thread here, thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Sarawak, posted 03-12-2009 12:01 PM Sarawak has not replied

shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2849 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 306 of 312 (502702)
03-12-2009 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 302 by Sky-Writing
03-12-2009 7:01 PM


Re: Accomplished What?
Admit that they are designed for good, yet do wrong. Embracing the mud is the only way out after they have done what they are not designed to do. Animals don't have this problem. They don't go nuts after killing others. We do, because we are designed better than they are.
Why does how you are made have anything to do with your capacity to determine right from wrong?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-12-2009 7:01 PM Sky-Writing 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