Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Science in Creationism
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 16 of 986 (783136)
05-03-2016 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Dawn Bertot
05-03-2016 7:30 PM


Re: Falsification
I maintain and will stand by the fact that clear and obvious purpose as a result of intricate design cannot be falsified because it has a truth to it as that of existence itself
Would you care to support this claim with evidence, or are you just going to repeat it a lot?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-03-2016 7:30 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-03-2016 9:02 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


(2)
Message 17 of 986 (783137)
05-03-2016 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Dawn Bertot
05-03-2016 8:35 PM


Re: Falsification
It would be better to respond to my actual argument. Which is how would you falsify an axiomatic truth like existence itself.
The subject of axiomatic truths falls under the umbrella of metaphysics and the philosophy of logic. Science, on the other hand, is inductive -- and so its theories are not axiomatic. All scientific theories, therefore, may be potentially falsified -- and this is a linchpin criterion for something to qualify as scientific. You titled this thread as "The Science in Creationism," not "The Metaphysics in Creationism." Would you like to re-name this thread? Otherwise, if we are to discuss whether there is any scientific validity to creationism, you must explain how creationism is testable and falsifiable.
So is creationism science? Yes or no?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-03-2016 8:35 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-03-2016 8:55 PM Genomicus has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 18 of 986 (783139)
05-03-2016 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by ThinAirDesigns
05-03-2016 8:38 PM


Re: Falsification
But sir I have answered your question by demonstrating that falsifiable cannot apply in certain areas, its limited as in the case of existence
It's your scientific principle that says nothing can be believed unless It has the potential to be proven wrong correct? so where would the potential be in falsifying that things do Not actually exist
I'm telling you plainly there is no potential in falsifying creation (design) not because it's not observable and testable, It is
It's simply due to the fact that falsifiabilityis not an absolute
Your assuming that Falsifiabilty can be applied in every scientific endeavor.
Now do you understand
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 05-03-2016 8:38 PM ThinAirDesigns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 05-03-2016 8:54 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 2373 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


(2)
Message 19 of 986 (783140)
05-03-2016 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Dawn Bertot
05-03-2016 8:51 PM


Re: Falsification
quote:
I'm telling you plainly there is no potential in falsifying creation ...
Then it is not science.
QED
JB
Edited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-03-2016 8:51 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-03-2016 8:57 PM ThinAirDesigns has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 20 of 986 (783141)
05-03-2016 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Genomicus
05-03-2016 8:44 PM


Re: Falsification
Sir let me ask you a simple question to respond to your very verbose comment here.
Is it absolutely true that things exist? Yes or no
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Genomicus, posted 05-03-2016 8:44 PM Genomicus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Genomicus, posted 05-03-2016 8:59 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 27 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 05-03-2016 9:21 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 21 of 986 (783142)
05-03-2016 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by ThinAirDesigns
05-03-2016 8:54 PM


Re: Falsification
But you haven't responded to my arguments just your questions
Do things exist or not
How do you falsify an axiomatic truth
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 05-03-2016 8:54 PM ThinAirDesigns has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Genomicus, posted 05-03-2016 9:01 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


(2)
Message 22 of 986 (783143)
05-03-2016 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Dawn Bertot
05-03-2016 8:55 PM


Re: Falsification
Is it absolutely true that things exist? Yes or no
That's not a question relevant to determining if a model is scientific, so why would you even ask that in a thread titled "The Science in Creationism"? Your question is a metaphysical one, and not a scientific one.
I'd suggest you look into Stephen J. Gould's NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria), wherein science and religion occupy two distinct domains of human reality. They address largely non-overlapping questions.
In similar fashion, metaphysics and science do not answer the same kinds of questions. Science only deals in theories and hypotheses which are falsifiable by experiment and observation; a metaphysics thread, then, is a more appropriate place for your question.
Your question has nothing to do with whether creationism is falsifiable; and if it is not properly falsifiable, it is not science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-03-2016 8:55 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-03-2016 9:38 PM Genomicus has replied

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


(4)
Message 23 of 986 (783144)
05-03-2016 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Dawn Bertot
05-03-2016 8:57 PM


Re: Falsification
How do you falsify an axiomatic truth
Wut?
Literally wut?
This thread is titled The Science in Creationism.
Science deals in theories and hypotheses that are falsifiable. So the subject of axiomatic truths is NOT the domain of science. Your thread is titled "The Science in Creationism," so the onus is on you to demonstrate that creationism is science by virtue of its falsifiability. If you can't do that, then (1) admit creationism isn't science, or (2) re-name the thread to "The Metaphysics of Creationism."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-03-2016 8:57 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-03-2016 9:11 PM Genomicus has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 24 of 986 (783145)
05-03-2016 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Dr Adequate
05-03-2016 8:39 PM


Re: Falsification
Yes I'll be happy to answer it. Is there clear Purpose as a result of things operating in a clear logical ordered fashion
Yes or no
You see Dr A imaging things were not designed is not the same as actually doing away with the clear observable principles as I have listed them above
How would you make these principles go away any more than the laws of gravity
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-03-2016 8:39 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-03-2016 9:35 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 31 by jar, posted 05-03-2016 9:59 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 25 of 986 (783146)
05-03-2016 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Genomicus
05-03-2016 9:01 PM


Re: Falsification
Your last two post are excellent in defining what I'm trying to explain in this thread your assuming science is directed by terms ideas and concepts it not exclusive to these. Reality and physical properties determine what science is or is not, then develops terms and ideas based on these laws
Why will you not answer my simple question. Do things exist or not? If things exist do they they have the potential to be falsified?
Please answer those questions
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Genomicus, posted 05-03-2016 9:01 PM Genomicus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Genomicus, posted 05-03-2016 9:18 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 51 by Taq, posted 05-04-2016 11:42 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


Message 26 of 986 (783147)
05-03-2016 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Dawn Bertot
05-03-2016 9:11 PM


Re: Falsification
Your last two post are excellent in defining what I'm trying to explain in this thread your assuming science is directed by terms ideas and concepts it not exclusive to these. Reality and physical properties determine what science is or is not, then develops terms and ideas based on these laws
Scientific theories are falsifiable. Since you are unable to provide a falsification scenario for creationism, creationism is not science. Ipso facto, there is no science in creationism.
If you'd like to discuss the metaphysics of creationism, this is not the thread for that (since you called this thread "The Science in Creationism"), so maybe you can start another one called "The Metaphysics of Creationism."
Please answer those questions
They have nothing whatsoever to do with whether creationism is properly falsifiable. They are only attempts to steer the discussion towards metaphysics, which is weird since you called this thread "The Science in Creationism."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-03-2016 9:11 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 2373 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


Message 27 of 986 (783148)
05-03-2016 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Dawn Bertot
05-03-2016 8:55 PM


Re: Falsification
No, I will not answer questions that are not on the topic of "The Science In Creationism".
Start another thread if you wish to discuss such (but not with me).
JB
Edited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-03-2016 8:55 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 28 of 986 (783149)
05-03-2016 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Dawn Bertot
05-03-2016 9:02 PM


Re: Falsification
Yes I'll be happy to answer it. Is there clear Purpose as a result of things operating in a clear logical ordered fashion
If you mean ordered rather than orderly, then the answer is yes, those things which are ordered rather than merely orderly are by definition ordered according to some purpose.
Ordered Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
Now all you would need to do is provide scientific evidence that living organisms were in fact ordered by someone, and you would have done what no-one else has and put some science into creationism.
Do you have any such evidence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-03-2016 9:02 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-03-2016 10:02 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 29 of 986 (783150)
05-03-2016 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Genomicus
05-03-2016 8:59 PM


Re: Falsification
There is no such thing as a metaphysical question relating to physical properties that clearly exist. If things clearly exist then they are not Outside the physical.
Trying to make a distinction between science and physical properties that clearly exist by calling it metaphysical and knowing they exist, is intellectual dishonesty
Refusing to answer a simple question like do things actually exist and responding by saying it's metaphysical is intellectual sloppiness and dishonesty
Assuming that a so-called Scientific principle like Falsifiability is valid as a principle yet knowing it's not a necessity to demonstrate an obvious truth, is the worst form of intellectual dishonesty
In short there is no such thing as meta physics. Retreating to this is a simple evasion of answering simple questions put to you
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Genomicus, posted 05-03-2016 8:59 PM Genomicus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Genomicus, posted 05-03-2016 9:47 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


(2)
Message 30 of 986 (783151)
05-03-2016 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Dawn Bertot
05-03-2016 9:38 PM


Re: Falsification
There is no such thing as a metaphysical question relating to physical properties that clearly exist.
Here.
Now that you know what metaphysics means, you will know that metaphysics addresses questions that are beyond the purview of scientific inquiry.
Refusing to answer a simple question like do things actually exist and responding by saying it's metaphysical is intellectual sloppiness and dishonesty
Your psychoanalysis still isn't relevant to whether creationism is falsifiable; and if it is not falsifiable, then it is not science.
Assuming that a so-called Scientific principle like Falsifiability is valid as a principle yet knowing it's not a necessity to demonstrate an obvious truth, is the worst form of intellectual dishonesty
Science does not deal in obvious or axiomatic truths; that's the domain of logic, mathematics, and metaphysics. Science deals in theories and models that can be falsified; three centuries ago, the caloric theory was accepted as scientifically valid, but it was falsified, so it is no longer a valid scientific theory.
If science was about axiomatic truths, then it would remain forever static; its theories would never change. But science is not so; its theories and hypotheses evolve continuously in light of new observations about the natural world. And this, too, is where its enormous explanatory power springs from. Since poor theories and hypotheses are ruthlessly eliminated by the cutting edge of Occam's razor and Popperian falsificationism, scientific models can be continuously refined until a simple theory can explain so much with so few principles.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-03-2016 9:38 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-04-2016 12:37 AM Genomicus has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024