Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 156 (8143 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-25-2014 10:33 AM
76 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MikeManea
Upcoming Birthdays: Coragyps, DrJones*
Post Volume:
Total: 738,579 Year: 24,420/28,606 Month: 1,721/1,786 Week: 583/423 Day: 10/113 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
234Next
Author Topic:   what is a scientific theory of creation
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 58 (4159)
02-11-2002 8:12 PM


Apparently no one is going to provide a scientific theory of creation.

It should have:
1) testable hypotheses
2) confirming evidence
3) potential falsifications

Now, if creationism is science this should be a trivial exercise.

Cheers,
Larry


Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by TrueCreation, posted 02-11-2002 10:27 PM lbhandli has responded
 Message 7 by toff, posted 02-12-2002 7:41 AM lbhandli has not yet responded
 Message 8 by redstang281, posted 02-12-2002 8:58 AM lbhandli has responded
 Message 28 by Brad McFall, posted 02-17-2002 1:39 PM lbhandli has not yet responded

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 58 (4168)
02-11-2002 9:32 PM


Well, a scientific theory of creation is different when you ask different people. Different people have different defintions of what a scientific theory of creation really is.

For example, YOUR definition of a scientific theory of creation is probably as follows.

1. An impossibility
2. A lame attempt that a Creationist may propose (which is clearly wrong)
3. A terrific way to give yourself leverage in a debate because YOU think it is impossible and when someone shows you one you simply say it is not scientifically correct.

You are simply blind and not looking for a Creation model. I look forward to your insulting reply.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by gene90, posted 02-11-2002 9:34 PM Cobra_snake has not yet responded
 Message 12 by lbhandli, posted 02-12-2002 2:33 PM Cobra_snake has not yet responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 290 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 3 of 58 (4169)
02-11-2002 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Cobra_snake
02-11-2002 9:32 PM


Responses like that only make it seem more likely that you don't have one, you're better off either giving a legitimate response or no response at all.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Cobra_snake, posted 02-11-2002 9:32 PM Cobra_snake has not yet responded

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 58 (4170)
02-11-2002 9:39 PM


Well apparently everyone except Quetzal missed mine in the "why creation science isn't science" category. Unless Ibhandli thouroughly destroys my model, he is in no position to claim that he has never been presented one.
Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by joz, posted 02-11-2002 10:33 PM Cobra_snake has not yet responded
 Message 13 by lbhandli, posted 02-12-2002 2:34 PM Cobra_snake has responded

  
TrueCreation
Member
Posts: 2318
From: Tampa, FL, USA
Joined: 12-18-2001


Message 5 of 58 (4173)
02-11-2002 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by lbhandli
02-11-2002 8:12 PM


A scientific theory of creation? I think we need more emphesis if we are consider the question, what do you mean by scientific theory of creation? The origins, or a scientific creationist theory, etc

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lbhandli, posted 02-11-2002 8:12 PM lbhandli has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by lbhandli, posted 02-12-2002 2:36 PM TrueCreation has responded

    
joz
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 58 (4176)
02-11-2002 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Cobra_snake
02-11-2002 9:39 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Well apparently everyone except Quetzal missed mine in the "why creation science isn't science" category. Unless Ibhandli thouroughly destroys my model, he is in no position to claim that he has never been presented one.

Which post no.?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Cobra_snake, posted 02-11-2002 9:39 PM Cobra_snake has not yet responded

  
toff
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 58 (4211)
02-12-2002 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by lbhandli
02-11-2002 8:12 PM


Lots of prevarication here...but no scientific theory of creationism, despite the original poster being fairly specific on what it should contain. Why am I not surprised?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lbhandli, posted 02-11-2002 8:12 PM lbhandli has not yet responded

  
redstang281
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 58 (4214)
02-12-2002 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by lbhandli
02-11-2002 8:12 PM


quote:
Originally posted by lbhandli:
Apparently no one is going to provide a scientific theory of creation.

It should have:
1) testable hypotheses
2) confirming evidence
3) potential falsifications

Now, if creationism is science this should be a trivial exercise.

Cheers,
Larry


I think this is the most common misunderstanding by evolutionists.

The belief of creation is not provable, it's a faith. The idea is that all science fits with the Biblical account of creation without compromising the clear teachings of the Bible.

Now if we apply your laws to the theory of evolution we will find that evolution is not a science either.

Non of the evolution theorys could stand up to any of these. (keep in mind microevolution is testible and is part of creation)

It should have:
1) testable hypotheses
2) confirming evidence
3) potential falsifications

Here's some important quotes:

2. 'In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion;
almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared
to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it.'

H.S. Lipson, FRS (Professor of Physics, University of Manchester,
UK), 'A physicist looks at evolution'. Physics Bulletin, vol. 31,
1980, p.138

3. 'The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is
thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an
unproved theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the
theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special
creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true but
neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.'
(L. Harrison Matthews, FRS, Introduction to Darwin's The Origin of
Species, J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London, 1971, p.xi.

4. 'One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current
wisdom a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance
and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not
faith has not yet been written.'
(Hubert P. Yockey [Army Pulse Radiation Facility, Aberdeen Proving
Ground, Maryland, USA], 'A calculation of the probability of
spontaneous biogenesis by information theory'. Journal of Theoretical
Biology, vol.67, 1977, p.396


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lbhandli, posted 02-11-2002 8:12 PM lbhandli has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by LudvanB, posted 02-12-2002 9:21 AM redstang281 has not yet responded
 Message 10 by Peter, posted 02-12-2002 9:30 AM redstang281 has not yet responded
 Message 11 by toff, posted 02-12-2002 10:02 AM redstang281 has not yet responded
 Message 15 by lbhandli, posted 02-12-2002 2:40 PM redstang281 has not yet responded

  
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 58 (4217)
02-12-2002 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by redstang281
02-12-2002 8:58 AM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
I think this is the most common misunderstanding by evolutionists.

The belief of creation is not provable, it's a faith. The idea is that all science fits with the Biblical account of creation without compromising the clear teachings of the Bible.

Now if we apply your laws to the theory of evolution we will find that evolution is not a science either.

Non of the evolution theorys could stand up to any of these. (keep in mind microevolution is testible and is part of creation)

It should have:
1) testable hypotheses
2) confirming evidence
3) potential falsifications

Here's some important quotes:

2. 'In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion;
almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared
to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it.'

H.S. Lipson, FRS (Professor of Physics, University of Manchester,
UK), 'A physicist looks at evolution'. Physics Bulletin, vol. 31,
1980, p.138

3. 'The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is
thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an
unproved theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the
theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special
creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true but
neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.'
(L. Harrison Matthews, FRS, Introduction to Darwin's The Origin of
Species, J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London, 1971, p.xi.

4. 'One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current
wisdom a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance
and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not
faith has not yet been written.'
(Hubert P. Yockey [Army Pulse Radiation Facility, Aberdeen Proving
Ground, Maryland, USA], 'A calculation of the probability of
spontaneous biogenesis by information theory'. Journal of Theoretical
Biology, vol.67, 1977, p.396


Evolution is a religion?...thats a common diatribe by creationists and other evengelical nuts seeking to bring evolution DOWN to THEIR level so they can more effectively fight it. Evolution is not based on faith but one solid evidence and on probability thinking. And as evolution is a SCIENCE,its self correcting,meaning that frauds are exposed by other scientists when they are discovered,whereas creationists always try like hell to cover up their blunders and resist any change in their hypothesis,not on evidenciary ground but on DOGMATIC grounds. Just this week,scientists have discovered a possible genetic proof of macromutation/evolution which demonstrates that some species of flies were actually small sea dwelling creatures at one time. amusingly enough,i have not seen either you or TC comment on this...interesting...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by redstang281, posted 02-12-2002 8:58 AM redstang281 has not yet responded

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 10 of 58 (4218)
02-12-2002 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by redstang281
02-12-2002 8:58 AM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
I think this is the most common misunderstanding by evolutionists.

The belief of creation is not provable, it's a faith. The idea is that all science fits with the Biblical account of creation without compromising the clear teachings of the Bible.


Pedantic (again) but ... 'Belief of Creation' exists no one doubts that. Ultimately knowledge of whether or not God created all
that is will either be gained when we die, or we will disappear without trace and so no longer care .. that I agree with.

All science fitting with the Biblical account of creation is another
matter. If the biblical account of creation is your hypothesis, then
it is testable (to a degree).

I think it's a bit of a cop out, though, to say it's faith so I
don't have to prove it.

Why do you have faith in the biblical account of creation ?

Why is that account any more/less believable than evolution in terms
of the origin of species ?

quote:

Originally posted by redstang281:

Now if we apply your laws to the theory of evolution we will find that evolution is not a science either.

Non of the evolution theorys could stand up to any of these. (keep in mind microevolution is testible and is part of creation)

It should have:
1) testable hypotheses


The basic (abridged) hypothesis behind evolutionary theory is that
the diversity of life on Earth developed over time via redistribution
of allelle frequencies in individual populations in response to
changes in the environment. Genetic mutations played a part in
this process.

This hypothesis leads to predictions about what would be expected
to be seen in the world at large.

These predictions can be compared with observations to be validated.

If these predications are contradicted, then that part of the
theory to which they related is falsified.

quote:

Originally posted by redstang281:

2) confirming evidence

The majority of confirming evidence, whilst compelling for 'us'
is dismissed as rubbish by most creationists.

It leads into discussions over the age of the earth, gets sidetracked
into probabalistic debates over the likelyhood of abiogenesis, and suggestions that a consistent ordering of fossils within rock strata
could have occurred due to a global flood.

quote:

Originally posted by redstang281:

3) potential falsifications

See above.

quote:

Originally posted by redstang281:

Here's some important quotes:

2. 'In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion;
almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared
to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it.'

H.S. Lipson, FRS (Professor of Physics, University of Manchester,
UK), 'A physicist looks at evolution'. Physics Bulletin, vol. 31,
1980, p.138


If observations are bent to fit evolutionary theory, these are picked up by peer review. I do NOT believe that an observation can be bent
into anything. If an evolutionary concept can explain observations
is that bending ?

Check out creationist refutations of evidence FOR evolution if
you would like to see some fascinating tricks of hypothesis.

quote:

Originally posted by redstang281:

3. 'The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is
thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an
unproved theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the
theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special
creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true but
neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.'
(L. Harrison Matthews, FRS, Introduction to Darwin's The Origin of
Species, J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London, 1971, p.xi.

In what way is evolution the backbone of biology ?

It is one facet of enquiry into the biological world. It does NOT
inform studies of physiology, genetics, eco-systems, biochemistry, etc. Quite the reverse in fact.

Failure to prove evolution has little to do with evidence, and much
to do with politics, power, and religion.

quote:

Originally posted by redstang281:

4. 'One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current
wisdom a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance
and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not
faith has not yet been written.'
(Hubert P. Yockey [Army Pulse Radiation Facility, Aberdeen Proving
Ground, Maryland, USA], 'A calculation of the probability of
spontaneous biogenesis by information theory'. Journal of Theoretical
Biology, vol.67, 1977, p.396

Faith is about beleiving in something without any evidence.
If we as evolutionists were not concerned with evidence, why would
quote so much of it, and attempt to explain it ?

Even the quote you provide says 'Has not yet been written', not that
it is in any sense impossible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by redstang281, posted 02-12-2002 8:58 AM redstang281 has not yet responded

    
toff
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 58 (4225)
02-12-2002 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by redstang281
02-12-2002 8:58 AM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
I think this is the most common misunderstanding by evolutionists.

The belief of creation is not provable, it's a faith. The idea is that all science fits with the Biblical account of creation without compromising the clear teachings of the Bible.

Now if we apply your laws to the theory of evolution we will find that evolution is not a science either.

Non of the evolution theorys could stand up to any of these. (keep in mind microevolution is testible and is part of creation)

It should have:
1) testable hypotheses
2) confirming evidence
3) potential falsifications

Here's some important quotes:

2. 'In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion;
almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared
to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it.'

H.S. Lipson, FRS (Professor of Physics, University of Manchester,
UK), 'A physicist looks at evolution'. Physics Bulletin, vol. 31,
1980, p.138

3. 'The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is
thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an
unproved theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the
theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special
creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true but
neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.'
(L. Harrison Matthews, FRS, Introduction to Darwin's The Origin of
Species, J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London, 1971, p.xi.

4. 'One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current
wisdom a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance
and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not
faith has not yet been written.'
(Hubert P. Yockey [Army Pulse Radiation Facility, Aberdeen Proving
Ground, Maryland, USA], 'A calculation of the probability of
spontaneous biogenesis by information theory'. Journal of Theoretical
Biology, vol.67, 1977, p.396


No, redstang. It's not a common misunderstanding of evolutionists. It's not even a misunderstanding. Evolutionists KNOW that creationism is not a science. It's a belief, a faith - a religious one. That's why we laugh at the notion of 'creation science'.

Evolution, however, is completely different. It is in no sense a religion. it has:

1) testable hypotheses,
2) confirming evidence, and
3) potential falsifications,

which you can find in any popular text on the subject.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by redstang281, posted 02-12-2002 8:58 AM redstang281 has not yet responded

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 58 (4259)
02-12-2002 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Cobra_snake
02-11-2002 9:32 PM


Provide a model or admit there isn't one. I'm tired of your whining.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Cobra_snake, posted 02-11-2002 9:32 PM Cobra_snake has not yet responded

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 58 (4260)
02-12-2002 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Cobra_snake
02-11-2002 9:39 PM


Your 'model' wasn't a model. It was two claims that completely avoided anything unique and testable. Of course, if you would like to stop whining and post it again it can, again, be pointed out why it was useless.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Cobra_snake, posted 02-11-2002 9:39 PM Cobra_snake has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Cobra_snake, posted 02-14-2002 3:05 PM lbhandli has responded
 Message 22 by Quetzal, posted 02-15-2002 4:36 AM lbhandli has responded

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 58 (4261)
02-12-2002 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by TrueCreation
02-11-2002 10:27 PM


Stop with this nonsense and provide a theory. I've already given you as much latitude as you could possibly have and your response so far was to post a could be scenario that wasn't scientific, but a "could be" scenario that was quickly pointed out to be wrong. Either provide a theory or admit you can't.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by TrueCreation, posted 02-11-2002 10:27 PM TrueCreation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by TrueCreation, posted 02-14-2002 4:38 PM lbhandli has responded

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 58 (4262)
02-12-2002 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by redstang281
02-12-2002 8:58 AM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
I think this is the most common misunderstanding by evolutionists.

Gee, where did it come from? Oh, that's right: AIG, ICR, Hovind, etc.

quote:

Now if we apply your laws to the theory of evolution we will find that evolution is not a science either.

Actually here it is for common descent:
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

quote:

Non of the evolution theorys could stand up to any of these. (keep in mind microevolution is testible and is part of creation)

It should have:
1) testable hypotheses
2) confirming evidence
3) potential falsifications


See above and retract.

quote:

Here's some important quotes:

Quotes aren't science. Take it to another thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by redstang281, posted 02-12-2002 8:58 AM redstang281 has not yet responded

  
1
234Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014