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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
™ Version 4.0 Beta
