Creation as Science

but the human scientist is the same variable. he decides which experiments, what the parameters are, what the prediction will be and so on. then he uses artifical and controlled enviornments and factors to make his experiment. i do not see you having an argument. then science cannot be used as an authority in any field of life, including the legal system. it cannot be relied on to be a determiner, let alone a final one as it is often used. and no one can appeal to it for anything.no one said anything about themeaning of life but truth,/error, right and wrong must be a part of the program or you have nothing and are just wasting everybodies time because you cannot have understanding without those 4 elements involved. you do not need evidence to understand--just reasons. evidence in and of itself is easily manipulated and can say whatever you want it to say. it has been done and is still being done. if yo do not accept any truth, how can you live? you must be stuck in your apartment 24/7 then. the equation includes faith and if you cannot make that a part of your thining then you have problems because there will never be the all the physical evidence you want.but i see most of this as an excuse to avoid the truth, because you still turn to science we for answers even though it is looking in the wrong places and for the wrong things. if the above is true, then why are you using science? it won't help you because it has no truth, according to your thinking. you are just wasting your time.you do not accept anything so even science can't help you. the only thing that will help you now is the Bible, you either accept or reject it you cannot make excuses like, i do not accept anything. that doesn't cut it in the real world.secular science has been designed to fool you an dit has done a very good job.Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.

Sorry I wasn't more specific, but I wanted you to feel you had the freedom to present and develop your ideas in your own way.But since you ask, I think now that you've presented your position that the next step is to present the evidence and arguments that support it. Your position, as I understand it, is this: So you next want to post this supporting information:

• What you believe the rules of science are.
  ​
• How creation follows those rules.
  ​
• How the rules of science need to change.
  ​
• How creation demonstrates the superiority of these changed rules.

Please, no replies to this message.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

okay not replying to that message but to the points raised.sorry but i have done all that and you all have failed to respond properly and with supporting evidence. i have proven my point and not one person has refuted anything i raised but have kept sidetracking.so i am now done with this thread. i am not here to have my points judged, nor do 'homework' just becaus eyou donot like what you read. if you cannot discuss in a proper manner and support your points there is no point in going any further.

That's great. Let's take this one step at a time. Please provide a link to the message where you described what you believe to be the rules of science. Once people know where to find it then I'll make sure it is given the proper attention.Please, no replies to this message.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Which is just what you are doing. The point is reasons don't give understanding, without evidence the reasons are nothing but gobbldygook.Edited by bluescat48, : deleted duplicate word

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

I think you may not really understand the nature of predictions in Science.Let me repost something that may help you understand how predictions work from this old thread. This example involves the Periodic Table.

quote:

---

I found it interesting that you brought up the Periodic Table, because it is a classic example of how science does work and why the Scientific Method (TOE) is far more likely to be right than ID or Biblical Creationism.

​

The important thing about Mendeleev's Table was that it had gaps and reordered many of the placements of elements in earlier attempts at creating a table. He took another series of steps based on the reasoning behind his arrangement and predicted two things; that when the elements he reordered were examined with greater precision the then accepted atomic weights for those elements would be found to be wrong; and that elements would be found to fill in his blanks and even what the properties of each of those elements would be.

​

I cannot overstate the importance of those actions. He presented a model that explained what was already known, and was also useful for making predictions about what would be learned in the future. In addition, as more was learned we found that the new elements discovered were exactly as he predicted and that the atomic weights of those he rearranged were as he predicted.

​

His model explained what was seen as well as what would be discovered. It went even further and provided the basis for us to create NEW elements, ones not found on earth, with a high degree of confidence of what their properties would be even before we created them.

​

The Periodic Table is a great example of why the TOE is valuable and ID and Biblical Creationism are worthless.

​

The value of the TOE has been in helping us understand what is seen, but in also providing the basis for future discoveries. What we have learned from the TOE has let us make predictions, and so far those predictions have been born out by each new discovery.

​

ID and Biblical Creationism have no predictive potential. There is nothing there to form our basis. A good example is in ID. When based on the evidence seen in living things it is pointed out that the I in ID should stand for Inept or Incompetent or Inelegant or Inscrutable or Ignorant we are told that we cannot know the Intent of the Designer. Well sorry, if we cannot know the Intent of the Designer then we cannot predict what the Designer will do. If that is the case then the ID concept is worthless.

​

The same argument is applicable to Biblical Creationism. The two (actually they are really just one) schools of thought are simply worthless.

---

The same type predictions are used constantly in the study of Evolution. Long before we even had the capability to study genes it was predicted that when we did, we would find that Humans descended from the Great Apes. Sure enough, genetics has confirmed that prediction.Just recently it was predicted that a critter that showed characteristics of fish and land animal would be found in rocks of a certain age. Sure enough, when they searched the rocks of that age they found just such a critter.Then there is the prediction that has been pointed out to you again and again, the one that refutes the Biblical Flood.Prediction is a powerful tool and works well. It is NOT "artifical and controlled enviornments and factors" as these examples show.Edited by jar, : I never cud spl

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

quote:

---

but the human scientist is the same variable. he decides which experiments, what the parameters are, what the prediction will be and so on. then he uses artifical and controlled enviornments and factors to make his experiment. i do not see you having an argument.

---

You misinterpreted what I wrote and therefore you do not comprehend the argument. E.g. some equations could try to determine; what geological phenomenon would occur 4,350 years ago? In this case, if we implement all known evidences into these equations, we can approximately say something about the weather, temperature, landscape formation etc. In this case; we have an enormous amount of data, however, the data does not support a global flood — just as an example.
However, if we put God into that equation everything is possible because; God is almighty. There might be a few constraints due to Gods mentality, but he can practically make any event happen; and that goes for all equations. Turn water into wine? Sure, Jesus/God did it! Global Flood? Sure, God did it! This process of thought does not improve our knowledge about natural phenomena, however, there is a possibility of a existing God that actually made a Global Flood and made it look like it never happened. Before you say the Global Flood actually took place, please, provide evidence, and when I say evidence I mean data which is not equal to the Bible. The Bible might be historically correct (more/less), however, they are assertions and assertions do not qualify as good evidences.

quote:

---

then science cannot be used as an authority in any field of life, including the legal system. it cannot be relied on to be a determiner, let alone a final one as it is often used. and no one can appeal to it for anything.
no one said anything about themeaning of life but truth,/error, right and wrong must be a part of the program or you have nothing and are just wasting everybodies time because you cannot have understanding without those 4 elements involved.

---

You need to define any field of life because I think we use two different sets of terminology. Furthermore, clarify those 4 elements involved. You are writing some very strong and unclear assertions. If I clarify myself, you might understand; when I say understanding and knowledge (U&K), I mean U&K of natural phenomena and technologies. Mostly, scientists are not decision makers; however, because of their understanding they might be good decision makers. E.g.; should people go into agriculture with the land they own? What should we do with nuclear waste? How should we eat? How should we help mentally ill people? Etc.Generally, I would like you to be careful with what words you use, since you are speaking in very unclear; you are insulting people, you do not understand people, you make yourself hard to understand, you are preaching in such a way that you look narcissistic to some degree. Is that how you really are? Do you really believe God want you to be like that?

quote:

---

You do not need evidence to understand--just reasons. evidence in and of itself is easily manipulated and can say whatever you want it to say. it has been done and is still being done.

---

I thought I already made that very clear; we have two different fundamental understandings of the world. I need evidence, which I think is very reasonable. Reason is a very fragile word to use in this context; what is reason? Reason is a very relative word when we speak of its meaning. Please, be clear in your speech, otherwise we cannot communicate with each other.

quote:

---

if yo do not accept any truth, how can you live? you must be stuck in your apartment 24/7 then. the equation includes faith and if you cannot make that a part of your thining then you have problems because there will never be the all the physical evidence you want.

---

I am doing quite good I would say. I am a 22 years old student that is, at the moment, attending to a renewable energy programme. In my free time I go to boxing, I spend a lot of my time with my friends, I have spare time job in the financial sector soon (just had summer vacation), I am a spare time Viking, I plan to take a fireworker education just for fun, I am very interested in philosophy and social dynamics, I am the head of a company network association at my university, I am planning to study in Japan next year for or a whole year and bla bla bla I have quite an active live, and these things I do, I do because I think they are very good qualities to have in my life. It is not related to such strong words as truth. What the heck is the truth? Seriously, I have no idea. I get so strong and complex pictures and voices in my head which I cannot comprehend. In this case, I think I have a more differentiated idea of what the word truth implies, however, that does not mean I understand it fully. Faith is not an important part of my equation — which would imply a deterministic understand of life? I am somewhere between determinism and free-will I guess.

quote:

---

but i see most of this as an excuse to avoid the truth, because you still turn to science we for answers even though it is looking in the wrong places and for the wrong things. if the above is true, then why are you using science? it won't help you because it has no truth, according to your thinking. you are just wasting your time.
you do not accept anything so even science can't help you. the only thing that will help you now is the Bible, you either accept or reject it you cannot make excuses like, i do not accept anything. that doesn't cut it in the real world.
secular science has been designed to fool you an dit has done a very good job.

---

You get me wrong; I do not turn to science — which is a clinic discipline to understand natural phenomena — when I look for answers on how to live my life. Okay sometimes if I want to know how I should train, eat probably or determine whether a project is economical feasible or not. I try to follow my underlying instincts to have a happy live; that is my goal, a good and happy life, and I will not be able to be happy by serve and pray something I most likely do not think exist. To believe in the Christian God would be equal for me as to believe in Allah, spirits, the painkiller Prophet, Cthulhu, Flying Spaghetti Monster etc.Most of this is a little off-topic, however, basically, you did not provide any valid arguments; you refuse to understand the difference in our process of thoughts.Edited by hotjer, : No reason given.

So you're declaring victory and running away?Boy, how often have I seen creationists do that?

Then you are not debating, you are preaching!

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Especially Dr. A.Think about this, but don't reply to this message:Do you it's wise and productive, 3 hours after Admin has replied to the message, to inject your little comments?My opinion - Dr. A's message was just another bit of his snarky nature. This won't get him yet another suspension but it may put him back on the razors edge.Coyote - In the time between when I started this message and now, my opinion changed from "snark" to "valid point". I'm still not sure following up an Admin message is a good idea, but if so, you did it right.Take any follow up comments to the Report discussion problems here: No.2 topic. But even that topic is not a place for extended debate on moderation issues - Remember, we did away with those topics because they were abused.Adminnemooseus

---

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts. ​ Report a problem etc. type topics: Report discussion problems here: No.2 Thread Reopen Requests 2 Topic Proposal Issues ​ Other useful links: ​ Forum Guidelines

Admin writes: ​ It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon. ​ There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot. ​ Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Message 150

This is hurdle number one. In reading the article linked in the OP it has become quite clear that you don't know how the scientific method works, the foundation of "secular" science. For instance, in your article you say:"1. Principle of evidence - any scientific statement should be proved. Without objective and conclusive proofs any scientific statement is only a speculative guess."You get it wrong right away. Nothing in science is "proven". Proof is for math and alcohol. Scientific statements must be testable and potentially falsifiable. That is the requirement, not proof.Then we get to the second principle:"2. Principle of possible non-authenticity (falsification principle) - any scientific statement can be rejected by contradicting data and facts. In science, as well as in any kind of activity, there is a place for errors and faults. Science in the process of its development rejects its conclusions and deductions, which appeared to be false. The science is constant doubt. Both force of science and its main difference from nonscientific views of cognition are included into this process.4"This is partially wrong. The falsification principle is that you must be able to describe specific conditions under which your theory is false. Mind you, these potential observations need not be observed, only potentially observable. For example, a mammal-bird transitional fossil or a rabbit in Cambrian strata are both potential observations that would falsify the theory of evolution. So what are some potential observations in the fossil record that would falsify creationism? Can you name any? Or are there no potential observations that would falsify Creationism?So to sum up, in order for Creationism to meet the requirements of modern science it needs to be testable and falsifiable. Without these two basic things it fails to meet the requirements of modern "secular" science.Reading further into your article, it appears that you throw both of these things out the window. You simply proclaim creationism to be true by fiat, therefore no need for testing or the naming of potential observations that would falsify creationism:"We can question how the universe or the things on earth work but for the creative act, we do not need to waste the time for the answer is already supplied for us10"So you already have the answer, so why use science to test it? Is that your view? Do you think it is a scientific view?

didn't do that as i believe i made the point that we can test creation by going to thenurseries fo the world and seeing it in action.we do not need to 'falsify' creation for that is a secular requirement but if you want to falsify it, we could say that God had the choice to create or not. and it is falsified.but i am here simply to repeat what I said in another thread. evolutionists are not replicating the claimed evolutionary changes and that disqualifies it from being science.to really replicate the evolutionary changes the secular scientist would have to recreate the original conditions and not interfere but just sit there and wait for something to take place.any experiemtn done by a secularist or evolutionist is not recreating the original conditions for scientists are involved, they are making an artificial enviornment, they are manipulating the test subjects, they are introducing foreign substances into the mix and so on.NOTHING in evolutionary experiments are actual replications and therefore false.

I have a quick question for you.Do you accept DNA paternity testing as valid?

the question is do you really? how can modern day 'equations' describe the supernatural or the conditions of the ancient world? they cannot because they are based upon assumption not fact. God's 'mentality and morality' are NOT n question as you are not fit to judge that. Yes God can do anything He wants, He is God BUT He has made it faith a requirement because He wants people to truly believe Him. anyone can believe whenthey see the evidence but it takes another type of person to believe and follow when they only have His word.that personis one who loves God for Him. 1 cor. 13 evidence has been given, andthere is only so much physical evidence around faith will always be part of the equation. evolutionary evidence is NOT evidence. it is mere speculation, assumption, conjecture and never has been observed. no it is not the same but if you believe in evolution then you can substitute that process for God and then you would be correct.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix first quote box (replace ' with /).

not anymore. once i found out it can be fabricated, its credibility went out the window.