Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 73 (8962 total)
168 online now:
PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (2 members, 166 visitors)
Newest Member: Samuel567
Post Volume: Total: 871,028 Year: 2,776/23,288 Month: 967/1,809 Week: 86/313 Day: 3/39 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Creationism Science?
Jet
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 27 (6916)
03-15-2002 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Percy
01-23-2001 9:45 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Percipient:
[B] I think I get your point. You're saying that when considered in a broader context Creationism is correct. I concede you could well be right. Debaters on the evolution side are not debating within this broader context, but instead limit themselves to the scientific arena, a context within which Creationism is clearly wrong

You mention the supernatural, but that is the very opposite of science. Science limits itself to the natural, that which is apparent to the five senses. By definition any event which we can overtly detect is not supernatural. If God were to come tomorrow and move mountains it would be a stupefying and scientifically inexplicable event, but it wouldn't be supernatural because it would be observable by all the senses.

**********************************************************

Some observations on your post. First, debaters on the evo side do not limit themselves to the scientific arena. They like to claim that they do but exactly the opposite is true. True science is often abandoned to maintain the evolutionist argument. Those who deny this either are not paying attention, or are willing trying to mislead someone. Also, I have long contended that all evolutionists, at least all that I have been exposed to, are indeed creationists. They may or may not be willing to be classified as IDers, but as far as being creationists, there is no doubt. For most, abiogenesis is the creator, and with the acceptance of a creator you are automatically qualified as a creationists. And as to supernatural, you seem to have some neo-understanding of the term. Supernatural events can indeed be observed with the senses. Their observance does not negate the fact that they are supernatural. A comet streaking across the sky is not a supernatural event. It is viewed with the eyes, and noted as an observable event. It may be regarded as spectacular, but not supernautral.

However, a comet streaking across the sky, and then by the power of Almighty God, is made to stop in its place, remain motionless for a time, then descend to the earth, resting on the surface of the oceans for a period of time, then again ascending into the outer heavens and then finally made to go backwards along the same course from which it came, this is completely supernatural, even though it also is observable. To somehow claim that this observance is not supernatural but rather is now a "natural" occurance simply because it has been observed, it to have a skewed and erroneous understanding of the term "supernatural" in the extreme sense. Were this phenomenom a repeatable occurance with no outside interference from the Almighty, then yes, I would agree it is within the realm of natural.(It would also require a rewrite of the laws of physics). The very act of intervention by the Almighty, denying and negating the natural laws of time, space, motion, gravity, physics, etc. demands its' classification as a supernatural, though observable, event. When the natural laws are superceded by a supernatural being, that my friend, "IS" completely supernatural, observed or not.

[Edited to remove too long line. --Percy]

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 06-10-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Percy, posted 01-23-2001 9:45 PM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Joe Meert, posted 04-23-2002 9:26 PM Jet has responded
 Message 10 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 04-24-2002 9:13 AM Jet has responded
 Message 26 by Jeff, posted 06-13-2002 5:32 PM Jet has not yet responded

  
Jet
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 27 (11246)
06-10-2002 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Joe Meert
04-23-2002 9:26 PM


An interesting reply that you posted. Obviously, the bulk of what you posted is merely your personal opinion, even as my post was. We simply have a difference of opinion.

Shalom

Jet

------------------
"KNOWLEDGE IS POWER! FEED YOUR BRAIN!".....................Jet

"The scientist's pursuit of the past ends in the moment of creation. This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all but the theologians. Now we would like to pursue that inquiry farther back in time, but the barrier to further progress seems insurmountable.

It is not a matter of another year, another decade of work, another measurement, or another theory; at this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation.

For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Joe Meert, posted 04-23-2002 9:26 PM Joe Meert has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Joe Meert, posted 06-10-2002 10:29 AM Jet has responded

  
Jet
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 27 (11341)
06-11-2002 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus
04-24-2002 9:13 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Dr_Tazimus_maximus:
I think that either you, or someone else further up the thread, has some confusion about supernatural and science. Science does not deal with the supernatural not because it can not be observed (as you just pointed out the supernatural, if it exists, can be observed); science does not deal with the supernatural because the supernatural violates natural "laws", ie it operates outside of the area within which science operates. This is the area that science operates in, observation or inference based on observation of the natural world and the application of the inferred natural laws to explain these observations.


***I would have to agree with much of what you say in your post. I would also have to say that not all EVOs will agree with you that something supernatural can be observed. I believe Percy even stated that if an event is observed, it is not, by definition, supernatural. Considering the example that I gave, I would have to disagree with him.

As for your assessment of what can be qualified as being a creator, we will simply have to agree to disagree on that issue. Perhaps "maker" is a term that you would feel more comfortable with, as a maker definitely need not imply some form of intent, my ice-maker is proof of that.***

Shalom

Jet

------------------
Please limit signatures to at most a couple hundred characters. --Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 04-24-2002 9:13 AM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Brad McFall, posted 06-12-2002 5:46 PM Jet has not yet responded

  
Jet
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 27 (11342)
06-11-2002 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Joe Meert
06-10-2002 10:29 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Joe Meert:
then how about this question:

when should science quit and attribute the unexplainable to the supernatural?

Cheers

Joe Meert


***A bit of a loaded question Joe. First, science should never quit! But science should learn to deal with the fact that certain things and events, even though supernatural, can be studied scientifically.***

Shalom

Jet

------------------
Please limit signatures to at most a couple hundred characters. --Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Joe Meert, posted 06-10-2002 10:29 AM Joe Meert has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Jeff, posted 06-11-2002 6:41 PM Jet has responded

  
Jet
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 27 (11411)
06-12-2002 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Jeff
06-11-2002 6:41 PM


I think you missed a post or two. You should probably catch up on your reading.

Shalom

Jet

------------------
“There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming.”

Professor Paul Davies


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Jeff, posted 06-11-2002 6:41 PM Jeff has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Jeff, posted 06-12-2002 4:16 PM Jet has responded
 Message 22 by Percy, posted 06-12-2002 8:23 PM Jet has not yet responded

  
Jet
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 27 (11473)
06-13-2002 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Jeff
06-12-2002 4:16 PM


Like I said, you missed a post or two. Rather than expect me to repeat myself, why don't you try backing up and actually reading through the thread. You will be able to recognize my posts. My name is on them.

Shalom

Jet

------------------
“There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming.”

Professor Paul Davies


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Jeff, posted 06-12-2002 4:16 PM Jeff has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020