Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Nature of Scientific Inquiry - Contrasted with Creation "Science"
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 121 of 265 (131116)
08-06-2004 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by jt
08-06-2004 8:36 PM


study and falsification
YEC, 7D creation can be falsified, but it cannot be observed, and its cause and mechanisms cannot be examined. Its falsification is possible, but to be studied by science needs more than falsifiability, I think.
Yes, of course. Falsification is only one tool in sorting out different explanations for things. However, once an idea has been falsified it doesn't have to have other examinations done.
The only way to save 7D YEC creationism is to say:
"God not only did-it, He also made it look like it was done in a different way than it was done."
This is generally taken as shitty theology and it doesn't really matter to me. If everyone wants all scientific conclusions to be prefaced with "God made it appear that..." (Gmiat) then nothing changes. It just makes those who want the preface look pretty silly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by jt, posted 08-06-2004 8:36 PM jt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by jt, posted 08-06-2004 8:58 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
jt
Member (Idle past 5596 days)
Posts: 239
From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States
Joined: 04-26-2004


Message 122 of 265 (131121)
08-06-2004 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by NosyNed
08-06-2004 8:46 PM


However, once an idea has been falsified it doesn't have to have other examinations done.
Very true. However, 7D YEC hasn't, IMO, been falsified. Past falsification, science has little/no power to study creation.
The only way to save 7D YEC creationism is to say:
Actually, I disagree with you on that one. That is a different debate, though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by NosyNed, posted 08-06-2004 8:46 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by nator, posted 08-06-2004 9:19 PM jt has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 123 of 265 (131122)
08-06-2004 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Robert Byers
08-04-2004 4:11 PM


quote:
If all these 29 stood the test they would be minor cases in dealing with such a subject.
Actually, the 29 evidences list contains really major tests of the theory regarding fossil, genetic, molecular, phylogenetics, and more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Robert Byers, posted 08-04-2004 4:11 PM Robert Byers has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 124 of 265 (131128)
08-06-2004 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by jt
08-06-2004 8:58 PM


quote:
However, 7D YEC hasn't, IMO, been falsified.
From a scientific perspective, it most certainly has been falsified.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by jt, posted 08-06-2004 8:58 PM jt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by mike the wiz, posted 08-06-2004 9:21 PM nator has replied
 Message 137 by jt, posted 08-07-2004 5:16 PM nator has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 125 of 265 (131129)
08-06-2004 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by nator
08-06-2004 9:19 PM


What about from a creation scientists point of view? Or isn't he a true scientist.
Hahaha

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by nator, posted 08-06-2004 9:19 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by CK, posted 08-06-2004 9:30 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 127 by nator, posted 08-06-2004 9:36 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 126 of 265 (131133)
08-06-2004 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by mike the wiz
08-06-2004 9:21 PM


Generally - no.
He may do scientific work which he submits to a journal while working as a SCIENTIST, however once he does something connected with the big C - then generally it never goes to such publications...
strange that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by mike the wiz, posted 08-06-2004 9:21 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 127 of 265 (131136)
08-06-2004 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by mike the wiz
08-06-2004 9:21 PM


well, no, creation scientists generally do not operate under scientific methodology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by mike the wiz, posted 08-06-2004 9:21 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by mike the wiz, posted 08-06-2004 9:45 PM nator has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 128 of 265 (131138)
08-06-2004 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by nator
08-06-2004 9:36 PM


Now now, that's the scotsman fallacy. Why are they called scientists?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by nator, posted 08-06-2004 9:36 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by CK, posted 08-06-2004 9:48 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 154 by Loudmouth, posted 08-09-2004 2:46 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 129 of 265 (131140)
08-06-2004 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by mike the wiz
08-06-2004 9:45 PM


em...because that's a term that creationist like to use to make it sound like there is a real basic to their work.
Sure some of them are even real scientists - but remember it's the science not the scientist that we are interested in. Testimonial means nothing.
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 08-06-2004 08:48 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by mike the wiz, posted 08-06-2004 9:45 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by mike the wiz, posted 08-06-2004 9:53 PM CK has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 130 of 265 (131143)
08-06-2004 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by CK
08-06-2004 9:48 PM


My friend, you are caught up unwittingly - in a silent battle ground. I don't even defend creationists. I'm just trying to annoy Schraff. For all I know - creation scientist are infact not upholding the scientific methodology - as Schraff said. (Me is crafty) but not creo!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by CK, posted 08-06-2004 9:48 PM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by CK, posted 08-06-2004 9:55 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 131 of 265 (131146)
08-06-2004 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by mike the wiz
08-06-2004 9:53 PM


If you don't know - why don't you find out? - where is the "fair debate" in making points just because you want to upset someone - how does that add to the debate?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by mike the wiz, posted 08-06-2004 9:53 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by nator, posted 08-06-2004 9:57 PM CK has not replied
 Message 133 by mike the wiz, posted 08-06-2004 9:59 PM CK has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 132 of 265 (131149)
08-06-2004 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by CK
08-06-2004 9:55 PM


In truth, mike has never upset me.
His arguments are too easy to refute.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by CK, posted 08-06-2004 9:55 PM CK has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 133 of 265 (131152)
08-06-2004 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by CK
08-06-2004 9:55 PM


Well, it's still a valid question I asked on behalf of creationists.
So - I still think I should have asked it. So, complain to the admin instead of making me suffer your newbie babble.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by CK, posted 08-06-2004 9:55 PM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by CK, posted 08-06-2004 10:02 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 134 of 265 (131153)
08-06-2004 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by mike the wiz
08-06-2004 9:59 PM


For all I know - creation scientist are infact not upholding the scientific methodology
How can it be a valid question when you don't actually know?
Spare me your feeble "newbie" spiel.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by mike the wiz, posted 08-06-2004 9:59 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by mike the wiz, posted 08-06-2004 10:06 PM CK has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 135 of 265 (131156)
08-06-2004 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by CK
08-06-2004 10:02 PM


I asked about a creo scientists point of view, knowing that Schraff is most knowledgable, and might be able to inform me. Don't have me tare you a new one on a technicality.
How can it be a valid question when you don't actually know?
I'm asking because I don't know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by CK, posted 08-06-2004 10:02 PM CK has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024