|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Nature of Scientific Inquiry - Contrasted with Creation "Science" | |||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
well, no, creation scientists generally do not operate under scientific methodology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
In truth, mike has never upset me.
His arguments are too easy to refute.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: But Creationist arguments are unscientific, by and large. That can be easily demonstrated on an argument-by-argument basis. I'm sorry that you are offended by this, but that's not really relevant. I am quite confident that I can point out how nearly any Creationist argument/conclusion is unscientific. I've been doing it for years.In fact, the very premise of Creationism is unscientific. Try me.
quote: Look, it's nothing personal, but Creationism is not scientific. I can demonstrate that it isn't scientific. Just because you want it to be doesn't make it so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: OK, so let's start debating it. I propose that Creationism is not scientific because it begins with it's conclusion; that a particular interpretation of certain parts of the Christian Bible are literally true. All evidence in nature that supports this view is pointed out by Creationists in support of their preconceived conclusion, but any contradictory evidence is ignored or twisted into something it isn't. By contrast, real sciecne first looks at the evidence. It hypothesizes why the evidence appears as it does. Theories are fleshed-out hypothese, explanations of why the evidence appears as it does, that have been confirmed by many observations. See, the Creationists decide what they MUST find in nature without ever looking at nature. That isn't scientific. OK, care to rebut?
quote: Sure it is. Creationism isn't scientific, it's religious. Creationists do not play by the rules of science, as I have demonstrated above. I can proovide many, many more examples if you would like.
quote: No, what he is doing is disagreeing with you and giving you FACTS as to why he thinks you are wrong.
quote: He did tell you. He repeated what I had said, which was that Young Earth Creationism was falsified by Creationist Geologists 200 years ago. They had gone looking for evidence of a young Earth and a worldwide flood and found evidence instead of an ancient earth and many local flooding events. Rocky Road: Adam Sedgwick Those are the facts. What contrary facts do you have?
quote: Stopping disagreeing with you and providing explanations as to why we think you are wrong? Um, this is a debate board, you know.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: The sun is only a mile away? Says who? Show the evidence that this is the case.
quote: Then why don't airplanes touch stars and melt? They go higher than half a mile high.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
But Creationist arguments are unscientific, by and large. quote: Well, no, most of them really don't hold a glimmer of truth. Mosty of them are just wrong. Sorry.
Look, it's nothing personal, but Creationism is not scientific. quote: Young Earth Creationism, as a scientific claim, or group of scientific claims, has been falsified. Additionally, since many of the claims of YEC appeal to the supernatural, they cannot be falsified, and thus are not scientific.
quote: These are the definitions I like the best: creationism and creation science - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com "Creationism is a religious metaphysical theory which claims that a supernatural being created the universe. Creation Science is a pseudoscientific theory which claims that (a) the stories in Genesis are accurate accounts of the origin of the universe and life on Earth, and (b) Genesis is incompatible with the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution. ?Creation Science? is an oxymoron since science is concerned only with naturalistic explanations of empirical phenomena and does not concern itself with supernatural explanations of metaphysical phenomena."
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: I am like that with the YEC issue. Can you show me an example of where I was not?
quote: The reason my definition describes Creation science as a pseudoscience is because it is one. IOW, it fits the definition of a pseudoscience, so it makes sense to describe it as such.
quote: Hmm, it wouldn't be the first time that something like this has happened.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Where on earth did you get that idea?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Are you claiming that there is no possible way that there could be a naturalistic explanation for life? If so, how can you know this objectively, since you are not omnicient?
quote: You have examined ALL of the different supernatural ideas? There are infinite supernatural ideas, many of them utterly unrelated and contradictory. How can you conclude supernatural creation as most likely when each idea is equally valid and wildly different from the next?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: I would further define science as "the description of natural phenomena using naturalistic explanations." Please also remember that the scientific tenet of falsifiability means that we know that we can never know the complete "truth" about anything in nature. We can be REALLY confident that we are correct, but all scientific findings and theories are always, in principle, able to be modified in the light of new evidence.
quote: Um, the usefulness of the ToE is quite established. The ToE has spawned entire scientific disciplines (population genetics, for example) and is the unifying theory that underpins pretty much all of the life sciences. I would put the Theory of Evolution on a par with the Atomic Theory of Matter, and Relativity Theory in importance.
quote: Um, we directly observe evolution happening, in real time, both in the lab and in the field. Furthermore, just because an event isn't directly observed doesn't mean we cannot study it and reach valid conclusions regarding it. Nobody has ever directly observed an electron. Do you deny that electrons exist? The following is a very good short essay which explains what science is and isn't, and it also explains how ideas and theories are confirmed, etc. I think you will like it, and I also think that it might clear up some misconceptions you might have. science - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Yes, and well done. Your question illustrates the flaw of the "God of the Gaps" argument. Unless we follow the above tenet, we are no different from those who figured that the god Apollo pulled the sun across the dome of the sky in his firey chariot. The scientific answer to a gap in our knowledge must always be, simply, "We don't know", not "We don't have a scientific explanation right at this moment, therefore Godidit."
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: That is the difference between ontological naturalism, which says "nature is all there is", and methodological naturalism, which says "I can only know what I can detect with my senses". Notice that MN doesn't say anything at all about if the supernatural exists or not. It cannot, by definition, have anything to say about it. It is neutral on the subject.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
If so, how can you know this objectively, since you are not omnicient? quote: Me. Tell me exactly what I was doing one hour ago. Can't tell me? Then you aren't omnicient.
quote: Then you don't know that supernatural creation is most likely; you just believe it. Big difference.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: If you are referring to the origin of the first life, then I would agree. The ToE doesn't deal with how life first came into existence. It deals with the changes that life underwent ever since it emerged. Your argument is most likely with the various abiogenesis theories, which are not anywhere near as well-supported as the ToE.
quote: FYI, the "micro vs. micro" thing is a Creation Science distortion. There is no difference in mechanism between micro- and macroevolution; just the timescales are different.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
If you are referring to the origin of the first life, then I would agree. quote: OK, then, what are the specific insufficiencies of the ToE that you have identified?
FYI, the "micro vs. micro" thing is a Creation Science distortion. quote: OK, good.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024