Author
|
Topic: why creation "science" isn't science
|
joz
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 5 of 365 (2090)
01-14-2002 3:10 PM
|
Reply to: Message 2 by John Paul 01-14-2002 11:11 AM
|
|
quote: Originally posted by John Paul: From Britannica: Science- any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation. In general, a science involves a pursuit of knowledge covering general truths or the operations of fundamental laws.
I think this may be relevant to the unbiased observations part.... from http://www.creationresearch.org/stmnt_of_belief.htm quote: CRS Statement of Belief All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief: 1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths. 2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds. 3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect. 4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 2 by John Paul, posted 01-14-2002 11:11 AM | | John Paul has not replied |
|
joz
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 8 of 365 (2097)
01-14-2002 4:45 PM
|
Reply to: Message 6 by John Paul 01-14-2002 4:00 PM
|
|
quote: Originally posted by John Paul: Translation: Members of the CRS scientific community are to conduct their research under a Biblical framework
Raises the question of what they do with results that don't support a "biblical framework"..... Do they just discard it?
quote: And thus Baraminology is our attempt to discern what the Created Kinds were.
Um but by presupposing that their were "created kinds' aren't you introducing the supernatural basing all further work on that bias?
quote: OK. This one is obviously not falsifiable (just how would we falsify an Act of God?) and therefore not scientific. However that does not disqualify it from not being indicative of reality. Ya take a little Walt Brown's hydroplate theory, stir in some Baumgardner, Chadwick, Woodmorappe et al. plus the Act of God and there ya have it.
Again you introduce a bias towards a supernatural explanation based on and needed due to the supposed veracity of a religious tract to explain an event that a naturalistic view of the evidence concludes within all likelihood did not occur....
quote:
True, science is about doing research and nobody wants anyone else to just give up looking- who knows, maybe an evolutionary scientist will be the first to publish about the barrier that keeps organisms from evolving beyond their Kind. (as his book states David L. Kirk believes the answer to multi-cellularity lies with the Volvox) That begs the question- If a devote evolutionist, while doing scientific research, found such a barrier, would it be reported?
Depends really if they were an evolutionist (presumably one who believes in evolution against evidence) or a biologist who holds evolution as the best current theory... If the latter the just try and stop them bud....
quote: In absence of evidence that says it could, people believe life originated from non-life in a purely natural process. In absence of evidence that says it could, people believe that a procaryote can evolve into a eucaryote via endosymbiosis. In absence of evidence that says it could, people believe a single-celled organism can evolve into a multi-cellular organism.
In the absence of evidence that says it did people believe that all life was created suddenly. In the absence of evidence to support the view people believe in Noahs flood. In the presence of data that says they are closely related people place humans and chimps in different kinds..... Whose assumptions are the most grasping? [This message has been edited by joz, 01-14-2002]
This message is a reply to: | | Message 6 by John Paul, posted 01-14-2002 4:00 PM | | John Paul has not replied |
|
joz
Inactive Member
|
quote: Originally posted by Cobra_snake: 3. Potential falsifications I believe you will have trouble meeting requirement number 3. What exactly would falsify evolution?
I think you are confusing evolution as a theory and evolution as a concept here. The concept of evolution is that small changes add up to big ones.... Theory of evolution places more constraints on the types of change permitted. A cow impregnated by a bull concieving and giving birth to a pegasus (horse with wings) would falsify it. (something of an extreme example but I am sure there are other more likely ones.) [This message has been edited by joz, 01-22-2002]
This message is a reply to: | | Message 108 by Cobra_snake, posted 01-21-2002 11:48 PM | | Cobra_snake has not replied |
|
joz
Inactive Member
|
quote: Originally posted by Cobra_snake: This model also agrees with another scientific idea in an alternate way. Common descent can easily be exchanged with common designer.
Firstly *pedant mode engaged* It doesn`t agree with another scientific Idea it competes with it.... i.e It is common designer OR common descent, not both.... *pedant mode disengaged* What it agrees with is the evidence for common descent, a bit different. There is a very detailed models of the solar system developed by Ptolemy claiming a geocentric solar system it agrees with (or can be modified to account for) all the evidence. Is the universe geocentric? Most cosmologists tend to think not. A heliocentric solar system is commonly accepted today, why? Because it is the simplest possible model that fits the data. Why is common descent a better explanation of the data than common designer? Because it is simpler in its reliance on natural phenomena only (i.e no goddidit).....
|
joz
Inactive Member
|
quote: Originally posted by Cobra_snake: 1)"In the beginning there was hydrogen which eventually condensed into a huge ball of matter, and soon after exploded. Because of the influence of gravity, the galaxies, stars, and planets were formed. One of the planets that was formed happened to become our home: the planet Earth. Just by chance, molecules formed together and had the ability to reproduce, which marks the beginning of life on the planet Earth. Through processes including mutation and natural selection, this first form of life started to change into more complex species. Humans are one of the steps of this evolutionary process." 2)I admit that "goddidit" can be used as a lame explanation, but that still does not mean that common descent is "simpler." Saying that is a baseless assertion, and your explanation is proof of your bias. By saying that it is more effective because it doesn't REQUIRE a supernatural force is total bias against the perfectly reasonable idea that some force designed life.
1)Big ball of hydrogen exploded? Read up on the big bang sometime coz it wasn`t hydrogen and it did not contract under gravity... Just by chance... LOL due to the laws of physics and chemistry surely.... Let me explain something to you about probability if the odds of something occuring are 1/10^100 and there is a sample population of 10^103 you expect to see 1000 ocurences of that possibility.... Doesnt sound as far fetched if there was a LOT of reactions going on does it..... (and there would have been) 2)It is SIMPLER and therefore preferable it makes no appeal to the supernatural unknown but explains the phenomena in terms only of natural phenomena most people (ie those not so desparate to see evidence of God that they will forsake logic and reason) would agree on its superiority as an explanation..... If you want to champion ID go to the stonehenge thread and answer the question that John Paul wouldn`t/couldn`t.... How do you differentiate between a natural system and a designed one.... (Please read from page 2 to the end so as to discern the point that the discussion had reached...)
This message is a reply to: | | Message 130 by Cobra_snake, posted 01-24-2002 10:00 PM | | Cobra_snake has not replied |
|
joz
Inactive Member
|
quote: Originally posted by TrueCreation: If you seriously want me to give you a direct answer to this question, provide a much more specific one.
I already have on the big bang or big dud thread... I asked for a creationist model of the universes expansion that made incorperated both the Hubble red shift AND creation ex nihilo X thousand years ago (where X is of the close order of 10)... Is that specific enough?
|
joz
Inactive Member
|
quote: Originally posted by TrueCreation: I am going to wait untill I can get ahold of the book 'starlight and time' by Humphreys and then i'll answer it, as from such a question it requires me to know other creationist theories on the subject, as I would most likely end up claiming things totally wrong if I didn't know the material, cosmology and cosmogeny are recent interests of mine, as geology and geophysics has been relatively the most profound influence on my scientific knowledge and understanding.
OK bud I await your post...
|
joz
Inactive Member
|
what got said?
|
joz
Inactive Member
|
quote: Originally posted by KingPenguin: i have a question how do animals know they have to kill eachother to make sure they dont get overpopulated? they would undoubtedly spread like a virus unless an intillegent species such as human was to interfere, which is what we do. were the caretakers of the earth and god gave us the ability rational thought so that all existence wouldnt end. without us the nothing has a chance for survival over an extended amount of time.
As mark said.... basically can be modelled (to a very superficial level) as a set of differential equations with the rate of change in numbers of predators proportional to the number of prey and the rate of chane in prey organisms inversely proportional to the number of predators.
|
joz
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 271 of 365 (3636)
02-07-2002 9:15 AM
|
Reply to: Message 270 by nator 02-07-2002 9:12 AM
|
|
quote: Originally posted by schrafinator: It is secondary to the evidence in importance.
I think you mean secondary to the scriptural record (to use a phrase from one of those statements of belief).......
This message is a reply to: | | Message 270 by nator, posted 02-07-2002 9:12 AM | | nator has not replied |
|
joz
Inactive Member
|
quote: Originally posted by Cobra_snake: So, you are saying that every biological phenomenon MUST have an evolutionary explanation? That's fair when evaluating evolution specifically, but it is not fair when determining the origins of life. If evidence found is evidence that is unsupportive of evolutionary theory, that is what it should be claimed as.
ToE does not deal with origins of life only how it developed once already around.... If you want to talk about the origin of life abiogenesis is the topic, not ToE........
|
joz
Inactive Member
|
quote: Originally posted by KingPenguin: evolution cannot be an explanation for life as we know it if it does not have any where to start, it can however still occur. so you cant as of now hold up evolution as proof against God. Which probably means that evolution and creationism cannot be effectively debated until your willing to give it a beginning and maybe even an end.
What he`s saying is that evolution is a process which acts on any system of self replicators where that replication can contain copying errors.... As such it doesn`t require a begining, it`s just there and acts on any extant system....
|
joz
Inactive Member
|
quote: Originally posted by KingPenguin: lets discuss the beginning then.
Go to the abiogenesis thread and I`ll be happy to....
This message is a reply to: | | Message 349 by KingPenguin, posted 03-11-2002 10:50 PM | | KingPenguin has not replied |
|
joz
Inactive Member
|
quote: Originally posted by KingPenguin: lets discuss the beginning then.
Go to the abiogenesis thread and I`ll be happy to....
This message is a reply to: | | Message 349 by KingPenguin, posted 03-11-2002 10:50 PM | | KingPenguin has not replied |
|
joz
Inactive Member
|
quote: Originally posted by KingPenguin: lets discuss the beginning then.
Take it to Genes abiogenesis thread and I`ll be happy to....
This message is a reply to: | | Message 349 by KingPenguin, posted 03-11-2002 10:50 PM | | KingPenguin has not replied |
|