Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   why creation "science" isn't science
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 365 (2063)
01-14-2002 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
01-13-2002 9:22 AM


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.
schrafinator thinks that just because Creationists conduct science under a different framework, it is not science. And can Creation be falsified? Yes. Just demonstrate that purely natural processes are all that are required. (Do you really think life is just a result of chemical reactions?)
------------------
John Paul
[This message has been edited by John Paul, 01-14-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 01-13-2002 9:22 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by edge, posted 01-14-2002 11:45 AM John Paul has not replied
 Message 5 by joz, posted 01-14-2002 3:10 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 7 by mark24, posted 01-14-2002 4:24 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 9 by lbhandli, posted 01-14-2002 6:07 PM John Paul has replied
 Message 11 by Jimlad, posted 01-15-2002 8:36 AM John Paul has replied
 Message 13 by nator, posted 01-15-2002 10:07 AM John Paul has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 365 (2092)
01-14-2002 4:00 PM


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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
joz:
I think this may be relevant to the unbiased observations part....
from
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.
John Paul:
Translation: Members of the CRS scientific community are to conduct their research under a Biblical framework.
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.
John Paul:
And thus Baraminology is our attempt to discern what the Created Kinds were.
3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.
John Paul:
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.
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.
John Paul:
It's the Greatest Story ever Told. Beats Darwin's underpinnings hands down.
As Fred pointed out, you have to be totally biased with materialistic naturalism in order to use the fossil record to support the ToE. As David L. Kirk points out in Volvox:Molecular-Genetic Origins of multicellularity and Cellular Differentiation (Cambridge University Press1998), "The genesis of the major groups of complex modern organisms remain largely (to pilfer a phrase from Winston Churchill) a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma." pg. 10 He finishes that section with "In short, the great antiquity of the major groups of modern multicellular eukaryotes makes it extremely unlikely that at any time in the forseeable future will we be able to develop a detailed understanding of the origins of multicellularity in any one of them that will go beyond the theoretical musings of the past."
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?
The question isn't who is biased, but which bias is the correct bias to be biased with. (paraphrased from Refuting Evolution by Jon Sarfati)
In absence of evidence that says it could, people believe life originated from non-life in a purely matural 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.
And that, ladies & gentlemen, is just the start of a long line of beliefs that make up the religion of evolutionism, ie the belief the ToE is indicative of reality.
Thank you & Good night
God Bless us All, Everyone
------------------
John Paul
[This message has been edited by Percipient, 01-14-2002]

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by joz, posted 01-14-2002 4:45 PM John Paul has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 365 (2113)
01-15-2002 6:24 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by lbhandli
01-14-2002 6:07 PM


Larry:
Citing the worst definition that is out of context is a rather feeble attempt to argue creationism is science.
John Paul:
So it's the worst definition that is out of context, how? Just because you say so? That is a rather feeble rebuttal.
Larry:
Either creationism can meet the scienitific method or it can't. And for it to do so there would have to be testable hypotheses, confirming evidence, potential falsifications and not be falsified.
John Paul:
It has been done. I showed you where you can read about the what you posted. You didn't like it so you say it doesn't exist. Lame, very lame indeed.
Larry:
To date, you, nor any other creationist, can't meet that standard.
John Paul:
I take it English is your second language.
The challenge has been met, you just refuse to see it.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by lbhandli, posted 01-14-2002 6:07 PM lbhandli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by lbhandli, posted 01-15-2002 8:05 PM John Paul has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 365 (2127)
01-15-2002 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Jimlad
01-15-2002 8:36 AM


Jimlad:
Correct me if I'm wrong, JP, but don't you claim that creationism is merely interpreting scientific findings in light of Genesis? In what way does this constitute an 'unbiased observation'?
John Paul:
It's as 'unbiased' as interpretting scientific findings in light of materialistic naturalism.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Jimlad, posted 01-15-2002 8:36 AM Jimlad has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by mark24, posted 01-15-2002 10:10 AM John Paul has not replied
 Message 16 by nator, posted 01-15-2002 10:24 AM John Paul has replied
 Message 25 by Jimlad, posted 01-15-2002 3:05 PM John Paul has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 365 (2134)
01-15-2002 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by nator
01-15-2002 10:07 AM


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schrafinator thinks that just because Creationists conduct science under a different framework, it is not science.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
That is exactly what I think. It is also what the scientific community thinks. It is also what several state supreme courts think.
John Paul:
It doesn't matter what you think, what scientific community are you talking about and please present the court statements that would verify your claim.
schraf:
If you want to call Creationism science, then you must abide by the rules of science. Creationism does not abide by the rules of science. The last time religious leaders were involved in deciding what was science or not people like Galileo were persecuted.
John Paul:
First take a history course. It was the Aristotelians at the universities that opposed Galileo. It was their influence that turned the Church. Second it is not Creationism- it IS the Creation model.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And can Creation be falsified? Yes. Just demonstrate that purely natural processes are all that are required.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
So far, no magic has been required to show that evolution happens.
John Paul:
Guess what? There isn't any magic in the Creation model either.
schraf:
The gaps in our knowledge do not constitute positive evidence for any supernatural forces.
John Paul:
Ah, but the gaps are real, they are many and they are huge. In order to get around them it takes faith and belief.
schraf:
"I don't know" does not equal "God".
John Paul:
And it does not equal materialistic naturalism.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Do you really think life is just a result of chemical reactions?)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
So far, I see no reason to think that God or another non-natural force was absolutely necessary for evolutionary processes.
John Paul:
No one said God is necessary for evolutionary processes.
schraf:
As for how life got here, I don't know.
John Paul:
The point is no one does, so why is it bad to infer it is here due to some Designer/ Creator?
schraf:
Some people are extremely uncomfortable saying "I don't know" and leaving it at that. They prefer to step outside of what we can infer from the evidence to a belief that God or some other non-detectable something made us and/or has a special interest in us.
I respect that need or desire, but these people cross the line when they say that their religious beliefs are science.
John Paul:
But that is exactly what evolutionists do...
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by nator, posted 01-15-2002 10:07 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by nator, posted 01-15-2002 12:15 PM John Paul has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 365 (2141)
01-15-2002 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by nator
01-15-2002 10:24 AM


schraf:
OTOH, since we have no POSITIVE evidence of a Creator, the Creator is known only through revelation, we cannot detect the Creator with our five senses, and since science, by definition, concerns itself with naturalistic explanations of naturalistic phenomena, why should the tenets of science be completely changed to allow religious and/or supernatural explanations?
John Paul:
OTOH, since we have no POSITIVE evidence of purely natural causes for the origins of life, there is no way to detect the origins of life why assume it occurred via purely natural processes? As far as I can tell the only 'supernatural' part to the Creation model of biological evolution IS the origins.
After that nature took over and that is where Creation science kicks in. I know that may be difficult for you to comprehend but that is your problem, not mine.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by nator, posted 01-15-2002 10:24 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by nator, posted 01-15-2002 11:25 AM John Paul has replied
 Message 29 by lbhandli, posted 01-15-2002 8:10 PM John Paul has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 365 (2175)
01-15-2002 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by nator
01-15-2002 11:21 AM


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by schrafinator:
[B] From:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10713a.htm
John Paul, you avoided anwering my questions and responding to my points. (how unusual) Please do so as they are relevant to the discussion.
"Materialistic Naturalism asserts that matter is the only reality, and that all the laws of the universe are reducible to mechanical laws."
Strawman argument.
40% of US scientists believe in God, and so are, by definition, not materialistic naturalists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
Respond substantively, please.
John Paul:
To what?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What benefit to inquiry of the natural world would be gained if religious restrictions and guidelines were included in science?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
Respond substantively, please.
John Paul:
Again, respond to what? You say nothing about the restrictions and guidelines that materialistic naturalism places on the quest for knowledge. Why is that?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all, which religious guidelines would we use? All of them? Some of them? One of them? Just about all of them are based upon holy books or some kind of ancient stories, but some are brand new religions. What about Scientology, for example; should we assume that enrons exist in science?
And so on...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
Respond substantively, please.
John Paul:
Use the one that best fits the evidence.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by nator, posted 01-15-2002 11:21 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by nator, posted 01-15-2002 3:25 PM John Paul has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 365 (2176)
01-15-2002 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by nator
01-15-2002 11:25 AM


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:
schraf:
OTOH, since we have no POSITIVE evidence of a Creator, the Creator is known only through revelation, we cannot detect the Creator with our five senses, and since science, by definition, concerns itself with naturalistic explanations of naturalistic phenomena, why should the tenets of science be completely changed to allow religious and/or supernatural explanations?
John Paul:
OTOH, since we have no POSITIVE evidence of purely natural causes for the origins of life, there is no way to detect the origins of life why assume it occurred via purely natural processes? As far as I can tell the only 'supernatural' part to the Creation model of biological evolution IS the origins.
After that nature took over and that is where Creation science kicks in. I know that may be difficult for you to comprehend but that is your problem, not mine.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
You did not answer the question. Remember, we are discussing what science is, and if creationism is science.
John Paul:
First, as I have tried to explain, Creationism isn't the issue. The issue is the Creation model of biological evolution or the Creation model of geology. Please try to stay focused.
schraf:
Since science concerns itself with naturalistic explanations for naturalistic phenomena, by definition, what compelling reason do we have to change the rules of science to allow supernatural explanations for naturalistic phenomena?
Answer substantively, please.
John Paul:
There are no naturalistic explanations for the origins of life. Seeing that the biggest difference between the Creation model of biological evolution and today's ToE is the starting point of evolution and that no supernatural explanations are required after that, I don't understand your continued problem.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by nator, posted 01-15-2002 11:25 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by lbhandli, posted 01-15-2002 8:12 PM John Paul has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 365 (2178)
01-15-2002 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by nator
01-15-2002 12:15 PM


"Schraf: If you want to call Creationism science, then you must abide by the rules of science. Creationism does not abide by the rules of
science. The last time religious leaders were involved in deciding what was science or not people like Galileo were persecuted."
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Paul:First take a history course. It was the Aristotelians at the universities that opposed Galileo. It was their influence that turned the Church.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
It doesn't matter where the influence within the Church came from.
John Paul:
Yes, it matters. The Church would not have done a thing without the pressure from the Aristotelians.
schraf:
The Church was the one doing the imprisoning because it had the "divine right" to do so, and the reason it persecuted the scientist was because he went against Church doctrine.
John Paul:
Go take a history lesson and get back to me.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second it is not Creationism- it IS the Creation model.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
The creation model violates many tenets of science, the specifics of which I have been pointing out, such as it's declaration of knowledge of nature a priori.
John Paul:
In reality the Creation model of biological evolution violates NO tenets of science. Remember, evolution isn't concerned with origins. The problem with the court decisions is that at the time they weren't aware of what the Creation model of biological evolution was.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And can Creation be falsified? Yes. Just demonstrate that purely natural processes are all that are required.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf: So far, no magic has been required to show that evolution happens.
John Paul:
True. Just many 'just-so' stories.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Paul:Guess what? There isn't any magic in the Creation model either.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
Sure there is. Creationists declare that certain things happen by supernatural means. That's magic. Meaning, that's not science.
John Paul:
So supernatural means magic? LOL! Go buy a vowel.
schraf:
Also, falsification of Creation "science" isn't a demonstration that purely natural processes are all that are required.
John Paul:
Sure, that is all that is required.
schraf:
A falsification of Creation "science's" claims would be, for example, the geologic column, radiometric dating methods, ice core data, tree ring data and our understanding of physics falsifying the idea that a Noachian flood occurred.
John Paul:
You can't have it both ways. You can't on one hand say it is unfalsifiable and then it has been falsified. And anyway, that would falsify the Creation model of geology.
schraf: The gaps in our knowledge do not constitute positive evidence for any supernatural forces.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Paul:Ah, but the gaps are real, they are many and they are huge. In order to get around them it takes faith and belief.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
You didn't comment on the statement I made. I said, "The gaps in our knowledge do not constitute positive evidence for any supernatural forces." It doesn't matter how big you think the gaps are, they still aren't positive evidence. It doesn't matter if "it takes faith and belief to get around them". Gaps in our knowledge do NOTHING to forward Creation "science". How many times are you going to sidestep this fact?
John Paul:
But that has nothing to do with the point I am making, which is today's ToE is full of gaps and should not be taught in public schools because those gaps are filled in with faith & beliefs. And yes I understand the fact that the ToE being full of gaps is not positive evidence for the Creation model. I never said or implied that it did.
schraf:
Also, you point to Behe's gaps frequently, such as blood clotting, yet you refulse to discuss the specifics of the genetic evidence which refutes Behe's notion that blood clotting is "impossible" by natural means. In this vein, what happens if ALL of Behe's examples of IC are eventually understood?
John Paul:
I have been over this. Theories change when new evidence is brought to the front.
schraf:
If the entirety of the ToE were to be falsified tomorrow, it would not mean that Creationism is correct. You are STILL under the strange, inaccurate (yet common among Creationists) impression that there is a dualism here. There isn't.
John Paul:
Nope, never said, never thought it and never implied it. You are the one who is confused.
schraf:So far, I see no reason to think that God or another non-natural force was absolutely necessary for evolutionary processes.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Paul:No one said God is necessary for evolutionary processes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
All of the leading Creation Science organizations certainly do.
John Paul:
Bull scorch! Please provide the URL where I can read this. I will repeat, ONLY life's origins are attributed to God in the Creation model of biological evolution.
schraf:
I respect that need or desire, but these people cross the line when they say that their religious beliefs are science.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Paul: But that is exactly what evolutionists do...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You seem to think that if you repeat assertions often enough that you somehow make them true.
There is no supernatural element to the tenets of science. Show me that there is or stop making the claim.
John Paul:
You are confusing the ToE with science, stop that. Also my response was to this:
"schraf:
I respect that need or desire, but these people cross the line when they say that their religious beliefs are science."
There is nothing about the supernatural in the statement I was responding to. So why did you feel it was necessary to throw it in to your response to my response?
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by nator, posted 01-15-2002 12:15 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by edge, posted 01-15-2002 2:18 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 27 by nator, posted 01-15-2002 3:45 PM John Paul has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 196 of 365 (3087)
01-29-2002 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by joz
01-29-2002 12:42 PM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
what got said?
John Paul:
Are you familiar with Humphreys book, Starlight and Time? He concludes that:
"The visible universe was once inside an event horizon (This means it was once either within a black hole or a white hole. We have seen that if it were inside a black hole, it would be contracting, which is not indicated by the evidence. Therefore
The visible universe was once inside a white hole. (It may, however, have commenced as a black hole before expansion started...) pg 24
As the event horizon was crossing Earth, billions of years or processes would be taking place outside of that event horizon and that God basically Created the universe using general relativity.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by joz, posted 01-29-2002 12:42 PM joz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by TrueCreation, posted 01-29-2002 4:24 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 198 by John Paul, posted 01-29-2002 4:30 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 202 by lbhandli, posted 01-29-2002 7:32 PM John Paul has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 198 of 365 (3091)
01-29-2002 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by John Paul
01-29-2002 4:20 PM


Has anyone posted thsi link yet?
So you want to become a 'Creation Scientist'...
Follow the links in that article for a more detail.
This is what I have been trying to tell people. Creationists look at the same evidence- the same DNA, rocks, atoms, stars, fossils, living organisms etc., just come to different conclusions because of a differing worldview.
Newton knew the universe was God's Creation, so did Kepler- does that make their scientific discoveries less for that?
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by John Paul, posted 01-29-2002 4:20 PM John Paul has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by LudvanB, posted 01-29-2002 4:38 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 201 by lbhandli, posted 01-29-2002 7:30 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 204 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-30-2002 7:12 PM John Paul 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