What IS Science And What IS NOT Science?

Others have already defined the methods of science well enough. Let me try and address your concerns from a different direction.The methodology that creationists and ID theorists use was once considered scientific. However, over time the methods of science have improved. These improvements were not created solely to weed out religions or any particulat tenet of some particular religion. The improvements, ironically enough, were often carried out by people who were religious.The issue was to get better results from their research, more accurate understanding in a faster way.The methods have been accepted over time because they have proven themselves, and make up a much more rigorous practice that is modern science. Thus when people discuss science today they are really talking about modern science, as what counts as science has changed over time.Unfortunately creationist and ID research eschews the methodology which makes up modern science. This may be frustrating for them, but they are the ones that have to accept they want to practice research methodology which is not as rigorous as most in the field and more prone to error, and so skepticism. If you are asking if it is possible to falsify that a process today may not have acted the same in the past, the answer is absolutely yes. Someone could very well approach the Flood and Species Diversity using modern scientific methodology. Its just that creationists and ID theorists generally don't.It might be pointed out that geology was born from people who did believe in Abrahamic accounts, who went looking for evidence in nature. Unfortunately it turned out that YE and Flood hypotheses were falsified.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Buz, to add to what the others have said, What observation is this "likelihood" based on? What data supports assuming such a concept?Science starts with observations, data, as the basis for hypothesis.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Hi Ned. The problem with your advice is that your interpretation of the observed requires replication whereas the Genesis hypothesis does not. You don't replicate sudden creation of a pair of a species which go on to propagate into millions relatively rapidly by design of an eternal supreme architect. Your hypothesis/theory allegedly takes billions of years to produce one species from scratch, i.e. form some kind of mysterious singularity bit of space and even likely millions to get from the soup to living thinking breathing sexy organism capable of and inclined to reproducing so as not to die out before the mate get's caught up in the process. (I always wondered how the first species of anything survived long enough to syncranize with the evoluton of a mate capable of reproduction?? Seems as though you'd need millions or billions of the same thing evolving until one came out capabable of and willing to bed down with the lover with all the complex serum and anatomy parts required for business. Abe: How likely is that going to happen? The lonely first organism must have allegedly had to achieve some kind of pretty deviant orgies to even begin to originate the process and accomplish a lot in a hurry before it died.Hey, I'm not trying to be funny. I'm serious. That's gotta be quite a feat with nothing capable of thinking to oversee and guide/design the process, hasn't it now when the brightest of wonderfully intelligent beings can't even create simple life with all our sophisticated technology?Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

We are talking about the process of science itself. We are, in this discussion one level (or more) of abstraction above what your post is discussion.We are discussing a process for learning and having varying degrees of certainty about what you think you have learned.After such a process (or if you can come up with another one -- processes (plural)) is defined then we can apply it to any number of hypothoses.Again, please define what process you would suggest for allowing some degree of certainty that the produced answers might be right.Aside from that your post is in a soup of it's own misunderstandings which can be discussed in another thread where it is on topic.Edited by NosyNed, : spellng

I think you misunderstand what kind of replication is needed.Obviously there are aspects of any ideas of the origin of life that would be difficult to replicate. We can not build a new earth as this one was 4 billion years ago. Nor are we likely to get God to poof anything into existance in a lab.However, replication can be as simple as:I make measurements of a particular rock or fossil and use those as a base of some reasoning to arrive at a conclusion. Can you repeat those measurements?I hypothesize that life could have arrisen from self replicating RNA? Can we both perform an experiment with RNA and see if it self replicates?Can we both see if there is a form of such RNA that replicates imperfectly and is subject to selecive pressures?Can we construct --- from replicable measurements --- an idea of what Earth was like on it's 500,000,0000 birthday and show that such self replicators can arise in that environement?This is how replication would be used to produce some idea of what could happen.

Hi Razd. You observe weather. You observe the deep, deep oceans which have relatively thin crusts. I read somewhere that the average crust under the oceans is about three miles whereas it's about twenty under the continents. You observe that, what is it, 80% or so of the earth is covered with water? I read of a world wide flood in a book full of fulfilled prophecy. In the Geology seminar I just attended at our church, open to the public I was told that some tropical zebras and other animals have been found in arctic ice. I say to myself, 'hey, it the whole earth must've been like a pre-flood terrarium with relatively even temps all over and enough vapor up there which if condensed, produce enough flood water to cover the earth = uninimaginable amout of hydraulic down pressure on the thin earth crust which = up pressure on the crust plates under the continents which = up with the high mountains, faults, volcanoes, et al. So where did all that water come from? Well in the book I read of a super climate with no rainbow and lots of lush vegetation suitable to keep men living long and plenty for all the animals so I go figure that all that water must've been upstairs with a global even and warm enough temp to keep it up there. So then I think, 'hey, if all that weight was vapor up in the sky and not on earth, that = much less weight on earth's thin crusts which = a relatively (I say relatively) level earth surface with relatively shallow small oceans and lower mountains so as to not require so much water to cover the earth as it would take today.So to answer your question, my personal unique kind of simple science study couples research of both secularist and creo science, coming to personally prefer the rather simple scientific processes which apply and deduce an hypothesis based on what I am convinced (by observation) is a reliable historical record, coupled with this science earth observable data to find to my satisfaction that they are remarkably compatible. So you see, whereas you secularists who's hypothesis requires millions of years involving all kinds of QM et al to even begin to come up with anything remotely workable, Idist hypotheses really doesn't require all that. Granted I/we use a lot of logic to form our hypothesis. What we observe, imo, for example with the flood fits nicely with the Genesis hypothesis, eliminating all that time for all these high odds processes to come to allegedly be. I guess that's why the creo scientists are'nt wanted in the review columns. Why do they need QM if there's a supeme designer doing life up so nicely in a hurry?The biggest problem is the dating, imo and I've already offered my thoughts on that, for what it's worth. If there is to be evo/creo debate site involving IDist folks like me, then this's what you get for argument. If that's not acceptable, well then I guess all you have left is to show us the door and argue among yourselves as to who's high odds model is the best secularist one. Edited by Buzsaw, : correct QM

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

Ned, my point is why should I who am convinced I've found a hypothesis so much more doable, and even, imo, more scientifically compatible with the TD laws (as per my great debate with Jar eons ago) reconciling a historial book full of corroborating fulfilled prophecy, even have good reason to tediously try working out something which I honestly think is so remotely impossible to have happened millions and billions of years ago? I've been reading you people for years and I see nothing that comes near what I think I've discovered relative to the Bible and what I'm observing on earth Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

Hmmm, for some reason my edit attempt popped up a double. Bummer! I'll try again. Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

the rest of the #22 story.[/i]

Well, sorry about that folks. I can't do the edit or even get it in another message. Must be God wants me to leave the message as is. That's ok. Good night.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

I must have missed the bit where you stated what your hypothesis is and how you tested it. Anything specific, or just weather in general?I think both sides of the debate can agree on the existence of weather. And this is evidence for a worldwide flood how? You read of a worldwide flood in a book with a talking snake in it, let's be realistic about this. "I heard it in church" is not a basis for science. Did it occur to you to ask for references? Ah, you see this is where you went wrong. Instead of saying this to yourself, you should have tried to prove it. This would involve framing a definite hypothesis, working out its logical consequences, and comparing them with observation. Saying things to yourself is not part of the scientific method. I must have missed the relevant passages in the Book of Genesis. When you say you "go figure", you do not, of course, mean it literally. No math was involved, was it? No study of meterology? No calculation of how much water would have to be "upstairs" (what the heck do you mean?) or what temperature would be required to keep it there. No science. Again, merely thinking things is not a method of proving them. Where is the science? Which bit of that was secularist science? The fact that your description of these processes is simplistic and vague does not make these processes simple. Scientists don't deduce hypotheses. They make deductions from them. Then they test the deductions.You haven't even tried to do science. Your post is one long confession of that. And you haven't noticed this deficiency, because you don't know what science is.* Frame a hypothesis.
* Use logic to deduce the consequences of this hypothesis.
* Compare observations of the real world to observations predicted by the hypothesis.That's how it works. You may in principle arrive at your hypothesis any way you choose. You can read it in the Bible, or you may pull words at random out of a hat. Practicing scientists usually arrive at their hypotheses after years of painstaking study and observation, but I see that this route has not appealed to you.You have not even gotten so far as to offer a precise hyothesis. What do you mean when you say "the water was upstairs"? How much water? What was the temperature? This is apparently meant to be a critique of real science, but it is too vague to make sense of it.

Note I said I study science. I study what others have done. My contention in this thread is that those who do science have more than one approach but nevertheless do science. Some of our friends here at EvC are contending that ID is not science, implying that those who do science with alternative interpretations from secularists do not do science. I'm attempting to show why they should not be expected to debate their kind of research on the basis of folks who believe it took eons to come up with life as it is observed both in the fossil record and live.PaulK says they check dating methods. I say PaulK and others are not factoring in our hypothesis that there was as ww flood which skews any form of modern dating technique. We observe the same fossils and layering they observe but arrive at odds in interpretation of that. Why can't you people understand why we should not be expected to debate our science on the basis of your pemise? Your premise is secularistic. Ours factors in a supreme designer intelligently guiding prosesses. I see nothing unscientific about either approach but am convinced that ours is more doable, nevertheless far less complicated.

So, can you give links to anyone who has framed a definite hypothesis: how much water, what the temperature was, what you mean by "upstairs"? No, that is not what it implies. When we say that they aren't doing science, we mean --- they aren't doing science. They shouldn't have to argue in favor their ideas? How convenient for them. They shouldn't have to debate with the likes of scientists? Well, I can see why they wouldn't want to do that. You provide no reasoning to support your assertion that a worldwide flood would skew all dating techniques. This isn't science, this is making stuff up as you go along. Go and read my three-line summary of the scientific method until you understand it. I understand that perfectly well. Rather, you should figure out the consequences of your premise and test them against observation. Otherwise, you are not doing science. No. As I said, you are perfectly free to take your hypothesis from the Bible. But if you wish to confirm it through science, that requires that you do some actual science. You see nothing unscientific about a hypothesis which says "the water was upstairs"?Where is the science?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Its feasible that scientists are not figuring the hypothesis of a world wide flood affecting dating methods. Because geologists are unable to discern the markings of a world wide flood. Yes you could talk about stratification, fossil layering, speedy erosin rates and etc as being supportive of the notion of a world wide flood, but it then comes down are you able to demonstrate the models?I believe Mt. St Helens is an oft sited example of speedy erosion rates. And its fine that people point at it, but its a speedy erosion rate in a soft rock, can a speedy erosion rate be applied to rocks that are harder then what came out of a volcano? what would be the consequences of utilzing a speedy erosion rate for all rocks?Something people keep pointing out is the extending of the science, and the consequences of the hypothesis. That portion of science is something that most that support creation science seem to neglect. And I mean you can argue for a supreme being guiding processes and changing things...but i mean at that point you aren't doing science it then becomes pointless to even build models for geology and the like. Because at any given moment Mr. Supreme being can say ahahaha light now travels at 2*10^8 m/s or the extinction coeffient for compounds is measured in seconds vs nano seconds or uranium has a half-life of 10ns, science becomes a fruitless endeavor...

quote:

---

PaulK says they check dating methods.

---

Because it's true.

quote:

---

I say PaulK and others are not factoring in our hypothesis that there was as ww flood which skews any form of modern dating technique.

---

It's not that your hypothesis isn't dealt with - it's that it is solidly contradicted by the evidence and lacks even a plausible theoretical basis. It's just bullshit made up to avoid dealing with the facts. Real science can, should, must reject it.

quote:

---

Why can't you people understand why we should not be expected to debate our science on the basis of your pemise?

---

Because what you call "our premise" is the truth. Science is NOT about forcing the evidence to fit sectarian dogma as you and Iano would have it. Science is a non-sectarian method of discovering the empirical world around us.

quote:

---

Your premise is secularistic. Ours factors in a supreme designer intelligently guiding prosesses

---

That ignores the religious believers here who accept science as it is, and those who work within science. There is no "secularistic premise" just a general understanding that God is beyond the reach of science.And of course you misrepresent the truth when you say that you simply "factor in" a "supreme designer". The fact is that you assume that your interpretation of Genesis is literal truth - and hold that there is no need to accurately represent the evidence or even know what it is. All that matters to you is agreement with Buzsaw.And that is what you call science. It isn't. It is anti-science. It is religious apologetics. To call it science would be a lie.