Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is creationism science?
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 7 of 114 (367551)
12-03-2006 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Confidence
12-01-2006 5:14 PM


The important thing to take away from this, is that the assumptions he used were all based on the reality and straightforwardness of the Bible.
Please show me where "the straightforwardness of the Bible" states that "at the instant God created the water molecules, the spins of the hydrogen nuclei were all pointing in a particular direction".
I love the way he can choose k to be whatever he likes for any planet he chooses, it's such a relief to have a variable constant. Goddidit! He moves in mysterious ways, and provideth his loyal servants with a fudge factor.
---
If, as they claim, his "predictions" (which are no more than upper limits) for Uranus and Neptune are "right on", as they say, then why don't they include the actual data from Voyager 2? I can't find it in the article.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Confidence, posted 12-01-2006 5:14 PM Confidence has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 20 of 114 (368315)
12-07-2006 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Confidence
12-06-2006 8:31 PM


Re: Creationism bull
Seems most of you are misreading the assumptions.
He does not say that the bible is talking about spins, but that is his assumption.
The biblical basis was that everything was made out of water. That is it. Maybe read it again
However, you wrote:
The important thing to take away from this, is that the assumptions he used were all based on the reality and straightforwardness of the Bible.
(My emphasis.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Confidence, posted 12-06-2006 8:31 PM Confidence has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Confidence, posted 12-08-2006 12:22 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 56 of 114 (371561)
12-22-2006 6:19 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by 4Pillars
12-21-2006 11:54 AM


Sorry, but unless science can create a time machine that will allow us to observe events in the past like the beginning of the universe, all you can ever come up with, no matter scientific sounding, is a best GUESS and SPECULATIONS.
It is in fact possible to know about the past without owning a time machine. Claiming otherwise, even if you use capital letters to do so, is not likely to fool anyone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by 4Pillars, posted 12-21-2006 11:54 AM 4Pillars has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Archer Opteryx, posted 12-24-2006 8:35 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 57 of 114 (371562)
12-22-2006 6:35 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by 4Pillars
12-21-2006 9:52 AM


Re: Science by Definition is Phylisophical
If science is "by definition" philosophical, then why do I not see mention of this in any definition of "science"?
Or ... wait, of course, this is the fundie use of the phrase "by definition". Meaning "not by definition, but I wish it was, 'cos then something I've said would be true".
Oh and I'm not attacking the true science, I'm attacking the opposition’ definition of science which attempts to exclude creationism,
If you think you have a definition of science which includes the ravings of Hovind, Morris, Gish et al, please produce it.
when the fact is the opposing parties are just as guilty of the things they have accused creationism so far, like knowing empirical truth apriori.
But of course we do not claim to know empirical truth a priori, which is why you cannot quote us doing so and have to resort to making stuff up.
Preceding a blatant falsehood with the phrase "the fact is" doesn't make it any truer, you know.
It is actually IM-possible to separate philosophy from science or the methods of science. That's because the question, "what is science?" is itself a philosophical question.
No, not really. Not more so than the question "what is a pig?" is philosophical: and yet it is perfectly possible to separate pigs from philosophy.
Try as you might but there is no such thing as an authoritative definition of science or the scientific method. Scientists and philosophers of science until today are in disagreement on it and struggle to define all of its essential attributes.
And yet they are all able to agree that biology, physics and chemistry are sciences and that chocolate cake, the movie Gone With The Wind and the number 7 are not sciences.
Just because scientists have not reached complete accord on the exact definition of science does not allow creationists to arbitrarily go around claiming that stuff is science when it clearly isn't.
So for evolutionists to claim that creationism is not science simply begs the question.
Or, to put it another way, "for evolutionists to claim that chocolate cake is not science simply begs the question".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by 4Pillars, posted 12-21-2006 9:52 AM 4Pillars has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 58 of 114 (371565)
12-22-2006 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by 4Pillars
12-20-2006 6:46 PM


Re: Micro-evolution of Prehistoric Mankind & Human
Well, this is a great example of why creationism isn't science:
When Jesus made the creatures, -- including the prehistoric mankind -- He made them in various "kinds"
First you make a completely unsupported assertion.
. No one knows His classification system except He, Himself.
Then you refuse to define your terms.
Some theorize that the kinds could be creeping, walking, crawling, flying, etc. kinds.
Then you speculate on what God might mean by the claim you made.
Microevolution or descent with modification happens every time a baby is born. It is God's way of keeping "kinds" within their own "kinds". Micro assures that dogs remain dogs... cats, remain cats...they evolve or change...but within their own "kind".
Then you continue to make unsupported claims using the term you won't define.
Example: Cat's Family - A Lion (male) and a Tiger (female) producing a Giant "LIGER". See link (scroll all the way down).
Detailed information on hybridisation in big cats. Includes tigons, ligers, leopons and others.
You give an "example" which does not support your undefined assertion.
See, it really amazing how the discovery of Science Today support the TRUTH of the Bible written many centuries ago -- the sons of God (prehistoric mankind) producing GIANT offsprings - Mighty Men of old, men renown - AFTER their union with the Daughters of Men (human), as documented in Genesis 6!!!
Then you invent a scientific fact (giants, forsooth!) and use it to support your own highly idiosyncratic interpretation of the Bible.
This, of course, means that Macro is a Lie and God's Holy Word is the Truth. We did not Evolve our Human Intelligence. We inherited it from Adam, exactly as God told us we did.
And finally top it off with a gross non sequitur. Preceeded by the phrase "of course" to make it sound like it's true.
What were you thinking?
Evols, list down your evidence here..
For what?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by 4Pillars, posted 12-20-2006 6:46 PM 4Pillars 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