Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   why creation "science" isn't science
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 274 of 365 (3924)
02-09-2002 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by TrueCreation
02-09-2002 2:09 AM


[QUOTE][b]I have already proposed the problem numerous numerous times on why Creation science has nothing to do with being based on the truth of the bible[/QUOTE]
[/b]
We've gone out of our way to provide Statements of Faith for your inspection. Did you fail to read them? Are you claiming that they do not exist?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by TrueCreation, posted 02-09-2002 2:09 AM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by TrueCreation, posted 02-09-2002 9:39 PM gene90 has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 275 of 365 (3928)
02-09-2002 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by gene90
02-09-2002 8:57 PM


"We've gone out of our way to provide Statements of Faith for your inspection. Did you fail to read them? Are you claiming that they do not exist?"
--No its that these statments of faith do not represent creation science. They represent their Creationist beliefs, as in accord with evidence interperetations, which is creation science. How you interperete the evidence is creation science. What this that this interperetation goes along with the bible as for support for inerrancy is the belief of Creationism. Its kind of like Evolutionism, Evolution is their belief on how things came to be today. Their support it is how they interperete the evidence to go along with Evolution.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by gene90, posted 02-09-2002 8:57 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by edge, posted 02-09-2002 10:15 PM TrueCreation has replied
 Message 277 by gene90, posted 02-09-2002 10:57 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 276 of 365 (3935)
02-09-2002 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by TrueCreation
02-09-2002 9:39 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"We've gone out of our way to provide Statements of Faith for your inspection. Did you fail to read them? Are you claiming that they do not exist?"
--No its that these statments of faith do not represent creation science. ...
Nonsense. Every creationist ultimately retreats to scripture. Several posters on this board has as much as said so. Baumgardner has publically stated that the Bible says so and that's that! Or is he wrong on this point? I think you are pretty much alone on this one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by TrueCreation, posted 02-09-2002 9:39 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by TrueCreation, posted 02-10-2002 1:14 PM edge has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 277 of 365 (3946)
02-09-2002 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by TrueCreation
02-09-2002 9:39 PM


[QUOTE][b]No its that these statments of faith do not represent creation science. They represent their Creationist beliefs, as in accord with evidence interperetations[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Those Statements are public announcements of not only their beliefs but also their starting assumptions and their procedures on how they deal with evidence. AiG states that whatever they don't like is automatically invalid. They are to Creationism (or "Creation Science") what the Scientific Method is to science. Therefore, "Creation Science" is invalidated through their own written admissions.
[QUOTE][b]How you interperete the evidence is creation science.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
That is what a Statement of Faith is, a set of pre-arranged rules that all their "interpretations" MUST follow. The dice are loaded, the jury is bought, the game is rigged.
[QUOTE][b]What this that this interperetation goes along with the bible as for support for inerrancy is the belief of Creationism.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
The beliefs of Creationism are, by definition, the pre-arranged conclusions of "Creation Science". The Statements require it.
By the way, you are projecting your own unfounded suspicions and mistrust on science when you claim that evolutionists try to shoehorn data. You are begging the question, that is, making a statement in defense of something being debated that is itself a point of contention.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by TrueCreation, posted 02-09-2002 9:39 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 278 of 365 (3981)
02-10-2002 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by lbhandli
02-04-2002 9:50 PM


quote:
Originally posted by lbhandli:
So, let's get this straight. If I author a book and it includes false information, I have no responsibility as long as I'm only including it? Fascinating. I don't think you will get very far arguing that.
Actually, what you did here is you have taken what I said out of context. The proffessional summary was an opinion. Therefore it is not "false information" to post somebody's opinion. You may argue with Lewin's opinion, but you have no reason to argue with Parker for him putting Lewin's opinion in a book.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by lbhandli, posted 02-04-2002 9:50 PM lbhandli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by lbhandli, posted 02-10-2002 9:05 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 279 of 365 (3992)
02-10-2002 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by edge
02-09-2002 10:15 PM


"Nonsense. Every creationist ultimately retreats to scripture."
--Odd how I have never resorted to retreating to scripture in the way you put it in context.
"Several posters on this board has as much as said so."
--Mabye, but that doesn't mean they are right, and through experience throughout debate and discussion on the Creation and Evolution topic I have found that you need not to do such a thing.
"Baumgardner has publically stated that the Bible says so and that's that! Or is he wrong on this point?"
--Depends on what point your trying to get, I don't remember him saying anything like "We have to retreat to scripture!", or somthing simmilar.
"I think you are pretty much alone on this one."
--That doesn't mean I am wrong, and it only takes one to stand out and prove a point.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by edge, posted 02-09-2002 10:15 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by edge, posted 02-10-2002 3:35 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 280 of 365 (4008)
02-10-2002 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by TrueCreation
02-10-2002 1:14 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Nonsense. Every creationist ultimately retreats to scripture."
--Odd how I have never resorted to retreating to scripture in the way you put it in context.
"Several posters on this board has as much as said so."
--Mabye, but that doesn't mean they are right, and through experience throughout debate and discussion on the Creation and Evolution topic I have found that you need not to do such a thing.
Well then, for you to say what creationists do, or what creation science is, would be presumptuous, eh?
quote:
"Baumgardner has publically stated that the Bible says so and that's that! Or is he wrong on this point?"
--Depends on what point your trying to get, I don't remember him saying anything like "We have to retreat to scripture!", or somthing simmilar.
Perhaps it was on the Discovery Channel show on evolution. I was shocked that he would admit his reliance on scripture for guidance.
quote:
"I think you are pretty much alone on this one."
--That doesn't mean I am wrong, and it only takes one to stand out and prove a point.
The point is that you are the one who said creation science does not rely on scripture. If you are in the minority can you really say this? (this para edited)
[This message has been edited by edge, 02-10-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by TrueCreation, posted 02-10-2002 1:14 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by TrueCreation, posted 02-10-2002 8:05 PM edge has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 281 of 365 (4027)
02-10-2002 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by edge
02-10-2002 3:35 PM


"Well then, for you to say what creationists do, or what creation science is, would be presumptuous, eh?"
--I don't say what creationists do, they can do what they want, its what creation science is that I'll say. Creationists can take science to the worst if they like for all I really care, it would be pretty sad, but it makes no difference, I see both sides doing it all the time, its horrible!
"Perhaps it was on the Discovery Channel show on evolution. I was shocked that he would admit his reliance on scripture for guidance."
--Oh yea I remember that one, hehe, Im sure
"The point is that you are the one who said creation science does not rely on scripture. If you are in the minority can you really say this? (this para edited)"
--Ofcourse, ever heard 'its little people like you that make the difference', hey, they may mean it sarcastically, but Im all for it.
. Besides its simply unlogical to take creation science another way.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by edge, posted 02-10-2002 3:35 PM edge has not replied

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 282 of 365 (4032)
02-10-2002 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by Cobra_snake
02-10-2002 11:24 AM


I have every reason to argue that Parker is dishonest. He took the comments out of context to mislead people. HE MISREPRESENTED LEWIN'S OPINION--DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS?
Your standards of honesty are appalling. The claim you made is false, it has been shown to be false and you are trying to make some sort of hair splitting excuse for Parker's behavior. Now, how can you claim that what Parker included is an honest representation of the material? HOW? If you can't answer this, you will note there is no defense of the behavior.
[This message has been edited by lbhandli, 02-10-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Cobra_snake, posted 02-10-2002 11:24 AM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7883 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 283 of 365 (4037)
02-10-2002 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
01-13-2002 9:22 AM


again this is an example of a general discrimination, a few morons make false statements and incorrect theories and everyone is blamed for their mistakes. God was never a science in the first place, he is beyond it. There is no explanation of him, only an idea and a faith. Einstein himself said "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.", i'd like to see any man hold him in contempt and then try to explain any theory plausible. The two need eachother to have a substantial ability of proving anything.
Another einstein quote "All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man's life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom."
------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi
[This message has been edited by KingPenguin, 02-10-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 01-13-2002 9:22 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by gene90, posted 02-10-2002 10:07 PM KingPenguin has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 284 of 365 (4038)
02-10-2002 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by KingPenguin
02-10-2002 10:02 PM


Are you admiting then that "Creation Science" is not science?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by KingPenguin, posted 02-10-2002 10:02 PM KingPenguin has not replied

  
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7883 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 285 of 365 (4039)
02-10-2002 10:13 PM


did you read what i said? creation science is science. there one in the same.

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by gene90, posted 02-10-2002 10:14 PM KingPenguin has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 286 of 365 (4040)
02-10-2002 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by KingPenguin
02-10-2002 10:13 PM


Nope, science doesn't use Statements of Faith, remember? Also the scientific method doesn't allow data shoehorning. Creationism runs off it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by KingPenguin, posted 02-10-2002 10:13 PM KingPenguin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by KingPenguin, posted 02-10-2002 10:17 PM gene90 has replied
 Message 292 by TrueCreation, posted 02-10-2002 10:36 PM gene90 has replied

  
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7883 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 287 of 365 (4042)
02-10-2002 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by gene90
02-10-2002 10:14 PM


then your not allowed to post theories, opinions or thoughts anymore.
------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by gene90, posted 02-10-2002 10:14 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by gene90, posted 02-10-2002 10:24 PM KingPenguin has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 288 of 365 (4045)
02-10-2002 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by KingPenguin
02-10-2002 10:17 PM


[QUOTE][b]then your not allowed to post theories, opinions or thoughts anymore.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Theories explain data. Creationist Beliefs existed before the data were collected, and the data were chopped up or thrown out until the beliefs seem to be supported.
Creationism is not science. It is the opposite of science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by KingPenguin, posted 02-10-2002 10:17 PM KingPenguin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by KingPenguin, posted 02-10-2002 10:26 PM gene90 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024