|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: "Evidence and Faith" | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 445 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
It is always a question. If this is true then ...? Ok, let me substitute: If creation is true, then ....? Come on really. There is nothing wrong with "creation science" other than it is probably labeled wrong, and the people doing it. Otherwise, what is wrong with searching for proof that the world was created?If you were doing science correctly, and you were totally wrong, at least what you found could be used in other areas of science. If it was done correctly. I think one of the best ways to do that is by showing your Pastor how Biblical Creationist leaders LIE!. Yes, I agree.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
If creation is true, then ....? We are not talking about creation as in god creating the universe. We are talking about creation as pushed by the cultist where the earth was created 6,000 years ago followed by a world wide flood. If we say "If the above is true, then...." we end up with a lot of things showing that the above is not true. The hypothosis is falsified. Those who continue to push it are, as has been noted, either lying or insane.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2543 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
here's the difference, rat.
you mention forensic science. the observation that person A is dead is not a conclusion. It's an observation. The conclusion explains how person A died. cancer is an observation. humans are an observation. the existence of the pyramids are an observation. stating that there was a world wide flood (when there is no evidence to suggest such) is not an observation. an observation in this case would be "hey, there's a single layer all around the earth that dates to time X". the flood would be a conclusion. conclusions explain how or why about some observation. and as others have said, if the evidence supports a better conclusion, science goes with the better conclusion. Which is why the age of the earth has gone from being 6,000 years old to eventually 4.6 billion years old.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
riVeRraT writes: Come on really. There is nothing wrong with "creation science" other than it is probably labeled wrong, and the people doing it. You could say something very similar about "creation science" as was once said about the Holy Roman Empire: "By the time of its collapse it was neither holy nor Roman nor an empire." Creation science is certainly not about creation, its about religious paranoia and arrogance, and very little of it has anything to do with science.
Otherwise, what is wrong with searching for proof that the world was created? I assume you're actually asking why it's wrong to search for evidence supporting the Biblical account of creation. For an investigation to be science, it must seek to explain an observed phenomenon or gathered evidence. Creation science seeks to explain a mythical story for which there exists no evidence that we're aware of, and even worse, there are copious amounts of contradicting evidence that creation science chooses to ignore. And far, far worse, creationism wants to discard the foundation of scientific thought, naturalism. I could go into much more detail, and maybe some people will, but the real puzzle is why anyone would bother trying to explain any of this to you yet again. You're approaching your 3rd anniversary here, and all this has been pointed out and explained to you many times, yet you can still baldly state with an apparently straight face your belief that there's nothing really wrong with creation science other than that real scientists have labeled it wrong.
If you were doing science correctly, and you were totally wrong, at least what you found could be used in other areas of science. If it was done correctly. Well, yes, of course. Science is wrong all the time. What's most important isn't whether an experiment or investigation produced new scientific knowledge, although that is of course the goal, but the quality by which the science was conducted. A high quality experiment that delivers a negative result can be very valuable, because the quality and rigor of the approach means that future investigations have no need to explore the blind alley. Here's a request for you: Name a creation science experiment or investigation that was done correctly from a scientific perspective, and if you can do that, then find one that was not only done correctly but had a positive result supporting the Biblical story of creation. But by far the most grievous offense of those who support creation science, at least in my opinion, is their continual attempts to degrade science education in this country by pushing their religious agenda into classrooms, educational standards, textbooks and laws. History class teaches a consensus of historians understanding and not some kook's view that aliens must have helped the Egyptians build the pyramids. English class teaches a consensus of what constitutes good grammar and literature and not the best seller lists. Chemistry class teaches a consensus of important chemical knowledge and not alchemy. Science class teaches the consensus view of our universe and not astrology or UFO-ology or ESP-ology or ghost-ology, and certainly not the Christian myth of creation. --Percy Edited by Percy, : 2nd => 3rd.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
He concludes that the pyramids exist
No he observes that the pyramids exist, so he studies and experiments to develop a hypothesis that is consistent with all the known facts, this allows him to reach a tentative conclusion on how/why/when/etc. they were built.
Cancer is a conclusion
Cancer is an observation so we go through the scientific process to come to a tentative Conclusion on how to best treat/cure it.
Evolution. We are the conclusion, because we are here, then we seek to find out how.
We (and the diversity of other species of life) are the observation. Then we go through the scientific process to come to the tentative Conclusion that we (and other forms of life) evolved from previous forms of life. Just a monkey in a long line of kings. If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Come on really. There is nothing wrong with "creation science" other than it is probably labeled wrong, and the people doing it. Otherwise, what is wrong with searching for proof that the world was created? Of course there is EVERYTHING wrong with "Creation Science" both theologically and scientifically. From the science perspective, if Creation Science is right then it is pointless to continue doing science or to trust ANY results from science. If Creation Science is right, the some magic pixie can step in at anytime and nullify, abrogate or suspend natural laws of physics, chemistry or any other field. It becomes impossible to tell if the results you see are due to the laws of physics or the whim of the pixie. From a theological point of view it is even worse. Creation Science reduces GOD to just another natural force. If we can find "proof that the world was created" then God is just another force like the weak nuclear force, something to be examined, something with limits and known characteristics. Creation Science is not just bad science, it is even worse theology.
If you were doing science correctly, and you were totally wrong, at least what you found could be used in other areas of science. If it was done correctly. It is impossible to do Creation Science correctly. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 445 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
We are not talking about creation as in god creating the universe. We are talking about creation as pushed by the cultist where the earth was created 6,000 years ago followed by a world wide flood. Yes, I read the "who we are" og the AiG web-site, and I do not agree with it. That is why I am pursuing this. This is not only about "creation science." I guess I am blending issues. That being what I think creation science should be about, and what it is really about. The later being a lie.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 445 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
Creation science is certainly not about creation, its about religious paranoia and arrogance, and very little of it has anything to do with science. Ok, I get that, that is why I am taking steps towards doing something about it. I asked my Pastor if we are a bible literalist church, especially Genesis, and this is was his response:As a group of Assembly of God Evangelicals, the answer is technically yes. But I surely believe that there is room for discussion in some of these areas. So I believe a door is open for me to do something about it. You'll have to understand something, my Pastor is more than a Pastor, he has a consulting firm, that comsults churches around the nation, and he is a very large influence on many churches.
I could go into much more detail, and maybe some people will, but the real puzzle is why anyone would bother trying to explain any of this to you yet again. You're approaching your 3rd anniversary here, and all this has been pointed out and explained to you many times, yet you can still baldly state with an apparently straight face your belief that there's nothing really wrong with creation science other than that real scientists have labeled it wrong. Because I do not see a problem with searching for the truth.For many years, scientists believed the world was created. All of this has pointed out, as well as God has been pointed out to me, but I really do not know for sure, since, I am not the one dealing with evidence, or did I go to college to experience what is truth in science, and what is not. Science makes mistakes too. As you state:"Well, yes, of course. Science is wrong all the time."
Here's a request for you: Name a creation science experiment or investigation that was done correctly from a scientific perspective, and if you can do that, then find one that was not only done correctly but had a positive result supporting the Biblical story of creation. Don't you get it? That is what I am asking you, and the "experts" to provide. There are some responses already, and I need time to go through them.
Science class teaches the consensus view of our universe and not astrology or UFO-ology or ESP-ology or ghost-ology, and certainly not the Christian myth of creation. Are you saying there is no possible way that the world was created? Or the universe? Is this proven fact? can we leave emotion out of this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 445 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
From the science perspective, if Creation Science is right then it is pointless to continue doing science or to trust ANY results from science. I thought science was niether right or wrong.
From a theological point of view it is even worse. Creation Science reduces GOD to just another natural force. If we can find "proof that the world was created" then God is just another force like the weak nuclear force, something to be examined, something with limits and known characteristics. That's good, I like that.
It is impossible to do Creation Science correctly. Maybe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 445 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
In all your definitions, your conclusion explains the "how."
Creation science does not explain the "how" only who, and that we were created, but not "how." I think what jar said is very significant, and that if we could explain the "how" then God is in a box, and small.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I thought science was niether right or wrong. Not right or wrong in a moral sense, but in the sense of being a relevant procedure, accurate process or effective. And in this instance we are talking about the process and basic assumption that answers can be found. The basic premise of Creation Science is that some outside force stepped in and over ruled physical, chemical and biological processes. "Creation" as opposed to "formation" requires a clause be added to every law; gravity, weak nuclear force, chemical bonding, genetics, that adds "except when the pixie decides that the law or principle should be suspended". If that is the case then we cannot be sure that objects really will fall, that the tests on the new drug really reflect what we can expect, that a plane will fly, that brakes will work, that what is in the IV is actually blood and not just red Koolaid. On the other hand, if the universe we see actually formed based on the physics, chemical, biological laws and properties we know and discover, then the question of GOD having a hand in it cannot be shown. Creation Science can never be anything more than a fraud. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
In all your definitions, your conclusion explains the "how."
no those were examples showing how what you claimed were conclusions were really observations. and that those observations could lead to some conclusions.
Creation science does not explain the "how" only who, and that we were created,
Creation "science" does not explain anything, it claims that we were created and it claims that a "god" did it. Just a monkey in a long line of kings. If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
riVeRraT writes: Because I do not see a problem with searching for the truth. Who does? The issue isn't whether creation science is seeking truth. The issue is whether creation science is science. A spiritual quest for truth is noble, no argument there, but it isn't science. It also isn't football, knitting or boat building, but of course you see that. What you don't seem to see is that science has a definition that has been explained to you many times, and science is definitely not a spiritual quest for truth. You ask if we can leave emotion out of this, but I think that if you post messages that don't ignore the content of three years of explanation you won't get replies that seem to be expressing frustration. Your noble goal of convincing your influential pastor is not a license to just forget all that has gone before here.
For many years, scientists believed the world was created. There you go again. Does anyone need to rebut this yet again? Why should we have to do that? This is just pure creationist crap that you've been fed. No wonder some like Jar just toss up their hands and start calling "creation scientists" (and if one could capitalize quotes I would) frauds. What you just said has as much value as me saying, "For many years deeply religious people believed that gods lived on Mount Olympus." If you really believe this stuff you're saying it not only means you've learned little in your three years here (in case it isn't clear, the problem isn't that you don't accept what's been said - it's that you post as if you have no recollection that these statements have been rebutted over and over again), it means you're not qualified for the task you've set yourself. It means you're telling your pastor the church doesn't belong in science not because it's causing the church to repeat misrepresentations and even pure lies, but just because churches shouldn't be doing science. If churches were doing good science then I think we should be all for it, but they're not. Creationism is just another great example of the saying, "For good men to do bad takes religion." (That's just a paraphrase, the full quote is something Freeman Dyson said: "Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things ” that takes religion.")
Science makes mistakes too. As you state:"Well, yes, of course. Science is wrong all the time." Yes, of course. You seem to think you're making some valid point, so obviously you've missed the original point altogether. What's most important isn't whether an experiment or investigation produced new scientific knowledge, or even whether it was conducted mistake free. What's important is whether scientific standards and methods were followed. Making a mistake following a scientific procedure is still part of the process of science, and because of the requirement of replication is of no consequence in the end. But creation scientists do not follow scientific standards, do not follow the scientific method, do not even adhere to naturalism, and copiously ignore evidence. There's nothing in what they do that resembles science, and that's why creation science is not science.
Here's a request for you: Name a creation science experiment or investigation that was done correctly from a scientific perspective, and if you can do that, then find one that was not only done correctly but had a positive result supporting the Biblical story of creation. Don't you get it? That is what I am asking you, and the "experts" to provide. There are some responses already, and I need time to go through them. There are none. I have no idea what responses you're talking about. You didn't confirm whether you were talking about young earth creationism based upon a literal interpretation of Genesis, so I'll have to continue to assume that's what you're talking about, in which case there is no valid experiment, evidence, data, whatever, supporting a young earth and a global flood. None. Zip. Nada. Zilch.
Science class teaches the consensus view of our universe and not astrology or UFO-ology or ESP-ology or ghost-ology, and certainly not the Christian myth of creation. Are you saying there is no possible way that the world was created? Or the universe? Is this proven fact? No. Let me try again. History class teaches the consensus of history. There are some kooks out there who believe aliens helped the Egyptians build the pyramids, but they have had no success making their point within the academic historical community, so how legitimate would it be for them to lobby school boards, text book publishers and state legislatures for representation of their views in history class, even though they argue their views have been systematically and even scurrilously excluded by a biased historical community? Not legitimate at all, right? Science class teaches the consensus of science. There are some kooks out there who believe the earth is only 6000 years old and that a global flood is responsible for modern geology, but they have had no success making their point within the academic scientific community, so how legitimate would it be for them to lobby school boards, text book publishers and state legislatures for representation of their views in science class, even though they argue their views have been systematically and even scurrilously excluded by a biased scientific community? Same answer, right? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
A scientist wonders about something she sees in nature. quote: No. It is a question, which might be phrased, "Gee, I wonder why X appears as it does?"
quote: What about it? Starting with a conclusion in forensics might be something like, "Even though we haven't examined any of the physical evidence in this murder scene, we have already decided that Billy Bob did it." What forensic science actually does is, "A murder took place. We are going to reconstruct what happened based upon the physical evidence at the scene so that we can possibly determine who did what."
quote: Egyptologists don't spend their lives trying to determine if the pyramids exist, rat. They make "retrodictions" about what they are likely to find, and those retrodictions are based upon evicence. Sometimes their retrodictions are shown to be accurate, sometimes not.
quote: No, cancer is a disease. It is that above observation that I already mentioned that a scientist would make. Someone a while back looked at a funny growth on a person or animal and said, "Hmm, that's strange. I wonder why those things occur?" The answer to "Why?" is the conclusion, rat, and that ALWAYS comes AFTER investigation, not before.
quote: See cancer explanation above.
quote: Except it doesn't meet the criteria for a scientific theory, either.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: I can't see any difference between those two things. If I say something knowing that it will offend someone, then I intended to offend them, didn't I?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024