|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,788 Year: 4,045/9,624 Month: 916/974 Week: 243/286 Day: 4/46 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: what is a scientific theory of creation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
Apparently no one is going to provide a scientific theory of creation.
It should have:1) testable hypotheses 2) confirming evidence 3) potential falsifications Now, if creationism is science this should be a trivial exercise. Cheers,Larry
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cobra_snake Inactive Member |
Well, a scientific theory of creation is different when you ask different people. Different people have different defintions of what a scientific theory of creation really is.
For example, YOUR definition of a scientific theory of creation is probably as follows. 1. An impossibility2. A lame attempt that a Creationist may propose (which is clearly wrong) 3. A terrific way to give yourself leverage in a debate because YOU think it is impossible and when someone shows you one you simply say it is not scientifically correct. You are simply blind and not looking for a Creation model. I look forward to your insulting reply.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3849 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
Responses like that only make it seem more likely that you don't have one, you're better off either giving a legitimate response or no response at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cobra_snake Inactive Member |
Well apparently everyone except Quetzal missed mine in the "why creation science isn't science" category. Unless Ibhandli thouroughly destroys my model, he is in no position to claim that he has never been presented one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
A scientific theory of creation? I think we need more emphesis if we are consider the question, what do you mean by scientific theory of creation? The origins, or a scientific creationist theory, etc
------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: Which post no.?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
toff Inactive Member |
Lots of prevarication here...but no scientific theory of creationism, despite the original poster being fairly specific on what it should contain. Why am I not surprised?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
redstang281 Inactive Member |
quote: I think this is the most common misunderstanding by evolutionists. The belief of creation is not provable, it's a faith. The idea is that all science fits with the Biblical account of creation without compromising the clear teachings of the Bible. Now if we apply your laws to the theory of evolution we will find that evolution is not a science either. Non of the evolution theorys could stand up to any of these. (keep in mind microevolution is testible and is part of creation) It should have:1) testable hypotheses 2) confirming evidence 3) potential falsifications Here's some important quotes: 2. 'In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion;almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it.' H.S. Lipson, FRS (Professor of Physics, University of Manchester,UK), 'A physicist looks at evolution'. Physics Bulletin, vol. 31, 1980, p.138 3. 'The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology isthus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.' (L. Harrison Matthews, FRS, Introduction to Darwin's The Origin of Species, J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London, 1971, p.xi. 4. 'One must conclude that, contrary to the established and currentwisdom a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written.' (Hubert P. Yockey [Army Pulse Radiation Facility, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, USA], 'A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory'. Journal of Theoretical Biology, vol.67, 1977, p.396
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LudvanB Inactive Member |
quote: Evolution is a religion?...thats a common diatribe by creationists and other evengelical nuts seeking to bring evolution DOWN to THEIR level so they can more effectively fight it. Evolution is not based on faith but one solid evidence and on probability thinking. And as evolution is a SCIENCE,its self correcting,meaning that frauds are exposed by other scientists when they are discovered,whereas creationists always try like hell to cover up their blunders and resist any change in their hypothesis,not on evidenciary ground but on DOGMATIC grounds. Just this week,scientists have discovered a possible genetic proof of macromutation/evolution which demonstrates that some species of flies were actually small sea dwelling creatures at one time. amusingly enough,i have not seen either you or TC comment on this...interesting...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1505 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: Pedantic (again) but ... 'Belief of Creation' exists no one doubts that. Ultimately knowledge of whether or not God created allthat is will either be gained when we die, or we will disappear without trace and so no longer care .. that I agree with. All science fitting with the Biblical account of creation is anothermatter. If the biblical account of creation is your hypothesis, then it is testable (to a degree). I think it's a bit of a cop out, though, to say it's faith so Idon't have to prove it. Why do you have faith in the biblical account of creation ? Why is that account any more/less believable than evolution in termsof the origin of species ? quote: The basic (abridged) hypothesis behind evolutionary theory is thatthe diversity of life on Earth developed over time via redistribution of allelle frequencies in individual populations in response to changes in the environment. Genetic mutations played a part in this process. This hypothesis leads to predictions about what would be expectedto be seen in the world at large. These predictions can be compared with observations to be validated. If these predications are contradicted, then that part of thetheory to which they related is falsified. quote: The majority of confirming evidence, whilst compelling for 'us'is dismissed as rubbish by most creationists. It leads into discussions over the age of the earth, gets sidetrackedinto probabalistic debates over the likelyhood of abiogenesis, and suggestions that a consistent ordering of fossils within rock strata could have occurred due to a global flood. quote: See above.
quote: If observations are bent to fit evolutionary theory, these are picked up by peer review. I do NOT believe that an observation can be bentinto anything. If an evolutionary concept can explain observations is that bending ? Check out creationist refutations of evidence FOR evolution ifyou would like to see some fascinating tricks of hypothesis. quote: In what way is evolution the backbone of biology ? It is one facet of enquiry into the biological world. It does NOTinform studies of physiology, genetics, eco-systems, biochemistry, etc. Quite the reverse in fact. Failure to prove evolution has little to do with evidence, and muchto do with politics, power, and religion. quote: Faith is about beleiving in something without any evidence.If we as evolutionists were not concerned with evidence, why would quote so much of it, and attempt to explain it ? Even the quote you provide says 'Has not yet been written', not thatit is in any sense impossible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
toff Inactive Member |
quote: No, redstang. It's not a common misunderstanding of evolutionists. It's not even a misunderstanding. Evolutionists KNOW that creationism is not a science. It's a belief, a faith - a religious one. That's why we laugh at the notion of 'creation science'. Evolution, however, is completely different. It is in no sense a religion. it has: 1) testable hypotheses,2) confirming evidence, and 3) potential falsifications, which you can find in any popular text on the subject.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
Provide a model or admit there isn't one. I'm tired of your whining.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
Your 'model' wasn't a model. It was two claims that completely avoided anything unique and testable. Of course, if you would like to stop whining and post it again it can, again, be pointed out why it was useless.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
Stop with this nonsense and provide a theory. I've already given you as much latitude as you could possibly have and your response so far was to post a could be scenario that wasn't scientific, but a "could be" scenario that was quickly pointed out to be wrong. Either provide a theory or admit you can't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
quote: Gee, where did it come from? Oh, that's right: AIG, ICR, Hovind, etc.
quote: Actually here it is for common descent:
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ quote: See above and retract.
quote: Quotes aren't science. Take it to another thread.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024