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:   Always a laugh
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 75 (4460)
02-13-2002 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by TrueCreation
02-13-2002 10:12 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"No, that's creation 'science' (which is, in any case, identical to creationism, except that they try to pretend it's 'scientific'). See the quotes from the ICR's principles - the largest creation 'science' institute in the world."
--Creation Science and Faith are intertwined to form Creationism. Thus Creationism has included faith and science, and is unscientific in its whole, contrary to creation science. Do we see the model here yet?

Yeah but without prior belief in the Bible,there wouldn't be any creation science...and since belief in the Bible is completely unscientific,then the very fondation of creation "science" is flawed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by TrueCreation, posted 02-13-2002 10:12 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by TrueCreation, posted 02-13-2002 11:30 PM LudvanB has replied

  
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 75 (4472)
02-14-2002 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by TrueCreation
02-13-2002 11:30 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Yeah but without prior belief in the Bible,there wouldn't be any creation science...and since belief in the Bible is completely unscientific,then the very fondation of creation "science" is flawed."
--I guess we still don't understand the full model, but atleast were getting somewhere. Creation science is simply 'science' that is given the name creation science by the perspective of the higher classified 'creationism' in the hierarchy. Creation science and faith form creationism. Creation science for instance, is science, and looked upon as 'creation science' for its interperetation for a young earth, which is fully evidence/science based. When looked upon by Creationism, creationism uses creation science to then apply it to the biblical doctrine, which is why it is intertwined with faith. Thus Creation science is not based on the validity of the bible or faith in it to substantiate it as scientific, it simply is.

But the whole creation science approach the question of human origin with the preconceived and pre-accepted conviction that the earth was "created" by someone,meaning that its comming into being is the result of the act or acts of an intelligent mind. The word creation is in itself a biblical word in this context. The reason why i doubt that creation science IS science is because the conclusion that the world was made by God is reached BEFORE any study of the question is even done. And with that prior conviction in mind,creationists then begin to gather evidence they can interpret in a way that fits their pre-reached conclusion. I call this approach flawed because it will irrevocably taint your interpretation of the evidence you come across,something i pointed out was very evident in your arguments,given that you dont seem to hesitate to latch on just about any possible evidence supporting your position without stopping to consider the likelyhood of it,something that EVERY scientist of every field should always do as a matter of course. It also means that by definition,you will resist evidence that cast doubts on your preconceived conclusion and try to forcibly interpret them in a more acceptable light to your POV instead of examining the evidence for what it actually says and then letting IT guide you to the conclusion IT actually supports,whatever that may be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by TrueCreation, posted 02-13-2002 11:30 PM TrueCreation has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Cobra_snake, posted 02-14-2002 3:15 PM LudvanB has replied

  
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 75 (4530)
02-14-2002 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Cobra_snake
02-14-2002 3:15 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Don't you think it could be the same case with evolutionists?
LUD: No i dont think so. We spend over 3000 years being indoctrinated in this belief that God created the earth in 6 days because thats what was writen in the Bible and until a mere century and a half ago,questionning the legitimacy of those claims most often led you to a gruesome demise. Creation has been accepted as fact for so long for the simple reason that before Lyel the Darwin,NOBODY SPEND MUCH TIME PONDERING THE QUESTION. The Bible was accepted without much question but as soon as we began looking seriously at the evidence,we discovered that it told a very different story than the book of genesis. But society is still biased toward creation and a many scientists who study evolution have to contend with this indoctrination both in themselve and in society as a whole. Some have even admited to me that they study evolution to see for themselves how we have been duped by the church for so damn long.
If not, why not?
LUD:i dont know...ethics maybe? Something the church is not reknown for btw...how long did it hide its rampant pedophelia problem from the society...
What is to stop scientists from interpreting the evidence to fit their preconcieved theory? Although an opinion, I don't think peer-reviewed articles cleanse the bias, because scientists are usually INTERPRETING facts, not BENDING them.
LUD:everyone interprets facts...thats nothing new...its the basis of science. But what differenciates creationists from REAL scientists is their unrelenting allegiance to the Bible. Falsify the current theories of evolution(Good luck!) and scientists will simply close up shop and go looking for other fields to study. Falsify the Bible,even a little and duck as fast as you can to avoid the backlash. Also,when sceintists interpret a fact,they always follow a model of probability analisis...something creationists,including those frequenting this board dont really bother with.
Therefore, it would be hard to identify incorrect work, since it is only an interpretation. What scientists may not always realize is that there is an alternate interpretation.
LUD:Its actually quite easy to spot an improbable interpretation of the facts and many scientists actually make a carreer of exposing fraudulent interpretations. Science is self correcting,always was,always will be,which is why creationism can never be considered science...Falsify the theories of a previous scientists and you will be acclaimed as a smarter scientist...flasify the Bible and you will be hated by the believers,viewed as a heretic,and in their minds,condemned to burn in hell...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Cobra_snake, posted 02-14-2002 3:15 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by TrueCreation, posted 02-14-2002 10:55 PM LudvanB has replied

  
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 75 (4535)
02-14-2002 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by TrueCreation
02-14-2002 10:55 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
The thing is that creation science nor evolution deal with the origins, Creationists already have their answer by faith, and Evolution doesn't deal with origins, it is a completely different topic, though it is included in the entirty of these forums. Creation science does not deal with origins.

No they dont have the answer about origins...Faith in an explanation that suits you is not knowledge...Faith cant be taught,nor can it be shared. Its completely insubstancial and unsubstanciated. Have faith in your illogical fairy tales if it warms your heart but dont come here to pretend that this translate into actual knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by TrueCreation, posted 02-14-2002 10:55 PM TrueCreation 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