Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   People Don't Know What Creation Science Is
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 46 of 336 (501011)
03-03-2009 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Kelly
03-03-2009 6:37 PM


Re: Evolution theory has not addressed the answer to how?
How did life just pop-up out of nothing?
What came first, life or planets?
If you say planets, then if life emerged on a planet, is that really coming from "nothing"?
Who pulled the trigger, so-to-speak?
You're still seeking a moment of creation, this is not evolution. By definition evolution implies evolvement.

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Kelly, posted 03-03-2009 6:37 PM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Kelly, posted 03-03-2009 6:54 PM onifre has replied

Kelly
Member (Idle past 5496 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 47 of 336 (501012)
03-03-2009 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Straggler
03-03-2009 6:35 PM


This is exactly what Creationb Science is about
It attempts to answer these questions by studying the evidence left behind. It is an entire field of study. I would say that the more there is a purpose for something, the more evident the design would be. One of the most interesting aspect of design for me is the instinct for survival and the varying mechanisms of different species to protect themselves. Camouflage design is particularly interesting to me.
Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Straggler, posted 03-03-2009 6:35 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Straggler, posted 03-03-2009 6:55 PM Kelly has not replied

Capt Stormfield
Member (Idle past 456 days)
Posts: 428
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


Message 48 of 336 (501014)
03-03-2009 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Kelly
03-03-2009 6:05 PM


Re: I am simply refering to "What is Creation Science?" at this point
In another thread, Kelly wrote:
But I find that very hard to believe given the fact that no one here demonstrates to me that they know the first thing about what Creation Science is.
I am more than willing to bring the arguments here and discuss or debate them. But first I need to know that everyone at least recognizes what Creation Science really is. I think that people here need to know where I am really coming from and not just where they perceive or think I am coming from.
Respect is something that can only benefit everyone who participates in this forum. It has to go both ways. From my point of view, everyone here is quite disrespectful towards Creation and its adherents, and why? Because you don't really know what Creation Science is or what the claims are. I know this based on everything I have read here.
Actually, some of us understand all to well what creation science is based on the personal experience of having been creationists. I was raised in a creationist faith and attended a Christian college. It was while enrolled in a science program at that Christian college that I realized that there was no such thing as creation science
I had grown up secure in the knowledge that someday I would go to university and find out the truth about how science supported my religious faith. What I discovered instead, thanks to some devoutly religious professors who were, above all, honest, was that there were not subdivisions of science. There was just science. If you were engaged in the process, it didn't matter what you believed, you were still doing science.
The need to append a prefix to the word "science" inevitably meant that it was not really science that was being done. Then, as now, a search for the elusive hypotheses and supporting papers of creation science always came up empty. What is always found instead is an a priori desire to support religious faith with empirical evidence, such desire then supported with rhetoric about science, rather than actual evidence.
Unpopular scientific ideas (like evolution, plate tectonics, old earth, etc.) did not succeed because their adherents pled for fairness or set up hoops of understanding through which the skeptics were required to jump. They succeeded by brute force. They provided evidence of such quality and volume that the opposition was simply steamrolled. Please quit your special pleading about our lack of understanding. It is simply naive and untrue. Give references to the evidence you claim exists. And please, Dear God Please, do not whine any further about how "actual scientific studies...can get very detailed and complicated." We know that. Just post the damn science.
KP

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Kelly, posted 03-03-2009 6:05 PM Kelly has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Richard Townsend, posted 03-03-2009 6:55 PM Capt Stormfield has not replied

Richard Townsend
Member (Idle past 4733 days)
Posts: 103
From: London, England
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 49 of 336 (501017)
03-03-2009 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Kelly
03-03-2009 6:34 PM


Re: The same is true with respect to Creation Science
Are you limiting creation then to the initial act of creation? If you do that, you're not disagreeing with evolutionary theory per se. If you're not, then your comparison is not valid.
My view is that we're still not equivalent. In practice I believe science assumes that there is no God - or to be more specific, science assumes that a God plays no role in the explanation of the Universe. Science could change that view if there were evidence for a God (who would then become a scientific concept).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Kelly, posted 03-03-2009 6:34 PM Kelly has not replied

Kelly
Member (Idle past 5496 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 50 of 336 (501018)
03-03-2009 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by onifre
03-03-2009 6:46 PM


Actually, no, I am not seeking a moment of creation
I am simply studying the created objects and order of life. I don't need to prove the origin moment and how it happened any more than the evolutionist does. It is the evolutionist who is insisting that I address it, and I am simply pointing out that if the evolutionist doesn't have to explain how life can pop up out of nothing in order to study the evidence, why does the creationist have to explain how life was created rather than popped out of nothing in order to study the evidence?
Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by onifre, posted 03-03-2009 6:46 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by onifre, posted 03-03-2009 7:14 PM Kelly has replied
 Message 58 by bluegenes, posted 03-03-2009 7:27 PM Kelly has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 51 of 336 (501019)
03-03-2009 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Kelly
03-03-2009 6:47 PM


Re: This is exactly what Creationb Science is about
Straggler writes:
Is everything designed?
If not how can we differentiate those things which are desgined from those things which are not designed?
What specifically is it that indicates design over non-design? How can we objectively tell them apart?
It attempts to answer these questions by studying the evidence left behind. It is an entire field of study. I would say that the more there is a purpose for something, the more evident the design would be. One of the most interesting aspect of design for me is the instinct for survival and the varying mechanisms of different species to protect themselves. Camouflage design is particularly interesting to me.
That is all very well.
But is design something which can only be subjectively concluded or is there an objective measure by which we can conclude that some things are designed and some things are not?
How can we objectively differentiate those things which are desgined from those things which are not designed?
What specifically is it that indicates design over non-design? How can we objectively tell them apart?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Kelly, posted 03-03-2009 6:47 PM Kelly has not replied

Richard Townsend
Member (Idle past 4733 days)
Posts: 103
From: London, England
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 52 of 336 (501020)
03-03-2009 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Capt Stormfield
03-03-2009 6:49 PM


Re: I am simply refering to "What is Creation Science?" at this point
What a great post. I feel just the same.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Capt Stormfield, posted 03-03-2009 6:49 PM Capt Stormfield has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 53 of 336 (501021)
03-03-2009 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Kelly
03-03-2009 6:05 PM


Re: I am simply refering to "What is Creation Science?" at this point
the only thing you will ever understand about Creation Science is the slogans.
There seems to be a very good reason for that - slogans are the only thing "creation scientists" have ever presented up to about six o'clock CST today. You potentially could change that by answering some of the questions that, say, granny has asked you in this thread. But since there aren't any positive answers for several of those questions.......

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Kelly, posted 03-03-2009 6:05 PM Kelly has not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2478 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 54 of 336 (501023)
03-03-2009 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Kelly
03-03-2009 6:37 PM


Re: Evolution theory has not addressed the answer to how?
Kelly writes:
How did life just pop-up out of nothing? What was the starting cause? Where did all the elements needed come from? Who pulled the trigger, so-to-speak?
That's what you're supposed to be explaining, isn't it? You say that you have a creation science which is nothing to do with gods. So, I'm asking for your mechanisms in your creation theory that explain the origin of species, and, if you want, the origin of life itself. But for you, they're the same.
I know my mechanisms for evolution, and I gave them to you on the other thread. And I have observable scientific mechanisms for the origin of life as well. But you're supposed to be telling us what creation science is. So, how do the species we see around us come into existence according to your scientific theory if they don't descend from other species, and what are the mechanisms, and how do they work? Science requires such things of a coherent theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Kelly, posted 03-03-2009 6:37 PM Kelly has not replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4717 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 55 of 336 (501024)
03-03-2009 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Kelly
03-03-2009 4:29 PM


Where's the Beef?
Sorry to be late to the party. I had to go to Bible study after school again. When will I ever learn: Get caught, go to bible study. Other kids only have to go blind.
Hello Miss Kelly, you earn a rare distinction today. You’re only the second person I’ve ever responded to from school. And let us look at what you did with it.
Your remark:
"I know what CS really is. Just what I thought it was: Much ado about nothing."
That remark shows me that you do "not" know what Creation Science is--and worse, that you are too closedminded to ever be able to see what it is.
You made certain claims. If those claims were supportable, I would be forced to admit that my understanding of CS was erroneous. Your task was a simple one: Present the observations, explanations, tests and predictions as opposed to postdictions that have been made by CS.
What did you do instead. You made protestations about it being as scientific as the ToE; that assumptions of naturalism are made, excluding intelligent (I use intelligent to allow for Martians; though, your implication was clearly divine. I want to allow for some form of non-religious wiggle room.) intervention; pronounced the false dichotomy of evolution or creation; and a pocket full of other errors. There was not a line here that I haven’t heard a thousand times. Why would I not conclude your offering was the same-ol’ same-ol’?
Additionally, you quote-mined me. Did you think I wouldn’t notice that you quote-mine ME? Here’s what I said:
quote:
Furthermore, I take the above post as strong evidence, lending a high degree of certainty, that I know what CS really is. Just what I thought it was: Much ado about nothing.
I noticed.
I just wanted to bring the above over here where it’s kind of on point.
Now I come to Message 21 of this thread:
Creation Science has a completely different and opposing hypothesis. Creation suggests that everything in the world was created at one point in time through processes that are no longer continuing today. This means that everything on the earth, for example--with the exception of things that have gone extinct and of course all the variations we see within a species--have been here from the beginning. Mutations and natural selection have changed things within their own kinds so that we see a variety of different kinds of dogs, cats, people etc... but each species is a separately created thing. Species have not evolved from other species. With this in mind, what should we find in the fossil record? Should we find that things show up suddenly and fully formed with no apparent link to or from anything else? Yes. And that is precisely what we do find. We can study the fossil record to find support for sudden creation and moreso, to disprove the idea of long slow evolution in the macrosense. The fossil record also shows signs of sudden burial in a catastrophic event of some type...rather than long slow burial with the layers supposedly representing different time frames. This is just a quick answer because I really am not looking to debate actual scientific studies that can get very detailed and complicated. I just want people to understand that creation science is not a study of God or religion. It is a study of the created earth, universe etc..
A hypothesis is not a statement of belief It is a tentative first conclusion offered up for testing.
Creation doesn’t suggest, it states out right as a statement of belief.
Off topic rubbish about evolution being flawed, not supportive of your contention.
Off topic assertion
Off topic assertion
Off topic assertion
Modulus’ rabbits in the Cambrian covered that
Erroneous assertion
Postdiction
Postdiction
Postdiction
Straw man
Erroneous assertion
I’ll allow for Martians
Summation merely third iteration of position to be shown; AKA: leap of faith.
You have once again established no difference between what I thought CS to be and your understanding of CS with the exception in a later post that Creation is not the origin of stuff. A very odd idea, to be sure.
Supporting your claim that CS is a science should be a simple if true. You’ve been shown several ways in which it could be done. In Message 21, Granny Magda offered up five bullet points that should have seemed as manna. A good answer to 2,3,4 or 5 would have given me pause. You’ve ignored them.
Might I suggest that you get right to the evidence for your position, skipping the reiterations of the claim. It will save you much precious time.
AbE: Sorry about the Martian, Theodoric. But Kelly may reject the Martians and your creation=religion will regain its strength.
Edited by lyx2no, : With apologies to Theodoric.

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Kelly, posted 03-03-2009 4:29 PM Kelly has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Coyote, posted 03-03-2009 9:42 PM lyx2no has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 56 of 336 (501025)
03-03-2009 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Kelly
03-03-2009 6:54 PM


Re: Actually, no, I am not seeking a moment of creation
Thanks for the reply. I won't take too much of your time since you are getting it from all sides on this thread.
It is the evolutionist who is insisting that I address it, and I am simply pointing out that if the evolutionist doesn't have to explain how life can pop up out of nothing in order to study the evidence, why does the creationist have to explain how life was created rather than popped out of nothing in order to study the evidence?
You have a few choice words and contradicting statements here.
Evolution does not claim anything popped out of nothing. In the spirit of good debating you will need to concede this point eventually.
The only reason we ask the creationist is because YOU ARE claiming a momentary creation of fully functioning species. This conclusion is not derived from studying any evidence, this is implied once one claims creation.
Also, the "creator" would've had to create life from absolutely nothing, since, as you claim, nothing existed before the creator created it.
Where did the creator get the materials from? - Thats a rhetorical question, unless you'd like to answer it.
No one claims "life" popped out of nothing. If you are honest about this debate then please admit that no such claim is made by biologist.

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Kelly, posted 03-03-2009 6:54 PM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Kelly, posted 03-03-2009 7:26 PM onifre has replied

Kelly
Member (Idle past 5496 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 57 of 336 (501026)
03-03-2009 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by onifre
03-03-2009 7:14 PM


This is exactly what I didn't want to do.
I just want everyone to understand what creation science actually is. I am not saying that evolutionists are claiming that life popped up out of nothing. In fact, I said that evolutionary science does not address origins. I think there is good reason for that. The obvious conclusion in evolutionary theory-if there is no creator--is that life created itself. Personally i find that harder to believe than to believe that God created life. But this is besides the point also.
My point is that if evolutionists are not required to address the how of origins, then why should creationists have to address it in order to study the evidence. It is a double standard.
Anyway, I feel bombarded and I can see that I am all alone here. I can't possibly respond to everyone. I have decided to leave this forum. I hope people will at least try and learn about what is Creation Science so that the next time a Creationist seeks debate here you will be able to deal with them honestly and fairly--and maybe they would even be interested in sticking around a bit. Preaching to the choir must get really boring.
Take care.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by onifre, posted 03-03-2009 7:14 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by lyx2no, posted 03-03-2009 7:39 PM Kelly has not replied
 Message 61 by Coragyps, posted 03-03-2009 8:00 PM Kelly has not replied
 Message 62 by Lithodid-Man, posted 03-03-2009 8:21 PM Kelly has replied
 Message 63 by dwise1, posted 03-03-2009 8:25 PM Kelly has not replied
 Message 66 by Capt Stormfield, posted 03-03-2009 8:52 PM Kelly has not replied
 Message 71 by onifre, posted 03-04-2009 12:06 PM Kelly has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2478 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 58 of 336 (501028)
03-03-2009 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Kelly
03-03-2009 6:54 PM


Re: Actually, no, I am not seeking a moment of creation
Kelly writes:
I am simply studying the created objects and order of life. I don't need to prove the origin moment and how it happened any more than the evolutionist does.
So, if your not studying how the objects came to be there, why is your discipline called "creation science"? Why not just "science"?
You can hardly blame people for expecting it to have something to do with something being created if you stick that word on the front, can you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Kelly, posted 03-03-2009 6:54 PM Kelly has not replied

Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 2931 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 59 of 336 (501029)
03-03-2009 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by cavediver
03-03-2009 4:09 PM


Re: Morris and Creation Science
Cavediver writes:
that has to be one of the most idiotic ideas I have ever heard - this makes typical pseudo-scientific nut-jobs look positively sane. Please please find the actual quote for this, for I would hate for this to be an accidental quote-mine based on failing memory
Well, this will break me of sucking eggs (as my grandmother used to say). I skimmed through the entire Scientific Creationism book, and did not find where he said explicitly that elements evolved. It is either from another work or (quite likely) me interpreting Morris' predictions of evolution vs. creationism.
I do believe that he was trying to imply that evolutionists would expect the ridiculous such as elements evolving, stars evolving, and even the laws of physics.
Morris writes:
A more scientific approach is to make comparitive predictions from the two models, to test their relative capacity to correlate this realm of the basic laws of nature. It seems obvious that the evolution model would predict that matter, energy, and the law are still evolving since they must have evolved in the past and there is no external agent to bring such evolution to a halt
...
The fact is, of course that all observations that have been made to date confirm the straightforward prediction of the creation model; namely, that the basic laws of nature are constant and invariable, and that the basic nature of matter and energy is likewise a constant. There is not as yet the slightest observational intimation that that these entities are evolving at all. That is, the law of gravity, the laws of thermodynamics, the laws of motion, and all other truly basic laws have apparently always functioned in just the way the do now, contrary to a prediction of the basic evolution model.
Emphasis mine.
On forces and fields (here talking about the EM spectrum):
There is a real mystery in this wave phenomenon because it takes place in the "nothingness" of free space - a vacuum. What vibrates this wave motion? No one has answered that question. But it is a doubly puzzling problem for evolution. It is unlikely that wave phenomena could evolve in the void of a vacuum where there is nothing to evolve from.
He also mentions the expectation that we would see stars evolving into other types of stars (which I know we do, however I think he means some kind of progression from simple to the complex) and galaxies evolving into bigger and more more complex galaxies.

Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by cavediver, posted 03-03-2009 4:09 PM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Theodoric, posted 03-04-2009 8:59 AM Lithodid-Man has not replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4717 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 60 of 336 (501031)
03-03-2009 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Kelly
03-03-2009 7:26 PM


No Evolution Allowed.
Your continued references to evolution are off topic.
You need to support your contention that CS is science.
Does CS have an existence independent of ToE or not?
How does CS follow the scientific method?

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Kelly, posted 03-03-2009 7:26 PM Kelly 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