EvC Forum: Creation as Science

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: Creation as Science

Admin

Director

Posts: 13038

From: EvC Forum

Joined: 06-14-2002

Member Rating: 2.1

Normal Thread Display

Message 2 of 83 (574862)
08-18-2010 7:16 AM

Reply to: Message 1 by archaeologist
08-18-2010 4:35 AM

archaeologist writes:

I am only going to post a link here first because it is 2,300 words long and I will wait till I get approval from the admins. before making 2-3 posts containing the body of the text.

From the Forum Guidelines:

Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.

Avoid lengthy cut-n-pastes. Introduce the point in your own words and provide a link to your source as a reference. If your source is not on-line you may contact the Site Administrator to have it made available on-line.

Please do not post the entire contents of that webpage here. You've posted the link and that is sufficient. Quoting pertinent excerpts is the preferred approach.

Could you edit your opening post to summarize the arguments from that webpage in your own words?

It is opening a sincere discussion, and hopefully those who hate creation, the Bible and me, will put aside their hatred, their bias, their personal attacks/insults and discuss honestly, without going to the absurd, the ridiculous, manipulations of quotes et al.

If you are not going to be serious or jsut want to use the thread as a form of entertainment please do not respond. I want to see if people here can have a decent discussion like gentlemen. Please clarify before assuming, fo rit is not how the words are perceived but how the author intended them.

Would you please remove these paragraphs? EvC Forum already has a set of Forum Guidelines that are enforced by moderators. Members are not permitted to impose and/or enforce their own rules.

Post a note to this thread when you're done editing your opening post and I'll take another look.

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
	Message 1 by archaeologist, posted 08-18-2010 4:35 AM		archaeologist has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 3 by archaeologist, posted 08-18-2010 8:36 AM		Admin has seen this message but not replied

Admin

Director

Posts: 13038

From: EvC Forum

Joined: 06-14-2002

Member Rating: 2.1

Normal Thread Display

Message 4 of 83 (575248)
08-19-2010 7:52 AM

Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum

Thread copied here from the Creation as Science thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

Admin

Director

Posts: 13038

From: EvC Forum

Joined: 06-14-2002

Member Rating: 2.1

Normal Thread Display

Message 37 of 83 (575582)
08-20-2010 2:19 PM

Moderator On Duty

I suspect that most people are a bit dismayed about the way this thread is turning out. I know I am.

The topic of this thread is the validity of "creation as science." Archaeologist's responsibility is to present and defend his view of how creation is science. The other side's responsibility is to examine these claims. Anything else is off topic. Please stay on topic. Ignore off topic messages or portions of messages.

If you've posted before seeing this message then please go back and make fixes so that your messages are in conformance with this request. Initially enforcement will be by hiding the text of off-topic messages. Archaeologist's periods of participation don't often correspond to my own, so I'll probably be following up many hours after posts have been made, but that can't be helped.

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
	Message 41 by archaeologist, posted 08-22-2010 2:57 AM		Admin has seen this message but not replied

Admin

Director

Posts: 13038

From: EvC Forum

Joined: 06-14-2002

Member Rating: 2.1

Normal Thread Display

Message 39 of 83 (575595)
08-20-2010 2:52 PM

Reply to: Message 38 by nwr
08-20-2010 2:37 PM

Re: Where are the other viable options?

nwr writes:

archaeologist writes:
B). That science is actually limited to the secular definitions and practice. In other words, there are no other viable options.

If you think that there are other viable options, it is up to you to present them. I browsed through the thread, but I could not find any.

Archaeologist goes on to say:

Archaeologist in Message 1 writes:

This work will not be used to explore those options rather it will use the current secular principles and rules to show that act of creation can and should be considered science.

I think it would be a big help if Archaeologist would begin his presentation of how creation should be considered part of modern science.

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
	Message 38 by nwr, posted 08-20-2010 2:37 PM		nwr has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 40 by Taq, posted 08-20-2010 3:57 PM		Admin has seen this message but not replied

Admin

Director

Posts: 13038

From: EvC Forum

Joined: 06-14-2002

Member Rating: 2.1

Normal Thread Display

Message 47 of 83 (575984)
08-22-2010 7:20 AM

Reply to: Message 44 by archaeologist
08-22-2010 5:48 AM

Moderator Request

Hi Archaeologist,

I think it would help the discussion if you could resolve what looks like a contradiction. In your opening post you said you would show how creation qualifies as secular science:

archaeologist in Message 1 writes:

This work will not be used to explore those options rather it will use the current secular principles and rules to show that act of creation can and should be considered science.

But then you seem to have an odd opinion of what the "secular principles and rules" of science are. For instance, in Message 42 you say you don't believe science is responsible for technological innovation:

archaeologist in Message 42 writes:

bluescat48 writes:

If we followed your views I would not be typing on this keyboard or viewing the monitor, since they never would have been invented

again i would disagree as science did not invent those things. they came about from viewing older , similar versions that were the product of the God-given intelligence men possess. science had nothing to do with it.

And here in this message you say you think science should have different rules:

i propose new rules--truth and error/ right and wrong for all of science...

Unlike what you stated in your opening post, you now seem intent on demonstrating that current approaches to science are invalid and that creation follows a different but demonstrably better approach.

Could you please clarify which one it is you're trying to do? The people you're discussing with have a right to know whether you're trying to do what you said in your opening post (the one I judged fit for promotion), or what you've said more recently.

Please, no replies to this message.

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
	Message 44 by archaeologist, posted 08-22-2010 5:48 AM		archaeologist has not replied

Admin

Director

Posts: 13038

From: EvC Forum

Joined: 06-14-2002

Member Rating: 2.1

Normal Thread Display

Message 57 of 83 (576104)
08-22-2010 8:14 PM

Reply to: Message 49 by archaeologist
08-22-2010 4:59 PM

Moderator Request

archaeologist writes:

how can i reply to clarify if there is no right to reply?

As a moderator I'm not a participant in the discussion. The clarification should be addressed to the participants, not to me. Please make the clarifications I requested in Message 47.

Please, no replies to this message. Problems and issues with discussion should be taken to Report discussion problems here: No.2.

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
	Message 49 by archaeologist, posted 08-22-2010 4:59 PM		archaeologist has not replied

Admin

Director

Posts: 13038

From: EvC Forum

Joined: 06-14-2002

Member Rating: 2.1

Normal Thread Display

Message 62 of 83 (576202)
08-23-2010 8:08 AM

Reply to: Message 58 by archaeologist
08-23-2010 4:13 AM

archaeologist writes:

***i hope that answers the confusion, as i am not sure what he is getting at.

Sorry I wasn't more specific, but I wanted you to feel you had the freedom to present and develop your ideas in your own way.

But since you ask, I think now that you've presented your position that the next step is to present the evidence and arguments that support it. Your position, as I understand it, is this:

While creation qualifies as science by its rules, those rules are insufficient and could be much improved upon, and creation is an example of the application of these improved rules.

So you next want to post this supporting information:

What you believe the rules of science are.
How creation follows those rules.
How the rules of science need to change.
How creation demonstrates the superiority of these changed rules.

Please, no replies to this message.

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
	Message 58 by archaeologist, posted 08-23-2010 4:13 AM		archaeologist has not replied

Admin

Director

Posts: 13038

From: EvC Forum

Joined: 06-14-2002

Member Rating: 2.1

Normal Thread Display

Message 64 of 83 (576208)
08-23-2010 8:54 AM

Reply to: Message 63 by archaeologist
08-23-2010 8:14 AM

archaeogist writes:

sorry but i have done all that...

That's great. Let's take this one step at a time. Please provide a link to the message where you described what you believe to be the rules of science. Once people know where to find it then I'll make sure it is given the proper attention.

Please, no replies to this message.

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
	Message 63 by archaeologist, posted 08-23-2010 8:14 AM		archaeologist has not replied

Admin

Director

Posts: 13038

From: EvC Forum

Joined: 06-14-2002

Member Rating: 2.1

Normal Thread Display

Message 82 of 83 (578515)
09-01-2010 9:15 PM

Reply to: Message 72 by archaeologist
09-01-2010 5:29 PM

Moderator Request

Hi Archaeologist,

Would you please fulfill my request from Message 64. Thanks.

Please, no replies to this message.

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
	Message 72 by archaeologist, posted 09-01-2010 5:29 PM		archaeologist has not replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button

3 online now:	LamarkNewAge, Omnivorous, PaulK
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,833 Year: 4,090/9,624 Month: 961/974 Week: 288/286 Day: 9/40 Hour: 0/1