|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,784 Year: 4,041/9,624 Month: 912/974 Week: 239/286 Day: 46/109 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creation as Science | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
archaeologist Inactive Member |
I was also curious as to how archaeologist defines "modern science". We would be going backwards if archaeologist was using a strawman version of "modern science" and then showing how creation fit that strawman. i do not. what the original argument and the last post did was use the secular idea for modern science. i have not set up any alternative because some science has its place in the world, not as an authority but it has a place. i do present new rules though. in its present form secular science basically says, 'all science is good science' but that is just not so. for if it were, then eugenics would not be barred, the nazi experimentalists would be hailed for covering new ground and so on. even dr. frankenstein would be hailed as a hero, if he were real, and his grave robbing would be excused because it is for 'science' thus it is good. None of them could be condemned nor banished from the realm of other scientists who stick to some form of morals and ethics, even though those morals and ethics would be moot and meaningless because 'all science is good science.' i propose new rules--truth and error/ right and wrong for all of science and that science starts giving the correct answers not just theories, hypothesis, maybes, possiblys et al. then morals and ethixs would mean something and much would be accomplished for scientists would not be wastign their time on unprovable and unreal assumptions like the theory of evolution and natural selection. Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
archaeologist Inactive Member |
how can i reply to clarify if there is no right to reply?
as far as i am concerned the answers to bluescat were not part of the body of the main text andi was very clear about that. the body of my last post was consistant with the OP. but i see people are nitpicking again on minor issues to avoid the reality and finding things to nag about that distract and refuse to discuss with an open mind. case in point:
Here you are incorrect. The actual processes of evolution are studied in the laboratory and the field. The processes of creation are unobserved. The only "products of creation" that we may observe are human creations and even there we may use processes resembling evolution to good effect. the harpingof the party line even when shown that evolution is NOT studied at all. thenthe denial of creation when shown that all they are studying is really the results of the creative act under the influence of the sin and corruption that entered the world. this is further proof of why creationists cannot discuss with evoklutionists, the evolutinist resorts to blind denial and repetitive chanting of the evolutionary party line. the only people with a closed mind are the evolutionists as they refuse to discuss alternatives. that wholepost seems to be an effort to convince the poster that evolution is still true even though the evidence says otherwise. i have yet to see any secularist on this board actually andhonestly discuss the issues raised.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
archaeologist Inactive Member |
Hiding the off-topic discussion in this message. --Admin
on second thought i will make a couple comments to this post:
for creation we do not need to do this at all nor do we need a science lab to understand anything about life, its origins and so forth.
certainly ancient cultures that believed in a flat Earth (such as the Egyptians) and even in relatively modern times there were some who still believed it. having studied the ancient cultures i know this is not true.
Modern technology depends on science. Without science we would not have modern computers. noit doesn't., it relies upon the intelligence God gave men, without that there would be no 'science'.
This proclaims the infallibility of the closed mind. It explains a lot. Unfortunately refusing to accept that you are wrong does not make you right doesn't deal with the issues raised and only describes yourself.
And yet the theory of evolution says nothing different about human reproduction having dealt with this issue before, i know that it does and that there is NO NEED for the present reproduction system inthetheory of evolution andne need to think it was needed. but i see that for everyone one of your blanket denials and empty statements you cannot provide one legitimate credible link or reference to support your position. REMEMBER the burden of proof is on you to support your contrary position. i have no burden of proof because i stand with the truth and you all are the ones rejecting the truth that has been known since time began. so support your side.
In other words you claim that creationism is more scientific than evolution because it treats ancient myths as unquestionable fact, while rejecting all the evidence to the contrary. Another disadvantage to creationism (and in itself sufficient to disqualify it). shows bias, closed-mindedness and other supposed NON-scientific thought which means everything you say is non-scientific and rejected.
what we know of these conditions IS based on physical evidence. there is NO physical evidence to support the evolutionary idea of original conditions.
Practically all experiments rely on setting up artificial conditions. Thus this is simply another attack on science.
no it is not an 'attack' onscience, it is pointing out the reality that you really are NOT studying evolution at all. you are studying what you want and calling it evolutionary which makes it all a lie.
how does it feel to be rendered useless. as i said, there is a place for scientific work, things like photosynthesis, flooding, or whatever but science is actually worthless and useless when it comes to origins because it cannot deal with the reality. it has to make things up to feel some worth. that is just sad and pathetic. there ARE NO natural answers to origins and science is incapable of dealing with this fact because they have to alter their lives, their thinking, and throw out their life's work. i have clearly shown that creation can qualify as science for it fits the basic rules secularists have come up with to exclude it but when those rules are applied to their own theory, their theory is excluded instead and so far i have not seen one real argument that is openminded and grounded in legitimate support to refute one thing i have said. all i get are blind denials and the making of mountains out of molehills. deal with what i wrote and let's see if you are honest enough to discuss properly. Edited by Admin, : Hide off-topic text.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
archaeologist Inactive Member |
Hiding the off-topic discussion in this message. --Admin
If you want to do science, you need to be ready to throw away every conclusion, including the myths of the Bible. Until you are ready to toss the Bible away as science or history you can NEVER do science. no i don't because secular scientists donot do so. they refuse to consider one alternative to evolution and their work is all prejudiced by their evolutionary bias. there is no objectivity and i have shown thatto be true in other posts. that comment is just ridiculous and untrue. there has never been a discovery that has shown creation or the Bible to be false, but there has been myriads that have shown evolution to be non-existent and a lie. creation doe snot go by the demands of secularist, the secularist must go by God's rules, which means that they have to humble themselves to HIm not vice versa. Edited by Admin, : Hide off-topic text.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
archaeologist Inactive Member |
Hiding the off-topic discussion in this message. --Admin
You know instead of simply parroting the creationist party line and whining when people don't accept it you could produce actual evidence. Instead of just claiming that you did, even though it isn't true. yet i didn't do that and i did show that you will not honestly discuss, you blindly refuse to entertain alternatives, thus the only closed-minded person is you and do not hide behind the 'evidence' factor because no evolutionist can provide real evidence for their theory. my question is: where are the real, honest, and legitimate rebuttals to what i said and supported by real legitimate evidence? Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given. Edited by Admin, : Hide off-topic text.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
archaeologist Inactive Member |
Hiding the off-topic discussion in this message. --Admin
Because creationism cares only for dogma, not for truth. Which is why it is not science. there in lies the problem. you assume that because it is in the Bible it is dogma not truth and you assume that secular science is the only perveyor of truth. both assumptions would be wrong and shows that you do not have a standard for discerning right and wrong, truth or error. since we know that no scientific discovery, no archaeological discovery, et al, has proven the Bible wrong we can be at rest knwoing tis record is verified and tells the truth, not dogma. whereas with secular science, permeated with secular people who possess unregenerated minds,who are not of God, is fallible. limited, and subject to the corruption that entered the world at adam's sin it is almost impossible for it to tell the truth and present evolutionary dogma instead. secular science is the blind leading the blind and it is publically stated that it is designed to look for natural answers which automatically tells you it is not looking for the truth but alternative answers that fits its purpose.
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. I do not see any contradiction. yes i posted an article i wrote that demonstrates that creation can fit the secular scientific model in some places and could be considered science by secular rules. i do not have any 'odd opinion about the secular principles...' because i took those straight from secular scientist websites and showed how creation fits into most categories if you let. the issue here is though the scientific exploration is altered because humans are NOT designing a new origin of man, they are limited to using science as it was intended: study plant processes, how lightening and thunder work, figuring out electricity and so on. but since secular man is not satisfied with the correct origins, they want to create an build their own history using science to lead the way.
And here in this message you say you think science should have different rules: 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. yes i do think that but that does not take away from the demonstration that creation qualifies as science under secular rules. those secular rules are too restrictive, too limited and exclude important data which renders it useless to obtain the truth. which limits the use of creation in science for creation does not follow th esecular way thus to obtain the truth, secular science has to change--not creation. ***i hope that answers the confusion, as i am not sure what he is getting at. Edited by Admin, : Hide off-topic text.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
archaeologist Inactive Member |
Hiding the off-topic discussion in this message. --Admin
in the OP and in the other post i made, i just wanted to open up discussion about creation as science and demonstrated that the act qualified better than evolution as science , as science is defined today. yes new rules need to be implemented in the scientific field for the truth is not told nor searched for and as i pointed out the 'artifical studies' are NOT replicating claimed evolutionary changes thus evolution cannot be considered science at all. the experiments are false and result in the wrong conclusions. what is being exposed here is the double standard secular science has and th hypocrisy. it demands one thing from creation and creationists but it is something the evolutionists cannot do or refuses to do with their own theory. one must also consider how secular scientists define evolution. it is not human, it is not natural so is it really supernatural? and if it is, then why is it included in scientific endeavors? science looks for natural answers but the process seems to act ina supernatuiral way altering life forms withits supposed 'powers'. Edited by Admin, : Hide off-topic text.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
archaeologist Inactive Member |
If we use God as a variable in an equation we can get any result. God just makes it happens. but the human scientist is the same variable. he decides which experiments, what the parameters are, what the prediction will be and so on. then he uses artifical and controlled enviornments and factors to make his experiment. i do not see you having an argument.
Science is about understanding and knowledge, not about the truth/meaning of life in a religious point of view. then science cannot be used as an authority in any field of life, including the legal system. it cannot be relied on to be a determiner, let alone a final one as it is often used. and no one can appeal to it for anything. no one said anything about themeaning of life but truth,/error, right and wrong must be a part of the program or you have nothing and are just wasting everybodies time because you cannot have understanding without those 4 elements involved.
We want to understand, not just accept, and therefore we cannot accept the truth without stunningly good evidence and/or arguments you do not need evidence to understand--just reasons. evidence in and of itself is easily manipulated and can say whatever you want it to say. it has been done and is still being done.
Personally, I still do not accept any truth (yet) and might never do because my understanding of the world is limited to a lot of things. For instance my life span. if yo do not accept any truth, how can you live? you must be stuck in your apartment 24/7 then. the equation includes faith and if you cannot make that a part of your thining then you have problems because there will never be the all the physical evidence you want. but i see most of this as an excuse to avoid the truth, because you still turn to science we for answers even though it is looking in the wrong places and for the wrong things. if the above is true, then why are you using science? it won't help you because it has no truth, according to your thinking. you are just wasting your time. you do not accept anything so even science can't help you. the only thing that will help you now is the Bible, you either accept or reject it you cannot make excuses like, i do not accept anything. that doesn't cut it in the real world. secular science has been designed to fool you an dit has done a very good job. Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
archaeologist Inactive Member |
okay not replying to that message but to the points raised.
sorry but i have done all that and you all have failed to respond properly and with supporting evidence. i have proven my point and not one person has refuted anything i raised but have kept sidetracking. so i am now done with this thread. i am not here to have my points judged, nor do 'homework' just becaus eyou donot like what you read. if you cannot discuss in a proper manner and support your points there is no point in going any further.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
archaeologist Inactive Member |
Reading further into your article, it appears that you throw both of these things out the window. You simply proclaim creationism to be true by fiat, therefore no need for testing or the naming of potential observations that would falsify creationism: didn't do that as i believe i made the point that we can test creation by going to thenurseries fo the world and seeing it in action. we do not need to 'falsify' creation for that is a secular requirement but if you want to falsify it, we could say that God had the choice to create or not. and it is falsified. but i am here simply to repeat what I said in another thread. evolutionists are not replicating the claimed evolutionary changes and that disqualifies it from being science. to really replicate the evolutionary changes the secular scientist would have to recreate the original conditions and not interfere but just sit there and wait for something to take place. any experiemtn done by a secularist or evolutionist is not recreating the original conditions for scientists are involved, they are making an artificial enviornment, they are manipulating the test subjects, they are introducing foreign substances into the mix and so on. NOTHING in evolutionary experiments are actual replications and therefore false.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
archaeologist Inactive Member |
we have an enormous amount of data, however, the data does not support a global flood the question is do you really? how can modern day 'equations' describe the supernatural or the conditions of the ancient world? they cannot because they are based upon assumption not fact.
However, if we put God into that equation everything is possible because; God is almighty. There might be a few constraints due to Gods mentality, but he can practically make any event happen God's 'mentality and morality' are NOT n question as you are not fit to judge that. Yes God can do anything He wants, He is God BUT He has made it faith a requirement because He wants people to truly believe Him. anyone can believe whenthey see the evidence but it takes another type of person to believe and follow when they only have His word. that personis one who loves God for Him. 1 cor. 13
I need evidence, which I think is very reasonable. evidence has been given, andthere is only so much physical evidence around faith will always be part of the equation. evolutionary evidence is NOT evidence. it is mere speculation, assumption, conjecture and never has been observed.
To believe in the Christian God would be equal for me as to believe in Allah, spirits, the painkiller Prophet, Cthulhu, Flying Spaghetti Monster etc. no it is not the same but if you believe in evolution then you can substitute that process for God and then you would be correct. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix first quote box (replace ' with /).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
archaeologist Inactive Member |
Do you accept DNA paternity testing as valid? not anymore. once i found out it can be fabricated, its credibility went out the window.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024