|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creationism - a clearer picture? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Darwin Storm Inactive Member |
It seems to me a vast majority of creationist on this board are dedicated to trying to find fault with evolution, as if disproving TOE would somehow validate "creationist science".
I am willing to listen the the other side of the arguement. I would like for a creationist to please lay down some of the theories of creation science and put forth supporting evidence. Experiments that test solid hypothesis of creation science, along with their data would be wonderful. I am willing to listen to evidence for a creationsist view of the universe. Science is about understanding. Please explain it to me. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
quicksink Inactive Member |
you're going to be waiting for a loooong time....
creationists usually know creationism is true because some christian site tells them so.... the fact is, most, if not all, of the shreds of creation evidence are actually evolution evidence twisted and molded to suit the bible. this would be acceptable if both parties had equal evidence, but that is not the case... creationists find themselves using evolution evidence to prove the bible. they also find themselves trying to disprove the rest of the evidence that supports evolution, the evidence that they can't manipulate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Darwin Storm Inactive Member |
Well, for the most part I would agree with you, but as logical and open minded person, I am willing to listen to the other side's evidence if they have it. However, if they aren't willing to step forward and have their evidence peer reviewed (a critically important part of the scientific process) then they should stop trying to pass creationism off as science. I believe I should at least make the offer and be open minded.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Punisher Inactive Member |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by quicksink:
this would be acceptable if both parties had equal evidence, but that is not the case... [/B][/QUOTE] As far as I know both parties in this 'great debate' share the same universe, earth, and facts. This is not a debate about facts; we have the same facts. This is about an interpretation of those facts. To quote Dr. Don Batten "Both evolution and creation fall into the category of origins science. Both are driven by philosophical considerations. The same data (observations in the present) are available to everyone, but different interpretations (stories) are devised to explain what happened in the past."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Darwin Storm Inactive Member |
quote: *sigh* If you don't understand the basic principles of scientific investigation , I suppose it means little to you when I say that your statement is a sad commentary for creation "science". What dear Dr. Batten ( a doctor of what, by the way) seems to confuse is the difference between philosophy and science. Philosophy seeks knowlege and truth through logical thought, sometimes intuition. Philosophy also seeks to explain morality. Science is interested in trying to find a framework to explain "past" and current natural phenomena and proccesses, and attempts to make predictions. Those predictions are dependant on observable data. If a hypothesis is invalidated by observation and data, it needs either to be revised or replaced. Evolution falls under the definition of science. The reason TOE is widely accepted is that it is the theory that best explains observerved data , and makes predicitions, that are supported by experiments, observations, and correlating data.Since creationist science is being put forth as just that, science, I simply ask what is its basic theory. What hyopotesis have been formulated on it, and what experiments have conducted to verify these hypothesis. I ask for scientific evidence in support creationism. I am willing to consider valid scientific evidence and theories. Your commentary doesn't put forth a coherent scientific theory , or evidence, in support of the creationist position. I find it strange that the even the Roman Catholic church accepts the validity of TOE, and geoligical evidence of and old earth. It seems they don't find a conflict between science and their philosophical beliefs, since TOE isn't a philosophy. Additionaly , TOE makes no predictions about the existance of a God or lack there of, and doesn't put forth a code of morals or beliefs. ( I think the Roman Catholic Church may have had some permenant reservations about TOE if it did. )
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"As far as I know both parties in this 'great debate' share the same universe, earth, and facts. This is not a debate about facts; we have the same facts. This is about an interpretation of those facts."
--Exactly right, this is the crux of the debate, interperetation. ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LudvanB Inactive Member |
quote: Indeed that may well be the case. Interpretation,which varies from individuals to individuals...like say for instance someone like myself who would interpret a vegetable eating lion as evidence that some animals species can produce some intriguing and unique mutants,while someone else,who shall remain nameless,would interpret said lion as the proof that 4500 years ago,big cats were all herbivores... [This message has been edited by LudvanB, 03-02-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Darwin Storm Inactive Member |
quote: Well, science is about interpretating observed data and formulating hypothesis and theories. If you have evidence that supports a creationist theory, please share. If there are experiments based upon creationist hypothesis (ie. a creationist "interpretation" of data that explains natural phenomena and puts forth testable predicitions) that has data supporting it ( ie those facts you were talking about) then please tell us about them. I am not asking for anything that wouldn't be required of any scientific theory.Your refusual to put forth suppporting evidence seems to be an indicator that creationism is a "belief" and not science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"Indeed that may well be the case. Interpretation,which varies from individuals to individuals...like say for instance someone like myself who would interpret a vegetable eating lion as evidence that some animals species can produce some intriguing and unique mutants,while someone else,who shall remain nameless,would interpret said lion as the proof that 4500 years ago,big cats were all herbivores..."
--I think it would be more accurate to say from theory to theory. Also, I would suggest a good biology book, with a coarse introduction. ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"Well, science is about interpretating observed data and formulating hypothesis and theories."
--Right. "If you have evidence that supports a creationist theory, please share. If there are experiments based upon creationist hypothesis (ie. a creationist "interpretation" of data that explains natural phenomena and puts forth testable predicitions) that has data supporting it ( ie those facts you were talking about) then please tell us about them. I am not asking for anything that wouldn't be required of any scientific theory."--We've been discussing much regarding theoretical implications in various threads. Try 'Falsifying Creation'. "Your refusual to put forth suppporting evidence seems to be an indicator that creationism is a "belief" and not science. "--Creationism is a belief, who told you differently. ------------------ [This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 03-02-2002] [This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 03-02-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Darwin Storm Inactive Member |
Cool, I will look into the other thread. The main reason I put up this thread is that I have repeatadly heard creationism refered to as "creationism science". If there is such a cat, I just wanted to see his stripes. Scientifically, even creationist genisis would leave tell tale signs that science could observe, and regardless of religious belief, would be supported by physical evidence if it took place.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LudvanB Inactive Member |
quote: Oh i did,when i was younger,i couldn't get enough biology. And you know what biology has taught me? That the Lion is a carnivore,that it is born to be a carnivore and that it starves to death if it runs out of meat and that there is no fact in science that would lend credence to the hypothesis that lions or their ancestors ever grazed the fields side by side with the antilopes and the gazelles and that ONE MUTANT LION living on vegetables in a CONTROLED ENVIRONEMENT does NOTHING to alter those FACTS.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theo Inactive Junior Member |
I find the lack of understanding in these posts of what creationism claims to be appalling. The straw man fallacy is repeated over and over.
I suggest that if one want's to understand the creationist view before critiquing it they read Oliver Wendel Bird's two volume set "The Origin of the Species Revisited." Evolutionist scientists recommend it. In volume one he reviews the scientific data. In volume two he reviews the philosophy of science, definitions of science and legalities. He does not address the issue of the Young Earth however. If one did their homework they would find that creationism does make testable predictions. I have found no one critical of creationism in these posts that even have a clue as to what they are. Shouldn't one know what one is critiquing before one critiques it? Evolution made predictions, mutation and natural selection for change from a single cell to man and then when science proved that mutation and natural selection could not have done this, evolution simply changed the theory to punctuated equilibrium to explain the lack of evidence. Yet Punk Eek cannot provide a mechanism. This is blind faith and begging the question. One cannot interpret the evidence in light of one's beliefs. That method will always confirm one's original beliefs. That's what evolution has done. Popper's criteria of falsifiability as part of the definition of science apparently doesn't apply to evolution science. Evolution science is to plastic violating definitions of science. For starters on testable predictions, creationism predicts the first and second laws of thermodynamics which evolution science violates. We'll go from there ------------------theo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LudvanB Inactive Member |
quote: Would you care to give us a few exemples of those testable predictions of creationism?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: No lets back it up a step and ask why if creationism (presumeably around since the writing of genesis) predicted laws 1 and 2 of thermodynamics so much was made of the scientists who discovered them.... Hey why stop at the first two why not the 0th and 3rd as well? Oh yeah its because creation ex nihilo breaks the 0th law.. But hey why not claim relativity, the Schroedinger wave equation and the big bang while your at it....
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024