would it be possible for myself and Phat or whoever to continue with our creation discussion in another venue or thread?
Yes. I put this in Free For All. Here is the original post i made that started your counterargument: I thought i might provide a framework, from Creation science found on Wikipedia. The article states that
quote:The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science is a religious, not a scientific view. It fails to qualify as a science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes. Creation science is a pseudo-scientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts, and is viewed by professional biologists as unscholarly and, even, as a dishonest and misguided sham, with extremely harmful educational consequences.
They go on to say this:
Creation science is not falsifiable: An idea or hypothesis is generally not considered to be in the realm of science unless it can be potentially disproved with certain experiments, this is the concept of falsifiability in science. The act of creation as defined in creation science is not falsifiable because no testable bounds can be imposed on the creator. In creation science, the creator is defined as limitless, with the capacity to create (or not), through fiat alone, infinite universes, not just one, and endow each one with its own unique, unimaginable and incomparable character. It is impossible to disprove a claim when that claim as defined encompasses every conceivable contingency.
Creation science violates the principle of parsimony: Parsimony favours those explanations which rely on the fewest assumptions. Scientists prefer explanations which are consistent with known and supported facts and evidence and require the fewest assumptions to fill remaining gaps. Many of the alternative claims made in creation science retreat from simpler scientific explanations and introduce more complications and conjecture into the equation.
Creation science is not, and cannot be, empirically or experimentally tested: Creationism posits supernatural causes which lie outside the realm of methodological naturalism and scientific experiment. Science can only test empirical, natural claims.
Creation science is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive: Creation science adheres to a fixed and unchanging premise or "absolute truth," the "word of God," which is not open to change. Any evidence that runs contrary to that truth must be disregarded. In science, all claims are tentative, they are forever open to challenge, and must be discarded or adjusted when the weight of evidence demands it.
By invoking claims of "abrupt appearance" of species as a miraculous act, creation science is unsuited for the tools and methods demanded by science, and it cannot be considered scientific in the way that the term "science" is currently defined. Scientists and science writers commonly characterize creation science as a pseudoscience.
You then responded in several posts, which I shall condense here:
t falsifiabilty while useful is a human contivance and concept. The easiest way to show the limitations of it is ironically to falsify falsifiabilty.
Heres a simple illustration. Things either exist or they do not. Since they clearly do no other information will Ever contradict or upset that fact. Hence existence is an axiomatic truth even if it is an illusion. Falsifiability can have no application ever where this kind of truth exists
It should be obvious to even the simplest of persons that no information ever will conclude that things Do Not Indeed exist.
So Falsifiabilty is clearly limited and is not to be understood as applicable in these instances
Fortunately design is of The same character as existence itself, it is a clearly demonstratable as an axiomatic truth
I think we can develope this as we move along in any further discourse
It's not enough for the skeptic to mentally dismiss design, he needs to show that clear Purpose that follows from intricate design is not present
Since it clearly is design or creation if you will, it is on the same order of existence itself
Your simple task is to show in either instance these two things don't actually exist. Should be easy enough correct?
Thirdly it should be noted that Biological Evolution theories are not testable if we are to apply the principle of falsifiabily.
The obvious conclusion of BE is that things are here by Soley Natural Causes. Since there is no way to test that theory or falsify it in any respect, either
You are not doing science or the principle of Falsifiabilty is not required in some instances and it is therefore limited in its application
Every theory idea or investigation has a natural Conclusion even BE. Since there is no way to falsify it, either you are not doing science or its not necessary, to still do actual science.
Creationism is on the same order of evidential investigation. It does not rely on the written Word of God for its investigations and Conclusions
Hence it follows we are doing science in the very same way and coming to conclusions the very same way as that of the so called Scientific Method
But if someone wishes to challenge my conclusions you free to do so, please have at it
Edited by Phat, : No reason given.
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith