|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Science in Creationism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
I maintain and will stand by the fact that clear and obvious purpose as a result of intricate design cannot be falsified because it has a truth to it as that of existence itself Would you care to support this claim with evidence, or are you just going to repeat it a lot?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1963 days) Posts: 852 Joined:
|
It would be better to respond to my actual argument. Which is how would you falsify an axiomatic truth like existence itself. The subject of axiomatic truths falls under the umbrella of metaphysics and the philosophy of logic. Science, on the other hand, is inductive -- and so its theories are not axiomatic. All scientific theories, therefore, may be potentially falsified -- and this is a linchpin criterion for something to qualify as scientific. You titled this thread as "The Science in Creationism," not "The Metaphysics in Creationism." Would you like to re-name this thread? Otherwise, if we are to discuss whether there is any scientific validity to creationism, you must explain how creationism is testable and falsifiable. So is creationism science? Yes or no?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 105 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
But sir I have answered your question by demonstrating that falsifiable cannot apply in certain areas, its limited as in the case of existence
It's your scientific principle that says nothing can be believed unless It has the potential to be proven wrong correct? so where would the potential be in falsifying that things do Not actually exist I'm telling you plainly there is no potential in falsifying creation (design) not because it's not observable and testable, It isIt's simply due to the fact that falsifiabilityis not an absolute Your assuming that Falsifiabilty can be applied in every scientific endeavor.Now do you understand Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2395 days) Posts: 564 Joined:
|
quote: Then it is not science. QED JB Edited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 105 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Sir let me ask you a simple question to respond to your very verbose comment here.
Is it absolutely true that things exist? Yes or no Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 105 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
But you haven't responded to my arguments just your questions
Do things exist or not How do you falsify an axiomatic truth Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1963 days) Posts: 852 Joined:
|
Is it absolutely true that things exist? Yes or no That's not a question relevant to determining if a model is scientific, so why would you even ask that in a thread titled "The Science in Creationism"? Your question is a metaphysical one, and not a scientific one. I'd suggest you look into Stephen J. Gould's NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria), wherein science and religion occupy two distinct domains of human reality. They address largely non-overlapping questions. In similar fashion, metaphysics and science do not answer the same kinds of questions. Science only deals in theories and hypotheses which are falsifiable by experiment and observation; a metaphysics thread, then, is a more appropriate place for your question. Your question has nothing to do with whether creationism is falsifiable; and if it is not properly falsifiable, it is not science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1963 days) Posts: 852 Joined:
|
How do you falsify an axiomatic truth Wut? Literally wut? This thread is titled The Science in Creationism. Science deals in theories and hypotheses that are falsifiable. So the subject of axiomatic truths is NOT the domain of science. Your thread is titled "The Science in Creationism," so the onus is on you to demonstrate that creationism is science by virtue of its falsifiability. If you can't do that, then (1) admit creationism isn't science, or (2) re-name the thread to "The Metaphysics of Creationism."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 105 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Yes I'll be happy to answer it. Is there clear Purpose as a result of things operating in a clear logical ordered fashion
Yes or no You see Dr A imaging things were not designed is not the same as actually doing away with the clear observable principles as I have listed them above How would you make these principles go away any more than the laws of gravityDawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 105 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Your last two post are excellent in defining what I'm trying to explain in this thread your assuming science is directed by terms ideas and concepts it not exclusive to these. Reality and physical properties determine what science is or is not, then develops terms and ideas based on these laws
Why will you not answer my simple question. Do things exist or not? If things exist do they they have the potential to be falsified? Please answer those questionsDawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1963 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
Your last two post are excellent in defining what I'm trying to explain in this thread your assuming science is directed by terms ideas and concepts it not exclusive to these. Reality and physical properties determine what science is or is not, then develops terms and ideas based on these laws Scientific theories are falsifiable. Since you are unable to provide a falsification scenario for creationism, creationism is not science. Ipso facto, there is no science in creationism. If you'd like to discuss the metaphysics of creationism, this is not the thread for that (since you called this thread "The Science in Creationism"), so maybe you can start another one called "The Metaphysics of Creationism."
Please answer those questions They have nothing whatsoever to do with whether creationism is properly falsifiable. They are only attempts to steer the discussion towards metaphysics, which is weird since you called this thread "The Science in Creationism."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2395 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
No, I will not answer questions that are not on the topic of "The Science In Creationism".
Start another thread if you wish to discuss such (but not with me). JB Edited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Yes I'll be happy to answer it. Is there clear Purpose as a result of things operating in a clear logical ordered fashion If you mean ordered rather than orderly, then the answer is yes, those things which are ordered rather than merely orderly are by definition ordered according to some purpose. Ordered Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com Now all you would need to do is provide scientific evidence that living organisms were in fact ordered by someone, and you would have done what no-one else has and put some science into creationism. Do you have any such evidence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 105 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
There is no such thing as a metaphysical question relating to physical properties that clearly exist. If things clearly exist then they are not Outside the physical.
Trying to make a distinction between science and physical properties that clearly exist by calling it metaphysical and knowing they exist, is intellectual dishonesty Refusing to answer a simple question like do things actually exist and responding by saying it's metaphysical is intellectual sloppiness and dishonesty Assuming that a so-called Scientific principle like Falsifiability is valid as a principle yet knowing it's not a necessity to demonstrate an obvious truth, is the worst form of intellectual dishonesty In short there is no such thing as meta physics. Retreating to this is a simple evasion of answering simple questions put to youDawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1963 days) Posts: 852 Joined:
|
There is no such thing as a metaphysical question relating to physical properties that clearly exist. Here. Now that you know what metaphysics means, you will know that metaphysics addresses questions that are beyond the purview of scientific inquiry.
Refusing to answer a simple question like do things actually exist and responding by saying it's metaphysical is intellectual sloppiness and dishonesty Your psychoanalysis still isn't relevant to whether creationism is falsifiable; and if it is not falsifiable, then it is not science.
Assuming that a so-called Scientific principle like Falsifiability is valid as a principle yet knowing it's not a necessity to demonstrate an obvious truth, is the worst form of intellectual dishonesty Science does not deal in obvious or axiomatic truths; that's the domain of logic, mathematics, and metaphysics. Science deals in theories and models that can be falsified; three centuries ago, the caloric theory was accepted as scientifically valid, but it was falsified, so it is no longer a valid scientific theory. If science was about axiomatic truths, then it would remain forever static; its theories would never change. But science is not so; its theories and hypotheses evolve continuously in light of new observations about the natural world. And this, too, is where its enormous explanatory power springs from. Since poor theories and hypotheses are ruthlessly eliminated by the cutting edge of Occam's razor and Popperian falsificationism, scientific models can be continuously refined until a simple theory can explain so much with so few principles.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024