|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Science in Creationism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
So, that was gibberish.
Do you have any evidence for design in nature? If so, please show us the evidence. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Well yes I do.
Detailed Order and Clear purpose It's really that simple You just need to demonstrate that the components in the the design Process and conclusion are not valid, are not scientifically deduced and why they would need to be more sciency to be valid I'm so confident you cant do this, you won't even give it an attempt. BTW, explain what discovering by way of macro or micro evolution, evolution explains anyway What do we learn from it, what does it teach us Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Well yes I do. Detailed Order and Clear purpose Do you have any evidence for purpose in nature? If so, please show us the evidence. (Order without purpose is obviously not design, so unless you can demonstrate purpose the order is not relevant.)
You just need to demonstrate that the components in the the design Process and conclusion are not valid, are not scientifically deduced and why they would need to be more sciency to be valid I'm so confident you cant do this, you won't even give it an attempt. OK, here's my attempt: scientific deduction rests on evidence and not assertion, and you are not showing us any evidence. Show us the evidence.
BTW, explain what discovering by way of macro or micro evolution, evolution explains anyway What do we learn from it, what does it teach us We find out the history of life. It's kind of interesting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
Well that makes no sense and is typical of someone clinging to a Method that is extreme in nature. Until you can show it, my point remains. I'm not saying nothing you are doing is related to science. Just the creation parts. What is 'extreme' about the scientific method and why is that bad? How is my 'nonsense' something that is typical of a holder of this belief? Are you going to acknowledge you degraded yourself by resorting to questioning my integrity, that I have answered your questions and that you have not answered many of mine, and that as a sign of good faith, will you answer my challenges and questions?
And the conclusion of evolution is disputed right from the outset. Knowing about evolution gets one nowhere. It gets me to dispute Minor Premise number 2, which gets me exactly as far as I intended it to.
I don't need to go any further, my position and evidence don't need to be specialised, anymore than the conclusion of "evolution". Evolution is a specialised field of biology. It's grown to basically encompass all areas of biology, but its a type of biology. You've just biology. Millennia old biology. The same biology that evolution has. So you can't call it creation science.
I don't need to be anymore sciency for design to be a observable demonstratable fact. No, you don't. I've already accepted many many times in this thread. It's not creation science, though.
Now if you could show in comparison with your process and conclusion Hey look, life is complicated.There's some sort of natural order, like it's designed. There must be a designer I wonder about that. Hey Darwin, what do you think? quote: Good point Darwin, we can observe that life changes and that biological changes can be quite significant in certain circumstances.
quote: Ah, yes, in a way our domesticated animals ARE adapted to suit OUR needs. An excellent observation.
quote: Good point. Although we humans are doing the selecting, nature does provide a rather harsh selection regime of her own. All excellent observations Mr. Darwin, and your reasoning is jolly good too.
quote: Right. Survival isn't the end - reproduction is the end, and any advantage there is very powerful.
quote: Quite right, sir. Even we creationists have recently been toying with the idea of multiple great catastrophes as a singular one doesn't make sense of what we see. Whatever the case, conditions have changed, which can change selection pressures leading to new varieties being expressed. We can't argue there's a lot of diversity, and that biologists group them together into families.
quote: A fascinating theoretical basis. Natural selection acting on naturally occurring varieties might be responsible for the diversity of life as well as explain its design, providing us with an answer as to how did we get to be designed, where did this design come from? Good work. Is there more?
quote: Ah yes, your theory does explain some of the specific evidence of the groupings and their geographical ranges.
quote: Holy cow. Darwin just dropped the mic. Nested hierarchies are utterly inexplicable with creation, but not only are they explainable with evolution - they are necessary!
quote: Wow.
quote: Yep, the design is pretty terrible as far as being pleasant or fun happy times. Probably not a nice designer. And evolution ain't a nice designer. The consequences of invasive species explained, fascinating. The theory just keeps explaining disparate phenomena. It's almost as if it's right. Dawn. That's the bit you are missing. It's quite significant. This is simple science - no maths. Just basic evidence and reasoning. Brings you up to about 150 years ago, the dawn of science. You should start with something like this, it's not rocket science - but it's easier if you have a decent theory.
Jargon and verbiage are not helping you I haven't criticized your mode of speech. You have incessantly done so with me. You are being an unpleasant person to someone who would like to have a philosophical discussion with you. Why? If you don't understand something, let me know and I'll try to reword it.
Of course it's adequate data to establish a valid proposition and conclusion But not the conclusion that all creation science is science.
Of course I've tied it to design, hence the very probable conclusion of a designer Design, yes.Designer, yes. Creator, no. Making stuff up Modulous won't help you, there is no such thing as pre-creation science. Its IS science or it is not. We're calling the design argument science. It's biology. It is science. It is not creation science. Try again.
Since it is it is as valid as any conclusions drawn by evolution Creation science's conclusions, whatever they may be (you haven't revealed any but the definitive one) are not as valid as they are not science.
I don't need complicated science to demonstrate axiomatic truths. No. But 'A creator specially created humans as they are' is not an axiomatic truth, wouldn't you agree?
Well I think you missed the point. You have no possible way to make the Science in creation Go Away. I don't need a way to make it go away as you haven't shown it to me yet.
Claiming its not sciency enough doesn't work. I have claimed you have not provided any science related to Creation. I can't say it isn't sciencey enough. What I have seen others produce certainly fails to meet the standards of science. And that is relevant because that is what you are claiming Creation Science does: meets the strict and high standards of science. So yes, when you produce something a claim that it is not 'sciency' enough is a valid objection.
When I said your task was impossible, it still is. I don't have a task. Your task is to show 'The Science in Creationism'. Am I to understand that 'it looks designed therefore a designer' is the entirety of what you claim to be 'The Science in Creationism'? That's it, right? There's nothing else? At all. If you answer nothing else, please answer this one. Not answering this one ends this discussion immediately as I know you are not reading or respecting me as a fellow debater, "Part of debating is Answering direct questions.", remember? I'm pretty sure you'd have mentioned any creation science by now, if it existed and you knew of it.
I'm sorry you don't like it's conclusions or the very valid processes I have no problems with the conclusions or valid processes, I'm just pointing out that 'Creator' is not one of those conclusions that follows from your processes. We haven't got close to 'The Science in Creationism'.
I've seen nothing yet that eliminates the deduction of design and the logical process of how it's established I've not disputed it. Remember? Why are you still establishing arguments with me that we're not having and never have?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Dawn writes: Well that makes no sense and is typical of someone clinging to a Method that is extreme in nature. The scientific method is "extreme in nature?" Or just the results you disagree with for religious reasons? You really dispute electronics, physics, chemistry and all the rest of the fields that rely on the scientific method? That I doubt highly. You just don't like the conclusions of some fields of science that contradict your religious beliefs, so you try to attack the scientific method as a whole? What nonsense.
Dawn writes: And the conclusion of evolution is disputed right from the outset. Only by creationists, who do so for religious reasons. Those who do science have accepted the evidence. Again creationists are disputing the method because they can't accept the conclusions, while many other fields that use the exact same methods do not get the same treatment. Biased a bit, eh?
Dawn writes: There's no creator in it so calling it creation science at this point is obviously nonsense. Nonsense back to you. The creator is what the whole of creation "science" and the intelligent design movement are all about. The current game is trying to hide the one specific creator that creationists all believe in so as to try and sneak one specific religious belief back into the schools and elsewhere. Everyone knows this, so trying to hide it is futile.
Dawn writes: More jargon to complicate simple issues. Of course it's adequate data to establish a valid proposition and conclusion No, it is not. You have to establish a workable hypothesis, which means you need a mechanism and supporting data, along with successful predictions. With enough of those, you might be able to establish a scientific theory. You do know what a scientific theory is, right? If not, let me know and I'll help you out. A proposition does not automatically lead to a conclusion in real science. What you do in creation "science" makes no difference in the real world. You are doing religious apologetics, and everyone knows that, so you aren't fooling anyone. The Dover decision made that clear.
Dawn writes: Making stuff up Modulous won't help you, there is no such thing as pre-creation science. Its IS science or it is not. Since it is it is as valid as any conclusions drawn by evolution...I don't need complicated science to demonstrate axiomatic truths. I never stopped doing science What you are doing is not science--it is religious apologetics, the exact opposite of science. And, like other creationists, you never even started doing science. Rather, you are trying 1) to co-opt the good name of the scientific method, and of science, by making vacuous claims that you're doing science while you are doing the exact opposite, and 2) you are trying change the definition and methods of science because real science contradicts your claims, rather than supporting them. Again, you're not fooling anyone. The rest of your gibberish ignored for the time being.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Until you can show it, my point remains. I'm not saying nothing you are doing is related to science. Just the creation parts. What is 'extreme' about the scientific method and why is that bad? How is my 'nonsense' something that is typical of a holder of this belief? Are you going to acknowledge you degraded yourself by resorting to questioning my integrity, that I have answered your questions and that you have not answered many of mine, and that as a sign of good faith, will you answer my challenges and questions? Have I missed answering a question? I think one of the problems we are having is that you are assuming because your studied investigation of nature, somehow contradicts the account in Genesis, this somehow invalidates Creationism from the outset. But creationism or the natural conclusion of a designer has nothing or little do do with evolution or a very detailed explanation of evolution, or any account of creation set out in the inspired word of God. What I'm getting from your quotes from Chuck is that evolution must by its application contradict creation, thus somehow refuting the conclusion of a designer But of course this misses entirely the point, since design has nothing to with either While design uses the natural process for its determinations, evidence or whatever, it's determined by axiomatic truths, that are a reasoned truth from that order. If you don't like it's conclusions, just make its tenets go away. I don't care how it progressed, or if you can find things that seem to contradict something else. Creationism is not proved or disproved by evolution or scripture. At least not initially It's established by axiomatic truths, then you you start looking to see how it work or is put together
Evolution is a specialised field of biology. It's grown to basically encompass all areas of biology, but its a type of biology. You've just biology. Millennia old biology. The same biology that evolution has. So you can't call it creation science. Nope.As I just stated you don't find the answers to whether therers a creator in biology or advanced biology solely, but by observable axiomatic truths, that are a part of that biology It gets started long before your biology or advanced biology Here's how that works. Is it logically possible the eye was not designed by a creator? Yes it's logically possible. But now watch, it is not logically possible the eye does not have intricate order and a clear purpose. Well no, that is an axiomatic truth. It's not logically possible to show it doesn't have those propoerties See how the science of design gets started long before your biology Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Dawn writes: But creationism or the natural conclusion of a designer has nothing or little do do with evolution or a very detailed explanation of evolution Then why do creationists spend all their time attacking evolution in particular and the scientific method in general? Why do creationists not present their evidence, and the methods they use to develop that evidence, into a scientific theory? It is if creationists think that by disputing evolution they prove their religious beliefs. This thread shows that very clearly. It started with the premise of "Science in Creationism" but after hundreds of posts, never got there.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Maybe they attack it because there is something wrong with it
I have presented the evidence, if you don't like my science or conclusion then just show they are invalid. Your task is impossible It's only because you can't or don't see axiomatic truths that you haven't "Got There" I only attack evolution to demonstrate that it holds people to standards they don't follow themselves, it CONCLUSION Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Maybe they attack it because there is something wrong with it I have presented the evidence, if you don't like my science or conclusion then just show they are invalid. Your task is impossible You have presented no evidence, only your conclusions based on your religious beliefs masquerading as science. And you have both attacked the scientific method and tried to co-opt its conclusions. You can't have it both ways. Either you accept the methods of science and accept its conclusions, or you don't. Creationists try to pick and choose, and that is laughable.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Have I missed answering a question? Yes. Instead you have proven yourself to be selfish and rude.
Your task is to show 'The Science in Creationism'. Am I to understand that 'it looks designed therefore a designer' is the entirety of what you claim to be 'The Science in Creationism'? That's it, right? There's nothing else? At all. If you answer nothing else, please answer this one. Not answering this one ends this discussion immediately as I know you are not reading or respecting me as a fellow debater, "Part of debating is Answering direct questions.", remember? What I'm getting from your quotes from Chuck After you have answered that question answer me this: Why did I present you with those quotes from Darwin? Because of your rudeness, because you haven't been paying attention to my points, the thread has changed mode. I get to ask questions and you answer them I won't be answering any more of your challenges and questions until you have shown me you understand what *I'm* saying. Good luck.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Your task is to show 'The Science in Creationism'. Am I to understand that 'it looks designed therefore a designer' is the entirety of what you claim to be 'The Science in Creationism'? That's it, right? There's nothing else? At all. If you answer nothing else, please answer this one. Not answering this one ends this discussion immediately as I know you are not reading or respecting me as a fellow debater, "Part of debating is Answering direct questions.", remember? I thought I answered that in my last post. I'll try to specify. While it's not as simple as your question makes it out to be but the science in design or creation, which ever you prefer, is simple. Not that that It looks designed, therefore it is, but one cannot ignore the axiomatic truth of Clear purpose, as a result of Intricate order You simply can't imagine or explain that away, you need to MAKE it go away for it to not be axiomatic or valid. To myself and any thinking person that's clear evidence of a creator. I'm not worried that you disagree, only if you can make those axiomatic truths actually disapear If you you don't like the conclusions of those truths, then be happy with your imaginations that they are other than what they really are. The science in creationism starts long before your involved sciences and it it is not dependent on evolution or scripture for its obvious truths or conclusions While scripture points this out in Roman's 1:20, this is not the source of creations process or conclusions. I've already stated those. If that's to SIMPLE for you and you need something complicated or involved to demonstrate creation, I don't know what to do for you
After you have answered that question answer me this: Why did I present you with those quotes from Darwin? Well once again I thought I answered that. I said I guess the reason you provided me those quotes form Charles was to demonstrate that creation cant be ture because evolution has been established. Did I miss your point? If that is your point, it doesn't matter, because creationism isnt reliant on whether evolution is true or not. It does however, rely on axiomatic, unavoidable truths Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I thought I answered that in my last post. I'll try to specify. While it's not as simple as your question makes it out to be but the science in design or creation, which ever you prefer, is simple. Not that that It looks designed, therefore it is, but one cannot ignore the axiomatic truth of Clear purpose, as a result of Intricate order Do you have any evidence for this "purpose" of which you speak? Show us the evidence.
If that's to SIMPLE for you and you need something complicated or involved to demonstrate creation, I don't know what to do for you You could ... I dunno .. show him some evidence for creation?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes: Not that that It looks designed, therefore it is, but one cannot ignore the axiomatic truth of Clear purpose, as a result of Intricate order Of course you can and should unless and until someone actually presents some evidence of the existence of Clear purpose as a result of Intricate order and so far neither you or anyone else has even done that.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Dr Adequate
Your skills at ignoring obvious truth have been sharpened to the point that even simple truths are not recognizable anymore, muchless axiomatic ones
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Ditto for you Jar.
But remember Jar I don't need to do this in the manner your Scientific Method requires, because you don't require the same conclusion or demands for yourself, for the evidence for the Solely Natural Causes, Conclusion of evolution and what it posits Do you have the same type of evidence for your conclusion you require of mine. I don't think so, so why not let the Processes in both camps determine the conclusion, for unwitnessed events Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024