|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 5683 days) Posts: 23 From: Richardson, TX Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creationists Should Learn to Play the Game Called Science | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Shubee Junior Member (Idle past 5683 days) Posts: 23 From: Richardson, TX Joined: |
The most popular brand of creationism at the present time is called Intelligent Design. However, according to the currently accepted principles of science, Intelligent Design isn’t science. The winning argument in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District et al states the scientific consensus admirably: Science can only accept natural explanations, never supernatural ones.
quote: This is a big problem. All mainstream creationists don’t want to play the very popular science game and insist on playing their own game. I believe that their attitude violates the wisdom of Scripture. There is a proverb that says,
quote: Are there any scientifically trained creationists here who would like to consider an acceptable theory of creationism that obviously comports to the fundamental principles of science? My suggestion may seem heretical to theists but I do have a theory of origins that does not presuppose an Intelligent Designer. Edited by Shubee, : No reason given. Edited by Shubee, : for clarity Edited by Shubee, : Added a link to an article that contains many references explaining why ID isn't science. Edited by Shubee, : As per request. Edited by Shubee, : As per request.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13018 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Can you edit your post to include an example or two of how ID doesn't follow the rules of science? Please post a note when you're done.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Shubee Junior Member (Idle past 5683 days) Posts: 23 From: Richardson, TX Joined: |
I made an edit: Added a link to an article that contains many references explaining why ID isn't science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Shubee Junior Member (Idle past 5683 days) Posts: 23 From: Richardson, TX Joined: |
I found a great summary statement that I will insert in the opening post after I get back from the dentist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Shubee Junior Member (Idle past 5683 days) Posts: 23 From: Richardson, TX Joined: |
I believe that the excerpt I selected from Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District et al explains the principal complaint against ID. That is: Intelligent Design invokes a supernatural explanation whereas science, by definition, only permits natural, non-mystical explanations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13018 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
killinghurts Member (Idle past 5015 days) Posts: 150 Joined: |
Seems like a very logical and sound argument. ID is not science, and shouldn't ever be labeled as such.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
munkeyhead Junior Member (Idle past 5824 days) Posts: 2 Joined: |
There are many players and on each side of the coin. If there wasnt there wouldnt be this incredible fellowship between evolutionist and creationist! Look up Dr. Norman Geisler who plays very well. Science is fact proven by experimentation. I cant prove there is a god to an athiest no more then he can prove to me that I and a palm tree decended from the first irreducibly complex life without intelligent intervention. If matter cannot be created or destroyed then what exploded to make all we see? Remember even elements cannot be created or detsroyed. Where are the facts proven by experimentation showing where the elements came from to explode. Science? NO, just another theory that requires more faith to believe in then God. If you could prove it you would take all the fun away from this timeless debate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
munkyhead writes:
quote: What does this have to do with evolution? You are conflating thermodynamics and cosmogenesis with biology. Evolution can't tell us how the universe began or even how life began and it doesn't even try. Evolution is about what happens to life after it exists. Evolution doesn't care how the universe came into being because it is consistent with every method you care to name. Are you saying that if god created the universe, then it is impossible for populations of organisms to change over time?
quote: Incorrect. Both fission and fusion are the conversion of elements from one into the other. In the first, a heavy element splits into two lighter ones. In the common uranium reaction, a single atom of uranium fissions into an atom of rubidium and an atom of cesium. Fusion, on the other hand, combines atoms into new ones. It's how the sun works: Atoms of hydrogen are fused into helium.
quote: That's what experiments like WMAP, COBE, and PLANCK come in. But again, you are confusing cosmogenesis with evolution. The universe could have come into being any way you wish, it would have no effect on the way life imperfectly replicates from generation to generation.
quote: So what would it take for you to claim it had been shown? Please help us out here by letting us know what sort of evidence you would need to see. For example, why is the WMAP experiment insufficient? What would the results of the WMAP experiment had to have been in order for you to accept them? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Hello and welcome munkeyhead.
I cant prove there is a god to an athiest no more then he can prove to me that I and a palm tree decended from the first irreducibly complex life without intelligent intervention. Two things to say here; a) Scientists don't talk in terms of proof, that is the realm of mathematics. Scientists use evidence to draw conclusions that describe phenomena as accurately as possible. Scientific theories are never considered to be 100% unimpeachably correct. Such certainty is the preserve of religion. b) No evolutionist has ever suggested that humans descended from palm trees. Honestly. Humans are not descended from palm trees. Animals and plants do indeed share common ancestry, but they parted company long, long before there was any such thing as a palm tree. Whoever told you that this is what the theory of evolution says was very wrong indeed and I recommend taking what they tell you with a pinch of salt in future. (Added by Edit; It has been pointed out to me that this isn't what you were saying. See below.) Edited by Granny Magda, : Whoops! Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
No evolutionist has ever suggested that humans descended from palm trees. I don't think that munkeyhead actually said that. They said that both they and a palm tree were descended from the same first form of life, not that they themselves were descended from palm trees. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Ah, you're quite right WK. Thanks for putting me right. I'm just a little too used to hearing such statements.
Apologies to munkeyhead. I hope you won't think I am being patronising, but people really do make claims like that. I just didn't read your post properly. Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4738 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
I am a Human and an evolutionist and I descended from palm trees. But that was when I was much younger and thinner. Now the palm trees just bow down to the ground till I let go then spring back up into their former upright position. I remain unmoved.
Kindly Ta-da ≠ QED
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Evo Diva Junior Member (Idle past 5776 days) Posts: 2 Joined: |
ID is a mutation from Creationism that popped up in hopes of making it sound like science in order to enact "fair play" laws that have been struck down over and over again. Natural selection will shut the codes once again and will not survive as a science. But as a philosophy or religious study that it belongs in, it could survive and multiply just fine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
SlightReturn Junior Member (Idle past 5759 days) Posts: 1 From: PA Joined: |
Evolution isn't science either. Things proven by science are observable, testable and able to be repeated.
Most evidence for evolution come from radiometric dating which scientists assume to be accurate. Radiometric dating cannot be proven to be reliable. if youre test isn't reliable, how could the results be? The fossil record as evidence is a joke. The layers of the earth could just as easily prove a world wide flood. Evolutionists just assume all these things are in spport of evolution. It's one big assumption based on many smaller assumptions. Evolution is not scientific in the slightest
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024