Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation as Science
hotjer
Member (Idle past 4545 days)
Posts: 113
From: Denmark
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 31 of 83 (575525)
08-20-2010 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Coragyps
08-20-2010 9:12 AM


Re: "Observations"
Easy dude... that prophecy can prove the existing of God! We can let that happen, traitor! /sarcasm

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Coragyps, posted 08-20-2010 9:12 AM Coragyps has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 32 of 83 (575530)
08-20-2010 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by archaeologist
08-20-2010 1:37 AM


evolutionists and atheists are all the same, thy will demand one thing from their opponents while distorting their own work to make sure it fits their ideas.
If that were true , scientists would still believe in flat earth, phlogiston,
The moon is a light, and that a 2kg rock will fall faster than a 1kg rock.
Science adapts to new data. Creationism keeps ancient myths, sacred.
If we followed your views I would not be typing on this keyboard or viewing the monitor, since they never would have been invented, since it goes against your sky daddy creation. The inventor of the wheel would have executed as a sorcerer.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by archaeologist, posted 08-20-2010 1:37 AM archaeologist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by archaeologist, posted 08-22-2010 5:31 AM bluescat48 has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 33 of 83 (575535)
08-20-2010 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by archaeologist
08-20-2010 8:21 AM


if ou cannot legitiaely refute my work...
well,i am not going to play your game. if ou cannot legitiaely refute my work then i will consider that i have refuted your arguments against creation as science andhave shown that evolution does not qualify for such status.
{Remarks removed}
Edited by Coyote, : Reason: Coersion

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by archaeologist, posted 08-20-2010 8:21 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 34 of 83 (575537)
08-20-2010 11:23 AM


So let's parse archie's tome.
quote:
1. Principle of evidence - any scientific statement should be proved. Without objective and conclusive proofs any scientific statement is only a speculative guess
This is the first false statement and unfortunately, also the first statement in his tome so everything that comes after is based on a false assertion.
First, if something can be supported by observations it is no longer speculative but rather a conclusion.
Science does not prove things; all conclusions are held tentatively and are subject to change, revision and even being discarded should new data refute the earlier conclusion.
Sorry archie, you failed.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 35 of 83 (575540)
08-20-2010 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by archaeologist
08-20-2010 8:21 AM


it (Creation) will also not be repeated but then neither can your theory of evolution be repeated either.
(My parenthesis above - I believe you were referring to Creation.)
Evolution is going on all the time, and all aspects of the theory can be looked for or tested for again and again to see what conclusions can be drawn. Old conclusions can be either revalidated, amended or discarded. There are no absolutes. If we tested all aspects of the theory tomorrow and found them to be wrong, the whole theory would be thrown out.
Which is in stark contrast to your own method, which is to state right at the start that the Bible and God is the absolute truth, which makes any subsequent discussion or debate completely pointless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by archaeologist, posted 08-20-2010 8:21 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 36 of 83 (575549)
08-20-2010 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by archaeologist
08-20-2010 1:29 AM


no. because how secular science does it methods, omits data and pursues a false conclusion.
So describe how the scientific method SHOULD be followed, and why. Perhaps you could use a simple example to illustrate your points.
your ideas in the first paragraph do not allow for variables or variation and thus is too limited to deal with the topic of origins.
So how do we determine, in a scientific manner, what variables or variations are in effect?
we do not need to 'create' a hyptohesis for origins because we already know what it is and those who reject that explanation scramble to replace it with some fictional account they cannot prove and leave people without any answers.
So creationists are infallible, and anything they say is automatically true without the need to test it? Is that what you are saying?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by archaeologist, posted 08-20-2010 1:29 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 37 of 83 (575582)
08-20-2010 2:19 PM


Moderator On Duty
I suspect that most people are a bit dismayed about the way this thread is turning out. I know I am.
The topic of this thread is the validity of "creation as science." Archaeologist's responsibility is to present and defend his view of how creation is science. The other side's responsibility is to examine these claims. Anything else is off topic. Please stay on topic. Ignore off topic messages or portions of messages.
If you've posted before seeing this message then please go back and make fixes so that your messages are in conformance with this request. Initially enforcement will be by hiding the text of off-topic messages. Archaeologist's periods of participation don't often correspond to my own, so I'll probably be following up many hours after posts have been made, but that can't be helped.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by archaeologist, posted 08-22-2010 2:57 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 38 of 83 (575589)
08-20-2010 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by archaeologist
08-18-2010 4:35 AM


Where are the other viable options?
Admin writes:
I suspect that most people are a bit dismayed about the way this thread is turning out. I know I am.
The thread is turning out about as I had expected, sad to say.
archaeologist writes:
B). That science is actually limited to the secular definitions and practice. In other words, there are no other viable options.
If you think that there are other viable options, it is up to you to present them. I browsed through the thread, but I could not find any.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by archaeologist, posted 08-18-2010 4:35 AM archaeologist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Admin, posted 08-20-2010 2:52 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 39 of 83 (575595)
08-20-2010 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by nwr
08-20-2010 2:37 PM


Re: Where are the other viable options?
nwr writes:
archaeologist writes:
B). That science is actually limited to the secular definitions and practice. In other words, there are no other viable options.
If you think that there are other viable options, it is up to you to present them. I browsed through the thread, but I could not find any.
Archaeologist goes on to say:
Archaeologist in Message 1 writes:
This work will not be used to explore those options rather it will use the current secular principles and rules to show that act of creation can and should be considered science.
I think it would be a big help if Archaeologist would begin his presentation of how creation should be considered part of modern science.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by nwr, posted 08-20-2010 2:37 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Taq, posted 08-20-2010 3:57 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 40 of 83 (575634)
08-20-2010 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Admin
08-20-2010 2:52 PM


Re: Where are the other viable options?
I think it would be a big help if Archaeologist would begin his presentation of how creation should be considered part of modern science.
I was also curious as to how archaeologist defines "modern science". We would be going backwards if archaeologist was using a strawman version of "modern science" and then showing how creation fit that strawman.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Admin, posted 08-20-2010 2:52 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by archaeologist, posted 08-22-2010 5:48 AM Taq has replied

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 83 (575967)
08-22-2010 2:57 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Admin
08-20-2010 2:19 PM


Re: Moderator On Duty
hello, sorry i haven't been here, i am taking a sick day and maybe another one.. i just read some of the comments and will try to make a presentation as best as i can via one of the better responses that keeps things on topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Admin, posted 08-20-2010 2:19 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 83 (575974)
08-22-2010 5:31 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by bluescat48
08-20-2010 10:43 AM


Let me preface my remarks with a couple of answers to bluescat.
If that were true , scientists would still believe in flat earth
i would disagree. no one has ever believed that the earth was flat. at best, that was an old sailor's tale or bedtime story to scare little children. read Hapgood's 'Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings'.
If we followed your views I would not be typing on this keyboard or viewing the monitor, since they never would have been invented
again i would disagree as science did not invent those things. they came about from viewing older , similar versions that were the product of the God-given intelligence men possess. science had nothing to do with it.
Science adapts to new data.
which means that its credibility to discover and proclaim the truth is shot and demonstrates that it never knows what the truth is and tellspeople it needs to be ignored.
then let's go with that as the foundation for what i am about to present. Iwill support my article's premise by using the theory of evolution as a comparison tool to illustrate why creation can be considered scientific.
First, the act:
Now the creation act is a one time affair but then so is the origination of the process of evolution and its initial interaction with the original life form. the origin of life and the origin of the process cannot be repeated thus like creation, secularists ONLY study the supposed results of this process, and this takes millions of years, so they say.
whereas the results of creation can be studied by anyone at anytime. so thi gives creation the advantage for qualification over the process of evolution.
Second, original condition: for creation we know the orginal conditions for say reproduction. a man, woman, a bed or couch. plus we know that the air, the universe, the oceans, the geography were all about the same as they are now (give or take a flood , pollution etc.) we do not need to guess at what conditions were present for reproduction the creation way.
BUT with the theory of evolution there is NO WAY to tell what the original conditions were for their idea of the origin of life, for the origin of the process of evolution, nor do they know the original conditions for the supposed changes in the fossils, the evolutionist claims took place over time.
there is no ancient record, no ancient civilization, nothing fom the ancient world that reveals the evolutionary original conditions. which means that even if the scientists think they got it right, they would never know if they did or not, for the theory of evolution, it is all a guess and no confirmation.
another advantage for creation.
Third, replication: now as i said, evolutionists and creationists can only test the results of each. For creationists, that is not difficult and as i have used this example many times before, one just has to visit the nurseries for the life forms inhabiting the planet today and one will see replication in process. We also see the sun and moon rise and fall each day, the stars at night and so it goes.
each stage of the creation act we can see take place and we do not even need a test tube to observe it.
BUT with the theory and process of evolution, there is no replication of its supposed work because no one can replicate the original conditions to transform a specimen to change like the examples given in the fossil record.
now experiments have been done and the chorus of victory has been sung often by the evoltionary scientist BUT there is a problem, the so-called experiemtns that proclaim the validity of the theory are NOT done as the theory is described. they are performed by intelligent men and women who, unlike the process of evolution, have curiosity, thought, and think, among other things. They are NOT following the same format the process of evolution followed thus their experiments cannot be replicating the claimed theory's results or work.
these men and women are also jumping the gun. they are taking existing animals and applying foreign substances to see what will take place, but they forget that the process, did not such thing nor had capibilities to perform such acts thus all these experiments are producing false results which are then credited to the theory.
to replicate the process and see if the theory is really correct, then the evolutionist needs to create the original conditions for life, then the original conditions for the process to intercede in that lifeform's destiny and go from there to see if the changes take place as claimed.
For all the evolutionist knows all they are getting is the result of contamination of God's perfect design of the gene as their predictions, andtheory do not rule out alternatives from producing the same result. Creation does exclude all alternatives, leaving no doubt what produced the result.
with humans involved in the experiments, that alone disqualigies evolution from being scientific for all that is being observed is man's interference with life forms NOT the process's.
advantage again creation.
Fourth, conclusion: from this little sample we can see that creation is more qualified to be considered scientific than the theory of evolution. We can observe it, replicate it, know the original conditions, plus much more and we do not need science to do it for us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by bluescat48, posted 08-20-2010 10:43 AM bluescat48 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by archaeologist, posted 08-22-2010 5:35 AM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 45 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-22-2010 6:04 AM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 46 by PaulK, posted 08-22-2010 6:07 AM archaeologist has replied
 Message 48 by Coyote, posted 08-22-2010 10:20 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 83 (575975)
08-22-2010 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by archaeologist
08-22-2010 5:31 AM


p.s. for point number three, the evolutionary scientist is basically doing their own experiments and attributing the results to the theory of evolution. that is not is not testing the results of evolution but making things up to fit the theory one wants because it is an alternative to the Biblical creation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by archaeologist, posted 08-22-2010 5:31 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 83 (575977)
08-22-2010 5:48 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Taq
08-20-2010 3:57 PM


Re: Where are the other viable options?
I was also curious as to how archaeologist defines "modern science". We would be going backwards if archaeologist was using a strawman version of "modern science" and then showing how creation fit that strawman.
i do not. what the original argument and the last post did was use the secular idea for modern science. i have not set up any alternative because some science has its place in the world, not as an authority but it has a place.
i do present new rules though. in its present form secular science basically says, 'all science is good science' but that is just not so. for if it were, then eugenics would not be barred, the nazi experimentalists would be hailed for covering new ground and so on. even dr. frankenstein would be hailed as a hero, if he were real, and his grave robbing would be excused because it is for 'science' thus it is good.
None of them could be condemned nor banished from the realm of other scientists who stick to some form of morals and ethics, even though those morals and ethics would be moot and meaningless because 'all science is good science.'
i propose new rules--truth and error/ right and wrong for all of science and that science starts giving the correct answers not just theories, hypothesis, maybes, possiblys et al. then morals and ethixs would mean something and much would be accomplished for scientists would not be wastign their time on unprovable and unreal assumptions like the theory of evolution and natural selection.
Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Taq, posted 08-20-2010 3:57 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Admin, posted 08-22-2010 7:20 AM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 71 by Taq, posted 08-23-2010 2:06 PM archaeologist has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 45 of 83 (575978)
08-22-2010 6:04 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by archaeologist
08-22-2010 5:31 AM


Poe's Law?
This seems so far below the standard of what we would expect even from the dumbest creationist (I name no names) that one has to suspect that it's a legpull.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by archaeologist, posted 08-22-2010 5:31 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024