Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,648 Year: 4,905/9,624 Month: 253/427 Week: 63/103 Day: 7/14 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Science in Creationism
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9533
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.6


(2)
Message 976 of 986 (785099)
05-27-2016 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 974 by Dawn Bertot
05-27-2016 5:35 PM


Re: Strange inverted reasoning from Darwin to Dawn for Da win
Hi Dawn, in as much as I can understand any of your posts here (which btw, apart from being incomprehensible have totally avoided providing any information about how creationism is a science) you seem to be saying that unless real science can explain the most complex structure in the known universe then creationsm is a science.
Perhaps I've got that wrong?

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 974 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-27-2016 5:35 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 498 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 977 of 986 (785153)
05-28-2016 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 974 by Dawn Bertot
05-27-2016 5:35 PM


Re: Strange inverted reasoning from Darwin to Dawn for Da win
Dawn Bertot writes:
As your analogy failingly tries to imply, the purpose of the thread was NOT to prove absolutely the existence of a designer.
That's not what I was implying at all. I was implying that the limitations of science have nothing to do with whether or not creationism is science.
Dawn Bertot writes:
But it was for the purpose of demonstrating that truth can be known above and beyond the extremist scientific method.
So, if creationism does perceive truth "above and beyond" the scientific method, it is not science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 974 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-27-2016 5:35 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 370 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 978 of 986 (785158)
05-28-2016 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 966 by Dawn Bertot
05-26-2016 10:39 PM


Re: Still No Evidence
So then you can provide a chain of causality from the brain to consciouness, correct? If not then you did not read what I wrote.
So provide the scientific method that shows us the link and chain of causality, please, I'm all ears
Dawn Bertot
So, you still have no evidence for creationism?
But I notice that you do have incoherent off-topic whining.
Wouldn't you rather have evidence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 966 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-26-2016 10:39 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 979 of 986 (785159)
05-28-2016 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 971 by Dawn Bertot
05-26-2016 11:56 PM


Re: Strange inverted reasoning from Darwin to Dawn for Da win
So you can't with the Scientific Method show a chain of causality from the brain to consciousness. There should be some chain we can point to that shows even a couple of links, since all the elements are there for us to examine.
So until you can come up with some reality that shows its a result of just natural causes, I'll have to go with the reality that it is not a part of simply natural processes
Until you can come up with some reality that shows it is the result of non natural causes, I'll just stick with referencing things I know about. As such why not stick with 'Neither of us knows all of the causes of consciousness are. We know some natural causes. We know of no non-natural causes.', which are the plain facts of the matter?
For example, do I need to falsify the fact of consciousness to demonstrate that consciousness is an actual reality or can I know that by the simple observation of simple science?
Falsification is only useful for certain types of proposition derived through abduction. If you hypothesize that consciousness is explained by the existence of a soul, then you need to test that hypothesis. That's where falsification is obviously required, as a test that cannot fail is not a test.
If you hypothesize the eye was built or pre-designed by a designer, then you need to test that hypotheses and it needs to be falsifiable or it is not a test at all.
You can observe what you like, no falsifications are needed. It's what you think explains your observations that needs testing. That's the part you've studiously avoided dealing with in this thread. And that's the part that separates 'noticing things' from 'science' in most people's eyes. Yes, science involves 'noticing things', but it also 'guesses why those things might be' and 'works out the consequences of those guesses' and 'notices more things to see if they are inconsistent with the consequences we worked out'.
You can call what you are doing whatever you like, but the moment you say 'this is best explained by a designer' you need to show how you can test this or you are not doing science you are just saying things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 971 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-26-2016 11:56 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 980 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-28-2016 5:59 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 169 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 980 of 986 (785184)
05-28-2016 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 979 by Modulous
05-28-2016 11:55 AM


Re: Strange inverted reasoning from Darwin to Dawn for Da win
Until you can come up with some reality that shows it is the result of non natural causes, I'll just stick with referencing things I know about. As such why not stick with 'Neither of us knows all of the causes of consciousness are. We know some natural causes. We know of no non-natural causes.', which are the plain facts of the matter?
Ah but you miss the point my simple friend, the thread was the science in crearionism. Since I have clearly demonstrated what I am doing by investigation is science, I need NOT do anything else to demonstrate my proposition. You can say I'm being simplistic or tricky if you wish, but it is science to establish the the existence of a designer.
You have not yet brought forth evidence that what I am doing is not science. As a matter of fact I believe you admitted that it was science even Ifor it was simple
It's really that simple. Design is obvious as evidence, the same way we establish the existence of things, simple observation
But you miss the point, if you cant show a link of causality from the brain to consciousness, then one of two things follows, either your not doing science or both of us are, because I can see it exists by simple observation
See how easy this is Modulous
It's really that simple my simple friend.
You can observe what you like, no falsifications are needed. It's what you think explains your observations that needs testing. That's the part you've studiously avoided dealing with in this thread. And that's the part that separates 'noticing things' from 'science' in most people's eyes. Yes, science involves 'noticing things', but it also 'guesses why those things might be' and 'works out the consequences of those guesses' and 'notices more things to see if they are inconsistent with the consequences we worked out'.
You can call what you are doing whatever you like, but the moment you say 'this is best explained by a designer' you need to show how you can test this or you are not doing science you are just saying things.
Luckly, I don't need most people's eyes to determine what reality is or is not. If I can know consciousness exists by simple observation, yet your Scientific Method cannot show the link, then, I must still be doing science by observation
See how simple that is Modulous?. See how easy it is to establish the science in creationism by observable design
You can call what you are doing whatever you like, but the moment you say 'this is best explained by a designer' you need to show how you can test this or you are not doing science you are just saying things.
But the moment you say consciousness is best explained by Natural Causes but can NOT provide not even the smallest link, when all the elements are there, all the technics are there, you are no longer doing science, which means the scientific method has failed, or is not science
So am I doing science by observation to understand simple observable axiomatic truths
Take your time answering, think it out
If you hypothesize the eye was built or pre-designed by a designer, then you need to test that hypotheses and it needs to be falsifiable or it is not a test at all.
This is where you are letting your perceptions and definitions of science trump reality. Really no need to do that at all, all I need to do for it to be evidence or science, is KNOW, as I do, that by any definition of design standards ,the eye is so intricate and harmonious, you can't even explain in a small way how it produces consciousness.
So let's see, you with your brain can't figure out how your brain produces consciousness, but we are to believe blind chance got it right
Oh wait, did you figure that yet?
So unless you can come up with a way of explaining, what you cannot explain, including design, I'll stick with this:
"And the Lord God formed man out of the dust of the earth
And breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, (uh consciousness)
and man be came a living soul", (uh aware and responsible)
Genesis 2:7
This is why the soul or spirit or consciousness, while not a part of the brain directly, can move on after death
Oh and by the way, I really enjoyed the discussion with you guys and gals and especially you Modulous, you are one tough nut to crack.. enjoyed it anyway, even if your wrong., haha
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.
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.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 979 by Modulous, posted 05-28-2016 11:55 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2192 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(4)
Message 981 of 986 (785185)
05-28-2016 6:42 PM


Summation
The only science in creationism is creation "science" -- which is the exact opposite of real science.
Real science starts with evidence from the natural world and seeks to understand it through the scientific method.
Creation "science" starts with a conclusion based on religious belief and seeks to reinforce that belief through cherry-picking data, quote mining, ignoring contrary evidence, and any other methods they can come up with. They have to do this because 1) the methods used by science do not deal with the supernatural and 2) most claims based on religious belief that can be tested (i.e., the flood and young earth) have been disproved.
And then there's intelligent design -- a subset of creation "science" fraudulently designed to hide the religion in the hope of fooling school boards and courts.

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 169 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 982 of 986 (785215)
05-30-2016 9:59 AM


What we have demonstrated in this thread
We have demonstrated that any valid investigation is science by any NORMAL defifinition of the word.
We have demonstrated that science is NOT determined by a select few, with contrived ideas about the word science.
We have demonstrated that reality not language determines the definition of science
We have demonstrated that truths obvious truths can be determined by simple observation.
We have proven that these simple truths, determined by observation are indeed science
We have proven that the opposition cannot in reality, demonstrate these truths and how they are obtained are not science.
Hence, we have demonstrated that in the PROCESS of investigation of creationism or ID, there is very much a scientific approach.
Next we demonstrated and proved that by any definition of the word design, design is clearly obvious.
Intricate, harmonious and so involved complexity, that it rivals any design man has brought forth.
We have demonstrated that for design to be design, it DOES NOT, need my or any other man's approval.
We have demonstrated that this obvious truth of design cannot be reasoned away or argued away
We have shown that for this design in natural processes, to not be actual and real, it must be demonstrated to ACTUALLY not taking place. Since it is taking place, how could one in ACTUALLITY, imagine or reason it away.
We have demonstrated that Purpose, that is a result of Intricate design, lends further proof of the fact that it was designed.
Hence, we have demonstrated, that for the skeptic, to get rid of design, he will need to do more than just imagine that it doesn't exist.
He will need to demonstrate to any thinking and observing person, what is ACTUALLY taking place, is not. But how could he ever do this.
We have demonstrated that comparing ID and creationism to Astrology is nothing more than a smokescreen, in an attempt to discredit the method creationism uses to establish it's process
We have demonstrated that anyone can conduct a valid investigation into the natural processes in nature and thier initial investigation, is as scientific as any other
We demonstrated that Astrology does NOT seek nor is it interested in the WHY and HOW of things are here.
We demonstrated that Astrology only seeks answers to vague question that involve human perceptions and human affairs
We demonstrated that Astrology does not allign itself with the only two logical possibilities of how and why things are here
We have demonstrated that unlike Astrology, creationism from start to finish, uses the natural world to begin it's investigation.
We have demonstrated that creationism does NOT start with a preconceived idea and work inward.
We have demonstrated that there is a difference in our PROCESS and our CONCLUSION.
We do not need to prove our conclusion for our process to be valid.
We demonstrated that if if creationism is like Astrology, then so must be the ToE, because it has no link of causality to its conclusion
We demonstrated that NOT proving your conclusion absolutely, is not the same as NOT having evidence for your process that leads to that same conclusion
We have demonstrated that EVERY investigation MUST of necessity INVOLVE a conclusion. Hence, when the ToE, concludes this is not necessary to its proposition, it's quite doing science or it is just unreasonable in its approach
We have demonstrated that the USE and MANEUVERING of words will not make this problem go away for the SFH.
We have demonstrated that reality defines the relationship between words and thier meaning, not contrived ideas that ignore reality
We have demonstrated that the ToE CANNOT show a chain of causality from its process to it conclusion of Solely Natural Causes
Hence, it is either not doing science as it demands science to be, or we are both doing science and they just won't admit it
We have been told repeatedly that our process MUST show a chain of causality between our process and conclusion, yet the scientific method does not provide for its conclusion what it demands of us
We have demonstrated that, as an example, consciousness exists, but they cannot even show a chain in this PROCESS muchless it's conclusion to SOLELY NATURAL CAUSES. Why is this if that is what is necessary to science?
We have demonstrated that that consciouness should be identifiable, by using the scientific method, but since, it cannot even show a small link of causality, does this mean the scientific method is invalid, not necessary in all situations, or that I can use simple observation called science to KNOW that it exists but seems to not be directly related to NATURAL CAUSES
Hence, we have demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that it's not ABSOLUTELY necessary to show a COMPLETE chain of causality from the process to the conclusion, for it it to be SCIENCE or for it to be evidence of a DESIGNER.
Secular Fundamental Humanists and those that tout the Scientific Method, insist on these rules and regulations which they AN NOT and DO NOT follow themselves, to exclude anything they don't like or that may prove a point otherwise.
We do not point this out to work our theory in, I can can do this by simple reasoning. We point this out to,show the general public what a phony bill of goods is being presented to them
Those that insist and tout the Scientific Method remind US of one of those commercials you seeon television that blindside you with a lot of noise and demonstration, but I'd you look closely enough you'll see some VERY SMALL print usually in the bottom or corner.
These are called exclusions and disclaimers, but this is so small you can't see it to read it and you certainly don't have time in one minute.
There required to disclose it it but don't want you to really know it.
Hmmmmmm? Sounds a lot like the Scientific Method when you take a closer look
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 498 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(5)
Message 983 of 986 (785217)
05-30-2016 11:37 AM


Creationists can't resist claiming that their method of determining "truth" is better than science. If it's better than science, it isn't science.

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 434 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 984 of 986 (785227)
05-30-2016 10:32 PM


Summation of the Investigation Into the Use of Science in Creationism
Nope.
Edited by ProtoTypical, : No reason given.

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 370 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 985 of 986 (785254)
06-01-2016 4:25 AM


Summary: No Evidence, No Science
Dawn has demonstrated no evidence in favor of creationism, despite being asked to do so about a jillion times.
This is a strange way to behave: someone who wants to pretend that creationism is scientific would be well advised to pretend to have some evidence for it.

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9533
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.6


(2)
Message 986 of 986 (785255)
06-01-2016 6:01 AM


Dawn has done what s/he always does - waffle incomprehensibly using pseudo-philosophical structures that rarely, if ever, make any logical sense.
S/he then declares her/himself the winner.
But where's the beef Dawn?

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024