Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 75 (8963 total)
221 online now:
Aware Wolf, Coragyps, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), ringo (5 members, 216 visitors)
Newest Member: Samuel567
Upcoming Birthdays: CosmicChimp
Post Volume: Total: 870,839 Year: 2,587/23,288 Month: 778/1,809 Week: 210/225 Day: 23/46 Hour: 2/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Year In Intelligent Design
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7333
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 41 of 50 (844636)
12-03-2018 6:35 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Capt Stormfield
12-02-2018 9:53 PM


Re: Creation Science vs Regular Science
Faith writes:

The problem is that science builds on previously accepted findings, and since the findings that fit with the ToE are accepted it is very possible that scientists working from that model will interpret their own work in a way that affirms the ToE, while creationists who don't accept the established findings will come to different conclusions based on their different assumptions.

The time to make this argument wad 150 years ago. Virtually no scientists are working on confirming the ToE - they use it. It's confirmed, nobody but a few religious crack-pots think otherwise. So it's up to you lot to show us the alternative *scientific* explanation.

Of course no science journal will publish religious garbage but they will publish anything backed by evidence.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"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 40 by Capt Stormfield, posted 12-02-2018 9:53 PM Capt Stormfield has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Faith, posted 12-03-2018 6:13 PM Tangle has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7333
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 48 of 50 (844688)
12-04-2018 3:35 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Faith
12-03-2018 6:13 PM


Re: Creation Science vs Regular Science
Faith writes:

I think there's sufficient evidence for the young earth but the journals don't, just as you don't.

Not only do the journals (ie science) find insufficient evidence for a young earth, it also finds enormous qualities of evidence for an old earth. It's long been settled science and won't be overturned by pure belief.

So the young earth is an assumption in YEC science

There is no such thing as YEC science, if YEC was science, we'd just call it science.

that is always going to disqualify any scientific work that assumes it from publication in the standard journals.

Science doesn't care where evidence comes from or what people believe about it, it only cares about the evidence. Your problem is that you have no science to publish, not that the publishers won't accept it.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"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 44 by Faith, posted 12-03-2018 6:13 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020