Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-18-2019 1:50 PM
128 online now:
AnswersInGenitals, edge, kjsimons, PaulK, ringo, Tangle (6 members, 122 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,429 Year: 3,466/19,786 Month: 461/1,087 Week: 51/212 Day: 12/39 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
5678Next
Author Topic:   Is creationism science?
ringo
Member
Posts: 16217
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 46 of 114 (371254)
12-20-2006 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by 4Pillars
12-20-2006 6:39 PM


Re: Living Creatures from the Waters
4Pillars writes:

Here's what the Scripture says in full context and not what you cited.

Interesting that your so-called "full context" ignores the parts that disagree with you. :D

Before your so-called "full context" - two days before and nine verses before - the plants were created, from the earth, not the water. Science says that plants and animals came from the same ancestors, so science and the Bible do not agree.

I would appreciate if you clarify the things you don't understand first before you embarrassing yourself.

I am trying to clarify the things you don't understand. Let's let the readers decide who should be embarassed, okay? :)

This Bible talk is all off-topic here. Come on over to Bible Inaccuracy and Errancy and we'll see if we can teach you a thing or two. :)


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by 4Pillars, posted 12-20-2006 6:39 PM 4Pillars has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by 4Pillars, posted 12-20-2006 8:07 PM ringo has not yet responded

  
4Pillars
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 114 (371279)
12-20-2006 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by ringo
12-20-2006 7:27 PM


Re: Living Creatures from the Waters
RINGO >>>Before your so-called "full context" - two days before and nine verses before - the plants were created, from the earth, not the water. Science says that plants and animals came from the same ancestors, so science and the Bible do not agree<<<

Dear Ringo

I don't know why you insist on demonstrating your biblical ignorance? You speak of things you have NO knowledge of, by your own admission. Please stop embarrassing yourself. I can not stand it ANYMORE!!!

Here, let me reconcile the Scripture for your additional learning.

"Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God (YHWH or Jesus) made the earth and the heavens, (Plural)

The "Day" is the 3rd Day. One can see this because it is the "Day" in which the "Earth" is made. Gen. 1:9-10 confirms that the "Earth" was made on the 3rd Day.

Heavens is Plural and shows that Jesus also made "Heavens", on the 3rd Day. The 1st Heaven was made on the 2nd Day. Gen. 1:6-8 Gen 2 is showing that on the 3rd Day, Jesus made other "Heavens".

Gen 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

Note: No water yet at this time but look next succeeding verses...

Further confirmation that these verses are speaking of the 3rd Day, BEFORE the plants, and herbs, which were made on the 3rd Day, according to Gen 1:11-12

Why do you suppose Scripture is going into such detail of the events of the 3rd Day?

Gen 2:6 BUT WENT UP A MIST (evaporation) FROM THE EARTH, and WATERED (condensation) the whole face of the ground.

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the MAN whom he had formed.

Gen 2:4-7 is obviously showing us the "Day" when Adam was formed, physically -BEFORE THE PLANT & THE HERBS.

Adam and Eve were later Created, in God's Image spiritually, on the 6th Day. This is the Spiritual Creation of Adam and Eve, at the same time, on the 6th Day. Gen. 1:27 and Gen 5:1-2

I would suggest Ringo that you are fast to judge, but slower to refute the Truth of God, with Scripture.

Edited by 4Pillars, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by ringo, posted 12-20-2006 7:27 PM ringo has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by AdminAsgara, posted 12-20-2006 8:29 PM 4Pillars has not yet responded

  
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 375 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 48 of 114 (371282)
12-20-2006 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by 4Pillars
12-20-2006 8:07 PM


Re: Living Creatures from the Waters
If you want to preach, please take it to the faith side of the board. THIS thread is in the science forums and in on the topic of whether or not creationism is science.

If you continue to post off topic preaching you will be suspended for a time out.


AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures

  • Thread Reopen Requests

  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:

  • "Post of the Month Forum"

  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
  • See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

    http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 47 by 4Pillars, posted 12-20-2006 8:07 PM 4Pillars has not yet responded

        
    Percy
    Member
    Posts: 18307
    From: New Hampshire
    Joined: 12-23-2000
    Member Rating: 3.5


    Message 49 of 114 (371286)
    12-20-2006 9:03 PM
    Reply to: Message 42 by 4Pillars
    12-20-2006 6:46 PM


    Re: Micro-evolution of Prehistoric Mankind & Human
    4Pillars writes:

    When Jesus made the creatures...etc...

    I think you meant when God made the creatures, but that's really beside the point because you're continuing to make the same mistake. This thread asks the question, "Is creationism science?" Every time you make religious arguments in this thread it makes clear that the answer is a resounding "NO!"

    --Percy


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 42 by 4Pillars, posted 12-20-2006 6:46 PM 4Pillars has not yet responded

        
    platypus
    Member (Idle past 3826 days)
    Posts: 139
    Joined: 11-12-2006


    Message 50 of 114 (371322)
    12-21-2006 12:57 AM
    Reply to: Message 30 by 4Pillars
    12-20-2006 1:53 PM


    Re: Genesis & Science
    Wow, a lot has happened in the last 24 hours.

    quote:

    Actually, I was disagreeing with your nonesense which you seem not to notice?

    Here's why....

    1) Science agrees that the 3 basic elements are necessary (Air, Dust & Water) for a physical form. And you disagree with science?

    2) The Bible makes a lot of testable scientific citings & predictions - contrary to your unfounded OPINION.

    Do you want me to cite you one?


    Let's bring this back to topic.

    In response to 1), tell me what realm of science says anything remotely like this.

    In response to 2), put your money where your mouth is. Cite at least one of these "testable predictions" if you can, cite several if you think you are smart.

    Also, use [quote ] [ /quote] to cite other people, it makes things easier to read.


    You hear evolutionist says we are descedant from apes and monkees. Sure, but that's not the point. All of life is related, not just human's with monkees. If you hug a tree, you're hugging a relative, a very distant relative, but a relative nonetheless." Dr. Joan Roughgarden in Evolution and Christian Faith
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 30 by 4Pillars, posted 12-20-2006 1:53 PM 4Pillars has not yet responded

        
    4Pillars
    Inactive Member


    Message 51 of 114 (371371)
    12-21-2006 9:52 AM


    Science by Definition is Phylisophical
    I deny that science can explain everything in our universe naturally, the origin of the universe and the origin of life are the 2 biggest examples that science has not been able to explain with any validity.

    Oh and I'm not attacking the true science, I'm attacking the opposition’ definition of science which attempts to exclude creationism, when the fact is the opposing parties are just as guilty of the things they have accused creationism so far, like knowing empirical truth apriori.

    It is actually IM-possible to separate philosophy from science or the methods of science. That's because the question, "what is science?" is itself a philosophical question.

    Try as you might but there is no such thing as an authoritative definition of science or the scientific method. Scientists and philosophers of science until today are in disagreement on it and struggle to define all of its essential attributes. So for evolutionists to claim that creationism is not science simply begs the question.


    Replies to this message:
     Message 52 by Percy, posted 12-21-2006 10:34 AM 4Pillars has responded
     Message 55 by platypus, posted 12-22-2006 2:43 AM 4Pillars has not yet responded
     Message 57 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-22-2006 6:35 AM 4Pillars has not yet responded
     Message 59 by Straggler, posted 12-22-2006 4:46 PM 4Pillars has not yet responded

      
    Percy
    Member
    Posts: 18307
    From: New Hampshire
    Joined: 12-23-2000
    Member Rating: 3.5


    Message 52 of 114 (371377)
    12-21-2006 10:34 AM
    Reply to: Message 51 by 4Pillars
    12-21-2006 9:52 AM


    Re: Science by Definition is Philosophical
    4Pillars writes:

    Oh and I'm not attacking the true science, I'm attacking the opposition’ definition of science...

    Perhaps it would help if we agreed upon a definition of science. This is from something I posted once before over at Message 144.

    Percy writes:

    Until there is agreement about the nature of science there is no common basis for discussion of this thread's topic. In the hope that it will help discussion move forward, here is how scientists view science.

    These are its qualities:

    • It applies to the natural world. This means it is limited to that which is apparent to the human senses like sight and hearing.

    • It is replicable, meaning that the same experiment or observation under the same conditions will always come out the same for everyone everywhere.

    • It is inductive in that it generalizes from the specific, and it can therefore be used to make predictions about not yet observed phenomena.

    • It is falsifiable in that it is possible for evidence to exist that would contradict its views.

    Science also has a process that is more or less followed. The path taken by original trailblazers is often chaotic, but once the path is blazed then it can be followed in a more or less straightforward fashion. The process has been described many times, but very briefly, here it is again:

    1. Observe a phenomenon.

    2. Form a hypothesis related to that phenomenon.

    3. Develop predictions that derive from the hypothesis.

    4. Perform tests of the predictions in order to confirm or falsify the hypothesis.

    5. Based upon the results of those tests, either discard the hypothesis as falsified, or return to step 2 and reformulate the hypothesis, or consider the hypothesis confirmed.

    6. The hypothesis is considered confirmed when it passes all the tests that have been developed for it. The hypothesis can continue to be challenged forever, but hypotheses that have stood up to many challenges are usually recognized as theories. Possession of status as theory does not protect a hypothesis from being challenged, but given the rigorous process to which it has already been subjected it does raise the bar for challenges.

    The reasons usually offered for why creationism is not science are:

    • It isn't natural because it makes reference to supernatural forces and/or entities such as miracles and God.

    • It has no evidence from the natural world supporting its viewpoints.

    • It isn't falsifiable since no evidence can be imagined which would convince believers that it is false.

    • It doesn't follow the scientific method because instead of beginning with a hypothesis for an observed phenomenon, creationism begins with a Biblical story.

    • Evidence that contradicts creationist views is either ignored or is labeled a mystery that will one day be resolved, with the result that creationism explains almost nothing about the natural world that it is science's task to explain.

    • Creationists for the most part do not do science. There's a sort of half-hearted effort to provide the appearance of science by writing scientific-sounding papers and holding conferences, but there is no effort to reconcile their viewpoints with each other or with the scientific community itself, and most creationist effort is spent lobbying legislatures, school boards and text book publishers, and defending themselves in court cases.

    --Percy


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 51 by 4Pillars, posted 12-21-2006 9:52 AM 4Pillars has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 53 by 4Pillars, posted 12-21-2006 11:54 AM Percy has responded

        
    4Pillars
    Inactive Member


    Message 53 of 114 (371391)
    12-21-2006 11:54 AM
    Reply to: Message 52 by Percy
    12-21-2006 10:34 AM


    Re: Science by Definition is Philosophical
    Dear Percy,

    Well I'm glad that you agree with me that science can't explain everything. But, obviously your FAITH in science is very deep, you think science can eventually explain everything.

    Sorry, but unless science can create a time machine that will allow us to observe events in the past like the beginning of the universe, all you can ever come up with, no matter scientific sounding, is a best GUESS and SPECULATIONS.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 52 by Percy, posted 12-21-2006 10:34 AM Percy has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 54 by Percy, posted 12-21-2006 12:43 PM 4Pillars has not yet responded
     Message 56 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-22-2006 6:19 AM 4Pillars has not yet responded
     Message 60 by fallacycop, posted 12-23-2006 8:27 AM 4Pillars has not yet responded

      
    Percy
    Member
    Posts: 18307
    From: New Hampshire
    Joined: 12-23-2000
    Member Rating: 3.5


    Message 54 of 114 (371404)
    12-21-2006 12:43 PM
    Reply to: Message 53 by 4Pillars
    12-21-2006 11:54 AM


    Re: Science by Definition is Philosophical
    4Pillars writes:

    Well I'm glad that you agree with me that science can't explain everything.

    I do happen to agree with you that science cannot explain everything, but I never remotely said anything like this.

    But, obviously your FAITH in science is very deep, you think science can eventually explain everything.

    I never said anything remotely like this, either.

    Sorry, but unless science can create a time machine that will allow us to observe events in the past like the beginning of the universe, all you can ever come up with, no matter scientific sounding, is a best GUESS and SPECULATIONS.

    If true wouldn't this mean that unless you can create a time machine to observe events in the past like creation and the flood, all you can come up with is a best guess and speculations? Obviously there's a flaw in your thinking somewhere, because otherwise you're arguing that creationism isn't science. Since you believe creationism is science, why do you keep offering arguments against your own position. If you were a boxer you'd be punching yourself, so knock yourself out! :)

    The thread asks the question, "Is creationism science?" I listed the qualities of science and provided an outline of the scientific method, then provided an assessment of how creationism measured up against them. Have you any response or rebuttal that is on-topic and that is actually favorable to your position?

    --Percy


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 53 by 4Pillars, posted 12-21-2006 11:54 AM 4Pillars has not yet responded

        
    platypus
    Member (Idle past 3826 days)
    Posts: 139
    Joined: 11-12-2006


    Message 55 of 114 (371539)
    12-22-2006 2:43 AM
    Reply to: Message 51 by 4Pillars
    12-21-2006 9:52 AM


    Re: Science by Definition is Phylisophical
    Let me rephrase my question. Since you seem to to have a problem with the definition of science, let me be extremely clear. Please provide an example of a creationist viewpoint which
    a) makes a testable prediction
    b) is falsifiable

    I don't even care if the prediction is true or not. Stop criticizing evolutionists about a field of science that you obviously do not know about, and put your money where your mouth is: give us an example. If you can't even do this simple task, then creationism is not anything remotely like science, which is what this thread is about.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 51 by 4Pillars, posted 12-21-2006 9:52 AM 4Pillars has not yet responded

        
    Dr Adequate
    Member
    Posts: 16085
    Joined: 07-20-2006
    Member Rating: 10.0


    Message 56 of 114 (371561)
    12-22-2006 6:19 AM
    Reply to: Message 53 by 4Pillars
    12-21-2006 11:54 AM


    Sorry, but unless science can create a time machine that will allow us to observe events in the past like the beginning of the universe, all you can ever come up with, no matter scientific sounding, is a best GUESS and SPECULATIONS.

    It is in fact possible to know about the past without owning a time machine. Claiming otherwise, even if you use capital letters to do so, is not likely to fool anyone.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 53 by 4Pillars, posted 12-21-2006 11:54 AM 4Pillars has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 61 by Archer Opteryx, posted 12-24-2006 8:35 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

      
    Dr Adequate
    Member
    Posts: 16085
    Joined: 07-20-2006
    Member Rating: 10.0


    Message 57 of 114 (371562)
    12-22-2006 6:35 AM
    Reply to: Message 51 by 4Pillars
    12-21-2006 9:52 AM


    Re: Science by Definition is Phylisophical
    If science is "by definition" philosophical, then why do I not see mention of this in any definition of "science"?

    Or ... wait, of course, this is the fundie use of the phrase "by definition". Meaning "not by definition, but I wish it was, 'cos then something I've said would be true".

    Oh and I'm not attacking the true science, I'm attacking the opposition’ definition of science which attempts to exclude creationism,

    If you think you have a definition of science which includes the ravings of Hovind, Morris, Gish et al, please produce it.

    when the fact is the opposing parties are just as guilty of the things they have accused creationism so far, like knowing empirical truth apriori.

    But of course we do not claim to know empirical truth a priori, which is why you cannot quote us doing so and have to resort to making stuff up.

    Preceding a blatant falsehood with the phrase "the fact is" doesn't make it any truer, you know.

    It is actually IM-possible to separate philosophy from science or the methods of science. That's because the question, "what is science?" is itself a philosophical question.

    No, not really. Not more so than the question "what is a pig?" is philosophical: and yet it is perfectly possible to separate pigs from philosophy.

    Try as you might but there is no such thing as an authoritative definition of science or the scientific method. Scientists and philosophers of science until today are in disagreement on it and struggle to define all of its essential attributes.

    And yet they are all able to agree that biology, physics and chemistry are sciences and that chocolate cake, the movie Gone With The Wind and the number 7 are not sciences.

    Just because scientists have not reached complete accord on the exact definition of science does not allow creationists to arbitrarily go around claiming that stuff is science when it clearly isn't.

    So for evolutionists to claim that creationism is not science simply begs the question.

    Or, to put it another way, "for evolutionists to claim that chocolate cake is not science simply begs the question".


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 51 by 4Pillars, posted 12-21-2006 9:52 AM 4Pillars has not yet responded

      
    Dr Adequate
    Member
    Posts: 16085
    Joined: 07-20-2006
    Member Rating: 10.0


    Message 58 of 114 (371565)
    12-22-2006 7:12 AM
    Reply to: Message 42 by 4Pillars
    12-20-2006 6:46 PM


    Re: Micro-evolution of Prehistoric Mankind & Human
    Well, this is a great example of why creationism isn't science:

    When Jesus made the creatures, -- including the prehistoric mankind -- He made them in various "kinds"

    First you make a completely unsupported assertion.

    . No one knows His classification system except He, Himself.

    Then you refuse to define your terms.

    Some theorize that the kinds could be creeping, walking, crawling, flying, etc. kinds.

    Then you speculate on what God might mean by the claim you made.

    Microevolution or descent with modification happens every time a baby is born. It is God's way of keeping "kinds" within their own "kinds". Micro assures that dogs remain dogs... cats, remain cats...they evolve or change...but within their own "kind".

    Then you continue to make unsupported claims using the term you won't define.

    Example: Cat's Family - A Lion (male) and a Tiger (female) producing a Giant "LIGER". See link (scroll all the way down).

    http://www.lairweb.org.nz/tiger/ligers.html

    You give an "example" which does not support your undefined assertion.

    See, it really amazing how the discovery of Science Today support the TRUTH of the Bible written many centuries ago -- the sons of God (prehistoric mankind) producing GIANT offsprings - Mighty Men of old, men renown - AFTER their union with the Daughters of Men (human), as documented in Genesis 6!!!

    Then you invent a scientific fact (giants, forsooth!) and use it to support your own highly idiosyncratic interpretation of the Bible.

    This, of course, means that Macro is a Lie and God's Holy Word is the Truth. We did not Evolve our Human Intelligence. We inherited it from Adam, exactly as God told us we did.

    And finally top it off with a gross non sequitur. Preceeded by the phrase "of course" to make it sound like it's true.

    What were you thinking?

    Evols, list down your evidence here..

    For what?


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 42 by 4Pillars, posted 12-20-2006 6:46 PM 4Pillars has not yet responded

      
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10284
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    Message 59 of 114 (371685)
    12-22-2006 4:46 PM
    Reply to: Message 51 by 4Pillars
    12-21-2006 9:52 AM


    Re: Science by Definition is Phylisophical
    Try as you might but there is no such thing as an authoritative definition of science or the scientific method. Scientists and philosophers of science until today are in disagreement on it and struggle to define all of its essential attributes. So for evolutionists to claim that creationism is not science simply begs the question

    Whilst what you say here does have some validity this does not mean that every method of investigation can be considered scientific. This is the logical consequence of your statement. Unless you are claiming that any investigation, no matter it's methods or aims, is scientific you are going to have to argue your case for including creationism as science a little more thoroughly.

    Science produces scientific conclusions by evaluating and analysing physical evidence to produce these conclusions.
    The methods of science such as prediction, independent verification, peer review, repeatable experimentation etc. are the best ways we have of verifying the objective validity of these conclusions.

    Creationism produces no scientific conclusions as the conclusions are drawn from faith based texts with no regard to physical evidence.
    Only once the conclusions have been made is evidence for them sought.

    This is the very opposite of science.

    For this reason creationist conclusions are not scientific and are not able to withstand the tests of refutation, verifiable prediction etc. etc. I am in fact unaware of any creationist research which even attempts to verify it's results through testable prediction (any examples?).

    Hence creationism is not science.

    Darwins theory on the other hand has not only withstood the potential refutation of increased understanding of inheritence (i.e genetics) it has actually been enhanced by it.

    The subsequent rsearch into genomes has validated the conclusions beyond all reasonable doubt as all the empirical evidence is entirely consistent with evolution by natural selection and genetic mutation exactly as predicted by theory.

    It is not brainwashing or some sort of large scale conspiracy as many creationists seem to suggest. Creationism is the result of faith based conclusions and evolution is the result of dilligent and long running evidence based research.

    One is very definitely science and one is very definitely not.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 51 by 4Pillars, posted 12-21-2006 9:52 AM 4Pillars has not yet responded

      
    fallacycop
    Member (Idle past 3593 days)
    Posts: 692
    From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
    Joined: 02-18-2006


    Message 60 of 114 (371793)
    12-23-2006 8:27 AM
    Reply to: Message 53 by 4Pillars
    12-21-2006 11:54 AM


    Re: Science by Definition is Philosophical
    Sorry, but unless science can create a time machine that will allow us to observe events in the past like the beginning of the universe

    As pointed out to you by Dr.A a time machine is not needed in order for science to study the past. forensic scientists, for instance, do that all the time. The interesting thing is that, when it comes to Astronomy and Cosmology, the time machine you ask about actually exist. When looking at far away objects in space we are actually looking into the past (given that the speed of light is finite).
    That allows us to see deep into the origin of the Universe. You might want to google "WMAP microwave background radiation". Unfortunately, it is not possible to look all the way back to the big bang bacause once upon a time the universe was opaque and no light from before that time can reach us. But still, all that can be seen is consistent with the BB theory.
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 53 by 4Pillars, posted 12-21-2006 11:54 AM 4Pillars has not yet responded

      
    Prev123
    4
    5678Next
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019