Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   why creation "science" isn't science
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 32 of 365 (2341)
01-17-2002 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by TrueCreation
01-17-2002 11:44 AM


quote:
--Sounded good untill it accused scientific creationists as being uncooperative with this definition, we in no way claim that we are infallably right and that we cannot be falsified because we believe that the Bible is infallable, thus unfalsifiable. Which is exactly the flaw, scientific creationism has nothing to do with supernatural entities, though on the other hand the origin of the universe does.
A look at the statements of faith by which the leading Creationist groups operate demonstrates this claim to be incorrect. What is and what is not "Creationism" is determined primarily by what these leading organizations do. I think first we'll have to know more about who you refer to as "we", whether it is yourself, you and your fellow Creationists in this forum, or whether it is a global reference to "creation science". I have already quoted the Answers In Genesis SOF part F in this forum, but the URL for it is www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp and the important part of it is that the starting assumptions are that the world was created through supernatural processes, that the flood occured, that evolution simply does not occur, and that the Bible is infallible. These themes are essentially universal in Creationist statements of faith.
quote:
History and Aims of CRS. www.creationresearch.org/hisaims.htm,
"All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:
1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths."

quote:
ICR Tenets of Creationism http://www.icr.org/abouticr/tenets.htm

"The phenomenon of biological life did not develop by natural processes from inanimate systems but was specially and supernaturally created by the Creator."
"The Bible, consisting of the thirty-nine canonical books of the Old Testament and the twenty-seven canonical books of the New Testament, is the divinely-inspired revelation of the Creator to man. Its unique, plenary, verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological."
Italics are mine.
[This message has been edited by gene90, 01-17-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by TrueCreation, posted 01-17-2002 11:44 AM TrueCreation has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 214 of 365 (3217)
01-31-2002 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by TrueCreation
01-30-2002 11:15 PM


quote:
--Pretty close, the bible says everything that has the breath of life And dwelled on the earth died.
My Cokesbury RSV mentions "swarming things" as well, so I think insects (such as termites, mosquitoes, biting flies, and fire ants) are pretty much covered.
Genesis 7:21
"And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, birds, cattle, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm upon the earth....(23)He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the air...."
And it goes on for a few more lines.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by TrueCreation, posted 01-30-2002 11:15 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by TrueCreation, posted 02-01-2002 6:39 PM gene90 has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 254 of 365 (3415)
02-04-2002 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by Cobra_snake
02-04-2002 8:48 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
"I didn't mean that evolutionists are trying to make it hard to find Creationist information, I just meant that GENERALLY one should look in a Creationist book if one wants to find evidence against evolution.
If scientific journals are adequate for science, then perhaps we should use them as references. Books are not peer-reviewed sources and if we could use any books we wanted we could get into all kinds of misleading and inaccurate information. Hollow Earth and marauding aliens are tame compared to some of the "science" titles out there and so there should at least be some consensus as to what makes a book credible, not just which side it supports.
If both sides cannot agree on their information sources, this debate will not go very far. The fact that we have had a disagreement over the interpretation of the same source, the Bible, on a relatively simple question (if bugs were threatened by the Flood) does not bode well for this thread and perhaps both sides should discuss which forms of evidence are acceptable. Books are often rehashes of the journals and perhaps one should also include the bibliography reference for a claim and be wary of books that don't have such references.
[This message has been edited by gene90, 02-04-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Cobra_snake, posted 02-04-2002 8:48 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by lbhandli, posted 02-04-2002 9:52 PM gene90 has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 260 of 365 (3454)
02-05-2002 10:47 AM


Wouldn't have guessed that. Thanks Larry.

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by lbhandli, posted 02-05-2002 3:51 PM gene90 has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 265 of 365 (3587)
02-06-2002 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by KingPenguin
02-06-2002 7:11 PM


[QUOTE][b]i have a question how do animals know they have to kill eachother to make sure they dont get overpopulated?[/QUOTE]
[/b]
I've never heard of a deer or a gazelle devouring another deer or gazelle to cut down on the population.
I have heard of lions eating gazelles out of hunger, and gazelles reproducing until their population is limited by predation or underavailability of food, at which point population growth stops.
Animals don't "know" to eat each other, they just have a system that naturally progresses towards a stable equilibrium.
[QUOTE][b]they would undoubtedly spread like a virus unless an intillegent species such as human was to interfere[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Until the population was checked with competition for food or by predation.
[QUOTE][b]which is what we do.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Only after our wanton and irresponsible destruction of ecosystems wipes out the real predators.
[QUOTE][b]were the caretakers of the earth[/QUOTE]
[/b]
We sure seem to mess things up then.
[QUOTE][b]so that all existence wouldnt end.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
The most anthropocentric claim I've heard yet.
Tell me, do you wander about your yard squashing every third grasshopper you see for fear that they will form a great horde and devour the Earth's plant life? No because their populations are kept in bounds by birds and other predators. Do you uproot sod from your lawn to continually open up space for younger shoots of grass before the whole yard dies of overcrowding? No because if the grass gets too crowded some shoots will die and open up more space. Two decades or so ago we found an ecosystem based around deep sea vents that we haven't quashed yet. Should we mount an expedition to kill every other tube worm down there to open up space before the system collapses?
These suggestions are absurd. Why? Because natural ecosystems can stabilize themselves and have been doing so for hundreds of millions of years and would continue to do so even if we were not here.
By the way, try to kill mainly the diseased or injured grasshoppers.
[This message has been edited by gene90, 02-06-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by KingPenguin, posted 02-06-2002 7:11 PM KingPenguin has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 274 of 365 (3924)
02-09-2002 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by TrueCreation
02-09-2002 2:09 AM


[QUOTE][b]I have already proposed the problem numerous numerous times on why Creation science has nothing to do with being based on the truth of the bible[/QUOTE]
[/b]
We've gone out of our way to provide Statements of Faith for your inspection. Did you fail to read them? Are you claiming that they do not exist?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by TrueCreation, posted 02-09-2002 2:09 AM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by TrueCreation, posted 02-09-2002 9:39 PM gene90 has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 277 of 365 (3946)
02-09-2002 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by TrueCreation
02-09-2002 9:39 PM


[QUOTE][b]No its that these statments of faith do not represent creation science. They represent their Creationist beliefs, as in accord with evidence interperetations[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Those Statements are public announcements of not only their beliefs but also their starting assumptions and their procedures on how they deal with evidence. AiG states that whatever they don't like is automatically invalid. They are to Creationism (or "Creation Science") what the Scientific Method is to science. Therefore, "Creation Science" is invalidated through their own written admissions.
[QUOTE][b]How you interperete the evidence is creation science.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
That is what a Statement of Faith is, a set of pre-arranged rules that all their "interpretations" MUST follow. The dice are loaded, the jury is bought, the game is rigged.
[QUOTE][b]What this that this interperetation goes along with the bible as for support for inerrancy is the belief of Creationism.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
The beliefs of Creationism are, by definition, the pre-arranged conclusions of "Creation Science". The Statements require it.
By the way, you are projecting your own unfounded suspicions and mistrust on science when you claim that evolutionists try to shoehorn data. You are begging the question, that is, making a statement in defense of something being debated that is itself a point of contention.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by TrueCreation, posted 02-09-2002 9:39 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 284 of 365 (4038)
02-10-2002 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by KingPenguin
02-10-2002 10:02 PM


Are you admiting then that "Creation Science" is not science?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by KingPenguin, posted 02-10-2002 10:02 PM KingPenguin has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 286 of 365 (4040)
02-10-2002 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by KingPenguin
02-10-2002 10:13 PM


Nope, science doesn't use Statements of Faith, remember? Also the scientific method doesn't allow data shoehorning. Creationism runs off it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by KingPenguin, posted 02-10-2002 10:13 PM KingPenguin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by KingPenguin, posted 02-10-2002 10:17 PM gene90 has replied
 Message 292 by TrueCreation, posted 02-10-2002 10:36 PM gene90 has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 288 of 365 (4045)
02-10-2002 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by KingPenguin
02-10-2002 10:17 PM


[QUOTE][b]then your not allowed to post theories, opinions or thoughts anymore.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Theories explain data. Creationist Beliefs existed before the data were collected, and the data were chopped up or thrown out until the beliefs seem to be supported.
Creationism is not science. It is the opposite of science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by KingPenguin, posted 02-10-2002 10:17 PM KingPenguin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by KingPenguin, posted 02-10-2002 10:26 PM gene90 has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 290 of 365 (4048)
02-10-2002 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by KingPenguin
02-10-2002 10:26 PM


If Creationism is the opposite of science, then logically, it is not science. Correct?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by KingPenguin, posted 02-10-2002 10:26 PM KingPenguin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by KingPenguin, posted 02-10-2002 10:32 PM gene90 has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 294 of 365 (4058)
02-10-2002 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by TrueCreation
02-10-2002 10:36 PM


[QUOTE][b]Ehem.. Come on, if you wan't to go up and say these sertain organizations work like this, great go for it, you might even win.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
That's the first part of my claim, that those organizations do work like that. The second part of my claim is that these aren't isolated groups but the leaders of Creationism, that essentially define what "Creationism" and "Creation Science" are.
I still don't see the dichotomy between the two.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by TrueCreation, posted 02-10-2002 10:36 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by KingPenguin, posted 02-10-2002 10:55 PM gene90 has not replied
 Message 296 by TrueCreation, posted 02-10-2002 10:56 PM gene90 has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 305 of 365 (4167)
02-11-2002 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 304 by Cobra_snake
02-11-2002 9:18 PM


[QUOTE][b]
So, even if every now and then a mutation increased information, it would not make a significant difference when flooded by the mutations losing information and the mutations which do nothing to the information. [/QUOTE]
[/b]
This is where natural selection comes in. Neutral mutations can fester in a population until they become beneficial or negative. Negative mutations act against the survival and reproduction of their hosts and their spread is arrested. Beneficial mutations increase the probability of survival and rate of reproduction of the hosts so they proliferate through the gene pool. Hence, when looking at the likelihood of an organism inheriting mutations, probability first favors it inheriting primarily beneficial mutations, then neutral mutations, and least likely, negative mutations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by Cobra_snake, posted 02-11-2002 9:18 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 317 of 365 (4389)
02-13-2002 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 316 by Weyland
02-13-2002 8:43 AM


Pleiades: gravitationally bound open cluster, Hyades: gravitationally bound open cluster. Orion: constellation, most stars inside Orion are hundres of LY apart and do not interact, we just group them together because they happen to form a shape we recognize. Oh sure there are some open clusters and nebulae scattered "inside" the constellation, but the constellation itself is just a construct assembled by people's minds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by Weyland, posted 02-13-2002 8:43 AM Weyland has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 320 of 365 (4395)
02-13-2002 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 318 by TrueCreation
02-13-2002 11:22 AM


Christian1's platform is that both evolution and Creationism are religious in nature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by TrueCreation, posted 02-13-2002 11:22 AM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 321 by TrueCreation, posted 02-13-2002 6:08 PM gene90 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