What IS Science And What IS NOT Science?

Some prominent members are continually alleging that ID and creationism is not science, implying that IDists and creationists who arrive at alternatives to mainline secularist science theories and hypotheses, including IDist scientists are not being scientific.This thread is for members of both persuasions to aire their arguments and thoughts on just what is science and what isn't. I know there's been other threads related to this debate but imo this one more directly addreses the problem we all seem to be having in determination of just what science is. I would appreciate for another moderator to please promote this in "Is It Science."

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

Thanks AdminPD. You're Ms Fast and Efficient.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

It seems to me that there is a tendency in eliteist science circles and educational institutions to narrow the definition of what is science to what is acceptable by the majority so as to maintain the hold secularists enjoy in the field of science. In order to maintain this hold, any suggestion that intelligence higher than that relative to earth humankind must be rendered as religion having nothing to do with science.Abe: We IDists believe there is enough viable evidence of the likelyhood of a higher intelligence existing in the universe to allow this as a possible factor in arriving at scientific hypotheses. Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

Is the possibility of uniformitarianism forever as falsifiable as the possibility of a ww flood given the likelihood that atmospheric carbon, nitrogen, and other elements would not be uniform in a pre-flood atmosphere which could render the dating of pre-disaster organisms as appearing very old? How about the possibility of other unknown disasters relative to element makeup of atmosphere and organisms at any given time tens of thousands to tens of millions of years ago rendering dating methods questionable?Question for you and others: Are IDist scientists who study the layering of sediments et al, oberving samples, recording the results of research done by means of photography, written data and comparisons with other data, publishing the data and forming a (Abe:WW )flood hypotheses on the basis of what they have observed et al doing science? Would they be doing all of this science work if the flood were not falsifyable? Edited by Buzsaw, : eliminate sentenceEdited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

Hi Ned. The problem with your advice is that your interpretation of the observed requires replication whereas the Genesis hypothesis does not. You don't replicate sudden creation of a pair of a species which go on to propagate into millions relatively rapidly by design of an eternal supreme architect. Your hypothesis/theory allegedly takes billions of years to produce one species from scratch, i.e. form some kind of mysterious singularity bit of space and even likely millions to get from the soup to living thinking breathing sexy organism capable of and inclined to reproducing so as not to die out before the mate get's caught up in the process. (I always wondered how the first species of anything survived long enough to syncranize with the evoluton of a mate capable of reproduction?? Seems as though you'd need millions or billions of the same thing evolving until one came out capabable of and willing to bed down with the lover with all the complex serum and anatomy parts required for business. Abe: How likely is that going to happen? The lonely first organism must have allegedly had to achieve some kind of pretty deviant orgies to even begin to originate the process and accomplish a lot in a hurry before it died.Hey, I'm not trying to be funny. I'm serious. That's gotta be quite a feat with nothing capable of thinking to oversee and guide/design the process, hasn't it now when the brightest of wonderfully intelligent beings can't even create simple life with all our sophisticated technology?Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

Hi Razd. You observe weather. You observe the deep, deep oceans which have relatively thin crusts. I read somewhere that the average crust under the oceans is about three miles whereas it's about twenty under the continents. You observe that, what is it, 80% or so of the earth is covered with water? I read of a world wide flood in a book full of fulfilled prophecy. In the Geology seminar I just attended at our church, open to the public I was told that some tropical zebras and other animals have been found in arctic ice. I say to myself, 'hey, it the whole earth must've been like a pre-flood terrarium with relatively even temps all over and enough vapor up there which if condensed, produce enough flood water to cover the earth = uninimaginable amout of hydraulic down pressure on the thin earth crust which = up pressure on the crust plates under the continents which = up with the high mountains, faults, volcanoes, et al. So where did all that water come from? Well in the book I read of a super climate with no rainbow and lots of lush vegetation suitable to keep men living long and plenty for all the animals so I go figure that all that water must've been upstairs with a global even and warm enough temp to keep it up there. So then I think, 'hey, if all that weight was vapor up in the sky and not on earth, that = much less weight on earth's thin crusts which = a relatively (I say relatively) level earth surface with relatively shallow small oceans and lower mountains so as to not require so much water to cover the earth as it would take today.So to answer your question, my personal unique kind of simple science study couples research of both secularist and creo science, coming to personally prefer the rather simple scientific processes which apply and deduce an hypothesis based on what I am convinced (by observation) is a reliable historical record, coupled with this science earth observable data to find to my satisfaction that they are remarkably compatible. So you see, whereas you secularists who's hypothesis requires millions of years involving all kinds of QM et al to even begin to come up with anything remotely workable, Idist hypotheses really doesn't require all that. Granted I/we use a lot of logic to form our hypothesis. What we observe, imo, for example with the flood fits nicely with the Genesis hypothesis, eliminating all that time for all these high odds processes to come to allegedly be. I guess that's why the creo scientists are'nt wanted in the review columns. Why do they need QM if there's a supeme designer doing life up so nicely in a hurry?The biggest problem is the dating, imo and I've already offered my thoughts on that, for what it's worth. If there is to be evo/creo debate site involving IDist folks like me, then this's what you get for argument. If that's not acceptable, well then I guess all you have left is to show us the door and argue among yourselves as to who's high odds model is the best secularist one. Edited by Buzsaw, : correct QM

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

Ned, my point is why should I who am convinced I've found a hypothesis so much more doable, and even, imo, more scientifically compatible with the TD laws (as per my great debate with Jar eons ago) reconciling a historial book full of corroborating fulfilled prophecy, even have good reason to tediously try working out something which I honestly think is so remotely impossible to have happened millions and billions of years ago? I've been reading you people for years and I see nothing that comes near what I think I've discovered relative to the Bible and what I'm observing on earth Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

Hmmm, for some reason my edit attempt popped up a double. Bummer! I'll try again. Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

the rest of the #22 story.[/i]

Well, sorry about that folks. I can't do the edit or even get it in another message. Must be God wants me to leave the message as is. That's ok. Good night.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

Note I said I study science. I study what others have done. My contention in this thread is that those who do science have more than one approach but nevertheless do science. Some of our friends here at EvC are contending that ID is not science, implying that those who do science with alternative interpretations from secularists do not do science. I'm attempting to show why they should not be expected to debate their kind of research on the basis of folks who believe it took eons to come up with life as it is observed both in the fossil record and live.PaulK says they check dating methods. I say PaulK and others are not factoring in our hypothesis that there was as ww flood which skews any form of modern dating technique. We observe the same fossils and layering they observe but arrive at odds in interpretation of that. Why can't you people understand why we should not be expected to debate our science on the basis of your pemise? Your premise is secularistic. Ours factors in a supreme designer intelligently guiding prosesses. I see nothing unscientific about either approach but am convinced that ours is more doable, nevertheless far less complicated.

The attempt to prove what you thought is true is certainly an important factor in science, but just because one fails to do that or hasn't yet gotten around to that aspect of science does not necessarily mean the science one IS doing is not science being done.According to my 1913 leather bound, gold embossed, unabridged India paper fat & heavy Miriam Webster dictionary, the following:SCIENCE
1. Knowledge; Knowledge of principles or facts.
2. Specif. accumulated and accepted knowledge which has been systemized and formulated with reference to the discovery of general truths or true operation of general laws; knowledge classified and made available to work, life or the search for truth, comprehensive, profound or philosophical knowledge.
3. Esp. such knowledge when it relates to the physical world and it's phenomenon, called also natural science.It goes on to include skills or trades as a player in unusual science.So as per the above can we all agree that this definition pretty much generally identifies what science is or have the modernist revisionists sought to change all that?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

OK I'll agree that that's an integral part of science. So when ICR goes out and studies the layering of the Grand Canyon sediment, taking samples, photographing significant portions, documenting and publishing the results, proving it wrong is an integral aspect of the science since they are looking for the pros and cons relative to their study. They may also give reasons for the possibility of error in modern dating methods factoring in the possibility of a pre-flood undermined amount of certain elements in the atmosphere on the counterpart interpretation. Are they then doing science?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

Hi Staggler. Welcome and glad you joined us.1. I certainly didn't suggest that anyone I'm talking about concludes anything from the Bible regarding science subjects like the Grand Camyon study et al.2. But we/they do address the stuff counterparts regard as uncompatible, as I've stated, giving reasons to question the dating methods, for example.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

1. Can you document any conclusive definition of science that requires the publication in peer reviewed journals, perse when in fact they do publish for the public all the important data researched?2. Imo, the peer reviews and mainline secularist mainstream are not honestly trying to falsify when they deny alternative science findings and hypotheses from being included in their curricula? They do in fact show evidence of pre-flood environment which is rejected by the counterpart claims. Both do that, so why aren't both doing science. Just because the hypothesis is considered flawed does not mean that science is being done. We're not here to debate the claims. We're here to determing what is or isn't science. Not all science being done is good science. You people have shown that to be the case among yourselves, but you sure don't then say the erroneous work of other scientist wasn't science being done as you are falsly and buligerantly trying to do regarding ICR's scientists. You're just being stubborn and condescending, jar. You're not debating in good faith. You're implying that the only science being done is that which you approve of when in fact approval of a method is not addressing the thread topic of what is science and what is not. Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28