Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5


EvC Forum ⇒ Science Forums ⇒ Is It Science? ⇒

The Nature of Scientific Inquiry - Contrasted with Creation "Science"

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Nature of Scientific Inquiry - Contrasted with Creation "Science"
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 505 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004

Normal Thread Display
Message 35 of 265 (125970)
07-20-2004 2:29 PM 		Reply to: Message 32 by jt
07-20-2004 2:18 PM

JT writes:
​
I am saying that a scientist can be completely scientific while working in the field of creation science.
"Creation science" is an oxymoron.
​
"Creation" refers to having faith that a deity created everything as we know it by snapping his fingers. "Science" refers to the objective evidence driven inquiry of knowledge.
​
How the hell can you be having faith in something and be objective at the same time?
​
The Laminator
​
This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by jt, posted 07-20-2004 2:18 PM jt has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by CK, posted 07-20-2004 2:31 PM coffee_addict has not replied
 Message 39 by jt, posted 07-20-2004 2:41 PM coffee_addict has replied
  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 505 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004

Normal Thread Display
Message 40 of 265 (125980)
07-20-2004 2:42 PM 		Reply to: Message 34 by jt
07-20-2004 2:29 PM

JT writes:
​
Take, for example, if I was an evolutionist and saw an old dog and a young cat in my yard. I could come to the conclusion that the dog birthed the cat (because it was older). Then I could take my newfound proof of punk eek to the masses, and write books and become famous.
This is an outright misrepresentation of the scientific method. If there is a device that allows me to physically hurt you through your screen right now, I would use it without regret. Noone ticks me off more than someone that uses the strawman like that... well, except for ignorant bigots.
​
The Laminator
​
This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by jt, posted 07-20-2004 2:29 PM jt has not replied
  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 505 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004

Normal Thread Display
Message 41 of 265 (125981)
07-20-2004 2:52 PM 		Reply to: Message 39 by jt
07-20-2004 2:41 PM

Is there anything else you are good at besides misrepresenting science?
​
JT writes:
​
According to scientific method, nothing can be proven.
According to the science, theories can never be proven. However, in order for it to be a theory, it needs to have lots and lots and lots of evidence that are proven to be evidence supporting the theory.
​
A hypothesis stands until it is falsified.
What the hell are you talking about? A hypothesis doesn't mean crap until there are lots and lots of evidence supporting it and turn it into a theory.
​
My hypothesis is creationism, and it has never been falsified to me, so I continue to hold it.
Your hypothesis is no different than a pile of crap, since you have no objective evidence to support it.
​
Similarly, I have faith in gravity, the earth orbiting the sun, etc.
This is as far away from science as anyone can get. You don't have to have faith in gravity or the heliocentric model. As a physics major, I have personally done experiments with results supporting the theory of gravity and the sun-centered... well, almost centered... model.
​
This message has been edited by Lam, 07-20-2004 01:52 PM
​
The Laminator
​
This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by jt, posted 07-20-2004 2:41 PM jt has not replied
  
Date format: mm-dd-yyyy
Timezone: ET (US)
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024