Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8943 total)
29 online now:
Faith, PaulK (2 members, 27 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,981 Year: 19,017/19,786 Month: 1,437/1,705 Week: 243/446 Day: 41/98 Hour: 2/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation science II
Coyote
Member (Idle past 397 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 1 of 207 (501697)
03-07-2009 2:00 PM


To continue the discussion of creation science.

This thread is not for a discussion of evolution, its supporting data, or any disagreements with that data. It is for discussion of creation science.

A wiki definition of creation science is as follows:


Creation science or scientific creationism is a movement within creationism which attempts to use scientific means to disprove the accepted scientific theories on the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution and prove the Genesis account of creation.

It is clear from this that creation "science" does not follow the scientific method. In fact, there seems to be nothing to separate creation "science" from religious apologetics.

If you disagree, please show how creation science is science.

-----

Note - Previous edition of this topic:
People Don't Know What Creation Science Is

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add link to previous edition of this topic.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Kelly, posted 03-07-2009 2:59 PM Coyote has responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12631
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 2 of 207 (501706)
03-07-2009 2:22 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Kelly
Member (Idle past 3786 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 3 of 207 (501714)
03-07-2009 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Coyote
03-07-2009 2:00 PM


Creationists
Creationists have no problem with most sciences, and in fact are the first initiators of much in science. It was a creationist who first pointed to natural selection for example. Creationists deal with all the sciences.. physics, chemistry, astronomy, geology, hydrology, biology, paleontology, genetics, physiology, embryology etc. Where we differ is in the interpretation. Evolutionists believe that these studies all point to a world that has slowly evolved from simpler to more complex over a long span of time. Creationists believe these studies support that life is a marvel of created laws and order. Creationists accept microevolution as a process seen through mutations and natural selection within types.

It is only when scientists branch out with the extrapolation that micro means macro evolution that we disagree.

Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Coyote, posted 03-07-2009 2:00 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-07-2009 3:22 PM Kelly has not yet responded
 Message 6 by lyx2no, posted 03-07-2009 3:27 PM Kelly has responded
 Message 7 by Coyote, posted 03-07-2009 3:39 PM Kelly has responded
 Message 8 by JonF, posted 03-07-2009 3:40 PM Kelly has responded
 Message 9 by Coragyps, posted 03-07-2009 3:45 PM Kelly has responded

Capt Stormfield
Member
Posts: 403
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


Message 4 of 207 (501718)
03-07-2009 3:12 PM


A theme that seemed to keep resurfacing in the previous thread concerned the nature of the creation "scientist". Posts were made asserting that since Newton, among a long list of others, was both a creationist and a scientist that creationism was therefore scientific. For purposes of this argument let's set aside his many pseudoscientific pursuits.

It is apparent to me that this is an entry level logical fallacy, and I am curious to know if the resident creationists actually believe what they posted, or did they just repeat something without really thinking about it.

If they do really think this makes sense, I am curious to know how far they apply it. Many scientists believe in... [Islam, pagan gods, Judaism, Hinduism, Republicanism, Communism, free love etc.]...does that mean that each of those is a science? If not, why not?

Capt.


Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Kelly, posted 03-07-2009 3:55 PM Capt Stormfield has not yet responded

shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 1140 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 5 of 207 (501723)
03-07-2009 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Kelly
03-07-2009 2:59 PM


Re: Creationists
What we need to do first then is come to a consensus on the definition of science, or rather the scientific method. We need to be on the same page there or we end up talking past each other.

Since science must generalize the data in a model that is capable of making predictions based upon that model, we can ask does creation science have a model based upon the evidence. Even allowing the bible as the basis for that model what predictions can be made from the model?

What I have seen is attacks on interpretation of data, but none of the attacks correlate with each other in a meaningful way. The basis for rejection may in one instance be self-contradictory with the basis for rejection in a different instance.

This is where the creation model fails. It fails to exist. It is instead blind adherence to a particular theological interpretation of the bible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Kelly, posted 03-07-2009 2:59 PM Kelly has not yet responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3007 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 6 of 207 (501726)
03-07-2009 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Kelly
03-07-2009 2:59 PM


Re: Creationists
Creationists have no problem with most sciences, and in fact are the first initiators of much in science. It was a creationist who first pointed to natural selection for example. Creationists deal with all the sciences.. physics, chemistry, astronomy, geology, hydrology, biology, paleontology, genetics, physiology, embryology etc. Where we differ is in the interpretation. Evolutionists believe that these studies all point to a world that has slowly evolved from simpler to more complex over a long span of time. Creationists believe these studies support that life is a marvel of created laws and order. Creationists accept microevolution as a process seen through mutations and natural selection within types.
It is only when scientists branch out with the extrapolation that micro means macro evolution that we disagree.

The statement highlighted in orange, what are these studies you speak of? Presenting these studies is one of the tasks you have steadfastly refused to do. Advance them and you'll advance the debate.

The blue is off topic, so ya' know.


Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Kelly, posted 03-07-2009 2:59 PM Kelly has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Kelly, posted 03-07-2009 4:02 PM lyx2no has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 397 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 7 of 207 (501733)
03-07-2009 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Kelly
03-07-2009 2:59 PM


Re: Creationists
Where we differ is in the interpretation. Evolutionists believe that these studies all point to a world that has slowly evolved from simpler to more complex over a long span of time. Creationists believe these studies support that life is a marvel of created laws and order. Creationists accept microevolution as a process seen through mutations and natural selection within types.

It is only when scientists branch out with the extrapolation that micro means macro evolution that we disagree.


This thread is not about evolution. Please avoid bringing it up in subsequent posts.

Creationists seem to oppose sciences when they conflict with a fundamentalist or literal interpretation of the bible. How can this be considered science?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Kelly, posted 03-07-2009 2:59 PM Kelly has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Kelly, posted 03-07-2009 4:07 PM Coyote has not yet responded

JonF
Member
Posts: 5527
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 8 of 207 (501736)
03-07-2009 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Kelly
03-07-2009 2:59 PM


Re: Creationists
Creationists deal with all the sciences.. physics, chemistry, astronomy, geology, hydrology, biology, paleontology, genetics, physiology, embryology etc. Where we differ is in the interpretation.

Yeah, sort of, but …

Ya gottta actually come up with the interpretation. And demonstrate how it actualy fits all the evidence as well or better than the maintream interpretation. Which you have steadfastly refused to even try to do for over 300 posts.

Understandable, 'cause you can't do it Nobody can. "Creation science" is founded fundamentally on ignoring almost all the evidence and shoehorning the remainder into an obviously mythical/allegorical (but powerful and important) piece of ancient literature.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Kelly, posted 03-07-2009 2:59 PM Kelly has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Kelly, posted 03-07-2009 4:11 PM JonF has responded

Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5399
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 9 of 207 (501739)
03-07-2009 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Kelly
03-07-2009 2:59 PM


Re: Creationists
Creationists accept microevolution as a process seen through mutations and natural selection within types.

Easy question, Kelly: what is a "type?" Creationists use that word (or "kind") a lot, but never define it past, "oh, you know what that is!"

Can you offer a definition? I know that you don't seem to like answering questions, but humor me. We can discuss your answer only after you supply one. And since it seems to be involved in the very foundations of Creation Science....

Edited by Coragyps, : tpyo


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Kelly, posted 03-07-2009 2:59 PM Kelly has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Kelly, posted 03-07-2009 4:14 PM Coragyps has responded

  
Kelly
Member (Idle past 3786 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 10 of 207 (501741)
03-07-2009 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Capt Stormfield
03-07-2009 3:12 PM


still not getting it...
But regardless of what a person's religion is, creation science is a study of the evidence or data left behind from the origins moment--whatever that is, whether creation or slow evolution in the vertical sense.

Before Darwin, most scientists were creationists studying their particular field of interest. Today, just because evolutionary theory has grippied us by the throat doesn't mean that scientists can't still look for the created order and design of our world as opposed to looking for evidence of long slow evolutionary processes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Capt Stormfield, posted 03-07-2009 3:12 PM Capt Stormfield has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by lyx2no, posted 03-07-2009 4:31 PM Kelly has not yet responded
 Message 23 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-07-2009 7:53 PM Kelly has not yet responded

Kelly
Member (Idle past 3786 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 11 of 207 (501744)
03-07-2009 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by lyx2no
03-07-2009 3:27 PM


It is ridiculous to try and limit this discussion
to just one half of the equation. As long as the overall topic is creation, we ought to be allowed to say the buzz word, evolution.

I don't know what you mean by asking what are these studies?--since I gave you quite the long list of what these studies are. The difference between a creationist and an evolutionist is not in the actual studies of the evidence itself, but it comes in the interpretations. The methods of science are the same. The difference is in the models and the interpretation of the results of these studies.

Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by lyx2no, posted 03-07-2009 3:27 PM lyx2no has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Granny Magda, posted 03-07-2009 4:23 PM Kelly has responded

Kelly
Member (Idle past 3786 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 12 of 207 (501746)
03-07-2009 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Coyote
03-07-2009 3:39 PM


This is so exhausting
I don't know what else I can say to make you see that creationists are studying the same evidence and using the same scientific methods and data as any evolutionist is. We don't oppose any science and in fact agree with everything that is observable.

Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Coyote, posted 03-07-2009 3:39 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Coragyps, posted 03-07-2009 4:16 PM Kelly has responded
 Message 26 by anglagard, posted 03-08-2009 1:16 AM Kelly has not yet responded

Kelly
Member (Idle past 3786 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 13 of 207 (501751)
03-07-2009 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by JonF
03-07-2009 3:40 PM


This is false
I have given many examples of how creationists interpret the evidence differently and why. People here just disagree with our interpretation, but that is a different story. Stop saying that I haven't offered anything because I certainly have.

Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by JonF, posted 03-07-2009 3:40 PM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by JonF, posted 03-07-2009 7:50 PM Kelly has not yet responded

Kelly
Member (Idle past 3786 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 14 of 207 (501755)
03-07-2009 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Coragyps
03-07-2009 3:45 PM


Oh please..
I have more than once used that term in conjunction with "species." There are many different types of cats, for example. But a cat is a cat is a cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Coragyps, posted 03-07-2009 3:45 PM Coragyps has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Coragyps, posted 03-07-2009 4:25 PM Kelly has not yet responded
 Message 24 by JonF, posted 03-07-2009 8:10 PM Kelly has not yet responded

Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5399
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 15 of 207 (501757)
03-07-2009 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Kelly
03-07-2009 4:07 PM


Re: This is so exhausting
We don't oppose any science and in fact agree with everything that is observable.

That is simply UNTRUE! Creationists nearly always DISAGREE that, for example, the literal and figurative mountains of evidence for a planet that's several thousands of millions of years old is even evidence at all! Believe me, Kelly, it's as exhausting for us as it is for you. When are you going to give your first direct answer to a question?


"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Kelly, posted 03-07-2009 4:07 PM Kelly has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Kelly, posted 03-07-2009 4:24 PM Coragyps has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019