ShockV1.89 Posted November 13, 2003 Share Posted November 13, 2003 Well? Is it? To help, here's some info... Scientific Method Definition of Science: The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. Taken from Dictionary.com. Is it science if you've already come to a conclusion before looking at the evidence and data? Does that skew the results? Discuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted November 14, 2003 Share Posted November 14, 2003 Definition of Science: The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. Creation "science" fails on all accounts. Creationism is built on a web of red herrings, strawmen and other quality techniques of debate, masquerading as "science". What's most disturbing about this, is that if you confront a creationist with this fact, they'll pull out yet another strawman charicature that proves they have not listened to what you just said. at. all. And this is why I've pretty much given up on it as well. It's not even fun to watch anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Datheus Posted November 14, 2003 Share Posted November 14, 2003 Originally posted by C'jais Creation "science" fails on all accounts. Creationism is built on a web of red herrings, strawmen and other quality techniques of debate, masquerading as "science". That is what I call "bad science." So yes, I think creation science is science... Just bad science. After all, science is the pursuit of knowledge. Science 2000 years ago is the same science it is now. We just "know" more... Creationists are just a bit behind on the game. Thusly: Bad science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted November 16, 2003 Share Posted November 16, 2003 Originally posted by Datheus After all, science is the pursuit of knowledge. Science 2000 years ago is the same science it is now. We just "know" more... Creationists are just a bit behind on the game. Thusly: Bad science. Science has only existed for about 200 years, not 2000. Saying Science is just "the pursuit of knowledge" would be painting with a brush too large. If that was the case, you could "scientifically" pursue knowledge of, say, the Genesis as told in the Bible. It is obvious, simply from reading the dictionary definition above that Creationism is NOT science. Creationism does none of the things listed. The problem with Creationism is that it has an agenda - if the facts does not match the agenda, they are discarded (no joke), some are even invented, and Creationists generally have a hard time distinguishing between relevant and irrelevant facts. Creationists will stop at nothing, to the point of putting fingers in their ears and praying to their God. An example of this would be the isotope dating method, where they will fiercely insist it cannot predict anything, even though it has done so more than thousands of time. Opponents of this aren't bad scientists. They're simply not scientists in the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted November 19, 2003 Share Posted November 19, 2003 The stuff I've seen (ICR comes to mind) calling itself "Creation Science" is really pseudo-science (using scientific sounding terms to describe un-scientific ideas). All this is saying is that people who know its pseudo-science but pretend its real science are dishonest. Those who accept it as science but don't know its pseudoscience are merely ignorant. For me, I don't see how pseudo-science is needed to believe in God. If it requires faith in the first place, then explanations and controtions like that aren't needed. Using philosophy and logic to try to build on a foundation of faith is admirable, but the "scientific creationist" approach simply goes about it wrong. Now I know there are other people who talk about "Intelligent Design" but this isn't real science either. It's still faith-based metaphysical speculation. That doesn't mean it can't be right, just that it's not scientifically provable, and thus, scientists can still choose to reject it on perfectly reasonable grounds. Me? I believe that the universe was created, by a Creator, but I admit I can't prove it. It's just my "hunch." Faith. I wouldn't call myself a "creationist" (even though I am, from a certain point of view) simply because of all the negative baggage associated with it (the pseudoscientists, the biblical literalists, etc). I believe that the Bible has value (both historical and ethical), but I don't believe that the accounts in Genesis are meant to be taken as literal history or were even originally intended that way in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RpTheHotrod Posted November 19, 2003 Share Posted November 19, 2003 God requires faith, not proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted November 19, 2003 Share Posted November 19, 2003 And Rp points out the main problem with "creations science" as does Kurgan when he stated that it is 'pseudoscientific.' The concept of gods and faith involve unbounded and supernatural forces. That is to say that there are no boundaries to what a god can do. With science, there are distinct boundaries and constants (gravity, Law of Superposition, Boyles Laws, Avagardo's Number, inertia, geometry, etc.) Exceptions to these laws, constants, and boundaries are non-existent or rare and, when they do occur, even the exception has rules. Science works on the premise that the universe is knowable and explainable (albeit perhaps not everthing in one's lifetime) and that by application of the "boundaries," hypotheses can be made and tested to explain that which is observed. Moreover, tested hypotheses can give rise to new questions and thus new hypotheses, and so on. The ultimate linch-pin of "creation science" is that things that cannot be explained or that fail the test of a hypothesis are merely a god's will since discarding the hypothesis is a threat to the underlying belief and/or faith. In short: "creations science" is not science, but blind faith/belief/hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabez Posted November 22, 2003 Share Posted November 22, 2003 The theory of evolution needs only one thing to disprove it whilst Creationist science can go on changing itself as new evidence is found. Hence whilst it can't exactly be disproved, it does make it less credible as a science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted November 27, 2003 Share Posted November 27, 2003 This is a response that was originally in another thread, but it seemed more appropriate to put it here. Lukeskywalker1 mentioned that he had "heard" that chariots had been discovered under the red sea as well as a stone monument inscribed with "David, king of…" The fact is those aren't the facts. There is, however, an individual who bills himself as an archaeologist, but is actually a Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist. His name was Ron Wyatt and he claimed that he discovered a wheel of a chariot in about 200 feet of water in the Red Sea near the Gulf of Aqaba. Wyatt also claimed to have found the Ark of the Covenant on the very site that JC was crucified. Wyatt also claimed to have located the Noah's Ark. Wyatt also claimed….. well, you get the picture. I believe he is now deceased. The plain truth of the matter is, ancient construction methods of chariot wheels wouldn't have allowed for the survival of the wheel itself under water long enough for coral to encrust it. Moreover, the lack of provenience or proper documentation of the site would render it invalid as a method-providing context. Not to mention that the Egyptian government expressly forbids the removal of such objects, which Wyatt claimed occurred in at least one interview. Also, where are the alleged chariot wheels now? In addition, there is this quote from the Christian Information Ministries. Even this organization that states it "aims to assist believers in DEFINING and DEFENDING their Christian worldview by being a source of relevant information" has a hard time buying into Wyatt's wild claims. Ron also knows exactly where the Israelites crossed the Red Sea and has even located chariot parts from Pharaoh's army. He claims he found a chariot wheel one and a half miles out in the Gulf of Aqaba and in two hundred feet of water! Professional skin divers say this would be quite a feat to dive that far down and impossible to photograph without sophisticated lighting equipment. Ron also claims that he found a stone monument near the site of the crossing erected by Solomon. He claims it is inscribed with the ancient Hebrew script. My overall point is this: if you believe whatever suits your needs without question and then if you willing to restate it as a point of fact, why should anyone take your beliefs seriously? How can one who does this be sure that what he or she believes is legitimate? After all, he or she has demonstrated the propensity to accept any fact that supports the status quo, regardless of its veracity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmos Jack Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 "TRUE GENESES" "In the beginning man was ignorant and void of knowledge. Then man created god. God answered all the tuff questions. Man saw god and that it was good." Then man found science saw that god wasn't necessary. Some men were afraid of science. They saw it as bad and against the god that they had created. Threw time science picked up speed and god drifted away. Men created "Creationist science" to fight back the men who had found true science. Man created god. Nobody created science. Creationist science is the Christians last ditch effort to gain a foot hold on modern culture and to slow down the progress of true knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.