Is creationism science or not?

[Jose Fly]

What is wrong in believing for a young Earth if our own existence is the plumbline. There is no written history beyond Genesis to refute that. Having said that, there is plenty of evidence given from the Earth itself that more than says there was an existence before the Genesis acount to which we should all say, "So what"? What is to be gained by arguing it out?

If creationists were just like "I believe in a young earth/universe, a global flood, creation by God according to "kinds", and special creation of humans because that's what the Bible teaches", I don't think anyone would really have a problem with it. It'd be just like with Mormons and their strange beliefs, where most of us would just say "That's nice" and move on.

But many of you can't just leave it at that. For some reason, you have to take that next big leap and declare that those religious beliefs are supported by science, and spend a lot of money and time attacking science. That's when you bring people like me into it. Now you've stepped into the arena of science, declared yourself an authority, and proclaimed most of it to be false.

If you'd have just left it at "I believe these things because that's what the Bible says", there'd be no problem.

 

[Cross Reference]

But many of you can't just leave it at that. For some reason, you have to take that next big leap and declare that those religious beliefs are supported by science, and spend a lot of money and time attacking science. That's when you bring people like me into it. Now you've stepped into the arena of science, declared yourself an authority, and proclaimed most of it to be false.

If you'd have just left it at "I believe these things because that's what the Bible says", there'd be no problem.

None of that is true because, for one thing, you wouldn't leave it alone irrespective of the fact you have no science to support your 'whatever'. Opinion, theory, guess work, can't ever be a science regardless how loud you scream it. Why not be honest and admit that?

BTW: OE-YE arguments are usually always between creationists. Where might you even fit in?

 

[Jose Fly]

None of that is true because, for one thing, you wouldn't leave it alone

Sure I would. If you notice, I don't spend much time at all in the "does God exist" debates, or other debates over exclusively religious topics. I usually only jump in when the debate gets into science or public policy.

As long as it's two believers arguing which of their interpretations are correct, I really don't care.

irrespective of the fact you have no science to support your 'whatever'. Opinion, theory, guess work, can't ever be a science regardless how loud you scream it. Why not be honest and admit that?

Now this is exactly what I'm talking about. Despite the obvious fact that you (at best) have a 5th grade understanding of science, you've deemed yourself so qualified in the life sciences that your say-so should be taken as unquestioned gospel. That's what draws me in.

BTW: OE-YE arguments are usually always between creationists. Where might you even fit in?

I'm not a creationist in any way at all, so I don't care.

 

[musterion]

I think that if someone is generally happy with what they believe and it gets them through life then browbeating them and trying to perhaps take away that belief might in many cases be wrong and even cruel.

Then my original question stands: why do you think they do it?

Like I said before, if the atheists are correct it cannot make any difference for anyone, in the end. Theist...atheist...it changes nothing.

So in your opinion, why do they persist?

 

[CabinetMaker]

The Bible says "six days." You reject the plain teaching of scripture. So perhaps you should sod off with your accusations of faithlessness. :loser:

So why do you continually feel the need to point to evidence? Why are you not content to simply state what you believe? Personally, not that you care, I would have a great deal more respect for you. As it is, you tend to come off looking like a goof.

 

[Hawkins]

So in the interests of clarity, let's see if we can resolve this. Is creationism a science, or is it not science and just a belief about the past?

The pre-requisite of a science is that something repeats. Even the Big Bang Theory is not a science, as it's about a one time event ever occurred.

It's a science only in the sense that some scientists try to put effort in studying the subject.

 

[CabinetMaker]

The pre-requisite of a science is that something repeats. Even the Big Bang Theory is not a science, as it's about a one time event ever occurred.

It's a science only in the sense that some scientists try to put effort in studying the subject.

Science is not limited to repeatability, it can look at one time events. the only real one-time event seem to be the big bang so its entierly within the realm of science to apply what we have learned from repetable experiments to the events of the big bang and see what we can learn. That is how science is done.

 

[Hawkins]

Science is not limited to repeatability, it can look at one time events. the only real one-time event seem to be the big bang so its entierly within the realm of science to apply what we have learned from repetable experiments to the events of the big bang and see what we can learn. That is how science is done.

Again you can call everything a science but it won't make it so.

Science is a way for a human brain to confirm a truth to the extent that it's beyond doubt. This can only be made possible when something can be repeatable (repeatedly predicable, to be more precise).

Non-repeatable things cannot normally be confirmed beyond doubt, such as the BBT. That's why we can have multiple theories co-exist about the origin of the universe with each un-confirmable. You can vote for one of them to believe though.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Again you can call everything a science but it won't make it so.

Science is a way for a human brain to confirm a truth to the extent that it's beyond doubt. This can only be made possible when something can be repeatable (repeatedly predicable, to be more precise).

Non-repeatable things cannot normally be confirmed beyond doubt, such as the BBT. That's why we can have multiple theories co-exist about the origin of the universe with each un-confirmable. You can vote for one of them to believe though.

Redefining your terms to strengthen your position is an old fallacy and only works if I accept your definition. I do not. I think this is a better explanation of the process typically called science:

Science[nb 1] is a systematic enterprise that creates, builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[nb 2][2]:58 Contemporary science is typically subdivided into the natural sciences which study the material world, the social sciences which study people and societies, and the formal sciences like mathematics. The formal sciences are often excluded as they do not depend on empirical observations.[3] Disciplines which use science like engineering and medicine may also be considered to be applied sciences.

I never said that science confirm the Big Bang beyond doubt. I said: "Science is not limited to repeatability, it can look at one time events. the only real one-time event seem to be the big bang so its entierly within the realm of science to apply what we have learned from repetable experiments to the events of the big bang and see what we can learn. That is how science is done."

Note that I said we would use the science we have already learned to see what we can learn about the Big Bang Science is about learning.

 

[Hawkins]

Redefining your terms to strengthen your position is an old fallacy and only works if I accept your definition. I do not. I think this is a better explanation of the process typically called science:

Science[nb 1] is a systematic enterprise that creates, builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[nb 2][2]:58 Contemporary science is typically subdivided into the natural sciences which study the material world, the social sciences which study people and societies, and the formal sciences like mathematics. The formal sciences are often excluded as they do not depend on empirical observations.[3] Disciplines which use science like engineering and medicine may also be considered to be applied sciences.

I never said that science confirm the Big Bang beyond doubt. I said: "Science is not limited to repeatability, it can look at one time events. the only real one-time event seem to be the big bang so its entierly within the realm of science to apply what we have learned from repetable experiments to the events of the big bang and see what we can learn. That is how science is done."

Note that I said we would use the science we have already learned to see what we can learn about the Big Bang Science is about learning.

It's an old fallacy to only accept the elites instead of logic itself.

What I have presented you is not a definition but a logical deduction.


Your brain detects an undoubtful truth when and only when its repeatedly predictable to you.

Science on the other hand is something that "if your prediction fails, you deserve a Nobel Prize".


What bring us to the moon and Mars is a 100% infallible theory plus human errors and equipment limitations. The theory is infallible because it can be repeatedly predictable. That is, we have a 100% chance to repeatedly land the surface of moon or Mars if it's not because of a human error or equipment limitations.

 

[CabinetMaker]

It's an old fallacy to only accept the elites instead of logic itself.

What I have presented you is not a definition but a logical deduction.

No, it is not a logical deduction, it is a truism that you have adopted for your own purposes.

Your brain detects an undoubtful truth when and only when its repeatedly predictable to you.

Science on the other hand is something that "if your prediction fails, you deserve a Nobel Prize".

That's because science is about finding out how things work and why they work. Its not the search for TRUTH, its a search for understanding and knowledge.

What bring us to the moon and Mars is a 100% infallible theory plus human errors and equipment limitations. The theory is infallible because it can be repeatedly predictable. That is, we have a 100% chance to repeatedly land the surface of moon or Mars if it's not because of a human error or equipment limitations.

Actually, the theory of gravity is far from 100% infallible. There is much about gravity in the vicinity of super massive objects that is not known. What got us to the moon is the fact that simple Newtonian physics are a sufficiently accurate model of the solar system that we can calculate orbital mechanics with enough accuracy to get from the Earth to the Moon.

 

[Jose Fly]

The pre-requisite of a science is that something repeats.

No, it's not. If it were, archaeology, paleontology, forensics, cosmology, glaciology, and a ton of other endeavors that involve either past events, or large-scale events wouldn't be science.

Even the Big Bang Theory is not a science, as it's about a one time event ever occurred.

Sorry, but your say-so is entirely unpersuasive, especially in light of the fact that virtually everyone who studies the subject disagrees.

It's a science only in the sense that some scientists try to put effort in studying the subject.

As we've seen, you're simply wrong.

 

[musterion]

So why do you continually feel the need to point to evidence?

Probably to counter the false or misrepresented evidence that constantly floods TOL.

 

[Jonahdog]

Science is a way for a human brain to confirm a truth to the extent that it's beyond doubt.

Actually, that is not quite accurate. While we have gotten to the point where much of science is accurate (better term than truth), what we understand from science changes all the time. Some changes are big--plate tectonics for example, some are small, but the whole idea of scientific work is refinement of existing theories.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Probably to counter the false or misrepresented evidence that constantly floods TOL.

But what he points to doesn't counter what scientific research has learned to date.

 

[musterion]

But what he points to doesn't counter what scientific research has learned to date.

He thinks it does. Who is correct, you or he?

 

[CabinetMaker]

He thinks it does. Who is correct, you or he?

From what point of view are you asking this question. A person of faith? A scientist? Some other perspective?

 

[musterion]

From what point of view are you asking this question. A person of faith? A scientist? Some other perspective?

You think he's wrong, he thinks he's right. Prove he's wrong.

 

[CabinetMaker]

You think he's wrong, he thinks he's right. Prove he's wrong.

The perspective is important because it determines how one looks at what Stipe writes.

If you are a person of faith in YEC, then what Stipe says is absolutely correct and everybody who disagrees with him is wrong.

If you are person with a scientific background then a rational conversation with Stipe is impossible. Almost immediately he will start ridiculing Darwinist and evolutionists and he will never actually address any of the actual issues raised by somebody with a scientific background. At that point, Stipe is neither right nor wrong, he is just a goof.

All that i can honestly say about Stipes opinions is that they are not supported by anybody in the peer reviewed scientific journals. They add nothing useful to the scientific body of knowledge and cannot be used to help us develop new methods of treatment.

 

[Stripe]

So why do you continually feel the need to point to evidence? Why are you not content to simply state what you believe? Personally, not that you care, I would have a great deal more respect for you. As it is, you tend to come off looking like a goof.

You're a retard.