What Makes Creationism a Valid Scientific Alternative?

[rikerjoe]

Right on!

... being completely wrong! (as usual..)

 

[Jro]

I don't need to define or explain anything. Design in nature is self evident. The burden is on you to demonstrate how everything came from nothing, how the first life spontaneously came from non life, developed the ability to reproduce itself in the first generation, and then went from the goo through the zoo to me and you.

No definitions, no explanations and passing the buck on the research. Sounds like a valid scientific alternative alright.

 

[CabVet]

I don't need to define or explain anything. Design in nature is self evident. The burden is on you to demonstrate how everything came from nothing, how the first life spontaneously came from non life, developed the ability to reproduce itself in the first generation, and then went from the goo through the zoo to me and you.

Yet science still doesn't "presume design".

 

[UncleHermit]

On what basis do scientist have for expecting there to be mathematically precise relationships in nature which can be studied and understood

Observation.

if the universe was not created by an intelligent designer rather than the product of random chance?

Why would you expect a universe created by an intelligent designer to do anything in particular?

 

[And-U-Say]

Lets stay on the topic of Christianity & Science.

There is no conflict with science. Just with some scientists conclusions. And the scientific community is full of conflicting ideas anyway. To suggest that science is a unified front of ideas is silly.

Well, good thing you put that <snip> in there as you were getting pasted pretty bad.

So let's break it down.

1) I am not the one that brought up the whole "you can thank christians for Science" thing. You did. And if you are going to bring up your little digs against Science, you had better be ready to defend them. Only you aren't You run away from it. Typical christian.

2) You didn't address the rest of what I said either. Ran away from that as well. Typical christian.

3) Science is unified. But since you have no understanding of Science you make these absurd claims. There is some controversy, it is at the edges of understanding, just as it should be.

4) Address the points.

 

[verysincere]

3) Science is unified. But since you have no understanding of Science you make these absurd claims. There is some controversy, it is at the edges of understanding, just as it should be.

Yes, it's interesting how it is the non-scientists with no experience in a field who presume to tell us what it is like. They are the same people who whine about how academia operates----while never having served on a university faculty. Perhaps I should start quoting Ken Ham to them: "Were you there?"

 

[Dieselman]

HOWEVER, in one of the Christmas specials, it was pointed out that Kris Kringle's reindeer required the ability to fly by the application of "magic pixie dust;" to allow Kris and his friends to escape Herr Burgermeister Meisterburger.

No, it was magic feed corn.

 

[Dieselman]

My question is, whoever said the scientific answer is the right answer? Mankind has a 6,000 year history of interacting with his Creator. Your contention is that the entire history must be false because science; the study of the natural world; can't account for anything supernatural. What if the creation did not happen using natural law, but rather in defiance of it?

A purely scientific answer can only be true in the absence of supernatural causation. If God created the world, then studying cosmology for 60 years will not bring you one step closer to the truth; nor does it make you any more enlightened than a seven year old who believes that all things were created by God.

 

[Dieselman]

Typical christian.

You know, if I were to say "typical atheist" I would be chastised because you would run to the mods and say I was flaming them with a stereotypical comment. Lucky you that atheists hold a position of reverence on a Christian website.

Science is unified.

Blatant lie. Science isn't unified on anything. Consensus is the antithesis of science.

But since you have no understanding of Science you make these absurd claims.

"Typical atheist;" thinking that those who disagree with his position must be ignorant.

 

[serge546]

Why is that different then mixing water with sulfuric acid?

Funny thing about this dodge is that yes, there is, in fact, a difference. One way puts you at risk and the other doesn't. Do you know which is which?

 

[Jamin4422]

Yes, it's interesting how it is the non-scientists with no experience in a field who presume to tell us what it is like. They are the same people who whine about how academia operates----while never having served on a university faculty. "

Yes, it's interesting how the scientists with no experience in a field who presume to tell us what it is like. They are the same people who whine about how academia operates----while never having worked a day in their life. They can get it to work on paper, but not out in the real world.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, it was magic feed corn.

Okay ... thank you!

 

[RickG]

Yes, it's interesting how the scientists with no experience in a field who presume to tell us what it is like. They are the same people who whine about how academia operates----while never having worked a day in their life. They can get it to work on paper, but not out in the real world.

Would you clarify a little more by what you mean by "scientists with no experience"? I ask that because your description after that statement is more of a description of a person with little to no academic science background, which would include yourself. Just asking.

 

[And-U-Say]

...while never having worked a day in their life. They can get it to work on paper, but not out in the real world.

You truly have no idea as to what you are talking about.

 

[And-U-Say]

You know, if I were to say "typical atheist" I would be chastised because you would run to the mods and say I was flaming them with a stereotypical comment. Lucky you that atheists hold a position of reverence on a Christian website.

I would not run to any mod. However, this behavior is typical. Perhaps you need to go back and look up the word "typical". I see this kind of behavior on virtually every single thread, that would make it typical.

Blatant lie. Science isn't unified on anything. Consensus is the antithesis of science.

Really? Like chemistry? Or Physics? Have you ever taken a Science class? Because it does not sound like it.

"Typical atheist;" thinking that those who disagree with his position must be ignorant.

No, you may want to actually read the discussion. This is about not addressing points. Not about disagreement. You can't really be disagreeing if you cannot even address the issue. This is about ignoring points. Try to keep up.

 

[paul becke]

Some information Evolutionists conveniently ignore. When you've read it, lads and lassies, go the Uncommon Descent, and keep up to date with it, then you won't keep embarrassing yourselves:

1) Only minor variations within species have been demonstrated or observed!
2) coded sequential information such as that found in DNA has never been seen to originate from any unguided chemical processes!
3) life reduction experiments clearly show there are NO EXAMPLES of simpler life that evolutionists postulate must have existed to give rise to the functionally complex life we see today!
4) selective breeding only results in trait optimization and distinct limits not new morphological distinction!
5) mutations are a degenerative process that accrues more prohibitively operational damage than it can possibly overcome by any controversial or occasional &#8220;good mutation&#8221;!
6) Examples of Macro evolution cited by evolutionists are totally within the bounds of a known process called ADAPTATION and do not result in new body plans or body parts that build new function.

Incidentally, quantum mechanics makes it clear that mind - and that means the personal mind of the Observer - is the basic reality, not matter. Observation of reality is intersubjective. There is no such thing as objective reality. That should have been a hammer-blow to materialists, eighty years ago.

 

[verysincere]

Would you clarify a little more by what you mean by "scientists with no experience"? I ask that because your description after that statement is more of a description of a person with little to no academic science background, which would include yourself. Just asking.

Good luck getting a "translation." Jamin sings an old song: "Just because we never acquired any basic knowledge of the field doesn't mean that we don't think we know better than those who did." Envy of earned doctorates and academic tenure leads to the endless repetition that "Those things don't matter! Cuz we know best!" Yet, their leaders are infamous for diploma mill credentials and unearned honorifics. Double-standards are the name of the game when self-esteem is the battlefield.

Of course, anyone who can arbitrarily invent "different physical laws and constants operated in the past" out of thin air is just as likely to manufacture differences between science and "the real world."

 

[Dieselman]

I would not run to any mod. However, this behavior is typical. Perhaps you need to go back and look up the word "typical". I see this kind of behavior on virtually every single thread, that would make it typical.

How does that make it any different from the arguments presented by atheists which don't seem to change whatever from person to person?

Really? Like chemistry? Or Physics?

Actually, that's paraphrasing an argument that evo's and atheists post repeatedly; that consensus is not a part of science. You don't read very much of what your fellow atheists are posting these days, do you? For example, when someone states that the laws of physics are accepted as irrefutable by science, the very next post is a disagreement with even this most basic fact.

Have you ever taken a Science class?

Yep; plus biology, human biology and psychopathology. In addition to science, I have also studied the word of God, have had personal experiences that prove the existence of the supernatural and the glory of God, and I've debated with self-enlightened atheists for years. It's kind of hard to listen to so-called enlightened people state conclusively that supernatural beings do not exist when you have seen them personally.

No, you may want to actually read the discussion.

I did.

You can't really be disagreeing if you cannot even address the issue. This is about ignoring points.

Who says your points are valid? For example, you can say that it's impossible for a dead man to return from the dead, but the resurrection of Christ had so many witnesses the Romans couldn't even refute it. You can say that geology proves a rock to be a billion years old, but an omnipotent God could create it in an instant.

The one point upon which I agree is this; creation is not a scientific argument. It is fact, but it is not scientific. The arguments of atheists are scientific, but they are not factual.

 

[UncleHermit]

Some information Evolutionists conveniently ignore. When you've read it, lads and lassies, go the Uncommon Descent, and keep up to date with it, then you won't keep embarrassing yourselves:

1) Only minor variations within species have been demonstrated or observed!
2) coded sequential information such as that found in DNA has never been seen to originate from any unguided chemical processes!
3) life reduction experiments clearly show there are NO EXAMPLES of simpler life that evolutionists postulate must have existed to give rise to the functionally complex life we see today!
4) selective breeding only results in trait optimization and distinct limits not new morphological distinction!
5) mutations are a degenerative process that accrues more prohibitively operational damage than it can possibly overcome by any controversial or occasional “good mutation”!
6) Examples of Macro evolution cited by evolutionists are totally within the bounds of a known process called ADAPTATION and do not result in new body plans or body parts that build new function.

Incidentally, quantum mechanics makes it clear that mind - and that means the personal mind of the Observer - is the basic reality, not matter. Observation of reality is intersubjective. There is no such thing as objective reality. That should have been a hammer-blow to materialists, eighty years ago.

We don't ignore that "information", it's just tiresome to refute it again and again and again...I'll go to your website when it has something new to say.

 

[46AND2]

(snip)... For example, you can say that it's impossible for a dead man to return from the dead, but the resurrection of Christ had so many witnesses the Romans couldn't even refute it. (snip)...

Got any evidence for this, besides copies of manuscripts written decades after the fact by people who weren't the witnesses?