Is Creationism actually science?

[SelfSim]

It may possibly expand what we consider life.

Unlikely.

Life is distinguished from non-life through life's differences which are eaasily observable at our everyday scales .. There's no particular need to resort to quantum scales for descriptions/definitions.

 

[Speedwell]

So? Wasn't there a movie that supports both old Earth and young simultaneously? From the perspective of someone in deep space ( God) the earth would be old but from the perspective if someone on it it's young. Time is relative.

Yeah, we have a "Last Thursdayist" regular here, too: the Earth looks like it's billions of years old and that life evolved on it because God created it that way 6000 years ago.

 

[Mr Laurier]

You mean that it is rocking and reeling in pain?

Given that it isn't

 

[dlamberth]

Unlikely.

Life is distinguished from non-life through life's differences which are eaasily observable at our everyday scales .. There's no particular need to resort to quantum scales for descriptions/definitions.

Than consciousness perhaps?

 

[SelfSim]

Than consciousness perhaps?

Consciousness isn't yet part of any definitions of life, as far as I'm aware ..?

 

[dlamberth]

Consciousness isn't yet part of any definitions of life, as far as I'm aware ..?

So is consciousness something separate from life?

 

[SelfSim]

So is consciousness something separate from life?

No .. I think its a model we've developed, which we apply to ourselves, and then infer for a tiny, (limited), proportion of other species.

 

[Estrid]

Edgar a creationist wrote at Peaceful Science

"Creationism is actually science. By now, empirical science has made it perfectly obvious that viable life is so functionally complex that it could not possibly have happened by chance.
In effect, Abiogenesis-by-Chance has officially been declared a superstition - not to mention, an insult to human intelligence.

Faced with the scientific impossibility of chance, the only rational - and therefore, scientific - explanation for the origin of life is design, or more specifically, divine creation. Voila! … Creation is science. Get used to it."​

Creationism starts with a conclusion effectively
making it the oposite of science.

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationism starts with a conclusion effectively making it the oposite of science.

Imagine that!

 

[Estrid]

Eye of the beholder. The Bible pretends nothing.

True. People do the heavy lifting

 

[Estrid]

If Creationism is not science then Evolution-ism is not science. If Evolution-ism is science then Creationism is also science. They're both doing the same thing from opposite perspectives, which is: starting with a given assumption about reality and then trying to use science to prove that assumption.

Both Creationists and Evolutionists firmly believe that their theories are unshakeable and 100% proven and the absolute truth. Both have some scientific evidence to back their claims up, both also have lack of scientific evidence, which they both ignore.

In order to properly do science, one has to make assumptions to start with. There is no such thing as an objective scientist. There are no scientists who can be trusted to handle scientific facts objectively, everyone thinks they're so high and mighty, that they're right and everyone else is wrong. There is such a thing as absolute Truth, but I don't think it can be obtained by the scientific method.

One thing is sure, you do not have a qualified
opinion on what science is.

 

[dlamberth]

If Creationism is not science then Evolution-ism is not science. If Evolution-ism is science then Creationism is also science. They're both doing the same thing from opposite perspectives, which is: starting with a given assumption about reality and then trying to use science to prove that assumption.

Both Creationists and Evolutionists firmly believe that their theories are unshakeable and 100% proven and the absolute truth. Both have some scientific evidence to back their claims up, both also have lack of scientific evidence, which they both ignore.

In order to properly do science, one has to make assumptions to start with. There is no such thing as an objective scientist. There are no scientists who can be trusted to handle scientific facts objectively, everyone thinks they're so high and mighty, that they're right and everyone else is wrong. There is such a thing as absolute Truth, but I don't think it can be obtained by the scientific method.

It looks to me like you have no idea of the science behind evolution.

 

[SelfSim]

If Creationism is not science then Evolution-ism is not science. If Evolution-ism is science then Creationism is also science. They're both doing the same thing from opposite perspectives, which is: starting with a given assumption about reality and then trying to use science to prove that assumption.

Noted that you're using an '-ism' suffix when making that claim of same-ness.
From Wiki:

It means "taking side with" or "imitation of", and is often used to describe philosophies, theories, religions, social movements, artistic movements and behaviors.[2] The suffix "-ism" is neutral and therefore bears no connotations associated with any of the many ideologies it identifies; such determinations can only be informed by public opinion regarding specific ideologies.

Good luck with trying to get informed consensus by public opinion on those ideologies, in order to demonstrate your claim of 'same-ness' there!

In order to properly do science, one has to make assumptions to start with. There is no such thing as an objective scientist.

No assumptions are required in order to do science.
No published, nor any widely taught, scientific method I've ever seen says: 'start assuming the following is true ..'.

Hypotheses are tentative, objectively testable statements .. and not 'assumptions'.

There are no scientists who can be trusted to handle scientific facts objectively, everyone thinks they're so high and mighty, that they're right and everyone else is wrong. There is such a thing as absolute Truth, but I don't think it can be obtained by the scientific method.

.. and why should we just take your word for that?

 

[SelfSim]

It {looks?} to me like your have no idea of the science behind evolution.

It looks to me, as though this person has no idea of how to distinguish the rules of logic from the objective scientific method ..(?)

 

[dlamberth]

No .. I think its a model we've developed, which we apply to ourselves, and then infer for a tiny, (limited), proportion of other species.

I totally disagree with that. I'm not going to push this any further other than to say that in the world I live in Consciousness is very much an aspect of what constitutes life itself. And I'd even go a huge step beyond that and say that it's consciousness that's evolving into different life forms. But that's not for this thread.

 

[Estrid]

Noted that you're using an '-ism' suffix when making that claim of same-ness.
From Wiki:Good luck with trying to get informed consensus by public opinion on those ideologies, in order to demonstrate your claim of 'same-ness' there!
No assumptions are required in order to do science.
No published, nor any widely taught, scientific method I've ever seen says: 'start assuming the following is true ..'.

Hypotheses are tentative, objectively testable statements .. and not 'assumptions'.
.. and why should we just take your word for that?

The word of one who just posted such a remarkably confused
Upside down and backwards nonsense?

 

[dlamberth]

It looks to me, as though this person has no idea of how to distinguish the rules of logic from the objective scientific method ..(?)

I pretty well bungled up the verbiage of that post as I was rushing out the door. When I got back it needed a bit of corrective editing.

 

[SelfSim]

..

 

[trophy33]

I think that would supernatural by inference, much like Behe's "irreducible complexity" for design.

Supernatural simply means "from the world our nature exists in". Supersystem of our subsystem.

 

[SelfSim]

.. Supersystem of our subsystem.

A 'supersystem' defined by what?
Beliefs?