Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
with creationists attacking it 24/7. That is a strong indicator that it is correct.
Okay, scientists may not be perfect, they are human after all, but he appears to overstate the case.You have to read the slide at 14:30 of the video I posted at my post #147. What do you think about Feyerabend?
Creationism was falsified over one hundred years ago. There is no reward for reinventing the wheel.So a creationist and an evolutionist has much to gain by falsifying evolution, but neither of them have anything to gain by falsifying creationism?
So,economically speaking, it is more profitable for secular scientists to attempt to disprove theories (except for Darwinism), but less profitable for creation scientists to attempt to disprove creationism?
So, creation scientists don't try to disprove creationism?
This clip is also interesting and if you listen from 9:00-10:00, he makes a really good point that much of science is driven by pseudoscience.
And no, hypotheses are not "based on imagination". Clearly you do not understand the scientific method. Perhaps we should discuss that first.
That means a scientist observes nature for a while, thinks, and come up with an idea that explains what we see.
Such as?
Coming up with an idea is the first step. For example a scientist might investigate how animals appear to be similar to each other and have an idea that they are all related. That is just an idea. Once he figures out how to test his idea it becomes a hypothesis. And a proper test must have the possibility of showing that idea to be wrong. Then he has a hypothesis and his idea has become scientific.What's the difference?
But there is no "guessing" that is what creationists do. One creates a formal idea and tests it. Not only that, other people will also test those formal ideas and they can find their own tests for it. That is why when someone tells me that they believe the Flood myth I ask for details on their version of the Flood since individual beliefs vary widely. Those clear beliefs can be used to set up a test for that belief and quite often show that it is wrong.So, it sounds to me like all this intentional second guessing of everything would only heighten the anticipation to find it to be true, thereby, consciously/unconsciously increasing observer bias.
That is why when someone tells me that they believe the Flood myth I ask for details on their version of the Flood since individual beliefs vary widely. Those clear beliefs can be used to set up a test for that belief and quite often show that it is wrong.
No, "just so" stories are what the creationists have. And there is no way of being absolutely sure, but tell me this:But, are the results just so, because you are looking for them to prove it wrong? How can you be certain?
No, "just so" stories are what the creationists have. And there is no way of being absolutely sure, but tell me this:
How sure are you that if you jump off of a cliff that you will fall?
"When interviewed about Cosmos: A SpaceTime Odyssey, which we reviewed earlier this week, the host of the new miniseries, astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, said this:
If you start using your scripture, your religious text as a source of your science, that’s where you run into problems, and there is no example of someone reading their scripture and saying “I have a prediction about the world that no one knows yet because this gave me insight let’s go test this prediction and have that theory turn out to be correct.”1
During the recent Nye-Ham Debate Ken Ham addressed this issue and gave several examples of scientifically confirmed predictions based on the Bible. One of these is the fact that animals only vary and reproduce within their created kinds. Ken cited a January 2014 study “supporting a single origin for dogs,”2 which is exactly what creation scientists have long said was true. The many species of dogs we see today developed from the pair of dogs Noah took aboard the Ark.
To show our readers how misinformed Tyson is about this issue, I decided to ask creation scientists
from several disciplines, all with doctoral degrees and experience in their professions, to share their favorite examples of Bible-based predictions that led to demonstrably true scientific discoveries. Space does not permit including all their answers here, but those I include should readily disabuse any interested reader of such a false position.
Kinds and Species and Lack of Transitional Forms
The more we learn about speciation, the more we see that animals reproduce and vary only within their created kinds and do not evolve into new kinds. Microbiologist Dr. Andrew Fabich pointed out the newest discovery about finches, just published in Nature (“Evolutionary biology: Speciation undone,” which we will discuss in next week’s News to Know), demonstrates this principle. He says, “Darwin’s finches are widely accepted as being within the same kind. Their variation within a kind is based on the fact that there were droughts and rainy seasons. It is no surprise to creationists that the finches can still interbreed.”3
And while animals vary within their created kinds, the fossil record has failed to produce the transitional forms Darwin predicted would be found. Dr. Terry Mortenson, a historian of geology, points out that early nineteenth century “scriptural geologists” correctly argued that “the original created ‘kinds’ of Genesis 1were not the same as what modern scientists classify as species or genus, but were bigger biological categories and that while variation is produced within each kind, the kinds stay distinct. Writing before Darwin published his theory in 1859, they rejected as unscientific the idea of biological microbe-to-manevolution being proposed by Jean Lamarck and others. Darwin admitted in The Origin of Species that the fossil record did not provide any evidence to confirm his theory and he had no supporting evidence from the study of living creatures. He predicted however that the fossils in confirmation of his theory would be found. History shows that Darwin was wrong.”4" (Emphasis mine)
Can Bible-Based Predictions Lead to Scientific Discoveries?
There are many other things that have to be considered to answer that.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?