Is Astrology a science?

[Hans Blaster]

So much for embracing criticism and properly considering all evidence & arguments on the science side of the 'science vs. pseudoscience' chart in post # 648.

We were talking about the liars that are the professional creationists. I'm not going to play what-about-ism games about real scientists. Keep us out of this.

 

[inquiring mind]

We were talking about the liars that are the professional creationists. I'm not going to play what-about-ism games about real scientists. Keep us out of this.

So, just because a scientist believes in Creation, he's a liar?

 

[Hans Blaster]

So, just because a scientist believes in Creation, he's a liar?

They aren't actually doing science. None of those organizations does any scientific research.

 

[AV1611VET]

They aren't actually doing science. None of those organizations does any scientific research.

But you would like them to, wouldn't you?

 

[Hans Blaster]

But you would like them to, wouldn't you?

Given their obvious lack of integrity, they should stay as far away from science as possible.

 

[AV1611VET]

Given their obvious lack of integrity, they should stay as far away from science as possible.

What organization(s) would you like to see engaged in creationism research?

(Be specific please.)

 

[Hans Blaster]

What organization(s) would you like to see engaged in creationism research?

(Be specific please.)

..Does not compute..

Creationism is theology not science, so a theology department at some university.

 

[Tuur]

Avoid them all. The all produce "new" materials that are knowingly false.

The irony is that in proposing a hypothesis and then testing it, they are conducting real science. It's the ones that don't accept the results that you have to watch out for. Not to call names, but I've stopped listening to a particular Christian radio station because they carry two YEC who I think play loose and fast with the information.

 

[Astrid]

So much for embracing criticism and properly considering all evidence & arguments on the science side of the 'science vs. pseudoscience' chart in post # 648.

Would you go to an anti- religious
source for info on Christianity, or trust
the mafia to run local govt?

 

[inquiring mind]

They aren't actually doing science. None of those organizations does any scientific research.

Given their obvious lack of integrity, they should stay as far away from science as possible.

Would you go to an anti- religious
source for info on Christianity, or trust
the mafia to run local govt?

I find it hard to believe that someone trained in science, is going to avoid its protocol altogether. It’s just that being of Christian faith, they understand foremost that someone relying on intellect alone does not know God at all, and with this faith-based understanding, they figure it’s not exactly the right path whatever it may be… so, the scientist in them searches for other possibilities.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I find it hard to believe that someone trained in science, is going to avoid its protocol altogether. It’s just that being of Christian faith, they understand foremost that someone relying on intellect alone does not know God at all, and with this faith-based understanding, they figure it’s not exactly the right path whatever it may be… so, the scientist in them searches for other possibilities.

And yet the science Ph.D. trained individuals abandon their scientific training for religion and a paycheck when they join these orgs. If you look at the publication history of these "scientists" (we are what we do, not what we studied in college) they almost all end abruptly either when they join such a group, or long before.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The irony is that in proposing a hypothesis and then testing it, they are conducting real science. It's the ones that don't accept the results that you have to watch out for. Not to call names, but I've stopped listening to a particular Christian radio station because they carry two YEC who I think play loose and fast with the information.

These AiG "scientists" don't actually test hypotheses. They only take reported scientific results and twist the result to fit their theological positions. That is not science.

 

[Astrid]

I find it hard to believe that someone trained in science, is going to avoid its protocol altogether. It’s just that being of Christian faith, they understand foremost that someone relying on intellect alone does not know God at all, and with this faith-based understanding, they figure it’s not exactly the right path whatever it may be… so, the scientist in them searches for other possibilities.

It's tough to accept that there are crooked
judges, nurses who poison patients. Doctors
who peddle narcotics, priests who abuse
children. But there they are.

A most basic concept and protocol of science
is to go where evidence, examined with the greatest
diligence for accuracy and objective evaluation.

Ignoring or falsifying evidence in favour of
any preconceived conconclusion is the direct
opposite.

A judge and jury that ignored evidence is
plainly guilty of gross misconduct.

A scientist who does it is guilty of gross
intellectual dishonesty.

it's been pointed out that the charters of such as
AIG state that o evidence contrary to God's word
will be accepted.

Do you find it hard to beieve that yec- scientist
Dr. K Wise. PhD paleontology could actually
state the following: ".... even if all the evidence
in the universe turns against yec, I will still be
YEC, as that is what the Bible seems to indicate."

There in his own words, he states he will ignore
any protocol of science, abandon scientific
integrity in favour of how the Bible SEEMS, to
him.

If the faith ( in one's own ability to correctly
choose the right Bible interpretation) ranks
Uber Alles in your mind, well, it doe. Thats
your deal.

That is of course, and rightly so, conceding the
scientific / intellectual bankruptcy of the yec
scientists.

So there isn't really much to be said in favour of
any of their work.
Which there wasn't anyway as they've never produced
any work.

 

[AV1611VET]

..Does not compute..

Creationism is theology not science, so a theology department at some university.

Then people shouldn't be asking us for evidence of creationism, should they?

Science can take a hike, can't it?

 

[Diamond72]

Do you find it hard to beieve that yec- scientist
Dr. K Wise. PhD paleontology could actually
state the following: ".... even if all the evidence
in the universe turns against yec, I will still be
YEC, as that is what the Bible seems to indicate."

He does not reject Science. That would be intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Diamond72]

Then people shouldn't be asking us for evidence of creationism, should they?

They would if they are a theistic evolutionist.

 

[sjastro]

Here is a further comparison of science vs pseudoscience.

​

Here is an example of pseudoscience.
This group is particularly aggressive in attacking people who disagree with them.
At least they don't discriminate who they attack; atheists, humanists and Christians such as @Hans Blaster , @SelfSim and myself!

 

[AV1611VET]

Here is a further comparison of science vs pseudoscience.

I'll address the pseudoscience part:

PSEUDOSCIENCE: Do not dare/want to ask questions.
AV1611VET: Ask away.

PSEUDOSCIENCE: Conduct a model based on preconceived ideas.
AV1611VET: Conduct a model based on the Bible.

PSEUDOSCIENCE: Find data that fits the model.
AV1611VET: Find data (if any exists) that fits the model.

PSEUDOSCIENCE: Discard data that does not align with the model.
AV1611VET: Discard data that contradicts the Bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

Here is an example of pseudoscience.

I'm more interested in a divine universe, than I am an electric universe.

 

[SelfSim]

I'll address the pseudoscience part:

PSEUDOSCIENCE: Do not dare/want to ask questions.
AV1611VET: Ask away.

PSEUDOSCIENCE: Conduct a model based on preconceived ideas.
AV1611VET: Conduct a model based on the Bible.

PSEUDOSCIENCE: Find data that fits the model.
AV1611VET: Find data (if any exists) that fits the model.

PSEUDOSCIENCE: Discard data that does not align with the model.
AV1611VET: Discard data that contradicts the Bible.

The Bible is a model which contains lots of preconceived (and untestable) ideas.

AV1611VET's discarding of data that contradicts the Bible, is therefore a demonstration of pseudoscientific practice.