Is Creationism actually science?

[Mr Laurier]

Things prone to errors ought not to be (fully) trusted.

BINGO!
Which is why we should not trust religious mythology. Especially when it is contradicted by observable reality.

 

[Mr Laurier]

My science textbooks in the 1950s were full of lies and half truths. Do you really believe that today's science truths won't be replaced by 'better' truths'?

The Holy Bible's creation account is true and in no danger of being updated or replaced.

So you had Soviet textbooks?
The Holy Bible's two and a half creation accounts are fanciful stories that not only contradict each other, but also contradict observable reality.

 

[dlamberth]

The Holy Bible's creation account is true and in no danger of being updated or replaced.

Look around, what's actually happening in the world is that the Biblical Creation story IS being replaced by a new Creation story opened up by science.

 

[driewerf]

And there is nothing wrong with learning. But science is largely a consensus and it is ever-changing,

How can it be a consensus, if it is ever changing? Something can't change without challenging the consensus.
You'll need to think better about your objections.

 

[driewerf]

My science textbooks in the 1950s were full of lies and half truths.

No they were not. They gave the best science as was known at that time. With the improvement of technology and lab equipment scientists are able to investigate better and with higher accuracy the physical world, and hence correct previous mistakes or improve on the description of the physical world. But they were not lying. Not then, not now.

Do you really believe that today's science truths won't be replaced by 'better' truths'?

Sure, and I hope so. Otherwise it would mean that science is stagnating.
I'll give you something to think about. At this moment the survival rate of 5 years for colon cancer is 14%. Wouldn't you be happy if scientists could raise this to say 20%? Or do you prefer a stagnating science where the survival rate stays 14%?

The Holy Bible's creation account is true and in no danger of being updated or replaced.

Stagnating.

 

[driewerf]

Look around, what's actually happening in the world is that the Biblical Creation story IS being replaced by a new Creation story opened up by science.

Except that it is not "a story".

 

[AV1611VET]

Look around, what's actually happening in the world is that the Biblical Creation story IS being replaced by a new Creation story opened up by science.

And that science story is going to get closed when Jesus comes back and puts physical reality on IGNORE.

 

[SkyWriting]

Are you criticizing science for being self-correcting.

No. For claiming to not be wrong even when all of history shows that science is always correcting itself.

 

[Frank Robert]

No. For claiming to not be wrong even when all of history shows that science is always correcting itself.

I don't know what your point is. Science is evidence based, claims are not necessary. The theory that is a better fit with the evidence and makes better predictions becomes the prevailing theory.

 

[SkyWriting]

I don't know what your point is. Science is evidence based, claims are not necessary. The theory that is a better fit with the evidence and makes better predictions becomes the prevailing theory.

DR – the ultimate Self-ER (a perfect dream condition).

But each person gets to decide what the "best fit" is. And even what is "best." And what is "evidence." And even what "fit" means. And "Prevailing" really has no connection to the final actual reality that we call "tomorrow" except through "statistics" which we invent. Words like "most" and "recent" and "authoritative" are used to describe claims of an imaginary reality.

Do you really feel that the conclusion of a research paper is not a claim?

Conclusion
In this paper we explored presence and different elements that contribute to it. Presence is not just “being there” but a combination of multiple feelings and most importantly “experiencing the reality.” The two main factors affecting presence due to mediation are Perceptual Illusion and Psychological Illusion. These factors evoke an illusion of reality in our mind in which we feel presence. We are constantly subjected to such illusions of reality, during which we experience presence differently from that of our apparent real world. This illusion of reality is called ER.

Evoked Reality is not just media-evoked but can also be self-evoked. Media-ER may range from the mild effect of a painting to an extremely plausible immersive Virtual Reality experience while a Self-ER may range from a simple thought to an exceptionally believable DR (the strength of ER may not necessarily be in the same order, as it depends on one’s qualia and personal characteristics). This dual nature of ER led us to define three poles of reality: primary reality – the unaltered and unmediated Real World, SR – the ultimate Media-ER (a perfect Virtual Reality condition) and DR – the ultimate Self-ER (a perfect dream condition). Thus ER is an illusion of reality formed in our mind, which is different from Primary Reality. It’s a combined illusion of space and events, or at least one of them. It is in this ER, one would experience presence. Thus EP is the spatiotemporal experience of an ER.
Achieving Presence through Evoked Reality
US National Library of Medicine
National Institutes of Health

 

[Frank Robert]

claims of an imaginary reality.

Let's talk about projection.

 

[SkyWriting]

Let's talk about projection.

Or read my last post where it is discussed in research.
35 minutes ago#230

 

[Frank Robert]

Or read my last post where it is discussed in research.
35 minutes ago#230

It had nothing to do with what I wrote, namely science is evidence based. Your psychology paper does not dispute that science is evidence based.

 

[Subduction Zone]

DR – the ultimate Self-ER (a perfect dream condition).

But each person gets to decide what the "best fit" is. And even what is "best." And what is "evidence." And even what "fit" means. And "Prevailing" really has no connection to the final actual reality that we call "tomorrow" except through "statistics" which we invent. Words like "most" and "recent" and "authoritative" are used to describe claims of an imaginary reality.

Do you really feel that the conclusion of a research paper is not a claim?

Conclusion
In this paper we explored presence and different elements that contribute to it. Presence is not just “being there” but a combination of multiple feelings and most importantly “experiencing the reality.” The two main factors affecting presence due to mediation are Perceptual Illusion and Psychological Illusion. These factors evoke an illusion of reality in our mind in which we feel presence. We are constantly subjected to such illusions of reality, during which we experience presence differently from that of our apparent real world. This illusion of reality is called ER.

Evoked Reality is not just media-evoked but can also be self-evoked. Media-ER may range from the mild effect of a painting to an extremely plausible immersive Virtual Reality experience while a Self-ER may range from a simple thought to an exceptionally believable DR (the strength of ER may not necessarily be in the same order, as it depends on one’s qualia and personal characteristics). This dual nature of ER led us to define three poles of reality: primary reality – the unaltered and unmediated Real World, SR – the ultimate Media-ER (a perfect Virtual Reality condition) and DR – the ultimate Self-ER (a perfect dream condition). Thus ER is an illusion of reality formed in our mind, which is different from Primary Reality. It’s a combined illusion of space and events, or at least one of them. It is in this ER, one would experience presence. Thus EP is the spatiotemporal experience of an ER.
Achieving Presence through Evoked Reality
US National Library of Medicine
National Institutes of Health

The concept of evidence is very well defined in the sciences due to human nature. We see it time after time here when creationists are presented evidence and then deny it. Or when they claim to have evidence, it never meets the definition of scientific evidence. The definition of scientific evidence was not written for evolution but it perfectly shows why creationism is not science. No scientific evidence for an idea demonstrates that it is not 'science".

 

[ViaCrucis]

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."​

Let's reword that and see how it sounds.

Flat eartherism is actually science. By now, empirical science has made it perfectly obvious that a viable place for humans to call home cannot be a ball of rock. In effect, globe-ism has officially been declared a superstition - not to mention, an insult to human intelligence.

Faced with the scientific impossibility of a round earth, the only rational - and therefore, scientific - explanation for the shape of the earth is flatness, or more specifically, divinely ordained flatness. Voila! ... Flat earthism is science. Get used to it.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[driewerf]

And that science story is going to get closed when Jesus comes back and puts physical reality on IGNORE.

He wont need to. Fundamentalist have shown time and again that they are ignorant.

 

[adderbolt]

Fundamentalist have shown time and again that they are ignorant.

“I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance.” - Socrates

 

[ViaCrucis]

“I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance.” - Socrates

Socrates was endlessly curious and wanted to learn and understand the world around him. His recognition of his ignorance made him the wisest man in all of Athens, because it meant he was willing to hear, listen, learn.

Socrates' genuine philosophical inquiry was in stark contrast to the sophists who merely wanted to appear wise.

And so they killed him.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[AV1611VET]

And so they killed him.

And now he's in aitch.

 

[MIDutch]

Socrates was endlessly curious and wanted to learn and understand the world around him.

As did some of his contemporaries.

Unburdened and unfettered by Abrahamic tradition and dogma, Anaximander (610-546 BCE) and Empedocles (490-430 BCE) articulated ideas concerning animals changing over time.