Is Creationism actually science?

[trophy33]

A 'supersystem' defined by what?
Beliefs?

Not sure what you mean. A belief is not a definition. Its a trust in somebody/something.

 

[SelfSim]

Not sure what you mean. A belief is not a definition. Its a trust in somebody/something.

The point is that there is no other way of demonstrating the concept of something being 'supernatural', other than by way of believing that its supernatural.

Humans are part of nature .. and so their beliefs must also be part of nature.
Therefore whatever humans believe cannot be 'supernatural'!

Sometimes I wonder whether people ever stop and think about what their words actually mean .. and how they got those meanings(?)

 

[trophy33]

The point is that there is no other way of demonstrating the concept of something being 'supernatural', other than by way of believing that its supernatural.

Humans are part of nature .. and so their beliefs must also be part of nature.
Therefore whatever humans believe cannot be 'supernatural'!

Sometimes I wonder whether people ever stop and think about what their words actually mean .. and how they got those meanings(?)

I do not know why you use the term "belief".

"Super" means "above". In system sciences, its a standard term describing some higher system that contains some subsystems.

For example, 3D is a supersystem of 2D. Or if there are up to 11 dimension as the string theory suggests, its a supersystem (superreality) to our reality. A being living in a higher dimension would be a supernatural being to us, if we regard our reality as "natural".

 

[SelfSim]

A being living in a higher dimension would be a supernatural being to us, if we regard our reality as "natural".

How would you test that model?

 

[trophy33]

How would you test that model?

Its not a model. Its just explaining terms.

Model is for example the string theory. Or emergent universe. Or multiverse. Or the simulation hypothesis. And similar.

 

[SelfSim]

Its not a model. Its just explaining terms.

An explanation of terms, is a model.

Model is for example the string theory. Or emergent universe. Or multiverse. Or the simulation hypothesis. The Big Bang. And similar.

How are these not explanations of the terms: strings, universe and multiverse?
(This question would be for the purpose of refuting my claim above).

 

[trophy33]

An explanation of terms, is a model.
How are these not explanations of the terms: strings, universe and multiverse?
(This question would be for the purpose of refuting my claim above).

A mental model, maybe. But not a scientific model required to be testable by scientific means.

 

[SelfSim]

A mental model, maybe. But not a scientific model required to be testable by scientific means.

And so, 'A being living in a higher dimension would be a supernatural being to us, if we regard our reality as "natural" ', is maybe, a 'mental model', whereas a scientific model 'is testable by scientific means'.

They're still both models.

 

[trophy33]

And so, 'A being living in a higher dimension would be a supernatural being to us, if we regard our reality as "natural" ', is maybe, a mental model, whereas a scientific model is testable by scientific means.

They're still both models.

With some try, you can call almost anything a model, because everything is somehow modelled in our mind, even simple colors or words. (And maybe we are modelled in God's mind).

But because we are in a thread about science, word definitions are not the "model" in the scientific meaning. Its just an explanation what we mean by them.

 

[SelfSim]

With some try, you can call almost anything a model, because everything is somehow modelled in our mind, even simple colors or words. (And maybe we are modelled in God's mind).

.. and "God's mind" there, is not also a mental model you have in your mind, then?

But because we are in a thread about science, word definitions are not the "model" in the scientific meaning.

Well, this forum is a confusing mixture of science and belief, however there is a well known truism: "the map is not the territory" ...

This truism is often used as a way of distinguishing maps of reality, from "reality itself", yes?
But that's not actually a scientifically correct interpretation, because it does not restrict to operational (testable) meanings.
The scientifically accessible interpretation is that what we call 'a map', is a different kind of concept than what we call 'a territory', but they are both quite demonstrably concepts, (or models), so they are actually just different kinds of maps.
So the truism, for a scientific thinker, should actually be 'what we call a territory is a different type of map, with different uses and testable justifications, than what we call a map'. .. After all, that is the only claim that science could ever test: whether or not the purposes we lay out for our meaning of "map" and "territory" are suitably serving our needs.

It's as though some people think "maps" and "territories" are just handed to us, and our minds have no part in deciding what we want those words to mean!

Your mind has chosen 'supernatural' as meaning something which is not objectively testable .. it is therefore, just another 'mentally modelled' belief.

 

[NBB]

Evo is not science actually, that intelligence and conciousness can come from non intelligence and build brains bit by bit like evo explains is harder to believe than God, at least with God you have the perfect excuse, he is eternal he existed forever has power and he is smart. But the devil has all people blinded, and thinking he doesn't exists and doesn't have you in his hands.
Now joke how i am an ignorant and bronze age goat herding prophet believing person, but actually i have experienced God and the devil too and both exists.

 

[Speedwell]

Evo is not science actually, that intelligence and conciousness can come from non intelligence and build brains bit by bit like evo explains is harder to believe than God....

The two are not mutually exclusive alternatives.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Evo is not science actually, that intelligence and conciousness can come from non intelligence and build brains bit by bit like evo explains is harder to believe than God, at least with God you have the perfect excuse, he is eternal he existed forever has power and he is smart. But the devil has all people blinded, and thinking he doesn't exists and doesn't have you in his hands.
Now joke how i am an ignorant and bronze age goat herding prophet believing person, but actually i have experienced God and the devil too and both exists.

Alas , your "evo" is an entirely creationist strawman, and has nothing to do with evolution.

 

[Estrid]

Alas , your "evo" is an entirely creationist strawman, and has nothing to do with evolution.

Profoundly insulting too.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evo is not science actually, that intelligence and conciousness can come from non intelligence and build brains bit by bit like evo explains is harder to believe than God, at least with God you have the perfect excuse, he is eternal he existed forever has power and he is smart. But the devil has all people blinded, and thinking he doesn't exists and doesn't have you in his hands.
Now joke how i am an ignorant and bronze age goat herding prophet believing person, but actually i have experienced God and the devil too and both exists.

Of course it is science. Creationists that make this claim have demonstrated that they do not understand the concept of science. Evolution merely explains how life got to the form that we see today. It is neutral towards God.

 

[driewerf]

Evo is not science actually, that intelligence and conciousness can come from non intelligence and build brains bit by bit like evo explains is harder to believe than God, at least with God you have the perfect excuse, he is eternal he existed forever has power and he is smart. But the devil has all people blinded, and thinking he doesn't exists and doesn't have you in his hands.
Now joke how i am an ignorant and bronze age goat herding prophet believing person, but actually i have experienced God and the devil too and both exists.

If you don't want us to make jokes about you, you shouldn't provide such excellent material.

 

[Estrid]

Of course it is science. Creationists that make this claim have demonstrated that they do not understand the concept of science. Evolution merely explains how life got to the form that we see today. It is neutral towards God.

Science in numerous ways shows that certain literal Bible
interpretations simply are not consistent with any relevant data.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science in numerous ways shows that certain literal Bible interpretations simply are not consistent with any relevant data.

We call those inconsistencies "miracles".

 

[Estrid]

.. and "God's mind" there, is not also a mental model you have in your mind, then?
Well, this forum is a confusing mixture of science and belief, however there is a well known truism: "the map is not the territory" ...

This truism is often used as a way of distinguishing maps of reality, from "reality itself", yes?
But that's not actually a scientifically correct interpretation, because it does not restrict to operational (testable) meanings.
The scientifically accessible interpretation is that what we call 'a map', is a different kind of concept than what we call 'a territory', but they are both quite demonstrably concepts, (or models), so they are actually just different kinds of maps.
So the truism, for a scientific thinker, should actually be 'what we call a territory is a different type of map, with different uses and testable justifications, than what we call a map'. .. After all, that is the only claim that science could ever test: whether or not the purposes we lay out for our meaning of "map" and "territory" are suitably serving our needs.

It's as though some people think "maps" and "territories" are just handed to us, and our minds have no part in deciding what we want those words to mean!

Your mind has chosen 'supernatural' as meaning something which is not objectively testable .. it is therefore, just another 'mentally modelled' belief.

If something could be shown to have no detectable cause and effect
relationship and was in clear violation of laws of nature as we know them,
it might be supernatural.

Having various historical figures return to life might be a Sign.

 

[durangodawood]

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."​

I dont see how jumping to one conclusion out of many possible can be called "science".