Start communicating

[razzelflabben]

Then you admit that creationism is not science, but religion?



If you think the conclusions of the Theory of Evolution are unscientific, you are welcome to publish a falsification and collect your Nobel prize and worldwide acclaim. I'll be watching the journals for your scholarship.

Here I thought we were making headway, only to see that instead of listening and trying to understand each other, we are again judging. Please try to focus on listening to each other. no accusations okay.

I think what I am hearing is that there is more to our understanding of life and the world than what science can offer us. A concept shared by many, not just creationsists. Please correct me if I am wrong here littlenipper but that is what I seem to be getting from your comments.

 

[Edx]

I think what I am hearing is that there is more to our understanding of life and the world than what science can offer us..

Some people believe in supernatural things, where is the evidence for such things? If there isnt any this is why science is still the best way to really know if something is really true.

Ed

 

[razzelflabben]

I'm not trying to be judgemental, I'm pointing out a simple fact that we cannot ignore. Most of colloquial speech is extremely ambiguous and intuitive. When you speak to someone, they have to interpret your words because your words don't have exact meanings. In most common speech, this is not a problem because context and environment provide plenty of clues.

However, in science we cannot afford misunderstandings. We cannot assume that context and environment will always provide enough clues for scientists to understand one another, especially when they speak different languages. For this reason, science has developed a complete scientific vocabulary, composed of words appropriately defined for scientific use. We have this vocabulary for a very good reason, and so as much as I'd like to find a reasonable compromise, I'm afraid that creationists will simply have to learn the scientific terms and their definitions. Science cannot describe itself properly with common vocabulary, and so any effort to use common vocabulary for science is misguided from the start.

And yet science books and scientists cannot even agree on some defintions. Let's look at a couple of obvious examples. Species. When I was in school and studying science, the definition for species was much different than it is today. Even in the "scientists" who are discussing creation and evolution, it is important to identify whether the old or the new understanding of species is being used. If I am talking to someone who holds to the old definition, but I am hearing the new, a misunderstanding will occur and this stops communication and insights emotions. Another common example of this is the difference between evolution and the theory of evolution. Most references distinguish between the two, however, there are science publications and scientists that view the two as the same. When we discuss the theory of evolution, what are we talking about. Evolution, or the theory of evolution. For some, there is no difference. When we look in the science books and see a difference, does that automatically mean that we are communicating? NO, we need to clarify what we are saying. That is the point, narrow down our understandings to what we can comprehend. So many times, I have talked with evolutionists that fail to understand the differences between evolution and the theory of evolution and like it or not, the differences are right there in their charished science books.

 

[razzelflabben]

How can you miss my point?

The Theory of Creation is:
1. Not a scientific theory, so isnt a theory. After all they wont ever change their minds anyway so why even pretend.
2. Creationism is simply a strict obstinent adherence to literal interpretation of their scriptures, twisting science to try and pretend to lay people that it has some kind of evidence and reason behind their beliefs.

"Creation":
Is simply those that agree God or Gods are resonsible. Just about every theists believe this unless they have some wacked out odd beliefs. But all Christians clearly do, including Christian scientists* (which does not include Creationists).




Ed

I find your view of creationist disturbing and... well...disturbing will do for now, I sense a lot of anger and hostility toward creationists that I don't understand. Anyway, to me, creation is to be created, for example, I can create a book by doing what is necessary to build a story and express those things for the book to be used by others.

The theory of creation however, is the mechanism and predictions as to how the world and life came into existance, centering on a creator rather than chance. (note nothing about whether it is scientific or not, that is a different discussion)

 

[razzelflabben]

Some people believe in supernatural things, where is the evidence for such things? If there isnt any this is why science is still the best way to really know if something is really true.

Ed

If you want to discuss the evidence of God, PM me, I'll be happy to share the evidence I have seen with my own eyes with you, but that is off topic.

 

[Ledifni]

Here I thought we were making headway, only to see that instead of listening and trying to understand each other, we are again judging. Please try to focus on listening to each other. no accusations okay.

I think what I am hearing is that there is more to our understanding of life and the world than what science can offer us. A concept shared by many, not just creationsists. Please correct me if I am wrong here littlenipper but that is what I seem to be getting from your comments.

I don't know if you realize this, but the worldwide science community is making one statement and one statement only about creationism. That is, it does not qualify as science, by definition. Now, if it is not science then the responsibility to determine its truth does not lie with science. Science does not state that there is not more to our understanding than it can offer; it simply states that science does not address things that are outside of its realm, and that such things should not be artificially put in the realm of science.

Now, you seem to think that when LittleNipper says, "Well, science doesn't know everything! Science is unscientific! Creationism is scientific, not science," that he's making a perfectly reasonable statement that doesn't constitute an attack. When I pointed out that if creationism is above science then it is not science, you construed it as an attack. This is very odd.

It's odd because science has no objection to creationism being "beyond its realm." Creationism addresses issues science can't see? Fine. Great. So, it's religion and let's keep it in religion classes, not in science classes. Past that, there's nothing to argue. It's no accusation; it's a statement of the tautology that if something is not science, it's, um, not science.



Now, you may think that we were making "headway," but I haven't seen any headway made in this thread yet. I'm not sure if you're deliberately trying to work your way around to some complicated "falsification" of evolution, or if you're just trying to get us to accept that creationists really do know what they're talking about when they talk about science (they don't), but whatever the case may be, here are the results:

You've propagated at least one extreme misconception about science in almost every post you've made, as has every single creationist who has posted in this thread yet. Your questions, such as "What's the difference between creation and the Theory of Creation?" serve to cause misunderstanding rather than clarify the point due to the question-begging inherent in your query. The fact that you, and the other creationists here, simply do not understand scientific terms and what they mean causes this thread to run about on all sorts of meaningless tangents that have nothing to do with science and everything to do with the ridiculous creationist caricature of science.

You've undermined the validity of scientific vocabulary by consistently placing it on an equal footing with nonscientific vocabulary, using phrases such as, "What is your understanding of..." and "is your premise that..." and so on. We aren't talking about opinions and understandings and premises and personal beliefs. We're talking about technical vocabulary, which to be useful at all must be strictly defined and not subject to any individual's personal opinion. It's not valid to ask what somebody's opinion is on the meaning of the term "scientific theory." That term already has a meaning that is necessary to clearly communicate between scientists, and even to imply that somebody's contrary opinion about this term might possibly be valid is a direct attack at the very foundations of science, and is furthermore a typical creationist tactic in their attempts to dishonestly invalidate science.

You've utterly dismissed the structured, planned, highly controlled environment in which science must work, and instead attempted to get support for a random, loose system in which everyone's "understanding" is equal and equally valid, just different. Problem is, in an environment like that science cannot happen. Science must have this structure, and your misguided attempts to make science take others' misconceptions into account cannot end well. To do what you suggest would destroy science.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

This brings up another good understanding point, what do you see as the primary difference between the theory of evolution and the theory of creation? Where do the two theories disagree and where if at all do they agree? What seperates the two theories in your opinions?

First of all, I just want to clarify that I don't think there is a single "theory of creation" given that different creationist groups have entirely different ideas. Furthermore, I don't consider any creationist ideas to be a "theory" in the scientific sense.

That said, I think the difference between the theory of evolution versus various creationist theories is the method by which these ideas were arrived at. The theory of evolution was borne out of application of the scientific method. In contrast, creationist theories stem from religious beliefs. As such, the theory of evolution is tested and revised with respect to the scientific method, whereas creationist theories are determined by whatever belief a person happens to believe in.

 

[Ledifni]

And yet science books and scientists cannot even agree on some defintions. Let's look at a couple of obvious examples. Species. When I was in school and studying science, the definition for species was much different than it is today.

You must be the oldest man in the world by far. Otherwise, I can't see how the definition of a species was much different when you were a kid than it is now.

But you're right, scientific definitions change. When they do, it happens for specific reasons under a highly structured and strictly peer-reviewed process, with the approval of the worldwide scientific community. Scientific terms are not subject to the whim of the individual; they're subject to the highly structured environment of science.

Even in the "scientists" who are discussing creation and evolution, it is important to identify whether the old or the new understanding of species is being used. If I am talking to someone who holds to the old definition, but I am hearing the new, a misunderstanding will occur and this stops communication and insights emotions.

And in such a situation, it is the fault of the person using the old definition. He/she should update his/her facts. The appropriate thing to do would be to admit that one is wrong about the definition, and use the correct one from that point on.

But in almost every case I've seen of a creationist misusing scientific terms, it doesn't have anything to do with simple misunderstanding. We tell you guys when you use words wrong -- we're perfectly happy to do so and nobody will judge you on that alone. But the problem is that you creationists keep using your incorrect definitions. You act as if we didn't say a word, or perhaps as if you think we should bow to your superior understanding of science.

Typically, misunderstanding of scientific terms happens very rarely among scientists. The terms used by a given discipline usually stay the same, and when they change, everyone who is actively participating in research in that area of science knows about it. When there is a misunderstanding, the embarrassed scientist immediately stops using the term incorrectly. In this way, clear communication is preserved -- a confused scientist can easiy check the definitions of the terms in question, and his misunderstandings will rapidly become clear as soon as he discusses the subject with other scientists.

Do these misunderstanding become clear any less rapidly on these boards? No. One would think, then, that creationists who misuse scientific terms would quickly mend their ways after coming here -- but that's not what happens. Instead, they tell the scientists that science is using its own terms incorrectly, and continue using the terms however they please. That is, it is not misconceptions that cause these problems of which you speak. It is willful, stubborn ignorance that would rather feel secure in itself than admit that others might have something to teach.

Another common example of this is the difference between evolution and the theory of evolution. Most references distinguish between the two, however, there are science publications and scientists that view the two as the same.

No, there aren't. There are nonscientists who pretend to be scientists and don't know the difference. But there are no biologists who think the process and the theory are one and the same.

When we discuss the theory of evolution, what are we talking about. Evolution, or the theory of evolution. For some, there is no difference.

For the layman, there may be no difference, but if so then he is ignorant of the matter and should not be debating with scientists.

When we look in the science books and see a difference, does that automatically mean that we are communicating? NO, we need to clarify what we are saying. That is the point, narrow down our understandings to what we can comprehend. So many times, I have talked with evolutionists that fail to understand the differences between evolution and the theory of evolution and like it or not, the differences are right there in their charished science books.

The definitions of these terms are quite clearly set down in the appropriate resources. If a person, whether a creationist, scientist, or this unknown individual you refer to as an "evolutionist" (as if, laughably, there could be any kind of "ism" validly attached to a scientific theory), were to disagree with these definitions, he or she is simply wrong and needs to get an education. There's no profitable discussion to be had about these terms -- no matter what you say or how you try to compromise, you can't change the meanings of these terms just because you feel like it. So stop trying.

 

[gluadys]

So then you are understanding the toc to include the flood, is that correct? I always saw them as seperate things, The flood theory being different form the creation theory.

Most versions of creationism I have seen include belief that the flood was literally global, but it is possible to separate special creation from the flood.

This sounds like you are saying that theory is what is preicted. But later I see a different understanding for theory, can you close this gap a bit for us? Thanks

As someone else said, a theory is often expressed as a model. To test the model, one derives predictions from it. (e.g. Our model says X happens. If X happens, then Y must also happen). Then scientists examine the real world to see if Y does or does not happen. If it does not, that means the theoretical model is incorrect, and they go back to revise the model. If it does, then the model is considered provisionally correct and Y is classified as supporting evidence for the model. But it does not mean the model is completely correct, as other predictions can also be derived from the theoretical model, and they need to be tested too. The process of making predictions and testing them (and revising the theory, if necessary) is ongoing.

So we can then say that your understanding of kind is that it is not only undefined, but shifting?

Correct.

Above you seem to be saying the a theory is predictions, here you say it is an explanation, can you clarify the apparent differences please?

See above.

Does this mean that you make no distinctions between evidence and circumstancial evidence?

Correct. Evidence is evidence. Circumstantial evidence is evidence, just as eye-witness evidence is evidence. In fact, it is often better than eye-witness evidence, as eye-witnesses commonly disagree, but circumstantial evidence does not change. A fingerprint is either present or absent. It belongs to either person A or person B.

What would be the least coincidence that you would classify as evidence?

I don’t understand this question.

 

[gluadys]

And yet science books and scientists cannot even agree on some defintions. Let's look at a couple of obvious examples. Species. When I was in school and studying science, the definition for species was much different than it is today.

You haven't posted your age, nor have I, but since my children are in their twenties and I believe (from our previous conversation) that yours are younger, I expect that I am older than you. In short, I was in high school in the late 1950s when Elvis was a new kid on the block.

I am not aware of any change in the scientific definition of species, so I would like to understand what change you think there has been.

What definition of species were you taught in school? How do you see it as being different from the current definition?

(I hope you see this as a continuation of the spirit of the thread, since it is about definitions and the definition of a species is important in biology.)

So many times, I have talked with evolutionists that fail to understand the differences between evolution and the theory of evolution and like it or not, the differences are right there in their charished science books.

I would venture these definitions:

evolution: a process of change in species, which we observe happening in nature.

theory of evolution: a testable model of this process which leads to understanding how and why it occurs.

 

[Valkhorn]

I find your view of creationist disturbing and... well...disturbing will do for now, I sense a lot of anger and hostility toward creationists that I don't understand.

Maybe if it wasn't passed as real science when it isn't and maybe if people actually saw it for what it really is instead of a way to hammer in outdated religious beliefs in schoolchildren we wouldn't have so much to be upset about?

Its the creationist mindset which holds back progress and knowlege as well as education.

The theory of creation however, is the mechanism and predictions as to how the world and life came into existance, centering on a creator rather than chance. (note nothing about whether it is scientific or not, that is a different discussion)

No it is not. It is not a scientific theory. It is not science. It is not even a theory - even in the loosest terms. It cannot explain anything, it does not explain anything, and it will never be able to explain anything.

 

[razzelflabben]

I don't know if you realize this, but the worldwide science community is making one statement and one statement only about creationism. That is, it does not qualify as science, by definition. Now, if it is not science then the responsibility to determine its truth does not lie with science. Science does not state that there is not more to our understanding than it can offer; it simply states that science does not address things that are outside of its realm, and that such things should not be artificially put in the realm of science.

Now, when I do a web search to find out what part of the idea of science I am missing here, this is the definitions that come up that fit the discussion....
<LI>Science is a process for evaluating empirical knowledge (the scientific method), a global community of scholars, and the organized body of knowledge gained by this process and carried by this community (and others). Natural sciences study nature; social sciences study human beings and society.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

[size=-1]<LI>a method of learning about the physical universe by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study
www6.nos.noaa.gov/coris/glossary.lasso[/size]
Last time I checked, our existance was empirical knowledge and any study of that empirical knowledge is included in science. In addition, the toc does include making empirical observations, proposes hypotheses of explaination, and tests can and are done to examine those hypotheses. So how please is the toc not scientific? I have been told on this forum to look at the scientific defintions, okay, the closest definition I can find from an actual scientific discussion is ....In other words, science is a method of discovering reliable knowledge about nature. .... so I am still stumped by your claims. The above is how I understand science and what it is, the above definately can and does include my understanding of the toc as stated in an earlier post, so what do you understand differently and why and where are you getting your ideas?

Now, you seem to think that when LittleNipper says, "Well, science doesn't know everything! Science is unscientific! Creationism is scientific, not science," that he's making a perfectly reasonable statement that doesn't constitute an attack. When I pointed out that if creationism is above science then it is not science, you construed it as an attack. This is very odd.

This is the first time I have read on this thread that science is unscientific, please show me where littlenipper said this! Much less that creationism is scientific, not science! I am trying to listen to all sides, but I fail to see where littlenipper said what you claim here. Please show me so that we are on the same page.

It's odd because science has no objection to creationism being "beyond its realm." Creationism addresses issues science can't see? Fine. Great. So, it's religion and let's keep it in religion classes, not in science classes. Past that, there's nothing to argue. It's no accusation; it's a statement of the tautology that if something is not science, it's, um, not science.

Well first off, I have not seen anyone here claiming that creation is religion, in fact, I think this is the first time I have heard this claim. The claim that it is understood by religion is common, but that it is religion is a new one. Secondly, I would like to ask you to explain your ideas of what religion is.

Now, you may think that we were making "headway," but I haven't seen any headway made in this thread yet. I'm not sure if you're deliberately trying to work your way around to some complicated "falsification" of evolution, or if you're just trying to get us to accept that creationists really do know what they're talking about when they talk about science (they don't), but whatever the case may be, here are the results:

Actually, I am trying to get people to start communicating and listening to each other rather than to always argue. Isn't that a terrible thing to have happen?!

You've propagated at least one extreme misconception about science in almost every post you've made, as has every single creationist who has posted in this thread yet. Your questions, such as "What's the difference between creation and the Theory of Creation?" serve to cause misunderstanding rather than clarify the point due to the question-begging inherent in your query. The fact that you, and the other creationists here, simply do not understand scientific terms and what they mean causes this thread to run about on all sorts of meaningless tangents that have nothing to do with science and everything to do with the ridiculous creationist caricature of science.

Now, I really don't get this at all, firstly, theory is not limited to science at least in my understanding of theory, we can have theories in all kinds of things, like, the theory of why this thread was started as you mention above, the theory of, why my children are tall, the theory of why I sometimes can't spell a word right to save myself, there are thousands of things I can have a theory about and the only ones I have heard here making claims as to how scientific the toc is are evolutionists. (the above being the first to the contrary and believe it or not I am not a creationist nor and evolutionist by definition, so I guess that still leaves us at the same place) secondly, whether you believe that the toc is scientific or not, does not mean that the term does not exist. If the terms exist then there is a meaning to the terms somewhere in this discussion and any discussion that denys that is meaningless dribble. You may not know what it means, you may believe it means something different from what someone else thinks it means, etc. but there is a meaning and that meaning must be identified before communication can continue.

You've undermined the validity of scientific vocabulary by consistently placing it on an equal footing with nonscientific vocabulary, using phrases such as, "What is your understanding of..." and "is your premise that..." and so on. We aren't talking about opinions and understandings and premises and personal beliefs. We're talking about technical vocabulary, which to be useful at all must be strictly defined and not subject to any individual's personal opinion. It's not valid to ask what somebody's opinion is on the meaning of the term "scientific theory." That term already has a meaning that is necessary to clearly communicate between scientists, and even to imply that somebody's contrary opinion about this term might possibly be valid is a direct attack at the very foundations of science, and is furthermore a typical creationist tactic in their attempts to dishonestly invalidate science.

Okay, so you then are saying that scientific theory is offered before an observation or after? I have talked to evolutionists that cannot agree with which it is, because their claims are inconsistant. Which do you hold to? Please review the following defintions for scientific theory before you claim that it is a consistant understanding. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2003-34,GGLD:en&oi=defmore&q=define:scientific+theory

You've utterly dismissed the structured, planned, highly controlled environment in which science must work, and instead attempted to get support for a random, loose system in which everyone's "understanding" is equal and equally valid, just different. Problem is, in an environment like that science cannot happen. Science must have this structure, and your misguided attempts to make science take others' misconceptions into account cannot end well. To do what you suggest would destroy science.

WE are not preforming some scientific experiment here, we are trying to establish meaningful communication.

 

[razzelflabben]

You must be the oldest man in the world by far. Otherwise, I can't see how the definition of a species was much different when you were a kid than it is now.

In fact, I am a woman and though my children think I know everything about the age of the dinosaurs, I assure you I am no where close to that age young one, the changes to the definitions of species are relatively new ones though I would not expect you to understand this at your age.

But you're right, scientific definitions change. When they do, it happens for specific reasons under a highly structured and strictly peer-reviewed process, with the approval of the worldwide scientific community. Scientific terms are not subject to the whim of the individual; they're subject to the highly structured environment of science.

Change in definitions equals a time when there is confusion in getting the changes known. It is these changes, and the time in which change is occuring that people get lost and confused and loose track of what people are saying.

And in such a situation, it is the fault of the person using the old definition. He/she should update his/her facts. The appropriate thing to do would be to admit that one is wrong about the definition, and use the correct one from that point on.

Huh? communication is a two way street young one, it involves two or more people, not one. No one is at fault, it is a flaw in the speaking and listening and the interpretation there of. Someone has had to explain this to you somewhere along the line. Communication is the responsibility of two individuals not just one.

But in almost every case I've seen of a creationist misusing scientific terms, it doesn't have anything to do with simple misunderstanding. We tell you guys when you use words wrong --

Does this mean you are lumping me in the catagory of creationist without knowing what I believe?

we're perfectly happy to do so and nobody will judge you on that alone. But the problem is that you creationists keep using your incorrect definitions. You act as if we didn't say a word, or perhaps as if you think we should bow to your superior understanding of science.

This is a totally different picture I have gotten from the creationist that are willing to communicate. I wonder why the differences in our experiences?

No, there aren't. There are nonscientists who pretend to be scientists and don't know the difference. But there are no biologists who think the process and the theory are one and the same.

I have run into quite a few, sorry to disappoint you.

[quoe]For the layman, there may be no difference, but if so then he is ignorant of the matter and should not be debating with scientists.[/quote] So are you cliaming that every person debating here on the forum is a scientist or just that every evolutionist debating on the forum is a scientist? I have talked to both that admit to the contrary.

The definitions of these terms are quite clearly set down in the appropriate resources. If a person, whether a creationist, scientist, or this unknown individual you refer to as an "evolutionist" (as if, laughably, there could be any kind of "ism" validly attached to a scientific theory), were to disagree with these definitions, he or she is simply wrong and needs to get an education. There's no profitable discussion to be had about these terms -- no matter what you say or how you try to compromise, you can't change the meanings of these terms just because you feel like it. So stop trying.

I am not asking for the meanings to be changed, only clarified. And btw, I take it from this paragraph that you don't believe that there is any belief system involved in the toe?

 

[razzelflabben]

As someone else said, a theory is often expressed as a model. To test the model, one derives predictions from it. (e.g. Our model says X happens. If X happens, then Y must also happen). Then scientists examine the real world to see if Y does or does not happen. If it does not, that means the theoretical model is incorrect, and they go back to revise the model. If it does, then the model is considered provisionally correct and Y is classified as supporting evidence for the model. But it does not mean the model is completely correct, as other predictions can also be derived from the theoretical model, and they need to be tested too. The process of making predictions and testing them (and revising the theory, if necessary) is ongoing.

So then is it fair to say that you understand theory to only be an expression of what we expect to see and not an explaination of what we have seen? Is the toc also able to revise itself?


Correct. Evidence is evidence. Circumstantial evidence is evidence, just as eye-witness evidence is evidence. In fact, it is often better than eye-witness evidence, as eye-witnesses commonly disagree, but circumstantial evidence does not change. A fingerprint is either present or absent. It belongs to either person A or person B.



I don’t understand this question.[/QUOTE]The question is in relation to what circumstancial evidence is, for example, if my fingerprint is found at say my grandmothers house, that doesn't automatically mean that I stole her banana. When is scientific evidence to weak to explain a theory? Or is there such a thing? Is all evidence even my fingerprint at my grandmothers (so to speak) enough to support the theory I want to support?

 

[razzelflabben]

You haven't posted your age, nor have I, but since my children are in their twenties and I believe (from our previous conversation) that yours are younger, I expect that I am older than you. In short, I was in high school in the late 1950s when Elvis was a new kid on the block.

I am not aware of any change in the scientific definition of species, so I would like to understand what change you think there has been.

What definition of species were you taught in school? How do you see it as being different from the current definition?

(I hope you see this as a continuation of the spirit of the thread, since it is about definitions and the definition of a species is important in biology.)

I ran across a decent discussion on this on the web the other day, I am currently looking for it on another web page, it can explain it better than I. I couldn't find the one I was reviewing but this one is okay http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species about 2/3 of the way down the page. My husband and I were both taught that species are identified by appearance, and not by ability to reproduce. That definition has changed over time and that is cool, but it doesn't mean that all people have left this teaching behind. And yes, I have no problem with the question, it helps in communication which is the point. If I get time I will look for the other site tomorrow.

I would venture these definitions:

evolution: a process of change in species, which we observe happening in nature.

theory of evolution: a testable model of this process which leads to understanding how and why it occurs.

Actually, the defintions for the theory of evolution almost always include common ancestry, but this concept is rarely or never maybe would be better wording, included in the definition for evolution. As a result of these differences, I understand the words to mean different things.

 

[razzelflabben]

Maybe if it wasn't passed as real science when it isn't and maybe if people actually saw it for what it really is instead of a way to hammer in outdated religious beliefs in schoolchildren we wouldn't have so much to be upset about?

Its the creationist mindset which holds back progress and knowlege as well as education.

Interesting thoughts, how does the crationist mindset hold back progress and knowledge, education?



[/quote]No it is not. It is not a scientific theory. It is not science. It is not even a theory - even in the loosest terms. It cannot explain anything, it does not explain anything, and it will never be able to explain anything.[/QUOTE]Interesting, I didn't say it was a scientific theory, in fact I made it clear that I did not say it was, and you read it as me saying it is a scientific theory. The rest of this I have already covered in another post, but I wonder why you assume that in order for something to be a theory it must be claiming to be a scientific theory? Why is that?

 

[PMM]

No. We can form conclusions about what happened in the past based on observation ... we've just rendered a huge chunk of human knowledge as completely un-reliable.

Conclusions are still hypothetical, because they do not allow the possibility of catastrophe. The evolutionist who says, "I know this rock is one million years old because I can test the radioactive decay rate and extrapolate," can not substantiate the original makeup of the rock or what external forces were exposed to the rock.

Take the simple potato-peeling model:

Razelflabben is peeling potatos. Valhorn watches him and observes that Raz peels 40 potatos in one hour. Val then observes Raz has a total of 80 potatos in the "already-peeled" pile. Val concludes Raz has been peeling potatos for 2 hours.

That is a theory. Val used scientific observation correctly, but Val can not say with certainty that Raz has been peeling for 2 hours. Why? Here are a few variables Val could not observe:

1. Before Val saw Raz, PMM came in and took away 80 potatos from Raz' "already-peeled" pile. So the 2 hours COULD become 4 hours.

2. Raz is a beginner at peeling. When he started, he only peeled 15 potatos in the first hour, then 25 in the next hour, then Val came and saw Raz peel 40 in an hour. It actually took 3 hours to make 80 potatos, but Val didn't see it.

Of course, combinations and adjusting the parameters will cause even more corruptions of the conclusions.

So what's the point? Observation only occurs in the present. In the potato peeling example, science was used to observe processes in the present, but the conclusions were only theoretical. The concept of uniformatarianism (things proceed at the same rates at all times with no interference) is flawed. That is why this huge chunk of human knowledge is indeed unreliable!

 

[Edx]

I find your view of creationist disturbing and... well...disturbing will do for now, I sense a lot of anger and hostility toward creationists that I don't understand.

You will understand if you argue with them long enough and have the understanding that they want their unscientific nonsence taught in science lessons.

nyway, to me, creation is to be created, for example, I can create a book by doing what is necessary to build a story and express those things for the book to be used by others.

Yes. Now "Creationists" would think the book was magically poofed out of nothing fully formed.

See the difference now?

The theory of creation however, is the mechanism and predictions as to how the world and life came into existance, centering on a creator rather than chance. (note nothing about whether it is scientific or not, that is a different discussion)

There are no mechanisms, and one of the main reasons why "the theory of Creation" isnt science in any way at all is that it has no idea what mechanisms there are except it was gods magic


Ed

 

[Edx]

If you want to discuss the evidence of God, PM me, I'll be happy to share the evidence I have seen with my own eyes with you, but that is off topic.

My point was that it isnt science, and Creationism and ID are inherently unscientific.

Ed

 

[gluadys]

Last time I checked, our existance was empirical knowledge and any study of that empirical knowledge is included in science.

No, not every study of the empirical knowledge of our existence is included in science. The study has to follow the scientific method as well. Based on observed data, it has to construct a testable hypothesis and then run the test and analyse the results. And finally, one has to submit it to other scientists in the field for criticism.

In addition, the toc does include making empirical observations, proposes hypotheses of explaination, and tests can and are done to examine those hypotheses. So how please is the toc not scientific?

Apparently, in spite of many people telling you that there is no theory of creation, you wish to assert that there is.

So let me ask you: in your understanding of the "theory of creation" is it asserted that a deity used supernatural means to create at least one species?

If yes---that alone makes a "theory of creation" unscientific.

If you need further explanation of this, just ask.

Now, I really don't get this at all, firstly, theory is not limited to science

Scientific theories are limited to science. Scientific theories are not mere guesses or opinions. They are conclusions based on testing out hypotheses.

You may have an opinion about why your children are tall, or why you can't spell. But unless you have tested that opinion using the scientific method, it is not a theory in the sense that science uses the term.

secondly, whether you believe that the toc is scientific or not, does not mean that the term does not exist. If the terms exist then there is a meaning to the terms somewhere in this discussion

There are lots of terms that apply to things that don't exist: e.g. tooth fairy or unicorn. The terms for them exist, and the terms have a meaning. It doesn't mean that what the terms apply to exist.

Just so, we can use a phrase like "theory of creation" and even give it a definition. That doesn't mean that a "theory of creation" actually exists any more than it means a unicorn exists.

In scientific terms, there is no "theory of creation".


I have another question to ask you, but I need to review the thread first.