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.
Vance said:Creation "Science" starts with a preconceived concept or theory and then goes and looks for data and evidence to support it.
Scholar in training said:You're treading on dangerous ground. Some people would call God a preconceived concept and would apply your argument not only to YEC but to God's very existance.
Well this leave Darwin's theory out since the evidence was againest his theory from the very beginning. Even Darwin saw this but hope later the evidence would point in the other direction which didn't happen. In Fact , mendel's experiments was more on target than Darwin yet the world promoted Darwin's theory with the help of some deceivers with made false drawing and false skull. Of where would this theory be today without these liers in the past promoting TOE ? probably in the waste basket. I can't help but question anything that based on lies. I wonder how many liers and deceivers are promoting this theory today. (of course I not saying all evolutionists are liers yet a few good lies can deceive the masses).Vance said:Science, when done correctly, derives its concepts and theories *from* the data and evidence it finds.
This can be said of all science especially evolution. so do you believe scripture are evidence. They weren't written by rocket scientist but by Godly men. So is scientists with their super duper egos more creditable to you than Godly men who wrote scriptures?Creation "Science" starts with a preconceived concept or theory and then goes and looks for data and evidence to support it.
Darwins theory? Darwin went on nothing but appearance and nothing else. It was scientist who disagree with Darwin at first which why a few evolutionist had to make false evidence to influence the science world.Of course, when you go specifically looking for something to support your theory, and you are willing to analyze every evidence in the light most favorable to your theory, you will definitely find some bits and pieces here and there which seem to support your theory. You can even develop a form of "model" based on these bits and pieces which, when combined with your preconceived theory, sounds convincing to those who want to be convinced (but to no one else).
YECs will insist that science also starts with preconceived concepts, such as the basic tenets of evolution, or of gravity, or hundreds of other building blocks upon which they do their current work. And, to an extent, this is true. But there are a few major differences:
1. These theories or concepts first arose *from* the physical evidence and data. YECist preconceptions arose from a particular reading of Scripture (and one that *only* YECs accept).
What? Look what happen to Richard Sternberg. It's a known fact that either you support evolution , Big bang ,etc. or no money for you. hey, I love to learn about space and will eat this stuff up but IMO Big Bang is garbage and I believe scientists know it is. i feel the same with evolution. this is why groups like ID is a real danger.2. The entire scientific community is set up to encourage challenges and criticisms of theories and concepts. The YEC community states right up front that their preconceived starting points (an old earth, some limitation on Gods ability to create through evolution) are not up for debate.
science can easily become dogma just like any religious text. Scientific community has to go where the money leads also. I was watching Nova a few years ago and the reporter even commented that one scientist believes the other scientist are idiots. So scientific community will go where their egos ago too. The science community cannot admit the creationists was right no matter how strong the evidence since it would destroy many their egos.3. Scientific theories will be abandoned if and when there is sufficient evidence and cogent analysis which shows that it can not be true. In short, the scientific community will go wherever the overwhelming evidence leads them, even if the path is not what they expected or if it upsets their comfort zones. The YEC community has placed a very specific line where they will not go, no matter what the evidence says.
I totally disagree with you since the majority of this world really don't wants to hear the truth. It seems you got all more faith in these scientist and their knowledge than I do. ( I know a loved one who has a lot of faith in their doctor while I see it just like any business. later I warn her as I questioned the doctor and later she found out I was right.) While I not YEC as the planet earth has be be 6,000 years old i do believe the earth as we know it is. I'm personally Thank God for YEC even though I don't always agree with them since someone needs to stand up againest this ungodly world and their lies. If it wasn't for YEC , evolutionist would probably tell even bigger lies than the ones in the past. So atleast YEC help made evolutionist somewhat more honest which eventually lead to ID. I could easily see how bias scientist was even before I knew about ID ,ICR, etc. and was so happy to learn their were exactly other like me who saw a lot of these theory as bologna epecially Big Bang. the last series I saw on PBS on Big Bang was so bad I couldn't stop laughing.HERE IS THE KICKER: if we took some intelligent investigators and magically took away all the preconceived ideas, simply wiped them out of their brains, then presented them with the world as it is, they would eventually come up with what science tells us now, or something very much like it. They would NEVER, EVER, come up with any theory which has been presented by a Creation "Scientist". An objective, independent view of our earth and universe would never come up with a global flood, a young earth, etc, etc.
So, in reality, the scientific community, as a whole, is seeking for truth about the natural world. The YEC community is seeking for support. Thus, Creation Science is apologetics, not science.
Darwin even admitted the fossils records was againest his theory which was the reason why so many scientist reject it from the beginning.Vance said:What Darwin observed WAS evidence, it was data. He drew conclusions FROM that data. It all started there. So, you entire position is wrong from the first line.
Smidlee said:Darwin even admitted the fossils records was againest his theory which was the reason why so many scientist reject it from the beginning.
Vance said:No, the scientific conclusions reached about the age of the earth, evolution, etc, all derive FROM the evidence. It may still be wrong, it can be an incorrect reading of the evidence, or based on too small a sample, etc. All science hold their conclusions only to the degree supported by the evidence. But any given current theory is based ON the evidence, not on some presumption independent of the evidence.
That is why Creation Science is NOT science. It is apologetics.
ChrisS said:Once again, we all have the same facts, we just interpret them differently.
Vance said:Not all interpretations are created equal. First of all, if you are interpreting facts with an admitted goal of finding facts to fit your theory, then you will almost assuredly interpret most of your facts incorrectly. Using a framework derived from earlier conclusions derived FROM THE EVIDENCE is acceptable to science, since it is a practical way of avoiding have to reinvent that wheel with every experiment. BUT, what Creation scientists do is interpret the evidence from a preconception that has nothing AT ALL to do with the evidence, but from their particular reading of Scripture.
This takes it entirely outside the realm of science, which is simply the study of how the natural world works.
Again, it is apologetics. It could still be correct, but that is not my point. It is NOT SCIENCE, and should not call it itself science or pretend to be science. It should not claim that its conclusions are scientific conclusions, or seek to have it taught AS SCIENCE.
I realize that many fossils have been found in the present day - more than Darwin could vouch for when he was alive - but there still aren't enough fossils to support the theory of evolution. If evolution were true, then we should see millions of fossils depicting all the discreet changes in mammals' bone structure throughout their lifespans on earth; but are they there? No, as far as I know. There aren't nearly as many fossils as one would expect there to be.Vance said:You are misrepresenting Darwin. He said that we do not yet have enough evidence from the fossil record to support his idea, and what little we had didn't always fit. But the fossil record is only one TINY fraction of the total evidence upon which he based his conclusion.
Scholar in training said:I realize that many fossils have been found in the present day - more than Darwin could vouch for when he was alive - but there still aren't enough fossils to support the theory of evolution. If evolution were true, then we should see millions of fossils depicting all the discreet changes in mammals' bone structure throughout their lifespans on earth; but are they there? No, as far as I know. There aren't nearly as many fossils as one would expect there to be.
On the Narrow Road said:Again, this sounds suspiciously like many scientists use of "facts" and evidence. For example: astronomy. Hmmm, let's theorize about a black hole, then find evidence for it. Maybe "dark matter" Evidence for a "black hole" is virtually non-existent and there are far better theories to explain the evidence they are using. Yet scientists continue to shape the evidence to support their theory of a black hole. Evolution seems to me a similar construct. Someone came up with a theory and went looking for evidence...
Vance said:What Darwin observed WAS evidence, it was data. He drew conclusions FROM that data. It all started there. So, you entire position is wrong from the first line.
PaladinValer said:YECism is honest? How many times have I noticed a YEC misuse the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? Or perhaps say that the theory of evolution says that humanity came from apes? That's honesty? If so, then I may as well chuck out the passages in the Bible where it says "do not falsely accuse your neighbor."
ChrisS said:The truth is, we all have the same facts, we just interpret them differently. That's what it all comes down to.
On the Narrow Road said:Again, this sounds suspiciously like many scientists use of "facts" and evidence. For example: astronomy. Hmmm, let's theorize about a black hole, then find evidence for it. Maybe "dark matter" Evidence for a "black hole" is virtually non-existent and there are far better theories to explain the evidence they are using. Yet scientists continue to shape the evidence to support their theory of a black hole. Evolution seems to me a similar construct. Someone came up with a theory and went looking for evidence...
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?