Why can't creation scientists do "science"?

[Subduction Zone]

There are people with scientific training, and even some actual scientists, that are creationists. Yet none of them can seem to do any science when it comes to creationism.

Does anyone have an explanation for that?

Odds are that we will have to go over the basics of science in this thread.

 

[Lost4words]

There are people with scientific training, and even some actual scientists, that are creationists. Yet none of them can seem to do any science when it comes to creationism.

Does anyone have an explanation for that?

Odds are that we will have to go over the basics of science in this thread.

It must be awesome to be such an expert and know that only you have all the answers and are much more clever than others?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It must be awesome to be such an expert and know that only you have all the answers and are much more clever than others?

Where do I even imply that?

I was merely stating a well known fact. Creationists simply do not do science when they oppose evolution. They have no scientific evidence for their beliefs. Are you willing to learn the basics? They are not that hard to understand.

 

[pitabread]

When creationists attempt to apply science to investigation of creationism, invariably the results seem to contradict their beliefs. A few examples off the top of my head are ICR's RATE project, plate tectonics and flood geology, and attempts to develop quantifiable baraminology methods.

Since their creationist beliefs override any conclusions they derive from scientific inquiry, it does make scientific inquiry seem pointless.

 

[Hans Blaster]

There was a thread recently about if creationism was fundamentally anti-intellectual. (Of course it is.) An intellectual approach is one of deep (and hopefully dispassionate) examination. The conflict between the inherent anti-intellectualism of creationism and the intellectual nature of science is too great.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When creationists do attempt to apply science to investigation of creationism, invariably the results seem to contradict their beliefs. A few examples off the top of my head are ICR's RATE project, plate tectonics and flood geology, and attempts to develop quantifiable baraminology methods.

Since their creationist beliefs override any conclusions they derive from scientific inquiry, it does make scientific inquiry seem rather pointless.

It is rather sad that almost every single creationist site openly requires their own workers not to use the scientific method. I was wondering if any creationists could explain this but instead the only response so far was a personal attack.

 

[1rreducibly Complex]

What stands out to me the most is how atheists and secularists overwhelmingly hate innovators and inventors like Elon Musk who have done the most to progress engineering and science fields.

While right wing believers in God respect and support Elon Musk for doing the most to elevate society, protect the environment and raise our standard of living.

If atheists were to list who their favorite scientists are it would likely be full of personalities like Bill Nye and Richard Dawkins. Those cast in their own self image.

 

[pitabread]

What stands out to me the most is how atheists and secularists overwhelmingly hate innovators and inventors like Elon Musk who have done the most to progress engineering and science fields.

While right wing believers in God respect and support Elon Musk for doing the most to elevate society, protect the environment and raise our standard of living.

If atheists were to list who their favorite scientists are it would likely be full of personalities like Bill Nye and Richard Dawkins. Those cast in their own self image.

Do you have anything to possibly support these claims or are you just blowing hot air?

 

[1rreducibly Complex]

Do you have anything to possibly support these claims or are you just blowing hot air?

I'm saying it as it is true.

Whenever you see someone hating on Elon Musk. Its always some woke, secularist, SJW. Who claims to love science on one hand. While viciously hating those who have contributed the most to science like Elon Musk with the other.

Short sellers who tried to kill tesla stock were overwhelmingly atheist. And organizations like NASA and the SEC who tried to crackdown on Elon Musk were also marxist secularist leaning.

 

[pitabread]

I'm saying it as it is true.

Whenever you see someone hating on Elon Musk. Its always some woke, secularist, SJW. Who claims to love science on one hand. While viciously hating those who have contributed the most to science like Elon Musk with the other.

Hot air it is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What stands out to me the most is how atheists and secularists overwhelmingly hate innovators and inventors like Elon Musk who have done the most to progress engineering and science fields.

While right wing believers in God respect and support Elon Musk for doing the most to elevate society, protect the environment and raise our standard of living.

If atheists were to list who their favorite scientists are it would likely be full of personalities like Bill Nye and Richard Dawkins. Those cast in their own self image.

What on Earth are you talking about? I know of some atheists that do not like Elon Musk and I know of some Christians that do not like him. There is no such unity among atheists. If anything I find far more "hatred" coming from specific Christian groups.

And that has nothing to do with this thread. If you are a creationist then the odds are that you do not understand the scientific method. Here is a rough flow chart of the scientific method. It is not the only one. It is not written in stone. But it gives a person a good idea of how science is done. Creationists do not follow this idea:

At least they do not in the field of creationism. As I said, there are creationists that can do science in other areas.

 

[miamited]

There are people with scientific training, and even some actual scientists, that are creationists. Yet none of them can seem to do any science when it comes to creationism.

Does anyone have an explanation for that?

Odds are that we will have to go over the basics of science in this thread.

@Subduction Zone

Personally, I'd rather know when scientists are going to be able understand what a miracle is?

You think, that because science have given you answers to questions that they can't possibly really know, that they know what they're talking about. Answer me one question: How does the scientific community explain the birth of a child from a woman who has never had sexual relations, 2000 years ago?

God bless,
Ted

 

[1rreducibly Complex]

Here is a rough flow chart of the scientific method.

Some studies conclude between 30% and 60% of published scientific results. Could not be reproduced.

The sad truth about the scientific method is there isn't anyone involved who is paid full time to fact check anything that is published. And so a high percentage of published science is often falsified.

 

[Hans Blaster]

What stands out to me the most is how atheists and secularists overwhelmingly hate innovators and inventors like Elon Musk who have done the most to progress engineering and science fields.

While right wing believers in God respect and support Elon Musk for doing the most to elevate society, protect the environment and raise our standard of living.

If atheists were to list who their favorite scientists are it would likely be full of personalities like Bill Nye and Richard Dawkins. Those cast in their own self image.

Non-sequitur much?

To my knowledge Musk has nothing to do with the Creo/Evo debate. He is neither a known creationist, or a scientist. What "atheists & secularists" think of him is irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[1rreducibly Complex]

Hot air it is.

Who is your favorite modern day scientist, inventor, innovator?

I wouldn't be surprised if many athiests hate Elon Musk so much they couldn't rank him in their top 10.

Atheists hate those who do real science with real world application.

 

[pitabread]

At least they do not in the field of creationism. As I said, there are creationists that can do science in other areas.

This is actually a source of great irony.

I've been watching Creation Myth Youtube videos later, where evolutionary biologist Dan Cardinale debunks a lot of creationist claims.

What's fascinating to me is when he debunks creationist claims coming from credentialed creationists and he continues to wonder how they are getting certain things so blatantly wrong. For example, he has a video debunking the claims of Dr. Robert Carter in the film Is Genesis History?. Yet Dr. Carter has a legit biology degree and PhD (marine biology) and has legit work in the field, yet still makes numerous misleading and outright incorrect claims in that film.

Are they doing on purpose? Do they really just not know better? Is there something else going on?

It's a fascinating thing to observe at any rate.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Short sellers who tried to kill tesla stock were overwhelmingly atheist. And organizations like NASA and the SEC who tried to crackdown on Elon Musk were also marxist secularist leaning.

Shouldn't you take this to the stock speculation board?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Who is your favorite modern day scientist, inventor, innovator?

Me.

 

[pitabread]

Atheists hate those who do real science with real world application.

Are we being Poe'd? I feel like we're being Poe'd.

 

[Landon Caeli]

There are people with scientific training, and even some actual scientists, that are creationists. Yet none of them can seem to do any science when it comes to creationism.

Does anyone have an explanation for that?

Odds are that we will have to go over the basics of science in this thread.

Well, someone has to make science interesting. You know, it gets kind of boring when everything is based on "negatives", e.g. : the only reason such and such exists is because this and that were weeded out through natural selection.

...Negativity is depressing.