• 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.

Why can't creation scientists do "science"?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Stephen Hawking astrophysicist*

Correct, you did not understand the analogy.

"No support whatsoever."

Speaking as if one is all knowing is not a very scientific mentality.

I had two excerpts that showed the change in his stance over time, incidentally. Let me see if I can find it.

No, if you make a claim about someone else the burden of proof is upon you to support it. If you do not support that claim then there is "No support whatsoever". Instead of wasting time you should have supported your claim.

But again, why go to Stephen Hawking about evolution? He was not a biologist.
 
Upvote 0

Landon Caeli

I ♡ potato pancakes
Site Supporter
Jan 8, 2016
17,440
6,678
48
North Bay
✟788,609.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
And you were wrong. That was why you got the response that you did.

No one has settled on the evolution side. That is what creationists appear to have done. You had your claim one hundred percent backwards.

I'm pretty sure we're talking about two different types of creationism... I get that feeling when you say that Creationists have settled, because I see these people actively sresearching and trying to solve problems.

...On the other hand, there are scientists who boldly claim: "we don't answer the why's, we only answer the how's"... That's giving up.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
I'm sure we're both aware that there are forms of Creationism that involve no God or gods... There are some highly intelligent people who value these hypotheses as potentially relevant... These people would naturally also view evolution as legitimate.

Todd Wood is a Christian Young-Earth creationist. He's definitely NOT someone who eschews the existence of god.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Landon Caeli
Upvote 0
Sep 8, 2012
385
211
✟14,978.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
6PayWZi.jpg
 
Upvote 0

Landon Caeli

I ♡ potato pancakes
Site Supporter
Jan 8, 2016
17,440
6,678
48
North Bay
✟788,609.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I'm pretty sure we're talking about two different types of creationism... I get that feeling when you say that Creationists have settled, because these people are actively studying and trying to solve answers.

...On the other hand, there are scientists who boldly claim: "we don't answer the why's, we answer the how's"... That's giving up.

Please provide support for your various claims about others. This entire thread is an invitation for creationist to provide examples of how I am wrong with creation "scientists" actually using the scientific method. Instead of that all we have are personal attacks. False claims about atheist and quite a bit of nonsense.


Is it really too much to expect creationists to support what they belief using the scientific method?
 
Upvote 0

Landon Caeli

I ♡ potato pancakes
Site Supporter
Jan 8, 2016
17,440
6,678
48
North Bay
✟788,609.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Please provide support for your various claims about others. This entire thread is an invitation for creationist to provide examples of how I am wrong with creation "scientists" actually using the scientific method. Instead of that all we have are personal attacks. False claims about atheist and quite a bit of nonsense.


Is it really too much to expect creationists to support what they belief using the scientific method?

I would offer supporting evidence if I were citing some study... But I'm not. I'm just trying to create reasonable dialogue. I'm not interested in debate.
 
Upvote 0

Landon Caeli

I ♡ potato pancakes
Site Supporter
Jan 8, 2016
17,440
6,678
48
North Bay
✟788,609.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Unsupported nonsense is not a "reasonable dialogue".

All I said was that a lot of people feel unsatisfied with the extent of science's findings in regards to what induces life to behave the way it does. I don’t know why that would seem so "unreasonable" or like "nonsense". :rolleyes:

...People are unsatisfied, obviously, so they've taken other measures, or gone different routes... It's really very simple.
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

On August Recess
Mar 11, 2017
21,651
16,345
55
USA
✟411,114.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
I think everyone knows Stephen Hawking was open minded and supportive of creationism.

Until considerable pressure was applied for him to support the opposite stance.

The motive behind schools endorsing atheism involves money and power in the world overwhelmingly supporting that view over religion.

I've never heard that. I'm not sure why he would though, as the primary motivation for creationism believe is religious belief and Hawking was not in a religion.

[Where is the pro-atheism money, and how do I get some?]
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
All I said was that a lot of people feel unsatisfied with the extent of science's findings in regards to what induces life to behave the way it does. I don’t know why that would seem "unreasonable" or like "nonsense". :rolleyes:
That is nonsense. Being unhappy with events that are well supported by evidence shows that a person is not reasoning rationally.

When you say that some are dissatisfied with evolution that only merits a "So what?" in response.

If one does not like scientific findings then the solution is obvious. Use science yourself to show that they are wrong. Creationists seem to be incapable of doing this. This thread is begging for examples of creationists using the scientific method to support their beliefs.
 
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
5,746
4,677
✟347,741.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I've never heard that. I'm not sure why he would though, as the primary motivation for creationism believe is religious belief and Hawking was not in a religion.

[Where is the pro-atheism money, and how do I get some?]
This is strong evidence of a multiverse.
A visitor from a parallel universe is describing events in their universe.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0
Sep 8, 2012
385
211
✟14,978.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Upvote 0

Landon Caeli

I ♡ potato pancakes
Site Supporter
Jan 8, 2016
17,440
6,678
48
North Bay
✟788,609.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
That is nonsense. Being unhappy with events that are well supported by evidence shows that a person is not reasoning rationally.

When you say that some are dissatisfied with evolution that only merits a "So what?" in response.

If one does not like scientific findings then the solution is obvious. Use science yourself to show that they are wrong. Creationists seem to be incapable of doing this. This thread is begging for examples of creationists using the scientific method to support their beliefs.

Show me the well supported evidence of *why* life evolved.

...If you can't, then just know that's why the hypothesis of Creationism exists, and will continue to exist as a hypothesis, until enough data is gathered to apply the scientific method... Until then, the scientific method will remain on the backburner.

...Should be easy enough to understand.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.