Why can't creation scientists do "science"?

[Subduction Zone]

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.

 

[Landon Caeli]

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.

 

[pitabread]

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.

 

[1rreducibly Complex]

 

[Hans Blaster]

GMOs use glyphosate. Courts have awarded millions in reparations for damages.

I use glyphosate. I am not a GMO.

 

[Landon Caeli]

No, it all applied. Instead of denial it is better to ask questions when one does not understand.

I'd be careful with those false accusations.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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?

 

[Landon Caeli]

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.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'd be careful with those false accusations.

What false accusations?

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Unsupported nonsense is not a "reasonable dialogue".

 

[Subduction Zone]

So what? Newton only appealed to God when he ran into problems that he did not understand. How does his ignorance support your beliefs?

 

[Landon Caeli]

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".

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

 

[Hans Blaster]

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?]

 

[1rreducibly Complex]

I use glyphosate. I am not a GMO.

One of many disturbing possibilities relating to GMOs and glyphosate.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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".

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.

 

[Subduction Zone]

One of many disturbing possibilities relating to glyphosate.

Please. always link your sources. Quotes without sources are all but worthless.

 

[sjastro]

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.

 

[pitabread]

FYI, if you want to quote sources, it's better to quote as proper text (e.g. not images) and include a link to the source.

 

[1rreducibly Complex]

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.

The shift in his stance is documented and known.

What Stephen Hawking believed about death, afterlife and the creation of the universe

 

[Landon Caeli]

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.