• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

For creationists: ToE basic glossary of terms.

Alceste

Vagabond
It's become pretty obvious from the arguments offered by evolution deniers that there is a giant gulf between what the ToE lingo actually means and what creationists think it means.

So, I thought I'd start a thread clarifying the meaning of the terms used by scientists to describe the process of evolution in the hope that, from there, we can one day move on to clarifying what the ToE actually says, and predicts, and why the evidence for it is considered overwhelmingly compelling by scientists.

Let me start with the most important one: Science "(from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is in its broadest sense any ... prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome." (wiki)

OK so far? Any questions? Does everybody understand why creationism is not "science"? I will explain if needed (i.e. explain the term "prediction"). If not, we can move on to another word.
 

Man of Faith

Well-Known Member
Before we move away from the word science, I have a question. Can those that believe in creation do science or do only those that believe in evolution do science?
 

MSizer

MSizer
Before we move away from the word science, I have a question. Can those that believe in creation do science or do only those that believe in evolution do science?

What? That's like asking whether only existentialists can philosophize? Just because different people have varying degrees of competence in a certain area, it doesn't mean they can't do it. Creationism is certainly not science in any way, but a person who believes genesis can still make observations about the world and draw conclusions.

Let's not derail.

Definitions or questions for Alceste?
 

Tristesse

Well-Known Member
Before we move away from the word science, I have a question. Can those that believe in creation do science or do only those that believe in evolution do science?

well, it depends on what you mean by creation. If by creation you mean someone who literally believes the earth is less than 10,000 years old, and thinks the flinstones is a documentary, than I would hope these individuals stay as far away from science as possible. But on the other hand if you mean someone who has religious beliefs, than yes, there are a number of good scientists who are religious, that don't by into the literal genesis account, with good reason. And by the way, when you say creation, you're going to have to be a little more specific, because there are a number of creation myths. You just happen to buy into the jewish myth.
 

MSizer

MSizer
That settles that question for me, thanks. I will try to remember that when creation scientists are called not real scientists. I'm ready to move to the next term.

You are a perfect creationist my friend.

You asked whether "a creationist can perform science" and we truthfully answered "yes".

You did NOT ask "whether creationism is science" (to which we would also have truthfully answered "no").

Of course, I think we all know who you're really trying to convince here, don't we?

Nice attempt at word games. Might be convincing to creationists, but not to critical thinkers.
 

Man of Faith

Well-Known Member
You are a perfect creationist my friend.

You asked whether "a creationist can perform science" and we truthfully answered "yes".

You did NOT ask "whether creationism is science" (to which we would also have truthfully answered "no").

Of course, I think we all know who you're really trying to convince here, don't we?

Nice attempt at word games. Might be convincing to creationists, but not to critical thinkers.

I'm just tyring to understand that when a person that believes in creation does a scientific experiment it is still science. That's all creationism is, doing scientific experiements and tells how they support creationism. Just like evolutionists do scientific experience and tells how they support evolution. The scientific experiments are science on both sides, correct?
 
Last edited:

Kilgore Trout

Misanthropic Humanist
I'm just tyring to understand that when a person that believes in creation does a scientific experiment it is science. That's all creationism is, doing scientific experiements and showing how they support creationism. Just like evolutionists do scientific experience and show how they support evolution. The scientific experiments are science on both sides, correct?

Please outline a single scientific experiment which has been peformed whose results supports creationism.
 

Man of Faith

Well-Known Member
Please outline a single scientific experiment which has been peformed whose results supports creationism.

Well right now I am stuck with the question, that I thought I had answered, can a person who believes in creation do proper science. I don't want to move past this point until I understand it properly. If the answer is no, then there is no use trying to answer that question.
 
Last edited:

MSizer

MSizer
I'm just tyring to understand that when a person that believes in creation does a scientific experiment it is still science.

That's like asking if a vegetarian eats an egg is he still eating an egg. Of course he is.

That's all creationism is, doing scientific experiements and tells how they support creationism.

No, not at all. There is not a thing scientific about creationism. Creationism is espousing a story that was designed purely from speculation and has never been supported with any impirical evidence.

A scientist creates a hypothesis, tests for it, and if the results support it, they graduate the hypothesis to a theory. If the results refute the hypothesis, ditch the hypothesis and start over.

When creationists run tests which don't support their hypothesis, rather than ditch the hypothesis, they ditch the test. That's not science.
 

Tristesse

Well-Known Member
Well right now I am stuck with the question, that I thought I had answered, can a person who believes in creation do proper science. I don't want to move past this point until I understand it properly. If the answer is no, then there is no use trying to answer that question.

Yes, they can do science, but only if their belief of creation does not bias their science. Science needs to stay unbiased.
 

Man of Faith

Well-Known Member
That's like asking if a vegetarian eats an egg is he still eating an egg. Of course he is.



No, not at all. There is not a thing scientific about creationism. Creationism is espousing a story that was designed purely from speculation and has never been supported with any impirical evidence.

A scientist creates a hypothesis, tests for it, and if the results support it, they graduate the hypothesis to a theory. If the results refute the hypothesis, ditch the hypothesis and start over.

When creationists run tests which don't support their hypothesis, rather than ditch the hypothesis, they ditch the test. That's not science.

Okay I think I understand it now and think I can move on from the point. Those that believe in the Biblical account of creation are able to do proper science and are real scientists with real degrees from real colleges.

However according to evolutionists their interpretation of the data is flawed and not real science. That assessment is not credible because without the hypothesis those that believe in creation are not performing proper science so the second point refutes the first point.
 

Man of Faith

Well-Known Member
Yes, they can do science, but only if their belief of creation does not bias their science. Science needs to stay unbiased.

Thank you, and I would hope that those that believe in evolution don't bias their science toward evolution either. I think I am ready to move forward again with the next term.
 

MSizer

MSizer
That assessment is not credible because without the hypothesis those that believe in creation are not performing proper science so the second point refutes the first point.

No, the fact that you're failing to observe is that creationism has never been successfully tested in any way. So the fact that they haven't discarded the hypothesis means they are not scientists, they are people with an agenda hopelessly trying to find evidence to support it. Since they haven't, they appeal to the general public's scientific illiteracy and by using big words, trick fools into believing them.

That's not science in any way shape or form. That's foolishness and dishonesty.
 

Mr Cheese

Well-Known Member
I'm just tyring to understand that when a person that believes in creation does a scientific experiment it is still science. That's all creationism is, doing scientific experiements and tells how they support creationism. Just like evolutionists do scientific experience and tells how they support evolution. The scientific experiments are science on both sides, correct?

using the scientific method

how can you verify creationism?

how can you use peer review or take samples to form a research program based on adam and eve?

creationism is not science, and never will be.


Why?

science uses specifics methods.
Creationism uses "God did it"

This does NOT mean science is right
It just means creationism is NOT science

thus endeth the lesson.

creationism-1.jpg


creationism.jpg
 

Kilgore Trout

Misanthropic Humanist
Okay I think I understand it now and think I can move on from the point. Those that believe in the Biblical account of creation are able to do proper science and are real scientists with real degrees from real colleges.

However according to evolutionists their interpretation of the data is flawed and not real science. That assessment is not credible because without the hypothesis those that believe in creation are not performing proper science so the second point refutes the first point.

Once again, please outline a single scientific experiment which has been peformed whose results supports creationism. Thank you.
 

Mr Cheese

Well-Known Member
It's become pretty obvious from the arguments offered by evolution deniers that there is a giant gulf between what the ToE lingo actually means and what creationists think it means.

So, I thought I'd start a thread clarifying the meaning of the terms used by scientists to describe the process of evolution in the hope that, from there, we can one day move on to clarifying what the ToE actually says, and predicts, and why the evidence for it is considered overwhelmingly compelling by scientists.

Let me start with the most important one: Science "(from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is in its broadest sense any ... prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome." (wiki)

OK so far? Any questions? Does everybody understand why creationism is not "science"? I will explain if needed (i.e. explain the term "prediction"). If not, we can move on to another word.

why did you start this thread....

it only brings the crazies out!

:facepalm:
 

Alceste

Vagabond
That settles that question for me, thanks. I will try to remember that when creation scientists are called not real scientists. I'm ready to move to the next term.

They can only be "real scientists" when they engage in a methodology that is capable of making predictions, as per the definition of "science". They have yet to do so, so they are not "scientists". They are "theologians".
 
Top