Of course - which is precisely why the failure to do so is so shameful.
-
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.
- Thread starter Alceste
- Start date
Man of Faith
Well-Known Member
Well in my opinion, every scientific experiment that has every been performed supports creationism via an orderly universe. The laws of nature to me support creationism.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Your misunderstanding of what science is, is exactly why Alceste started this doomed thread.
Well, of course we live in somewhat of an orderly universe, otherwise we most likely wouldn't be here to talk about it. You need a certain atmosphere to give rise to life.
MSizer
MSizer
I just dropped a penny to see if gravity still works. Looks good over here. OMG! Why didn't I see it before! There is obviously a concious creator who oversees everything and created all that exists within the last ten thousand years! It's been right there in front of my face all of this time, and to think, I've dropped a penny before and it just never dawned on me! How could I be so blind.
Alceste
Vagabond
A person's beliefs are utterly irrelevant to whether or not they can do science. Science is a method:
1. Make a prediction (if A is true, then B should occur under condition C).
2. Gather evidence (investigate condition C to determine whether B is occurring)
3. Draw a conclusion as to whether or not A is true based on the evidence gathered.
Whenever a person performs these steps, regardless of her religious beliefs, she is doing science. The reason the creationist movement is not, and cannot be, "scientific" is that it does not perform these steps. It makes no predictions (1), gathers no evidence (2), and their original assumptions are inflexible (3).
Alceste
Vagabond
OK, so everyone agrees there appear to be rules governing the universe that are stable enough to be investigated and understood by us. But you need to understand that science only deals with the natural world. Supernatural forces are forever outside the scope, mandate and capabilities of scientific method. So, it is irrelevant to the scientific method whether or not the person conducting it has faith in a supernatural force. While they are doing science, they are only investigating the rules governing the natural world that are stable and consistent enough for us to understand. They are not investigating the existence or non-existence of God.
This is why a Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Wiccan, or secular humanist - when they engage in good science - will all reach the same conclusion (or at very similar) as to what the evidence shows. They all know their research has nothing at all to do with the existence of a supernatural realm - science only deals with what can be seen and understood.
Alceste
Vagabond
Also, Man of Faith, if you would like to argue that the ID movement produces "science", in light of the actual meaning of the word, you MUST explain what PREDICTIONS have been made as to what we should be able to observe in the natural world if God poofed everything into existence as is a few thousand years ago. And you MUST describe the evidence gathered, and the conclusions drawn (i.e. explain why the empirical evidence suggests poofing rather than gradual change over a long period of time).
Mr Cheese
Well-Known Member
exactly, which is why it is flawed,,,,
but this still does not make creationism a form of science
the argument for creationism I find is two fold:
1) God did it, read the bible
2) Science is wrong, therefore creationism is right.
but this thread is doomed, as has already been mentioned
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
I'm looking forward to "theory."
Mr Cheese
Well-Known Member
Until the rules change of course
a lement for plutoa former planet
now just a planetoid....
"Oh pluto
Rock in the sky
You were my fave planet
King of the underworld
and Mickey's dog
Oh pluto
Oh pluto
A pox on Nasa
for demoting you"
:bow:
Yay pluto
Alceste
Vagabond
That's not a "flaw", silly duck. Whales can't fly, fish can't ride bicycles, I can't grow an extra arm out of my forehead, and the natural sciences can't study the supernatural.
MSizer
MSizer
No, but they can push ping pong balls through hoops for food. It's really cool. They even remember the trick after 11 months of not practicing.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
It's flawed for people who want to believe that whales can fly.
Mr Cheese
Well-Known Member
Its a flaw, because people one again think the map is the territory
or to put it simply
they beleive the scientific stance, or in fact the materialist's stance (not the one about money.....
) is 1) the only valid one 2) the only correct oneThen it becomes a simple exercise in philosophy, in THINKING...
I think, I believe there is nothing beyond the physical. Thus this is true.
This is like watching pornography and claiming you have had sex.
Some people watch porn, others actually have sex.
This is why it is a "flaw"
but humans like models....
they confuse models for what is there...or as the author of the prophet (I assume thats what you meant, I didnt hit the link) famously said:
"We see things as we are
Not as they are"
But its all good. If I want to build a car or cook some spaghetti I have no need to go beyond the physical. However some of us seek to do more than that which can be accomplished within the physical realm.
This still does not make creationism science.
I also understand how the vast majority at this forum will scoff at my words.
But then....it is what it is
MSizer
MSizer
Until the rules change of course
a former planet
now just a planetoid....
Ah, but was it ever a planet to begin with, or was it falsely categorized? (I know there's dispute of what a planet is even among the pros - I'm just getting really bored of people trying to crack the skulls of crationists, so I'm being a pest)
Mr Cheese
Well-Known Member
consider the words of thee wrecker of civilisation:
everyone is telling the truth
all of the time
it's just that
Times change
--Genesis P Orridge
It took science 5 years to prove that baked beans make you fart.This is proof that the scientific method is really "great"
Am I the only one who gets a contact high from some of your posts Mr. Cheese?Until the rules change of course
a former planet
now just a planetoid....
Pluto being changed from a planet to planetoid is irrelevant. It's still Pluto, it's composed of the exact same stuff as it was before. The universe is operating exactly as it always has before and after Pluto's new title. It shows how it's not the rules that change but how science is open ended and accomodates new info' all the time. It's like Ardipithecus ramidus pushing the origins of bipedalism back further- no rules were changed, evolution is still a fact, it's just that a science has accomodated a new wrinkle based on new evidence.
Mr Cheese
Well-Known Member
Am I the only one who gets a contact high from some of your posts Mr. Cheese?
Pluto being changed from a planet to planetoid is irrelevant. It's still Pluto, it's composed of the exact same stuff as it was before. The universe is operating exactly as it always has before and after Pluto's new title. It shows how it's not the rules that change but how science is open ended and accomodates new info' all the time. It's like Ardipithecus ramidus pushing the origins of bipedalism back further- no rules were changed, evolution is still a fact, it's just that a science has accomodated a new wrinkle based on new evidence.
the universe is still the universe
yet for centuries
until the late 1970's
mankind believed in the "innerrant truth" that euclidean geommetry is an adequate way to model the universe.
Things changed.
so not, pluto's demotion was an example of how the truth changes, nothing more.
Science does not deal with the truth, it deals with models of the truth.
There is a huge difference.