For creationists: ToE basic glossary of terms.

[Aquitaine]

I'm looking forward to "theory."

Was it not Zakir Naik who's excellent argument against Evolution was:

"I have seen no book that says Fact of Evolution, only THEORY of Evolution!"

IIRC this guy is a Doctor of Medical Science looool!

 

[MSizer]

Was it not Zakir Naik who's excellent argument against Evolution was:

"I have seen no book that says Fact of Evolution, only THEORY of Evolution!"

IIRC this guy is a Doctor of Medical Science looool!

Zakir Naik wouldn't know logic if it hit him in the face. If I were a muslim, I'd beg him to shut up and to stop rallying all of the dumb people who are his fans on the grounds that it makes muslims look bad to stereotypical non-muslims.

 

[Mr Cheese]

Zakir Naik wouldn't know logic if it hit him in the face. If I were a muslim, I'd beg him to shut up and to stop rallying all of the dumb people who are his fans on the grounds that it makes muslims look bad to stereotypical non-muslims.

evolution of course is also flawed

as it only deals with physical processes.

This still does not make that which is labelled creationism or intelligent design, anymore valid, correct, better or science.

But then again...
a plate of spaghetti is a plate of spaghetti...

 

[Alceste]

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.

Yes, change is a major indicator that the scientific method is working properly - science brings us closer to "the truth" with every change - thus science deals exclusively with "the truth". If you want to go 10 miles by traveling halfway every day, you will never get there, but after a month you'll be so close it hardly matters.

Every day the predictions of science are challenged by new efforts to gather evidence, and every day scientists tweak their over-arching theories to accommodate all this new information.

 

[Gunfingers]

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.

Science doesn't deal in truth, truth is a purely philosophical concept. Science is an effort to understand the natural world.

In your examples the reality of the natural world has not changed, people have simply come to learn that they did not understand the natural world. It has happened repeatedly in the past and it will happen repeatedly in the future. Even evolutionary theory is constantly changing and updating (evolving, if you will) as more is learned about the natural world.

 

[Aquitaine]

Zakir Naik wouldn't know logic if it hit him in the face. If I were a muslim, I'd beg him to shut up and to stop rallying all of the dumb people who are his fans on the grounds that it makes muslims look bad to stereotypical non-muslims.

To be fair, if I were Muslim, I wouldn't say I was Muslim. Because when you label yourself like that, you open up yourself to stereotype and prejudice, and you get represented by others who are extremist or stupid etc.

The same goes for all faiths, if I were one I'd just nto label myself and save all the hassle of being "represented" and stereotyped by my fellow Theists.

 

[challupa]

Science doesn't deal in truth, truth is a purely philosophical concept. Science is an effort to understand the natural world.

In your examples the reality of the natural world has not changed, people have simply come to learn that they did not understand the natural world. It has happened repeatedly in the past and it will happen repeatedly in the future. Even evolutionary theory is constantly changing and updating (evolving, if you will) as more is learned about the natural world.

Yes and that can never happen in a creationists world because everything is written in stone and so therefore can never change. That is pure arrogance imo. Humans will be constantly revising their findings as they search and experiement and find out new things from that. Creationism is unchangeable so it can never be science.

 

[linwood]

Whoa, 5 pages and we haven`t gotten beyond the definition of "science".

It was a noble effort Alceste but now do you see what you`re up against?

 

[ellenjanuary]

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.

The scientific method:

Observe, hypothesize, experimentation, repetition, theory.

(Scientists... jeez, one side is as bad as the other) Let's start at the beginning. Observation. Ideally, the scientist wants a clear mind before making observations. See; I'm looking out my window, there's a breeze. Suddenly the stupid brain goes, let's do some science and find out the where/what/how of this breeze thing. The first step is to collect the tools. A drawing pad, a piece of string, a strip of cloth; probably a chair; I'm getting old - then the scientist does what? Hypothesize?

No. Observation. Prepare the tools to record the data, sit down; and empty the mind. To answer your question, a Creationist can do proper science only if he was taught properly. Some people (not mentioning any names) always wanna skip ahead. Always gotta dump out the whole box of Cracker~Jack, get the toy.

See the problem? God is not an observation, god is a conclusion; therefore god ain't science. He's got no problem with it, so you shouldn't either.

 

[ragordon168]

If you want to go 10 miles by traveling halfway every day, you will never get there, but after a month you'll be so close it hardly matters.

can you explain that to me please because thats never made sense to me.

i remember being told about achilles and the tortoise, a tortoise sets off then achilles chases it but can never catch it as its always moving. never made sense to me as something moving will always catch something moving slower than it.

 

[Autodidact]

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?

These are not two mutually exclusive categories. Evolution is not inconsistent with divine creation. It is only inconsistent with Biblical literalism, Noah, ark, Adam, Eve, magic poofing, 6000 year old earth, etc.

But of course, all of science is inconsistent with that.

Can people who believe in an ancient creation myth do science? I suppose they could, if they would, but as a rule they reject science in favor of an ancient creation myth.

Anyone who is willing to use the scientific method and accept where it leads them can do science.

 

[Autodidact]

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.

Such as who?

 

[Autodidact]

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

Sure. Most scientists believe that God created the world.

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

No, actually, it's the opposite. YEC is a complete rejection of science.

Just like evolutionists do scientific experience and tells how they support evolution. The scientific experiments are science on both sides, correct?

Nope. Scientists just do science, they don't set out with a goal of supporting what they already believe, they just set out to find out where the evidence leads. Turns out that it leads to evolution being correct.

You do understand that doesn't mean there is no God, right? It's not about that.

It does mean that Genesis is not literaly true. Sorry if you thought it was.

 

[Autodidact]

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?

Why don't you cite all the experiments that have been done to support YEC, MoF.

 

[JMorris]

i know most of the hardline anti-TOE people on RF probably wont look at these. but if you want atleast a basic understanding of TOE, go read these links

Evolution: Frequently Asked Questions
Evolution: Glossary

 

[Autodidact]

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.

A person who believes that God created the world can do excellent science. A person who believes that Genesis is literally true could, but they would soon give up that belief.

 

[Autodidact]

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.

I don't know any. They either give up their belief that the Genesis creation myth is factual, or they give up science. For example, I can't think of a single geologist who puts forth the Genesis myth, can you?

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.

Not evolutionists, all scientists.

No, it's not the results, it's the methodology. Science is a method. If your methodology is flawed, then your results will be rejected.

The problem isn't prejudice, MoF, it's bad science and, more often, rejection of science altogether.

 

[Autodidact]

Thank you, and I would hope that those that believe in evolution don't bias their science toward evolution either.

This makes no sense. You do understand that evolution is a well-grounded, well-supported theory in the field of Biology, right?

 

[Autodidact]

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.

Let's define some terms. "YEC" means literal Genesis, 6000 years, Adam, Eve, ark, flood, Tower of Babel. That has been completely disproved by science; no question.

The idea that God created everything is outside the scope of science. Science is compatible with this view, and without it. So people who believe this make quite good scientists.

 

[Rogue Cardinal]

If you want to go 10 miles by traveling halfway every day, you will never get there, but after a month you'll be so close it hardly matters.

can you explain that to me please because thats never made sense to me.

i remember being told about achilles and the tortoise, a tortoise sets off then achilles chases it but can never catch it as its always moving. never made sense to me as something moving will always catch something moving slower than it.

It is supposely a paradox but it's really a play on words to me.

The idea is playing on the idea that you can only cover half the distance at each stage. So for example, if I were to cross a room but only go half the distance it takes to get across the room it would reduce infinitely.

So for example....in my first stage I go half way across the room....yeah I'm 1/2 way there! BUt the next distance is only half the room....thus I can only go 1/4 of the distance i originally took. Now 1/2 + 1/4 = 3/4.....75% there! WOO HOO....but now I can only go 1/8 of the distance I originally went....then 1/16....then 1/32....then 1/64 and so on and so on....and the amount of distance I would have to travel is getting smaller and smaller every time but I never quite get there because there is just a infinitely small fraction between me and the goal. The person gets stuck in perptual stillness as the distances get smaller and smaller.

So the idea is that as Achilles moves forward the tortoise is also moving forward and as such the tortoise is adding a bit of distance in increasingly smaller bits but just enough that Achilles can never quite make that distance all the way up.

The whole thing is based on motion....not amount of distance over an amount of time at a particular speed.