Proof of Creational Science

[TagliatelliMonster]

in ways that are reminiscent of ancient myths.

You've said this multiple times now.
Care to expand a little?

 

[Valjean]

Why do we not respect the mind of scientists? But how clever is it to assume that there is a common relative (i.e., ancestor) between the flea (or a virus) and an elephant?
Evolution is not an 'assumption'.
Axioma is a statement that is so apparent that the statement has been proven by its apparency. Obviously, elephants did not occur from fleas. It is infinitely evident.

What scientist ever claimed a flea was an ancestor of an elephant, or a virus an ancestor of anything? Trace an elephant's cladogram back -- no fleas.
You don't understand the process you're so opinionated about. You're basing your opposition on falsehoods and misunderstanding.

If the modern flea and modern elephant have a common ancestor A, then the A is the ancestor of the contemporary flea. The latter fact means that ancestor A is a very primitive, under-developed ancient flea. Hence, modern elephants came from very primitive, under-developed antique flea.

Again, Google an elephant's cladogram, and try to find a flea.
This is why we find your arguments so exasperating, Quest. You don't know what you're talking about. You misrepresent what science claims. You have no alternate explanation, yet you're so sure science is wrong and you're right.

 

[Valjean]

If everything was created by the same "form of substance" would not science be able to see the "link" between different spicies? (Sorry if wrong spelling)

Science finds more links all the time.

And by this scuence would call it evolution due to finding part of the same DNA everywhere they look?

More by finding sequential changes in DNA, consistent with the evolution evidenced from other disciplines.

 

[Valjean]

Why would the phrase “creational science” be an oxymoron?

Because the magical creation claimed by creationists is not science. It's not the result of critical analysis of observations. It's not an explanation. It's not evidenced. It's not tested.
A thing is science when it's arrived at through the scientific method of observation, hypothesis, testing and peer review.

 

[Valjean]

You don’t find it even slightly fascinating or exciting to imagine how far “videogame” technology will evolve if humanity survives long enough? Or to ponder what kind of digital world-building a hyper advanced alien civilization could accomplish with millions of years experience? Would you not consider the construction of alternate universes, or even artificial intelligence, to be a form of “creation science”?

That's not science. It's technology based on the findings of science.
Creationism is a claim of magic, not engineering. It's an assertion of agency, not mechanism.

 

[Valjean]

In other words, science, like I said.

People hear the word “creation” and automatically dismiss it as some wild supernatural or magickal mumbo jumbo, instead of considering all the ways that science/ technology/ engineering etc could be used to do the very things religions have theorized about since ages ago, like the creation of alternate universes and artificial intelligence. I think these things are the inevitable peak evolution of what are called “videogames” today, many years from now if humanity survives long enough.

But creationism isn't a theory of mechanism; it isn't a theory at all. It's an unevidenced claim of action without mechanism, ie: magic.

 

[Valjean]

From flies only flies come!

And who's disputing this?

 

[firedragon]

How is creation science?
Isn't creational science an oxymoron?

I am sure there is nothing called creational science and that is just made up for convenience.

But how in the world is that an oxymoron?

You know Nakosis, this shows how dogmatically blinded you are. Don't get offended, but this dogma has taken over you. Its a sever matter.

 

[Nakosis]

I am sure there is nothing called creational science and that is just made up for convenience.

But how in the world is that an oxymoron?

You know Nakosis, this shows how dogmatically blinded you are. Don't get offended, but this dogma has taken over you. Its a sever matter.

I suppose it is always easier to point out the dogmatic mote in someone else's eye.

 

[firedragon]

I suppose it is always easier to point out the dogmatic mote in someone else's eye.

It is always easy to make an assertion, and call out the other person when pointed. Easy, but hypocritical.

 

[viole]

I am sure there is nothing called creational science and that is just made up for convenience.

But how in the world is that an oxymoron?

You know Nakosis, this shows how dogmatically blinded you are. Don't get offended, but this dogma has taken over you. Its a sever matter.

Simple. Science assumes naturalism, ergo no creation. It’s a rule. Therefore, there cannot be any creation science. Simple logic 101.

Creation science is like checkers chess. If you play chess, you cannot play checkers. And vice versa.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Nakosis]

It is always easy to make an assertion, and call out the other person when pointed. Easy, but hypocritical.

I didn't deny your allegation. That would have been hypocritical.

 

[ppp]

It is always easy to make an assertion, and call out the other person when pointed. Easy, but hypocritical.

Creationism starts with a conclusion and interprets or denies all data to fit that conclusion, Science follows the evidence.. Creationism is dogmatic* supernaturalism. Science is methodological naturalism. And pragmatically, Creation Science has produced no falsifiable hypotheses in support of their position. They have produced no science.

*Literally dogmatic. Not pejoratively,

 

[firedragon]

I didn't deny your allegation. That would have been hypocritical.

Haha. Alright alright.

 

[firedragon]

Creationism starts with a conclusion and interprets or denies all data to fit that conclusion

Who taught you that? What data does "creationism" deny?

Science follows the evidence

Really? Is that scientific evidence only?

Ill tell you what. Think carefully and provide scientific evidence for the scientific method.

Creationism is dogmatic* supernaturalism.

So, why this topic?

Science is methodological naturalism. And pragmatically, Creation Science has produced no falsifiable hypotheses in support of their position. They have produced no science.

This statement shows you have no clue about what "science follows".

*Literally dogmatic. Not pejoratively,

You have shown how dogmatic you are right above there. Just up there. Such blind belief.

 

[ppp]

Who taught you that?

Individual creationists. Discovery institute. Institute of creation research. The creationist museum.

What data does "creationism" deny?

It varies between factions.

Really? Is that scientific evidence only?

I don't understand the question.

This statement shows you have no clue about what "science follows".

This statement shows that you can emit meaningless bluster.

You have shown how dogmatic you are right above there. Just up there. Such blind belief.

Whatever

 

[firedragon]

Individual creationists. Discovery institute. Institute of creation research. The creationist museum.

Creationists at "Discovery institute, institute of creation research, the creationist museum" taught you that "Creationism starts with a conclusion and interprets or denies all data to fit that conclusion"?

That cant be true. They dont teach bad about themselves. Like you dont teach bad about yourself. You think you are much greater than all of these stupid theists right? Like that these people will also think they are great. So they didnt teach you these things. Someone else did.

And your source of knowledge is so poor. So narrow.

It varies between factions.

Okay. So again, what data does what ever your favourite faction that you are addressing deny??

I don't understand the question.

Strange you missed this. Let me cut and paste: "Ill tell you what. Think carefully and provide scientific evidence for the scientific method."

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ill tell you what. Think carefully and provide scientific evidence for the scientific method.

I present the impeccable track record of answering questions about the world with useful answers, which in turn result in your and me having the possibility of having this conversation at lightspeed.

+8000 years of religious inquiry have brought us bloodletting, exorcisms and "praying the gay away".
300 years of scientific research has put full autonomous probes on Mars and man on the moon.

The scientific method clearly works for what it is intended.

 

[Irate State]

Why do we not respect the mind of scientists? But how clever is it to assume that there is a common relative (i.e., ancestor) between the flea (or a virus) and an elephant?

Axioma is a statement that is so apparent that the statement has been proven by its apparency. Obviously, elephants did not occur from fleas. It is infinitely evident.

If the modern flea and modern elephant have a common ancestor A, then the A is the ancestor of the contemporary flea. The latter fact means that ancestor A is a very primitive, under-developed ancient flea. Hence, modern elephants came from very primitive, under-developed antique flea.

The Riemann hypothesis is an unproved statement, but not an axiom, and never will ever become an axiom. Why? Because the Riemann hypothesis's validity is not apparent.

Been off the forum for months, glad to see somethings still feel like a broken record.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not clever. Just a belief some people entertain

Incorrect. It is an idea that is well supported by evidence. And yet creationists cannot seem to find any scientific evidence at all for their beliefs. Why is there such an utter failure of creationists?