God Recreated the Earth 6,000 Years Ago!

[leibowde84]

All science starts with a hypothesis and then seeks evidence/testing.

Right, and theories that are contradicted by evidence are abandoned. Creationists fail to do this. They ignore evidence that contradicts scripture.

 

[BilliardsBall]

If you start with the assumption of any scripture being accurate, there isn't much "science" to speak of.

And if a scientist begins with the devout belief that all scriptures are inaccurate, there isn't much "science" there either.

And if an atheist scientist (or you) wish to begin with "only empiricist observations are true observations" then you must admit you are attempting to use empiricist observations only to prove empiricist observations are true, which is a circular argument. This is a problem that is rooted in scientism biases.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Actually, if you read these journals, they do have opposing viewpoints, contradicting evidence, and scientists (or doctors, philosophers, whatever area you're looking at) do go back and evaluate the data and research methods, they do argue with each other, they do debate, they do offer rebuttals, and that is how the scientific method works, what makes it tick, what keeps it going, and why it's currently our best system for learning about natural phenomena.

You might not have read many creationist databases or magazines. Many sites for example, are in two columns with prevailing and creationist views constantly presented--in part so you and I can weigh evidence and add logic to data. Scientific American does not have parallel columns showing dissenters. You are assuming skeptical science is more open to the Hegelian method than creationist science. The opposite is true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed

 

[BilliardsBall]

Could you direct me to that evidence? Thanks.

Sure! Send me a PM.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Right, and theories that are contradicted by evidence are abandoned. Creationists fail to do this. They ignore evidence that contradicts scripture.

That is categorically untrue. Everywhere I've read, creationists mention "X is under scrutiny now, which may contradict this theory." Unless you are making a sweeping generalization that creationists are wrong because other scientists are right.

 

[outhouse]

And if a scientist begins with the devout belief that all scriptures are inaccurate, there isn't much "science" there either.

This shows your severe bias and lack of the academic methods.

No credible science is done that way

Your wrong again.

 

[leibowde84]

And if a scientist begins with the devout belief that all scriptures are inaccurate, there isn't much "science" there either.

They don't do this. They don't believe claims in scripture until they are substantiated by verifiable evidence. They aren't going to assume that any claim is true. They weigh the evidence and come up with the theory that best accounts for it. Scripture, to them, is nothing more than unsubstantiated claims. Maybe they are true, maybe they aren't, but they are prudent in that they aren't going to "buy into" any claim until it is substantiated. The purpose of science is to get beyond mere claims and subjective experience to arrive at the best explanation for the evidence.

 

[prometheus11]

Sure! Send me a PM.

Why? Can't you provide book and essay titles and web links in the thread?

 

[outhouse]

They don't do this.

he does not understand many scientist are theist.

he is just creating this biased rhetoric because he knows even theistic scientist look down on his views

 

[outhouse]

Why? Can't you provide book and essay titles and web links in the thread?

he has to keep it a secret because its so weak and non academic

 

[prometheus11]

And if a scientist begins with the devout belief that all scriptures are inaccurate, there isn't much "science" there either.

And if an atheist scientist (or you) wish to begin with "only empiricist observations are true observations" then you must admit you are attempting to use empiricist observations only to prove empiricist observations are true, which is a circular argument. This is a problem that is rooted in scientism biases.

The above comment is simply red herring. Empiricism provides for repeatable tests. Repeating tests allows for predictable results. Then...voila...chemistry works and the medicine fights the infection and the person is cured.

You creationists would have a point if science did only what belief does: nothing. But science flies planes, sees tumors inside the body, operated your computer.

When creation science can DO something, you'll have the world's attention.

 

[Shad]

If credible universities only taught fact and not opinion, would Cambridge and Oxford have taught a flat earth when they opened for business? Credible universities--the ones to which you ascribe credulity--teach commonly accepted opinions as well as facts. If you really think all college classes teach only facts and not opinions, you are revealing to us that you are a high school or middle school graduate only.

Flat Earth ideas were mostly dead by the time those two schools were founded. Amusing to see someone trying to discredit both schools based on a modern myth they believe is fact.

 

[leibowde84]

Flat Earth ideas were mostly dead by the time those two schools were founded. Amusing to see someone trying to discredit both schools based on a modern myth they believe is fact.

Good point. My understanding is that the "flat earth" myth was abandoned sometime in ancient Greece. The modern myth was established as a way to poke fun at those who ignore scientific discoveries.

 

[Shad]

Good point. My understanding is that the "flat earth" myth was abandoned sometime in ancient Greece. The modern myth was established as a way to poke fun at those who ignore scientific discoveries.

It was still around here and there.. However in early Church the idea was already dead. Early being centuries before both schools were found. Oxford and Cambridge were found by and run by religious orders for centuries. I doubt such figures would teach ideas their own Church no longer supported or had for centuries. The comment was incorrect in it's reference point. Sure some universities teach opinions as facts. However rather than point out examples BB tried for a generalization which failed.

 

[gnostic]

it's just word play to you....
one step up and you will see it all.....soooooo much better.

grew up loving science....
I'm not learning anything new here
and yeah I understand scientific theory....
and you've been caught asking ....what petri dish....

It is not "word play", thief.

The context is quite clear. If you are going to use the term "theory" in science discussion or debate, then you need to understand the proper scientific definition to "scientific theory", and not simply use the ordinary definitions from ordinary dictionary.

You have claimed that you like science, and you have claimed that you high scoring tested student, and yet you have continued to use the terms very loosely like "theory", "evidence", "proof", "fact", etc, and not used them in the proper context, just demonstrate that you are either stubbornly ignorant (in relation to science) or you are deliberately trying to mislead us because of your biased religious belief.

leibowde84 gave you the proper definition to "scientific theory" and that you reject his source for ordinary definition to "theory", demonstrate two things about you:

1. You don't like or love science, so you have claimed.
2. And that you will only dishonestly scientific terms with scientific definition and context, only when it suit you.

For instance, you used the term quite "experiment" quite loosely.

chapter Two of Genesis has all the earmarks of a science experiment.

Genesis 2 is not scientific experiment because experiment require testing or observation against statement or prediction to acquire knowledge.

Nothing in Genesis 2 demonstrate it is a test or experiment. Nothing in Genesis 2 show that it is interested in acquiring knowledge through observation (experiment, testing or evidence).

You are fraud, thief. Until you can stop lying to us and to yourself, you are dishonest as the name you use for yourself - "thief".

 

[Shadow Wolf]

if it were tested repeatedly....and affirmed......it's not a theory anymore.

Yes, they remain theories. Germs are a theory, the Doppler effect is a theory, gravity is a theory, magnetics are theories, Relativity is a theory - when something is affirmed it ceases to be a hypothesis and it becomes a theory.

 

[Parsimony]

And if a scientist begins with the devout belief that all scriptures are inaccurate...

Do you know anyone who says all of them are inaccurate? I don't know any scientists that reject statements like rivers flowing into the ocean or the Sun rising and setting or the existence of Jerusalem or other such statements in scripture.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Many sites for example, are in two columns with prevailing and creationist views constantly presented

Creationism has no evidence. Why would I waste my time reading about it in some journal that masquerades as scientific?

Scientific American does not have parallel columns showing dissenters.

Because that isn't the purpose of such journals. An author writes an article, they submit it, and if accepted it's published. Now, a well written article will point out potential problems, questions about extraneous variables that may have influenced the results, and even quite often you will read that more research is needed.
However, there are many books that do contain opposing viewpoints, and even though they have people who are credible in their field, they are not scientific journals and the views expressed may not have any scientific basis for their claims.
I regularily read from both academic journals and these opposing view points books. They should not be confused or thought of as being interchangeable, and the opposing viewpoint ones are not inherently credible as the author of a given article may be writing from a heavily biased perspective and have dubious evidence to offer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed

From your source:

The movie has been criticized by those interviewees who are critics of intelligent design (P.Z. Myers, Dawkins,[58] Shermer,[26] and National Center for Science Education executive director Eugenie Scott), who say they were misled into participating by being asked to be interviewed for a film named Crossroads on the "intersection of science and religion", and were directed to a blurb implying an approach to the documentary crediting Darwin with "the answer" to how humanity developed:[59][60][61]
...
In support of his claim that the theory of evolution inspired Nazism, Ben Stein attributes the following statement to Charles Darwin's book The Descent of Man:[26]
...
The original source shows that Stein has significantly changed the text and meaning of the paragraph, by leaving out whole and partial sentences without indicating that he had done so. The original paragraph (page 168) (words that Stein omitted shown in bold) and the subsequent sentences in the book state:[26][66]

And from another source, some of the problems with Expelled.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know/

1) Expelled quotes Charles Darwin selectively to connect his ideas to eugenics and the Holocaust.
2) Ben Stein's speech to a crowded auditorium in the film was a setup.
3) Scientists in the film thought they were being interviewed for a different movie.
4) The ID-sympathetic researcher whom the film paints as having lost his job at the Smithsonian Institution was never an employee there.
5) Science does not reject religious or "design-based" explanations because of dogmatic atheism.
6) Many evolutionary biologists are religious and many religious people accept evolution.

 

[McBell]

All science starts with a hypothesis and then seeks evidence/testing.

Yet another reason creationism is not science

 

[Thief]

Yes, they remain theories. Germs are a theory, the Doppler effect is a theory, gravity is a theory, magnetics are theories, Relativity is a theory - when something is affirmed it ceases to be a hypothesis and it becomes a theory.

no...it becomes a fact, a law, a known effect of a known cause.
we just keep using the word theory because we humans have a problem of change.