On this I strongly disagree. Every scientist I have met is focused on figuring out how the world works. Most make almost no money compared to what they would get if they worked in industry. The money they get from grants goes into equipment and paying grad students.
How the science world works is based on money, power and what I call scientific cred which could mean credentials, Nobel Prize in Science, other awards, reputation, published papers and so on. I don't agree that they all try to figure out how the world works because it's too general. They are interested in their specific line of work or projects they are working on. For example, I'm interested in gold, Stephen Hawking on the BBT, other dimensions beyond our 3rd dimension and their representation and traveling near of at the speed of light. Maybe you mean they are curious about how the world works and do something to find out when they notice something.
Sorry, but this is the core of science. The concept of testability is what separated Galileo from the medieval philosophers. He actually looked at the universe to test his ideas. That was a HUGE breakthrough.
I did not mean that we do not test or experiment, but creation scientists do not limit their thinking like that in order that something could be falsified. Something could be devised in the future to test the falsifiability, but it may be imagined now. The concept of falsifiability was devised by creationist G.K. Chesterton in 1925 and not Popper.
"Science is weak about these prehistoric things in a way that has hardly been noticed. The science whose modern marvels we all admire succeeds by incessantly adding to its data. In all practical inventions, in most natural discoveries, it can always increase evidence by experiment. But it cannot experiment in making men; or even in watching to see what the first men make. An inventor can advance step by step in the construction of an aeroplane, even if he is only experimenting with sticks and scraps of metal in his own back-yard. But he cannot watch the Missing Link evolving in his own back-yard. If he has made a mistake in his calculations, the aeroplane will correct it by crashing to the ground. But if he has made a mistake about the arboreal habitat of his ancestor, he cannot see his arboreal ancestor falling off the tree. He cannot keep a cave-man like a cat in the back-yard and watch him to see whether he does really practice cannibalism or carry off his mate on the principles of marriage by capture. He cannot keep a tribe of primitive men like a pack of hounds and notice how far they are influenced by the herd instinct. If he sees a particular bird behave in a particular way, he can get other birds and see if they behave in that way; but if he finds a skull, or the scrap of a skull, in the hollow of a hill, he cannot multiply it into a vision of the valley of dry bones. In dealing with a past that has almost entirely perished, he can only go by evidence and not by experiment. And there is hardly enough evidence to be even evidential. Thus while most science moves in a sort of curve, being constantly corrected by new evidence, this science flies off into space in a straight line uncorrected by anything. But the habit of forming conclusions, as they can really be formed in more fruitful fields, is so fixed in the scientific mind that it cannot resist talking like this. It talks about the idea suggested by one scrap of bone as if it were something like the aeroplane which is constructed at last out of whole scrapheaps of scraps of metal. The trouble with the professor of the prehistoric is that he cannot scrap his scrap. The marvellous and triumphant aeroplane is made out of a hundred mistakes. The student of origins can only make one mistake and stick to it."
Creation scientists like to look at ideas first and later they may come up with how something can be tested. These ideas can sometimes blossom into how something can be conceived on testing. I think we talked about meeting the Eagle Nebula and the Pillars of Creation if we had a space ship that travels at the speed of light.
As for religion itself, creationists do not believe like the atheists believe that religion cannot be falsified.
"Many atheists claim that religious beliefs are inherently unfalsifiable. However, on the contrary, very many religious beliefs are capable of being falsified. Many religions predict a particular sort of afterlife; if, after death, one encountered a rather different sort of afterlife, that would falsify that religion. For example, Islam would claim that in the afterlife, one will be told that Muhammad was a true prophet and the Quran a true scripture. If, upon dying, one was not told these things - and, on the contrary, was told that Muhammad was a false prophet - that experience would falsify Islam. Thus, once we are dead, such claims will be easily falsifiable. However, the living cannot ask the dead because God prohibits the dead from coming back to testify.
Also, many religions make assertions about matters within our ability to observe. If those assertions are falsifiable through observation, then so are the religions making the assertions. Examples of falsifiable religious assertions are assertions that the world would end within the lifetime of a certain religious figure who is now dead and assertions about the characteristics of various animals.
Furthermore, if a religion makes mutually exclusive claims, falsifying that religion is a simple matter of applying a
reductio ad absurdum."
Falsifiable - Conservapedia
And in that you would be wrong. The experiments and observations from the fossil record and from genetics shows this.
I don't think I'm wrong. There is no experiment to show that we evolved from fish. All you have are hypothesis that macroevolution happened and fossils gathered to fit this hypothesis.
"Dr.
Roger Lewin commented after the 1980 University of Chicago conference entitled “Macroevolution”:
“ “The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. … At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.”
[1] ”
In 1988, the prominent
Harvard University biologist
Ernst Mayr wrote in his essay
Does Microevolution Explain Macroevolution?:
“ Among all the claims made during the
evolutionary synthesis, perhaps the one that found least acceptance was the assertion that all phenomena of macroevolution can be ‘reduced to,' that is, explained by, microevolutionary genetic processes. Not surprisingly, this claim was usually supported by geneticists but was widely rejected by the very biologists who dealt with macroevolution, the morphologists and paleontologists. Many of them insisted that there is more or less complete discontinuity between the processes at the two levels—that what happens at the species level is entirely different from what happens at the level of the higher categories. Now, 50 years later the controversy remains undecided.
...In this respect, indeed, macroevolution as a field of study is completely decoupled from microevolution.
[2]"
And that is a reasonable position based on the available evidence. At this point nothing to do with time travel has any observational backing.
Thank you, but we already have traveled through time into the future.
But there *are* observations that can be made to test this idea.
Such as?
Gold has been made in particle accelerators from other elements.
Nyet. This is wrong. I think scientists like to think that it can be made using LHC or other accelerators, but it can't. These scientists like to think they can but can't because the costs are too astronomical. I don't think anyone can actually create an atom. Atheist scientists like to believe that they'll create an atom someday, but I don't think they'll ever will. God limited humans to the molecular level and changing atoms from into another through radioactive decay.
No, the reason science doesn't use the concept of God is that it is not needed for the explanations. It doesn't help the explanation to be more testable. And it is usually too vague of an idea to be helpful in the precision study of the universe.
You're referring to atheist science. Creation scientists do not limit themselves and use the Bible and are enlightened by what God communicates to them, but again they do not use the Bible nor God as the source. They have to do their own work and come up with the actual science.
As for swans, given the diversity of life, there was always the possibility of a black swan. Again, the existence of such is easily testable.
I know that, but was pointing out that one time, people did not think swans could come in other colors so someone would have to think outside the box to think of an experiment to show that they could come in other colors.
That is why the burden of proof is on the one making the existence claim: it is impossible in many situations to prove a negative (although not always).
It's not that hard to prove a negative and it happens every day. Furthermore, are you saying SETI is not science based on your burden of proof?
