Question for creationists: Does science work?

[Autodidact]

For all who consider themselves creationists. In your view, does the scientific method work?

 

[Man of Faith]

Yes it does. Now if we can only get the evolutionists to follow it. The scientific method is about doing experiments and we can't do an experiment to reproduce common ancestry can we?

 

[newhope101]

Yes it does. Now if we can only get the evolutionists to follow it. The scientific method is about doing experiments and we can't do an experiment to reproduce common ancestry can we?

Fab reply Man of Faith. Evolutionists often confuse real sceintific advancement in the here and now with the theoretical. Evos are so inculcated into TOE that they really cannot tell the difference anymore.

Science is science, theory is theory, Changing theories illustrate the delusional acceptance of previous evidence that was dealt a fatal blow and thrown into the rubbish bin of delusionary evidence past. Evolutionists call this science.

So yes Auto science is fantastic. Your researchers just need to learn how to apply it without the evolutionary assumptions.

 

[Autodidact]

Yes it does. Now if we can only get the evolutionists to follow it. The scientific method is about doing experiments and we can't do an experiment to reproduce common ancestry can we?

I see, so you think it works, but you don't know what it is. That's the problem. The scientific method does not require experiments, MoF. Or rather, not in the sense of laboratories and beakers. Spending two summers on the arctic coast searching for a certain fossil because ToE predicts it will be found there is an experiment, and finding it confirms the hypothesis behind that experiment.

 

[micrurus]

Yes it does. Now if we can only get the evolutionists to follow it. The scientific method is about doing experiments and we can't do an experiment to reproduce common ancestry can we?

AWESOME!

I have a 2 step program for you.

1: read this
Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2:try again

 

[Autodidact]

Fab reply Man of Faith. Evolutionists often confuse real sceintific advancement in the here and now with the theoretical. Evos are so inculcated into TOE that they really cannot tell the difference anymore.

Science is science, theory is theory, Changing theories illustrate the delusional acceptance of previous evidence that was dealt a fatal blow and thrown into the rubbish bin of delusionary evidence past. Evolutionists call this science.

So yes Auto science is fantastic. Your researchers just need to learn how to apply it without the evolutionary assumptions.

This would be a good example of what I mean by basic ignorance. Science is theory. Theory is the goal of science. You know, like atomic theory, germ theory, heliocentric theory...and evolutionary theory.

It sounds like you think you know better than thousands of scientists how they should do their job?

 

[Autodidact]

O.K., great, so you agree science works. And you understand that science is agnostic concerning God, correct?

 

[Man of Faith]

I see, so you think it works, but you don't know what it is. That's the problem. The scientific method does not require experiments, MoF. Or rather, not in the sense of laboratories and beakers. Spending two summers on the arctic coast searching for a certain fossil because ToE predicts it will be found there is an experiment, and finding it confirms the hypothesis behind that experiment.

What evolutionists are doing is forensic science when they look for clues on the sea shore, not experimental science which goes by the scientific method. Step number 4 of the scientific method says "test with an experiment."

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

I see, so you think it works, but you don't know what it is. That's the problem. The scientific method does not require experiments, MoF. Or rather, not in the sense of laboratories and beakers. Spending two summers on the arctic coast searching for a certain fossil because ToE predicts it will be found there is an experiment, and finding it confirms the hypothesis behind that experiment.

Precisely...

 

[Man of Faith]

This would be a good example of what I mean by basic ignorance. Science is theory. Theory is the goal of science. You know, like atomic theory, germ theory, heliocentric theory...and evolutionary theory.

It sounds like you think you know better than thousands of scientists how they should do their job?

Science is theory and the ToE has theory and a model built into it. The theory part is the evolution that we can see and duplicate in the lab, the model part is the stuff we can't see or duplicate like common ancestry. A theory is the strongest scientific term to describe something that can be duplicated or seen, such as a fly mutating to have four wings, or different species coming from the same type of animal.

 

[Sunstone]

Science is theory and the ToE has theory and a model built into it. The theory part is the evolution that we can see and duplicate in the lab, the model part is the stuff we can't see or duplicate like common ancestry. A theory is the strongest scientific term to describe something that can be duplicated or seen, such as a fly mutating to have four wings, or different species coming from the same type of animal.

I don't think "theory" means what you think it means.

 

[Man of Faith]

Let me put it this way, the Darwinian theory mechanism for creating complex things that did not exist before isn't empirical science but rather a deduction from a naturalistic philosophy. We have never seen it happen.

 

[micrurus]

Let me put it this way, the Darwinian theory mechanism for creating complex things that did not exist before isn't empirical science but rather a deduction from a naturalistic philosophy. We have never seen it happen.

yes we have.

do you want examples?

 

[Man of Faith]

yes we have.

do you want examples?

If you must.

 

[micrurus]

If you must.

whats that al about?

If you say that something has never been observed and you dont want to see an example that shows it has, that ofcourse your never going to change your mind

 

[Man of Faith]

whats that al about?

If you say that something has never been observed and you dont want to see an example that shows it has, that ofcourse your never going to change your mind

I'm sorry, that's just me being skeptical. Sometimes I wish evolutionists were as skeptical about the evolution they can't see as they are about the God they can't see.

 

[micrurus]

I'm sorry, that's just me being skeptical. Sometimes I wish evolutionists were as skeptical about the evolution they can't see as they are about the God they can't see.

I cannot see how gravity worked before I existed but if a bird dropped something 10000 years ago, I can say that it would have fallen in the same way that something falls today.

 

[Man of Faith]

I cannot see how gravity worked before I existed but if a bird dropped something 10000 years ago, I can say that it would have fallen in the same way that something falls today.

If you could see humans branching off from ape like creatures today then that would be a valid comparison.

 

[outhouse]

it doesnt matter what you prove.

he is implying that he is set in his ways and will not change his mind no matter what.

this is a debate forum but MoF chooses not to debate. Its more preaching anti science like newhope

 

[bobhikes]

it doesnt matter what you prove.

he is implying that he is set in his ways and will not change his mind no matter what.

this is a debate forum but MoF chooses not to debate. Its more preaching anti science like newhope

Actually I see it the other way. Evolution is being preached as it is prefect science without flaws and valid points are being just dismissed.