Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[james bond]

The scientific method is not "atheist". It is merely a method that requires verifiable, demonstrable evidence. If there is no verifiable, demonstrable evidence for something, then it cannot be considered a "scientific theory". That is why the multiverse hypothesis, for example, is not a scientific theory.

I am differentiating scientific method versus that of the atheist scientific method. Let's say someone said Hubble telescope was able to capture a picture of God. Will it be treated the same as that of the Pillars of Creation? Will the scientific method be the same in both cases in analyzing the photo? Or another example, the creation scientist claims that God created earth and the universe for humans and makes no mention of other beings. All life exists on Earth. Thus, do the scientists use the scientific method and accept this? No other evidence exists to the contrary. They should, but the top scientist at NASA, for one, believes we will find alien life in ten years. Where is the scientific method in that?

 

[viole]

This is a great question, viole. I don't agree with what JP said, but since he's the Pope he has to say something. I suppose it's difficult for non-believers to understand, but my complaint is part due to scientific principles, but more religious ones. Religious persons should not stand in the way since it would be standing in the way of religious freedom for atheists. It's not like in the past.

Nah. He warned because he was afraid that Hawking would find a naturalistic explanation for that, too. He did not pay attention to what his co-catholic Lamaitre said to his pope.

Which is a bit self defeating if you think about it.

Ciao

- viole

 

[leibowde84]

I am differentiating scientific method versus that of the atheist scientific method. Let's say someone said Hubble telescope was able to capture a picture of God. Will it be treated the same as that of the Pillars of Creation? Will the scientific method be the same in both cases in analyzing the photo? Or another example, the creation scientist claims that God created earth and the universe for humans and makes no mention of other beings. All life exists on Earth. Thus, do the scientists use the scientific method and accept this? No other evidence exists to the contrary. They should, but the top scientist at NASA, for one, believes we will find alien life in ten years. Where is the scientific method in that?

The following is a description of what the scientific method is. Unless a subject can be explored using this method, it cannot be considered scientifically.

The scientific method
When conducting research, scientists use the scientific method to collect measurable, empirical evidence in an experiment related to a hypothesis (often in the form of an if/then statement), the results aiming to support or contradict a theory.

The steps of the scientific method go something like this:

1. Make an observation or observations.
2. Ask questions about the observations and gather information.
3. Form a hypothesis — a tentative description of what’s been observed, and make predictions based on that hypothesis.
4. Test the hypothesis and predictions in an experiment that can be reproduced.
5. Analyze the data and draw conclusions; accept or reject the hypothesis or modify the hypothesis if necessary.
6. Reproduce the experiment until there are no discrepancies between observations and theory. “Replication of methods and results is my favorite step in the scientific method," Moshe Pritsker, a former post-doctoral researcher at Harvard Medical School and CEO of JoVE, told Live Science. "The reproducibility of published experiments is the foundation of science. No reproducibility – no science."

Some key underpinnings to the scientific method:

• The hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable, according to North Carolina State University. Falsifiable means that there must be a possible negative answer to the hypothesis.
• Research must involve deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is the process of using true premises to reach a logical true conclusion while inductive reasoning takes the opposite approach.
• An experiment should include a dependent variable (which does not change) and an independent variable (which does change).
• An experiment should include an experimental group and a control group. The control group is what the experimental group is compared against.

 

[leibowde84]

I am differentiating scientific method versus that of the atheist scientific method. Let's say someone said Hubble telescope was able to capture a picture of God. Will it be treated the same as that of the Pillars of Creation? Will the scientific method be the same in both cases in analyzing the photo? Or another example, the creation scientist claims that God created earth and the universe for humans and makes no mention of other beings. All life exists on Earth. Thus, do the scientists use the scientific method and accept this? No other evidence exists to the contrary. They should, but the top scientist at NASA, for one, believes we will find alien life in ten years. Where is the scientific method in that?

Btw, there is only one scientific method. There are multiple ways to experiment, hypothesize, etc. but the method itself is the same. You make observations, you make a hypothesis and predictions, you conduct experimentations and obersvations to test that hypothesis over and over until you feel absolutely confident that your hypothesis matches the evidence.

 

[viole]

According to Hawking,
Hawking, in his book A Brief History of Time, states on page 120 that at a 1981 Vatican conference on cosmology Pope John Paul II said that "it was all right to study the evolution of the universe after the Big Bang, but we should not inquire into the Big Bang itself because that was the moment of Creation and therefore the work of God."

However there is some discrepancy as to what JP actually said in his address to the conference;

Here is what the pope actually said: "Every scientific hypothesis about the origin of the world, such as the one that says that there is a basic atom from which the whole of the physical universe is derived, leaves unanswered the problem concerning the beginning of the universe. By itself science cannot resolve such a question: it requires human knowledge which rises above the physical, the astrophysical, what we call the metaphysical; what is required above all is the knowledge which comes from the revelation of God."

I assume what is meant there is a point where science crosses over to theology. Science may claim a creator God was not necessary, but it may not claim non existence.

I don't think that science cares if it crosses over to theology. I suspect they do not care either if they cross over to leprechaunology when they study anthropology and such.

Should they?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Sapiens]

I don't think that science cares if it crosses over to theology. I suspect they do not care either if they cross over to leprechaunology when they study anthropology and such.

Should they?

Ciao

- viole

The real question is how many times has science effectively falsified a claim of religion and how many times has religion effectively falsified a claim of science?

 

[james bond]

Nah. He warned because he was afraid that Hawking would find a naturalistic explanation for that, too. He did not pay attention to what his co-catholic Lamaitre said to his pope.

Which is a bit self defeating if you think about it.

Ciao

- viole

The Pope is liberal and an old earth creationist. My guess would be he would say God created quantum mechanics if Hawking gets his peer-review passed. However, this isn't the case regardless of the peer-review. I think a young earth Pope would keep quiet. I don't think he would challenge Hawking pursuing what he is doing. I don't think, however a Pope thinks, he could do what happened to Galileo to a creation scientist today. But, we would be monitoring the situation, as I'm sure the atheists are this one.

 

[Thief]

The real question is how many times has science effectively falsified a claim of religion and how many times has religion effectively falsified a claim of science?

as if religion cannot prevail?

 

[leibowde84]

as if religion cannot prevail?

When has it?

 

[shunyadragon]

as if religion cannot prevail?

Ancient world views of religion and science based on ancient mythology does not prevail. They end up accumulated moldy foul dust in the corners of stone monoliths of ancient ceremonies masked by the pleasant smell of incense.
.

 

[Sapiens]

as if religion cannot prevail?

If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims. ― Dalai Lama XIV, The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality

 

[james bond]

Ancient world views of religion and science based on ancient mythology does not prevail. They end up accumulated moldy foul dust in the corners of stone monoliths of ancient ceremonies masked by the pleasant smell of incense.
.

Again, you have to demonstrate your claim that the Bible is ancient mythology, and the rest is just wrong.

 

[Thief]

If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims. ― Dalai Lama XIV, The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality

I'm not opposed to science
I like the stuff

and if the dogma falters.....I don't mind
I don't use dogma to support my belief

to say science prevails on all points....is too much assumption
(not that assumption is a bad tool)

occasionally the immediate surroundings speak of Something Greater
and science has no comment

I don't mind

 

[Sapiens]

I'm not opposed to science
I like the stuff

and if the dogma falters.....I don't mind
I don't use dogma to support my belief

to say science prevails on all points....is too much assumption
(not that assumption is a bad tool)

occasionally the immediate surroundings speak of Something Greater
and science has no comment

I don't mind

Then I must ask you again: The real question is how many times has science effectively falsified a claim of religion and how many times has religion effectively falsified a claim of science?

 

[Thief]

Then I must ask you again: The real question is how many times has science effectively falsified a claim of religion and how many times has religion effectively falsified a claim of science?

you might want to narrow that down a bit

or maybe rephrase altogether

how many times do people make denial?......for lack of something in front of their noses

as if they can't see much further
or can't fill in the blanks

 

[Darkstorn]

you might want to narrow that down a bit

or maybe rephrase altogether

how many times do people make denial?......for lack of something in front of their noses

as if they can't see much further
or can't fill in the blanks

Your posts seem to be heavy on text, but short on content... You don't come off as a deep thinker even thought that must be why you keep posting like this. How about you just answer what was asked instead of making up a word salad of confusion?

 

[Thief]

Your posts seem to be heavy on text, but short on content... You don't come off as a deep thinker even thought that must be why you keep posting like this. How about you just answer what was asked instead of making up a word salad of confusion?

how about a serious rebuttal?

soooooo often I see a shallow retort like yours

complain of no content on my part?
simple minded denial on your part

 

[Darkstorn]

complain of no content on my part?
simple minded denial on your part

Show my comment to be false and answer his question then.

I don't think you managed to show how my claim was untrue: Your original post still remains without content.

soooooo often I see a shallow retort like yours

What boggles the mind is that you somehow consider yourself to not be shallow. With the type of debate you use(distraction rather than simple answering of simple questions.) It's funny, not reinforcing.

 

[Thief]

Show my comment to be false and answer his question then.

I don't think you managed to show how my claim was untrue: Your original post still remains without content.



What boggles the mind is that you somehow consider yourself to not be shallow. With the type of text you use. It's funny, not reinforcing.

the content is simple

Spirit first?
or substance?

start at the beginning

use your head

 

[Darkstorn]

the content is simple

Spirit first?
or substance?

Spirit is substance. I've seen Creationists attest to such. If it's not, it's up to you to show it isn't.

start at the beginning

use your head

You aren't the beginning. You are the confusing continuation.