Creation "Science" Made Easy...

[Rockhopper]

And this one;



And this one too;



Tim.

[Monk (in hiding)]

This post was made by Rockhopper who is currently on your ignore list.

[Rinoa]

Rockhopper, this wouldn't be anything to do with me saying I was not too knowledgeable about science, is it?  lol.

[Lenzabi]

Nah, this is more between Rock who is a science based person, and Omega who has supported "creationism" which prefers something that is NOT the scientific method, as laid out by Aristotle.

[Rockhopper]

^^ Wot 'e sez!

No reflection on you Rin. I posted it to show just how the Method actually works and Peter Hatfield has a way of explaining things in lay terms.

Tim.

[Stargate]

^^ Wot 'e sez!

No reflection on you Rin. I posted it to show just how the Method actually works and Peter Hatfield has a way of explaining things in lay terms.

Tim.

Maybe a stupid question from me Tim, but is there a problem between science and creationism? Scientists generally think everything must be proven, or measurable, where as creationists thinks things were created by some super being. As I see it neither of the two has any basis for their assumptions.

[Rockhopper]

No it's not a stupid question Star. The difference between the two is that Creationists start with the conclusion and then make everything else fit it. God did it and here's why!

Science starts with a hypothesis (educated guess), and they observe it, test it by experimentation to check if it fits, then documents all the data gained by the experiments. They then post all of that in a recognised Science Magazine for other Scientists to scrutinise including naming the Lab which did all the testing and who operates that Lab and so on.

If the experiments can be done by others who get the same result then it becomes a Scientific Theory. So the Theories go through a very rigorous process before they are accepted. Creationism does not get through that rigorous testing.

For example: I could say I saw a pig fly by my window (hypothesis), it can be proved because there are some ways in which a pig could fly, it could have been thrown etc. So it is provable by experiment (get a pig and toss it in the air). But if I said I saw the said pig sprout wings and fly then it is going to be met with some scepticism because we know from past experience that pigs don't sprout wings (common sense test)!! And further, we haven't been able to get wings to grow on pigs yet either, so it's not going to pass the experiment test. That is how Science works Star.

Tim.

[Monk (in hiding)]

Nah, this is more between Rock who is a science based person, and Omega who has supported "creationism" which prefers something that is NOT the scientific method, as laid out by Aristotle.

You cannot add Lenzabi to your ignore-list because he belongs to the forum Administrators or Moderators groups.

[Lenzabi]

Nah, this is more between Rock who is a science based person, and Omega who has supported "creationism" which prefers something that is NOT the scientific method, as laid out by Aristotle.

You cannot add Lenzabi to your ignore-list because he belongs to the forum Administrators or Moderators groups.

And sadly, Creationists prefer to ignore facts, rather than accept the remotest possibility of wrongness, Scientists can only do so for as long as the data supports them, once the data changes or new findings come up, they have to accept it and live with the new information added.

People like Ken ham are illustrated here

[Rockhopper]

That got my chuckle up Len! 

I see you have been inducted into the exalted position of the Ignore list. But you Rank dis-allows it! 

Tim.

[Stargate]

No it's not a stupid question Star. The difference between the two is that Creationists start with the conclusion and then make everything else fit it. God did it and here's why!

Science starts with a hypothesis (educated guess), and they observe it, test it by experimentation to check if it fits, then documents all the data gained by the experiments. They then post all of that in a recognised Science Magazine for other Scientists to scrutinise including naming the Lab which did all the testing and who operates that Lab and so on.

If the experiments can be done by others who get the same result then it becomes a Scientific Theory. So the Theories go through a very rigorous process before they are accepted. Creationism does not get through that rigorous testing.

For example: I could say I saw a pig fly by my window (hypothesis), it can be proved because there are some ways in which a pig could fly, it could have been thrown etc. So it is provable by experiment (get a pig and toss it in the air). But if I said I saw the said pig sprout wings and fly then it is going to be met with some scepticism because we know from past experience that pigs don't sprout wings (common sense test)!! And further, we haven't been able to get wings to grow on pigs yet either, so it's not going to pass the experiment test. That is how Science works Star.

In my view Tim, there is enough room for both the scientist and the creationist. There is a point where scientists have to admit that something came out of nothing much the same as creationist do. We cannot illuminate either of these two ideas. We cannot separate love from hate, or good from evil.

[Rockhopper]

S'okay Star, that's your view and you are entitled to it.

Creationism is NOT science. It relies totally on a belief system not on factual, provable evidence. 

There are some scientific hypotheses around but there is still insufficient evidence to prove or disprove them yet. As more data comes in they will proved or not. The testing is very thorough and rigorous before those hypotheses are accepted and become a Theory.

Love and Hate or Good and Bad are not science Star, they are morals and the definition of which depends on many other factors. 

Creationism has no place in Science and any Scientist worth their salt would never consider it to be so. There are some deeply religious Scientists but they leave their beliefs at the Lab. door and don't allow it to alter their judgements and experiments.

Tim.

[Stargate]

S'okay Star, that's your view and you are entitled to it.

Creationism is NOT science. It relies totally on a belief system not on factual, provable evidence. 

There are some scientific hypotheses around but there is still insufficient evidence to prove or disprove them yet. As more data comes in they will proved or not. The testing is very thorough and rigorous before those hypotheses are accepted and become a Theory.

Love and Hate or Good and Bad are not science Star, they are morals and the definition of which depends on many other factors. 

Creationism has no place in Science and any Scientist worth their salt would never consider it to be so. There are some deeply religious Scientists but they leave their beliefs at the Lab. door and don't allow it to alter their judgements and experiments.

Tim.

The point I was trying to make Tim, is you can't have one without the other. Religious scientist sounds well rounded to me, even when they leave religion at the Lab door. Scientific results are never totalities but ongoing results. Science has never proven anything that is static, everything is in flux and changing. Science also must use probability in the first instance to be able to conclude, that in itself is another version of creationism. I don't get the feeling you are saying science is conclusive, or am I wrong?

[Monk (in hiding)]

Don't believe in either. Each one has a label. I've gone over the 'labeling' before, yet some here continue to label ideas one way or the other, black and white, right or wrong.

Simple minded.........


By giving me a name, you negate me.

By giving me a name, a label you negate all the other things I possibly can be.

You lock the particle into being a thing, by pinning it down, naming it.

But at the same time you are creating it, defining it to exist.

Creativity is our highest nature, with the creation of things, comes time. Which is what creates the illusion of solidity.......

[Rockhopper]

The point I was trying to make Tim, is you can't have one without the other. Religious scientist sounds well rounded to me, even when they leave religion at the Lab door. Scientific results are never totalities but ongoing results. Science has never proven anything that is static, everything is in flux and changing. Science also must use probability in the first instance to be able to conclude, that in itself is another version of creationism. I don't get the feeling you are saying science is conclusive, or am I wrong?

 Quite right Star because everything is in flux, that's why theories do change over time as more data becomes available.
But some do remain static, for example; Einstein's Theory of Relativity, E=MC^3. Newton's Theory of Gravity and so on. They are all proven to be correct and don't change.

But to say that an original idea is religion is stretching a long bow! The original hypothesis is just an idea and has no religious content in it and further proof is needed to back it up. Check on the Scientific Method Star and you will see just how rigorous the testing is and what a new hypothesis has to go through.





Even https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method  has a good description of it!

Tim.

[Monk (in hiding)]

What Is Pseudoscience?


Any "science" that cannot produce "observable, repeatable, verifiable results is a Pseudoscience! Therefore Evolution and Creationism fall into the same category as Pseudosciences. Both are based on theory that cannot be proven and has no factual evidence to back up the theories. Both require faith to fill in the gaps.

Here is a working definition :”Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, which does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status. Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories. A field, practice, or body of knowledge can reasonably be called pseudoscientific when it is presented as consistent with the norms of scientific research; while failing to meet these norms.”



http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-pseudoscience/

[Rockhopper]

I note that the site you quote is a page written by Michael Shermer. Nowhere on it does it say anything about Evolution and Creationism (labels again?) at all in any form. The only reference to evolution is in the quote below.

From the site:

I call creationism “pseudoscience” not because its proponents are doing bad science—they are not doing science at all (emphasis mine)—but because they threaten science education in America, they breach the wall separating church and state, and they confuse the public about the nature of evolutionary theory and how science is conducted.

And:

We can demarcate science from pseudoscience less by what science is and more by what scientists do. Science is a set of methods aimed at testing hypotheses and building theories. If a community of scientists actively adopts a new idea and if that idea then spreads through the field and is incorporated into research that produces useful knowledge reflected in presentations, publications, and especially new lines of inquiry and research, chances are it is science.

The term "Creation Science" (not my construct - it is the name that the proponents use) is Pseudoscience is the very definition of what Michael is talking about.

By trying to define Evolution as a Pseudoscience is completely ignoring all the huge collection of data stored in the Museums like the Smithsonian and the Brit. Museum. There ARE some small gaps in what we know and as time goes by they are being filled but the Theory of Evolution still stands and can be verified by a trip to those Museums.


Al cultures the world over have creation myths but myths are not evidence.


My point remains the same, there is no evidence or even an indication, that there was any intervention by an outside entity in the development of Humans.


Tim.

[Monk (in hiding)]

Evolution Theory & The Scientific Method

“Any suppression which undermines and destroys that very foundation on which scientific methodology and research was erected, evolutionist or otherwise, cannot and must not be allowed to flourish … It is a confrontation between scientific objectivity and ingrained prejudice – between logic and emotion – between fact and fiction … In the final analysis, objective scientific logic has to prevail – no matter what the final result is – no matter how many time-honoured idols have to be discarded in the process … After all, it is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution and stick by it to the bitter end -no matter what illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers … If in the process of impartial scientific logic, they find that creation by outside intelligence is the solution to our quandary, then let’s cut the umbilical chord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back … Every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution (and amended thereafter) is imaginary as it is not supported by the scientifically established probability concepts. Darwin was wrong… The theory of evolution may be the worst mistake made in science.”

(I L Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong – A Study in Probabilities PO Box 231, Greenvale, New York 11548: New Research Publications, Inc. pp 6-8, 209-210, 214-215. I.L.Cohen, Member of the New York Academy of Sciences and Officer of the Archaeological Institute of America).

http://sepetjian.wordpress.com/2012/05/09/evolution-theory-the-scientific-method/

[Rockhopper]

Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?

It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."

In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.

One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. For example, the theory of gravitation predicted the behavior of objects on the moon and other planets long before the activities of spacecraft and astronauts confirmed them. The evolutionary biologists who discovered Tiktaalik predicted that they would find fossils intermediate between fish and limbed terrestrial animals in sediments that were about 375 million years old. Their discovery confirmed the prediction made on the basis of evolutionary theory. In turn, confirmation of a prediction increases confidence in that theory.

In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.

Source.

Note that this info comes from a genuine Scientific site not some whacky fringe one!!

More from the same site:

Evolutionary biology has been and continues to be a cornerstone of modern science. This booklet documents some of the major contributions that an understanding of evolution has made to human well-being, including its contributions to preventing and treating human disease, developing new agricultural products, and creating industrial innovations. More broadly, evolution is a core concept in biology that is based both in the study of past life forms and in the study of the relatedness and diversity of present-day organisms. 

The rapid advances now being made in the life sciences and in medicine rest on principles derived from an understanding of evolution. That understanding has arisen both through the study of an ever-expanding fossil record and, equally importantly, through the application of modern biological and molecular sciences and technologies to the study of evolution. Of course, as with any active area of science, many fascinating questions remain, and this booklet highlights some of the active research that is currently under way that addresses questions about evolution.

Tim.

[Stargate]

Tim, how can we be sure that Einstins formel is relevant for the space outside of our universe? We precive the universe from our three dimentional perspective, you have to admit that at least there is a probability that there are more platforms of dimensions for observations that are not accesable to our present human .form and in all probability could give us different results. As you have stated new data is always changing the face of science. We could say gravity is working for us as a constant for now, simply because of our present perception of ourselves and the universe. If we say religion is a belief in something not proven, then we would have to say the same thing for science. How can anything be proven if it is not complete? We cannot stop time if we have three dimentional bodies since time is a component of our bodies. It does not matter how rigerous the experiments are to substantiate the conclusion of any experiment, it can never be conclusive, there is no totality of objective reasoning.

[Sponsored content]