Posted on 12/07/2009 7:30:12 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
The current treatment of young-age creationists in the scientific community and society at large is unfair and unwise. Scientists and philosophers of science, including old-age creationists and naturalists, should respect youngage creationists as legitimate contributors to science. Young-age creationists offer to the current origins science establishment a competing rational viewpoint that will augment fruitful scientific investigation through increased accountability for scientists, introduction of original hypotheses and general epistemic improvement...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
>>for the way you come across, the only place you are a scientist is in your head<<
Well, since that is where my thinking happens, I am good with your analysis. It is clear your thinking comes from your backside, so I’ll take mine.
And if you have CONCRETE arguments that refute my statements about science and the scientific method bring them.
If not, then take your ad hominem and put it in your bike’s flowered basket and pedal up the road with your little fellow ignorant sweeties and play ball and jacks.
Well for one thing, your arguments /as you) are CONCRETE if nothing else
Is assuming that uranium samples being mixed with lead and transuranics in excactly the proportions that indicate billions of years worth of decay doesn't mean they're really that old, no matter how many times you see it really science?
According to their science — they should jump off a cliff... and call it a lake, and water will magically appear..
It gives it something to snicker at?
exactly.
I thought so...
YEC will NEVER be "good" for "science." It will remain outside the science world where it belongs....wouldn't want to invalidate many fields of real science on a religious whim.
The current treatment of young-age creationists in the scientific community and society at large is unfair and unwise.
Oh no!!!! Science ignores YEC nonsense and (sniff)...it's...(sniff) unfaaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiir!!!! Call a freakin' wahmbulance!! "Science" should ignore YEC as, being nothing more than a theology, it is incompatible WITH science.
Scientists and philosophers of science, including old-age creationists and naturalists, should respect youngage creationists as legitimate contributors to science.
SOrry, I don't even lump "philosophers of science" in with "scientsists"......and the notion that scientists should respect YECers as "legitimate contributors to science" is laughably ludicrous. Yeah..."wiping many fields of science away" is "contributing"...
Young-age creationists offer to the current origins science establishment a competing rational viewpoint that will augment fruitful scientific investigation through increased accountability for scientists, introduction of original hypotheses and general epistemic improvement.
The current "origins" "science" is based in theory....there is no way a YECer can offer a viable SCIENTIFIC viewpoint to alter the scientific theories of origins science......a misnomer, if you ask me. That's EXACTLY what the science world needs, more YECers involved in peer-review.
It is no secret; young-age creationists (hereafter YACs) have a poor reputation in the scientific community at large.
Ya don't say....but "YACs" is a good one to remember.
It may be worth asking why most scientists criticize young-age creationists, but such is not the goal of this article.
MAYBE....just going out on a limb here.....because YACs believe that which is incompatible with many fields of science, and they pervert what they don't wholly discount to fit their "Man lived with dinosaurs" story.
The goal is rather to state positively why all scientists and philosophers of science.....should see young-age creationism (hereafter YAC) as a good thing for science.
Gee....DO tell...
The basic idea is that YACs offer to the current origins science establishment a competing rational viewpoint that will augment fruitful scientific investigation through increased accountability for scientists, introduction of original hypotheses, and general epistemic improvement.
...and why should scientists accept YAC claims when they know theology and science don't mix.....and stop trying to raise YAC claims to the level of "science", where they do not belong.
Xenu Ruelz!
Science has largely become synonymous with materialism, claiming what will not yield to its examinations must shunted to the side of “belief”, a fluffy sweet dessert apart from the meat and marrow of “reality”. Enjoy your dessert, just don't try to live on it, so to speak.
If YEC (and others) want their views of the universe's formation to be accepted as scientific then either they will use the means and methods of the materialists or they will have to stop letting the materialists define “science” in such a way that it only applies to themselves, their methods, and yes, their beliefs, their faith in science.
Here we have a 'question' that consists of nothing but propagandistic support of specious assumptions of original conditions (AKA circular reasoning) that would be meaningless to bother answering. But I will say that it is obvious that no science was ever involved in the making of the assumptions; it was politics, and deviant sociology at best.
Thanks for the ping!
But you'll submit that no one can make any assumpition about the age based on radiometric decay because we don't know what the original manifest was.
Basically.
Good luck with that.
I didn’t say that the information present in the world de facto proved the God of the Bible. I was simply arguing that the information present in nature is a compelling argument for a Creator and that it is unscientiffic to rule out any possibility of a God by definition. I would consider other facts such as the reliability of its historical claims (which can be tested through archeology) to test the truth of one religion as apposed to another.
Of course not - it's understood that Vishnu created the world, right?
I would consider other facts such as the reliability of its historical claims (which can be tested through archeology) to test the truth of one religion as apposed to another.
How do you know the archeological artifacts you dig up/reveal are accurate in terms of dates and times?
And discovering those rules of the Creator through science will point back to Creation. Obviously.
Why would the physical laws have changed over time?
What would have caused this change?
Do you have any evidence that physical laws have changed has?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.