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 ...
Perhaps your dictionary has a different definition for analogy than mine?
freedumb2003 is right. If you must “believe” it ain’t science. Science must be testable to prove a hypothesis. Religion ased people to put a belief statement into the experimental process. That’s not science.
And don’t’ start namecalling. I’m a fundamental evangelical.
One thing is clear:
The level of global warming duplicity at the highest levels will encourage skepticism of “the science world” at every level, and the longer the scientific community takes to respond to the AGW fraud, the lower their status will sink in the eyes of the public.
Which means, in relative terms, the position of the YECcers, OE creationists and IDers will rise.
Like predicting where you'll find oil if you drill?
But is not science itself based on assumptions that cannot themselves be confirmed or falsified by the scientific method?
Agreed. But let’s not forget tha the neo-Darwinian synthesis is also in deep trouble, as the increasing number of evos who are abandoning the HMS Beagle will attest.
“Yeah, well, don’t forget that phrenology, along with alchemy, was the accpeted science of the day.”
Back when scientific rigor was in disfavor and populism dictated acceptance. As scientific rigor took sway those ideas fell out of favor. They never were popular because of anything we’d know as science today.
Creationism disallows a neutral rigor. It inherently relies on a bias in its arguments.
That’s because the Biblical account of creation is true; it is the only logical conclusion when one honestly looks at the evidence, and after the lies of darwin are sorted out!
It meets exactly zero scientific criteria.
It may have some currency in a philosophical/theological arena, but that isn’t where the so-called “debate” is occurring.
Neither creationism nor ID are science. To suggest they are is to purposely misrepresent science and the scientific method."
This takes it our of the “arena of ideas” and into the “arena of fraud.”
Peer reviewed and published data regarding Polonium 218 halos meet all the criteria for science. Halos
Science is science. If it leads to the conclusion that there may have been a Creator involved in the genesis of the earth, then so be it.
If God is God, He has the ability to create something out of nothing. Science will validate this if true scientific methods are used.
You should not be biased; allow science to take its course.
Where did I say that?
Science should simply be the search for truth. Creation Scientists look at scientific evidence and present alternative theories on the origins of the earth. Neither evolution or Creation Science are completely testable since they are making claims about the past (which makes them more akin to archeology than the more easily testable forms of science.) People who try to attack Creation Science by throwing ad hominems and attempting to dismiss it without carefully critiquing their arguments are no better than the Scientists who tried to establish the global warming scam by shouting down everyone who disagreed and accused their critics of being unscientific. The same sort of political tricks (ie trying to lock their opponents out of all peer reviewed literature) have been used by both the global warming elite and the Pro Evolution elite scientists.
Yes... and in science, peers respond-
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html
“one of these looney psuedo-science groupies pushing evolution....
Any relation to the psuedo (sic)-science groupies pushing the line that antibiotics shorten lives?
I didn’t say that. That was what I was replying to.
This is published in which peer reviewed scientific publications? Science? Nature? Annual Review of Nuclear Science? Physics Today? I thought we were talking about science as in peer reviewed and published data?
Their is no naturalistic explanation that can explain the creation of the vast amounts of information contained with the DNA code. Evolution has only two tools: Natural Selection and Random Mutations. Natural Selection works great at selecting the most fit from within the existing genetic variation - but that leads to a net loss of information over time as genetic variation is lost. Mutations can change the dna code but those changes simply make portions of the dna unreadable - sometimes this can convey a benefit (ie a “superbug” that loses the ability to create an enzyme which an antibiotic had been intended to interact with to kill the bacteria.) However, losing the information which allowed the bacteria to create an enzyme is still a loss of information. Scientists have never been able to present a true example of mutations creating new genetic information. Thus evolution has no explanation for the creation of the vast amounts of information needed to get from a single cell Organism to man. Not to mention that Evolution has no explenation for how life could have been created in the first place.
Creationist Scientists make some very rational arguments on these lines. So please save me your sarcastic comments comparing Creation Science and Intelligent Design to Astrology. Your elitist dismissal of your opponents is worthy of a Climate Chance Elitist not a true scientist.
Likewise evolution.
There are many philosophical assumptions made that are necessary for the ToE to work, materialistic naturalism not the least.
What evolutionists claim the fossil record demonstrates cannot be reproduced in a lab, cannot be tested for and has not been observed.
Variation within species and natural selection, yes. Not even creationists deny that that happens.
But the major changes that evolutionists claim happened to result in the variety of life we see on the earth today, is still in the realm of speculation.
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.