Author Topic: Creationism Is Not Science  (Read 1489 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline TruthSearcher

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 48
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #116 on: July 22, 2017, 01:53:03 AM »
To add onto Foxy's argument a bit:

Science is not and never has been about presenting an answer when an answer is not known.  It is about coming up with the best possible explanation based on current knowledge.  So if someone comes up with a better explanation that holds up under scrutiny, science must accept it.  If someone comes up with improved knowledge, and the explanation does not work as a result, it must be modified or discarded.

So, TruthSearcher's belief that the definition of science requires something like evolution even if there were no evidence for it is explicitly false.  The 'definition' of science[1] automatically rules out such chicanery.  If science cannot explain something, then scientists keep trying to come up with explanations that might work, and that produce predictions that can be tested.

The same goes for his idea that only natural explanations are permitted.  Science does not care in the slightest what an explanation is as long as it produces predictions that can be tested.  If it does not, then it cannot be scientific.  And that's all there is to it.  A natural explanation which doesn't produce testable predictions will be rejected as unscientific, full stop.  The same goes with a non-natural explanation (such as a supernatural one).  The distinction, though, is that no non-natural explanation has managed to produce testable predictions of any sort, and certainly none that can be verified through experiment.

If Intelligent Design were able to produce testable predictions, then it would be scientific even if we couldn't necessarily test those predictions just yet.  But it doesn't, and never has.  It's not about making testable predictions to begin with, so of course it can't produce any.  TruthSearcher need look no further than that to understand why it is not considered scientific; he certainly does not need convoluted logic.
 1. not that it matters, as science isn't something you can arbitrarily redefine without breaking the whole thing

I’ve added in this second aspect to the definition of science, what you and Foxy Freedom have done is highlighted the age old question, is evolution history or science.

Creationism makes the prediction that things will go from order to chaos, from living to extinction, from very few harmful mutations to many harmful mutations and eventual sterility.   Do we see this prediction coming true around us? Yes.   We have the relatively modern concept of “don’t marry your cousin” because there are so many harmful mutations in our DNA.  Do we see any new species or animals appearing?  NO.

But this isn’t science, because it includes the supernatural origins, so you don’t see this in science journals.

Offline TruthSearcher

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 48
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #117 on: July 22, 2017, 01:55:11 AM »
I propose the following, please present a counter definition of science and how it relates to origins concepts, thank you.

The Premise:

1. The definition of science:

1a. Science is knowledge/understanding/study of the natural/physical/material universe.

1b. Science is the set of falsifiable claims (i.e. the scientific method).

2. The concept called ‘evolution’ exists, this concept states that everything in the natural world came from pre-existing material (regardless of how unlikely, this concept does exist).

3. The concept called ‘creationism’ exists, this concept states that nothing in the natural world evolved at all but every natural thing was specially created out of nothing by an infinitely powerful supernatural, non-physical, immaterial being often called ‘God’ (regardless of how unlikely, this concept does exist).

4. It is possible that ‘God’ exists (regardless of how unlikely, it is possible).

Therefore:

Regarding science definition No. 1a the concept of evolution is scientific (because it only has   natural/physical/material explanations) and (in spite of the fact that most proponents of ‘creationism’ claim that the concept is scientific) the concept of ‘creationism’ is not scientific (because it brings the supernatural/non-physical/immaterial into the analysis thus violating the very definition of science).

Regarding science definition No. 1b any concept of an event that happened in the past and where the proposed event is unrepeatable/testable in the present is unscientific, therefore under this definition both ‘evolution’ and ‘creationism’ are both NOT science, but rather they are both history.

Following this, and specifically relating to origins science, then because of the definition of science:

1. When a natural explanation is presented for the origin of something in nature and it’s the only natural explanation that has been thought of so far, then regardless of how unlikely the explanation is it is still included in the theory of evolution because only natural explanations are allowed for the theory to remain scientific, i.e. Origins Science is just the best natural explanation we have thought of so far.

2. The concept of evolution is a direct result of the definition of science, there could be zero evidence for evolution and it still would be presented as science because science has no other option but to have a natural explanation for the origin of nature.

3. If there is evidence of ‘creationism’, it cannot be classified as science, it must be classified as unscientific.

4. It is more fitting to place ‘creationism’ in the field of theology.

Offline wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4464
  • Darwins +286/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #118 on: July 22, 2017, 05:08:29 AM »
Yes, TS, creationism is in the right place in theology.


Science involves observation or something, coming up with a testable explanation followed by testing. If no one can falsify the explanation it might start to become part of science. Where the Creationists / ID ists fail is that they start from their bibles and then look for anything that might support the stories therein. It is backwards from the way science is done.


Given the various qualifications of Creationist organisations,  one would think they might take all the evidence we have found - fossils, DNA, radio dating etc - and come up with an hypothesis  suing that data that points to their favoured view but they don't. I mean, the work done and the evidence collected means that half the work is already done for these creationists and all they have to do is to come up with an hypothesis to make the evidence match their bible stories. They don't though.


My only explanation for this is dishonesty. That they don't do the work suggests they know that the evidence doesn't support anything other than evolution so they avoid it. It seems to me that they are either so committed to their faith that  they defend it without regard to evidence or they see a money making opportunity and stick to creationism to acquire money from the gullible right-wing Christians. After all, I don't see any poor creationists - what with museums, and ark etc and the Hovind family businesses and all that....
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 16908
  • Darwins +324/-17
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #119 on: July 22, 2017, 07:18:13 AM »
I’ve added in this second aspect to the definition of science, what you and Foxy Freedom have done is highlighted the age old question, is evolution history or science.

Creationism makes the prediction that things will go from order to chaos, from living to extinction, from very few harmful mutations to many harmful mutations and eventual sterility.   Do we see this prediction coming true around us? Yes.   We have the relatively modern concept of “don’t marry your cousin” because there are so many harmful mutations in our DNA.  Do we see any new species or animals appearing?  NO.

But this isn’t science, because it includes the supernatural origins, so you don’t see this in science journals.

no, we don't.  We have seen non living go to living and we are not sure yet what the end is, though *some* living things go extinct.  There is nothing to support your claim of "harmful mutations" since that depends solely on the environment if a mutation is "harmful" or "beneficial".

You show that you haven't even taken the time to understand what you attack.   That's simply pathetic. 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4464
  • Darwins +286/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #120 on: July 22, 2017, 09:02:24 AM »
For what it is worth, the main problem is that Creationism has not been arrived at through scientific investigation. What has happened is that people have declared it to be the case and have then looked around at the world to make 'predictions' which are, of course, generalised observations adopted to bolster up the idea. Those are not predictions.


Evolution theory predicts that no fossil will ever be found in the wrong layers of rock in which it ought to be. So, for example, rabbits don't appear alongside the fossils of ancient fish. Indeed, all it would take to kill off evolution would be to find a fossil like that and the theory would be falsified yet I have not seen any creationists out looking for such things,


On the other hand, Creation and the Flood predict that we will find a layer of dead animals of all types (because they were all created in one week, remember?) and these would all be a in a single layer. When will we see a creationist out there looking for the layer? Never, I suggest, as the work done already shows that such a layer does not exist and Creationists know this so don't go looking.


Still, it is open to anyone to prove evolution false - just one fossil could kill it[1] and to find that layer of dead animals showing the flood. Until then, though, creation is a desk-based read the bible sort of research that doesn't have anything useful to say - except on Sunday in the sermon of course.
 1. and maybe a Nobel prize for the research...
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 8515
  • Darwins +1081/-26
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #121 on: July 22, 2017, 10:41:32 AM »
Creationism makes the prediction that things will go from order to chaos, from living to extinction, from very few harmful mutations to many harmful mutations and eventual sterility.   Do we see this prediction coming true around us? Yes.   We have the relatively modern concept of “don’t marry your cousin” because there are so many harmful mutations in our DNA.  Do we see any new species or animals appearing?  NO.

But this isn’t science, because it includes the supernatural origins, so you don’t see this in science journals.
This is actually false, TruthSearcher; creationism makes no such prediction.  Creationism is an attempt to explain reality by inventing stories, rather than by making testable predictions.  What you are describing here is the ad hoc 'methodology' that has been used by creationism all along to attempt to make scientific knowledge fit in its paradigm.  But it was never something that was intended to actually be tested.

Let's take your claim that creationism 'predicts' order to chaos, living to extinct, few (harmful) mutations to many (harmful) mutations to sterility.  You claim that we see this coming true around us, which confirms the prediction of creationism, but since it involves the supernatural, it is not science.  First off, not only do we do not see order becoming chaos, we cannot see it, because it's a type mismatch.  When you say 'chaos', you mean 'disorder'.  When scientists say 'chaos', they mean the tendency of complex systems to produce unpredictable results based on trivial differences.  These complex systems are necessarily ordered, and so you get "order producing chaos", but since most people don't understand what science means by this, they misunderstand it in the same manner as how they misunderstand the word 'theory'.

Second, this 'prediction' suffers from an overdose of confirmation bias - the tendency of people to see only things which confirm what they already believe and to miss things which contradict those beliefs.  If you believe that everything is sliding from order to disorder, you will naturally tend to see only examples of this, and miss (or forget) examples that contradict it, even when those contradictions ultimately far outnumber the confirmations.  Can you name particular examples of this which were specifically predicted in advance?  More importantly, have you even bothered to look for the reverse, to attempt to falsify this prediction?  If not, then you cannot say that you are seeing "order to disorder" around us, because you don't have any actual examples you can present, and you haven't even attempted to falsify your belief.

You're doing the exact same thing as someone told to guess the rule governing a sequence of numbers, 'confirming' the guess with similar sequences, despite having guessed wrong.  If you're trying to figure out something you don't know, you have to attempt to falsify your belief, because there are many more possible explanations than can possibly be right, and if you go with what comes to mind first, you have no real chance of being right.

Third, you're making the usual mistake regarding evolution, that humans should be able to see new species appearing all the time (as if evolution were magic).  We don't see new species of animals appearing out of nowhere because that's not how evolution works in the first place.  Here's how evolution actually works; every time we see bacteria evolve drug resistance, that's a new bacterial species, which we can see on a human scale because of how fast bacterial generations are.  It takes lots of time - hundreds or thousands of generations - to evolve new species.  We're talking sustained experiments over centuries for most animals - because you have to keep track of all the differences over all that time.  Unless you've done at least that much, you can't believably claim that no new animals or species have come into being.

I could go on and on about this, TruthSearcher, but I believe I've made my point.  The reason creationism is not scientific is not because it posits the supernatural, but because it doesn't behave scientifically.  Creationists don't do experiments to falsify their predictions; what they come up in the first place with are inventive explanations rather than scientific predictions; they mismatch definitions all the time (such as "order to chaos"); and they only look to confirm what they believe rather than being willing to falsify it.  All of these are non-scientific, and are much better reasons for why creationism is not science than "creationism includes supernatural elements".
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2854
  • Darwins +315/-14
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #122 on: July 22, 2017, 10:46:28 AM »
Creationism makes the prediction that things will...

Taking what you say at face value with your own assumptions.

That refutes your own claim that creationism cannot be tested scientifically.

If it makes a prediction, it can be tested.

Now let's look at the facts.

Quote
I’ve added in this second aspect to the definition of science, what you and Foxy Freedom have done is highlighted the age old question, is evolution history or science.

The past leaves traces in the present. So the past can be tested to the extent that it survives.

Quote
Creationism makes the prediction that things will go from order to chaos, from living to extinction, from very few harmful mutations to many harmful mutations and eventual sterility.   Do we see this prediction coming true around us? Yes.

Evolution makes the prediction that complexity and order come from chaos, so does physics.

What do we actually see?

Galaxies increase in complexity from the earliest we can photograph to the present. Stars evolve from simple hydrogen stars to stars with life forming elements. The early layers of the Earth have only single celled organisms, then in the next layers other life in the sea, then on land, then in the air. All the time complex biology is derived only from simpler biology, not just of the whole animal or plant, but in all the working parts. There is not a single exception in all the fossils ever found.

Quote
We have the relatively modern concept of “don’t marry your cousin” because there are so many harmful mutations in our DNA.

That is not modern. Look what happened to Tutankhamun.

Quote
Do we see any new species or animals appearing?  NO.

Actually we do. Look up ring species. They are appearing as we write. One break in the chain and there will be two new species.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2017, 11:15:48 AM by Foxy Freedom »
The Foxy Freedom antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 8515
  • Darwins +1081/-26
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #123 on: July 22, 2017, 11:02:52 AM »
Also, I'm going to do you a favor and strongly recommend that you stop trying to define science, TruthSearcher.  It's clear at this point that you don't understand it well enough to define it.  You're trying to define it with words that sound scientific.  And worse, you're doing so not to actually try to understand science, but to try to insulate creationism from scientific inquiry.  And frankly, that's not working.  You've tried to revise this idea of yours how many times now, and still haven't come up with something that works - ignoring the fact that as you make it more complicated, you make it less likely to be true, due to the way probability works.

The probability of A and B both being true is necessarily smaller than the probability of either A or B being true.  You've gotten this up to nine or ten steps by now, so the probability of the whole thing being true is getting to be too small to be worth the continued effort of trying to formulate it.  Especially since you're still making the same basic mistaken assumption about why creationism isn't scientific.  As I and others keep telling you, it has almost nothing to do with the fact that it posits "the supernatural" and everything to do with failing to actually use scientific methodology.  Especially since there are people out there trying to figure out how to explain "the supernatural" using science - for example, ghost hunters.

Rather than trying to create this wholly artificial division between science and creationism based on the poorly-understood idea of "the supernatural", focus on the actual ways in which creationism fails to be scientific.
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 8515
  • Darwins +1081/-26
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #124 on: July 22, 2017, 11:30:03 AM »
Yes there are people claiming such an interface, but science can’t use it because the supernatural is in conflict with the definition of science.   So science has to ignore these people who make such claims.
Absolutely, completely false.  I keep telling you this, and you keep disregarding it.  Science has in fact dealt with lots of things believed to be supernatural.  There was a point in time when lightning was believed to be supernatural, and yet, science was able to explain it.  There was a point in time when the sun and moon, the planets and the stars, were believed to be supernatural; science was able to deal with them too.  So, the claim that "the supernatural is in conflict with the definition of science" is clearly not true.

Quote from: TruthSearcher
But in a theological debate we can take these peoples experiences into account.

These experiences of people indicate that maybe we have a supernatural ability to interact with God.
Sorry, but I do not concede that we must leave this supposed 'interface' to theology because of the idea that science can't deal with the supernatural.  More specifically, the way you keep trying to define science so it can't touch the supernatural.  Given all the times that people have believed that something is supernatural, only to have it tested by science and found to be explainable, this idea that you can declare something to be supernatural and thus untouchable by science is plain and simply wrong.  Like it or not, you have to thoroughly examine it, and even after that, you can't be sure that it won't have a natural explanation lurking somewhere that you can't see.

If you don't do that, all you're doing is worshiping a mystery.  And whatever you might think, science loves mysteries, so don't make the mistake of assuming that you can wall off "the supernatural" and keep science out.

EDIT - Here's the basic mistake you're making, TruthSearcher.  You're trying to argue that "the supernatural" is out of the reach of science, but you aren't giving us any reason why it should be out of the reach of science.  You're just trying to 'define' it out of reach, which is pointless.  It's the same kind of category mistake as that silly argument about whether a tree that falls in a forest with nobody around makes a noise or not.  If you define 'noise' as "auditory experiences", then it didn't; if you define 'noise' as "acoustic vibrations", then it did; but both cases are describing the exact same thing.  What happens as a result of the tree falling doesn't change based on how you define it.  And by the same token, defining something as 'supernatural' and defining science as "can't deal with supernatural' won't actually make it impossible for science to deal with the thing.  Until you recognize this and correct your thinking, you'll continue to go further and further astray.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2017, 12:01:56 PM by jaimehlers »
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Offline kaziglu bey

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 821
  • Darwins +133/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • There is no Big Brother in the sky.
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #125 on: July 22, 2017, 02:17:04 PM »
I propose the following, please present a counter definition of science and how it relates to origins concepts, thank you.

The Premise:

1. The definition of science:

1a. Science is knowledge/understanding/study of the natural/physical/material universe.

1b. Science is the set of falsifiable claims (i.e. the scientific method).
According to Merriam Webster, who is kind of in the business of defining things, science is as follows.
Quote
Definition of science
1
:  the state of knowing :  knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2
a :  a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study the science of theology
b :  something (such as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge have it down to a science
3
a :  knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
b :  such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena :  natural science
4
:  a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws cooking is both a science and an art
5
capitalized :  christian science

There is no need to make self-serving definitions of things where a definition already exists.

Quote
2. The concept called ‘evolution’ exists, this concept states that everything in the natural world came from pre-existing material (regardless of how unlikely, this concept does exist).
Actually evolution has nothing to do with origins. It has to do with the diversity of species of life on this planet. My 13 year old is going into 8th grade and knows the difference. In fact, he came to realize it on his own when we were reading a book about prehistoric mammals when he was like 6.

Quote
3. The concept called ‘creationism’ exists, this concept states that nothing in the natural world evolved at all but every natural thing was specially created out of nothing by an infinitely powerful supernatural, non-physical, immaterial being often called ‘God’ (regardless of how unlikely, this concept does exist).
And the concept exists that Vili, Ve and Odin constructed the cosmos out of the remains of the slain giant, Ymir. This is JUST AS LIKELY TO BE TRUE as whatever you mean by creationism. Just because a concept exists, doesn't mean it is significant. The concept of phlogistons exists, but informs us in no way about the natural world.

Quote
4. It is possible that ‘God’ exists (regardless of how unlikely, it is possible).
The same is true of fairies and Santa and elves and mole people and Russel's teapot and the Force and unicorns and Vishnu. SO. WHAT.

Quote
Therefore:
Get your popcorn ready folks, this should be good.

Quote
Regarding science definition No. 1a the concept of evolution is scientific (because it only has   natural/physical/material explanations) and (in spite of the fact that most proponents of ‘creationism’ claim that the concept is scientific) the concept of ‘creationism’ is not scientific (because it brings the supernatural/non-physical/immaterial into the analysis thus violating the very definition of science).
I would disagree in that since creationism attempts to make claims about the way the natural world came to be and about how the universe is, it is making scientific claims. The difference is that it is making those claims in the absence of any real evidence, just more of the same crap you did, "regardless of how unlikely, this concept does exist". Again so what? A concept without evidence is a non starter. Come back with evidence.

Quote
Regarding science definition No. 1b any concept of an event that happened in the past and where the proposed event is unrepeatable/testable in the present is unscientific, therefore under this definition both ‘evolution’ and ‘creationism’ are both NOT science, but rather they are both history.
Utterly absurd. We can find innumerable examples of evolution occurring, even among living organisms. If you had even bothered to attempt to properly understand what you are trying to explain, you would know this. Again, this is middle school biology.

Quote
Following this, and specifically relating to origins science, then because of the definition of science:

1. When a natural explanation is presented for the origin of something in nature and it’s the only natural explanation that has been thought of so far, then regardless of how unlikely the explanation is it is still included in the theory of evolution because only natural explanations are allowed for the theory to remain scientific, i.e. Origins Science is just the best natural explanation we have thought of so far.
I honestly don't even know what this is supposed to mean. Sounds like a word salad with woo dressing.

Quote
2. The concept of evolution is a direct result of the definition of science,
No, the concept of evolution is a direct result of the APPLICATION of science.
Quote
there could be zero evidence for evolution
Which isn't the case, it is a ridiculously solid and well tested theory. 
Quote
and it still would be presented as science
You obviously have NO IDEA what you are talking about. If there was no evidence for evolution it wouldn't be presented as a scientific theory, as evidenced by the fact that it was not proposed as a scientific theory until an insane amount of evidence was built.
Quote
because science has no other option but to have a natural explanation for the origin of nature.
Again you reveal that you have NO IDEA what you are talking about. Evolution does not deal with origins, it deals with proliferation and diversity. Please enroll in your nearest university, or read a book, or something.

Quote
3. If there is evidence of ‘creationism’, it cannot be classified as science, it must be classified as unscientific.
Anything that there is actually evidence for is part of the scientific understanding of the universe. That's that point. If Creationism were real, there would be evidence for it. There isn't. Therefore it is an empty concept.

Quote
4. It is more fitting to place ‘creationism’ in the field of theology.
Nope. Anything that makes claims about the universe is subject to scientific scrutiny and falsification. I will refer you to text from the first definition of science: "the state of knowing :  knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding". You fall under the ignorance or misunderstanding category.
"A resurrected person who is also the son of a virgin could still be talking nonsense. There's no logic that says he must be right. " Christopher Hitchens

Offline jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 8515
  • Darwins +1081/-26
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #126 on: July 22, 2017, 02:45:52 PM »
It is worth noting that theology is also a science and thus is also subject to the observation/testing/falsification process.  There is no "get out of jail free" card when it comes to science.  It is only a matter of whether people are willing to honestly examine the evidence and draw conclusions based on it, or come up with excuses so they can believe as they like.  I know where I stand on that.
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Offline wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4464
  • Darwins +286/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #127 on: July 23, 2017, 09:57:20 AM »
If Creation is true, then there are testable predictions that follow.


Genesis says that god made all the animals as they are now (subject to some dog and other animal breeding we have done since.) Noah took on the Ark 2 or 7 of each kind[1] so we ought to to be able to say, with some confidence that, there ought not to be an fossils found that show a creature from, say, fish, becoming another kind, say amphibian or reptile. After all, fish[2] this god guy made all the fish and all the land animals and that would include all the amphibians and reptiles.


So it is a problem for creation if even one transition is found. So let's welcome to the scene
Tiktaalik roseae a halfway house from fish to amphibian. Of course this is not the only species that we have come across that fits across the various species showing transition but it only take one example of such a transition to wreck creation whose prediction is that all the animals were created at once and that evolution is false. Tiktaalik shows creation's prediction is false and  that evolution is much more likely, based on this one fossil.
 1. Who knows what a 'kind' is? It is a nebulous concept so I am going to consider only the major groups of vertebrates and not get bogged down in which animals are kinds.
 2. Anyone any idea how they could have survived the flood in which salt water and fresh water fish would, in all likelihood, have all died as the salinity of water changed.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6559
  • Darwins +464/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #128 on: Yesterday at 09:57:50 PM »
I’m just trying to work out the relationship between science and the non-physical.....

Are you?  Or are you trying to assume the existence of the non-physical?  Whatever that may be.  Can you define it - preferably in a way that is NOT reliant on negatives?

Can you give me a couple of examples of the "non-physical" so I can understand exactly what you are trying to describe please?  And a couple lines for each that give any reason at all to assume that those non-physical things exist?

yeah sure, my premise is this: “It is possible that a spiritual dimension exists (regardless of how unlikely, it is possible).  I’m not assuming it exists, I’m just saying that the concept exists and that it is 100% unscientific to analyse it, but still a valid human endeavour.

Some examples are, angels, demons, God.   I don’t want to assume they exist, I just want to point out that it is unscientific to analyse them and whatever evidence there is is not scientific evidence.   I guess we could call it theological evidence, what would you call it?

I'm undecided as to whether you deliberately chose not to answer my questions, or whether you simply didn't understand what I was asking.  I will assume it is the latter, so I will try again with a rephrase.

1) Please can you define "non-physical", preferably in a way NOT reliant on negatives?  So "things that aren't physical" is no help.  "Things that are.....(X)" would be far more useful.

2) Can you give me some examples of the non-physical so I can understand what you are trying to describe?  Saying "angels, god" means as little as if you said "flibbles, gerplunks" because (while I of course have concepts in mind for the words you speak) I do not know what YOU mean by them. 

3) For the things you name in (2), can you give any reason at all to assume that there is anything there worthy of consideration in the first place. 

By this point you will have clearly defined the non-physical, and given some specific examples of some beings that you class as non-physical - their attributes, their characteristics.  And thus, we will have some clear concepts to examine.....and THEN be able to determine whether "science" can legitimately investigate these things.

I will state again, for the record: science can and does deal with any number of things that are not "physical".  Social Sciences, for example.  Psychology.  It is perfectly possible to use scientific principles to examine something that you can't physically prod on the arm, so you need to better define "non-physical" to explain why YOUR category cannot be examined by "science" while those, other non-physical things, can be.

Might be useful if you clearly define what you mean by "science", as well, as it definitely seems you are not using it in the same way as anyone else here.

If you really, honestly want to construct a decent argument, then you will understand why I am asking these questions, and will do your best to comply.  If, however, this is just an attempt to shoehorn in a god-of-the-gaps, to manipulate a "well you can't prove NO god, so therefore you have to admit there COULD be a god" situation, then you will ignore the questions, or give woolly and vague answers to them all. 

Prove to me that this thread is an honest attempt to construct an argument.

The simplified definition of ‘non-physical’ in my logical argument is not a fatal flaw, it helps to keep things simple where possible.   

I suggest you present your definition of science and the logical conclusions that follow in relation to origins concepts.   I have made such a presentation, you have not, and until you do your comments about poor definitions are pointless.

Ah, but your loose definition is a critical flaw.  Without defining what you are talking about, it is impossible to even consider your argument, since no two people will have the same understanding of what is meant. 

I don't need to present MY definition - I'm not the one putting forward an argument.  YOU are - or, rather, you are not, because you refuse to dbe fine your terms.  I can only assume you are refusing to do so because you believe that as soon as you do, your argument will fall apart.
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6559
  • Darwins +464/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #129 on: Yesterday at 10:06:25 PM »
The Premise:

1. The definition of science:

1a. Science is knowledge/understanding/study of the natural/physical/material universe.

I cannot read any further, as I need you to define your terms.  What are your definitions for natural, physical, and material - and for unnatural, non-physical, and non-material?

Until I understand what you mean by those terms, it is pointless considering anything further in that post.

In fact, I am going to go Mod at this point, as after five pages of this thread, you are refusing to define your terms.

Define clearly, with examples, what you mean by physical and Non-physical.  Cover the critical differences between the two state/types, and explain how an observer would tell the difference between the two.
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2854
  • Darwins +315/-14
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #130 on: Today at 11:24:21 AM »
Regarding the solar system it’s interesting to note that we are in a special era in the system’s life  where it’s stable.   It seems that it might be quite unstable in 10 to 20 million years (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stability_of_the_Solar_System).

That only means that we are living in a place we can live in.

Creationism and Intelligent Design are wrong.

Biology is not well designed, it uses adaptations of previously existing biological structures. You can die because your body is not well designed. All kinds of things can go wrong.

Bacteria are the most successful form of life. Before science improved conditions, a high percentage of humans never made it beyond childhood. That is not a universe fine-tuned for humans.

This article says our solar system is special (https://phys.org/news/2008-08-simulations-special-solar.html) .    Notice how ‘goddidit’ isn’t presented as an explanation though, because that would be completely unscientific to do so.

Same mistake. If you want to show design for humans, you have to show design for humans.

Now look at the Earth. It is hostile to humans just like the rest of the universe. If modern science and technology were not fighting against bacteria, you would most likely be dead or diseased by now, you would be living the same kind of life as our ancestors did for thousands of years.

Funny how in keeping evidence of God at bay (and thus keeping the topic scientific rather than theological) that you are willing to accept an explanation that equates 4x10^69 Joules with zero.  Sure the explanation is scientific, no ‘goddidit’ explanation here, but for some people this type of explanation inspires them to delve into theology.

It is even funnier that you looked up and quoted the wrong information without bothering to understand what you are reading.

You are so desperate to prove others wrong, that you are not seriously trying to consider that you could be the  one who is wrong. You need to think more clearly about your own ideas and what you are reading and quoting.
The Foxy Freedom antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline Jag

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3428
  • Darwins +464/-9
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #131 on: Today at 11:59:41 AM »
<snip> after five pages of this thread...

...we can conclude that the title of the thread is, in fact, correct. Creationism IS NOT SCIENCE. We all agree on that.

When Foxy has to point out the painfully obvious

Quote
That only means that we are living in a place we can live in.
we ought to accept that this conversation has nowhere to go. TruthSearcher's ironic name aside, he was correct when he titled the thread, and completely wrong from that point on.
"Tell people that there's an invisible man in the sky that created the entire universe and the majority believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure." ~George Carlin

Offline jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 8515
  • Darwins +1081/-26
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #132 on: Today at 12:45:05 PM »
I too am interested in TruthSearcher properly defining the terms he's using.  It does no good to try to 'define' science when he isn't willing to define the terms he's using to talk about science.

I will simply reiterate at this point that he has given no evidence to support his contention that theological arguments should be immune to science.  He is simply trying to define it as such.
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.