Login

Join for Free!
116957 members


Creationism is not scientific

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Creationism is not scientific

Postby Forests » Sun Nov 11, 2012 7:10 pm

This forum has been invaded with creationists, so instead of spamming tonnes of threads claiming evolution is a hoax etc. Please explain these questions/points creationists:

1. Please explain how creationism is scientific. You claim evolution is not scientific becuase it has not been observed but you are happy to accept that microevolution HAS been observed, so wether you like it or not, you DO actually accept evolution. Are you happy to admit this?

A scientific hypothesis must be naturalistic, relying only on principles of cause and effect and laws of nature to explain observed phenomena. An idea that is not naturalistic - i.e., that incorporates supernatural intervention and miracles - cannot be part of science, because it is impossible to test, disprove, or further investigate.

Science only deals with the natural but creationism is supernatural so how can creationism be scientific?

2. Creationism itself is supernatural and not scientific, hence it can not be observed. If a creator has created all species on earth supernaturally why is he/she/it/them not creating more species now?

A hypothesis about the supernatural creationism cannot be tested, and so is not scientific. So the concept of God, or supernatural creator(s), capable of designing the whole universe, can neither be proved nor disproved.

3. A scientific hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable. That is to say, a hypothesis must make predictions that can be compared to the real world and determined to be either true or false, and there must be some imaginable evidence that could disprove it. How can supernatural creationism be testable or falsifiable?

4. Creationism makes no testable predictions at all it makes no checkable or testable claims about how to identify creation, who the creator is, what the creator's goals and motives are, what the mechanism of creator is, or when and where the creation takes place. This is why creationism is outside of empirical science.

5. A scientific hypothesis, in addition to being testable, must actually be tested. The essence of science is its self-correcting mechanism, in which hypotheses are constantly revised and refined to comply with new evidence. Creationism fails here becuase it attempts to explain everything, is not testable and has never been tested.

6. Creationists start with their assumptions with the Bible. This is not how science works. Religious creationists are dishonest becuase their personal religious beliefs have a bias on science, creationists claiming the Bible must be true will tend to override and color everything they observe. Creationists have no objective outlook on science. Real scientists, by contrast, must always follow where the evidence leads, regardless of whether that evidence overturns a generally accepted theory or even a cherished personal belief.

A scientific hypothesis is almost always fertile, suggesting new areas to study and expand our knowledge and giving rise to new hypotheses in turn. Creationism does not do this; it is scientifically sterile. It explains observed facts in an ad hoc way but suggests no surprising consequences, nowhere to focus our efforts on next, and cannot be used to derive further predictions. Whatever we find, whatever patterns or evidence we uncover, the creationist explains it simply by assuming that that is how God must have wanted it, for unknowable reasons of his own. This does not add to our knowledge and does not lead to new avenues of research.

In conclusion creationism is not scientific becuase it has never been observed, it is not testable or falsifiable, it has never been tested, it does not make predictions and it remains outside of the scope of empirical science. Creationism is metaphysics not science.

Now before anyone decides to personally attack me and call me an atheist I am not. I have been a pantheist/theist for many years and I also have an interest in the supernatural. I am just honest enough to admit these things are beyond science. Anyone claiming creationism is scientific is clearly being dishonest. Evolution is a fact which is supported by loads of evidence. The only people who deny evolution are people who have a strong religious bias, they are not objective when it comes to science. Considering creationists still claim creationism is scientific then perhaps you can explain why you believe this on this thread.
Forests
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 6:57 pm

Postby Biologist123 » Wed Nov 21, 2012 3:07 pm

I agree creationism has never made sense to me, I'm glad to hear you think it's anti- scientific too.
Biologist123
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 11:44 pm

Re:

Postby Forests » Fri Nov 23, 2012 8:14 am

Biologist123 wrote:I agree creationism has never made sense to me, I'm glad to hear you think it's anti- scientific too.


A young earth creationist user on this forum called jinx25 has been spamming threads with the same comments that evolution has not been observed and that evolution is not scientific, he has not explained why he thinks this. His comments are contradiction considering creationism has not been observed and does not qualify as science. There is tonnes of evidence for evolution which he ignores. This is the problem when you have a religious bias. His assumptions start with the bible, this is not how science operates. He has clearly read this thread but chooses not to comment. He would need to explain why he believes creationism is scientific when it clearly is not.
Forests
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 6:57 pm


Postby jinx25 » Sat Nov 24, 2012 7:18 pm

Spamming lol. Yes of course anything contradictory to Darwins myths is 'spamming'.

'There is tonnes of evidence for evolution which he ignores.'

Which definition of 'evolution'? Change in gene frequency? Speciation? Descent with modification? Genetic drift? Any change in any living thing ever? The myth that the most complex thing man has ever obtained knowledge of (DNA) came about by mistakes and accidents in an undirected process?

'He would need to explain why he believes creationism is scientific when it clearly is not.'

'Evolution' (when i say 'evolution' i mean neodarwinian theory-all life on earth shares a common ancestor with a primordial prokartyote 3.5 bya through random mutation+natural selection) is (conveniently) a process that is alleged to have both started an stopped happening in the unobserved and unobservable (not empirical science) past. Empirical investigation into both 'evolution' and Genesis 1:1-31 is unobtainable. Creation has written history (Genesis) where as 'evolution' has none.

'His assumptions start with the bible, this is not how science operates.'

Given that abiogenesis has some SERIOUS SERIOUS scientific problems (lolz?) and the complete absence of a mechanism for adding NEW nucleotides coding for NEW proteins (aka new genetic information) to me, that leaves 'evolution' as something that never happened. So yes my 'assumptions' now start with Genesis 1:1-31 as the origins of the universe. Evolutionists assumptions starts (usually by the height of blind faith) with 'EVOLUTIONVIANATURALSELECTION' did it despite usually having not even read the cornerstone book of the evolutionism doctrine (Charles Darwins 'On the origin of myths i mean species') or understanding how the process is (alleged) to work.

Creation antiscientific? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Newton? Keppler? Faraday? Pasteur? Galileo? Neodarwinian 'theory' is the most dogmatic inhibitory paradigm to science in the history of mankind. Despite atheists cult leaders claims (Dawkins 'DNA is the knockdown evidence for evolution') molecular biology killed 'evolution'. DNAs existence proves it never happened. Again we are dealing with a process that has NEVER BEEN OBSERVED.
jinx25
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:54 pm

Re:

Postby JackBean » Sat Nov 24, 2012 8:34 pm

jinx25 wrote:Spamming lol. Yes of course anything contradictory to Darwins myths is 'spamming'.

No, but bringing this subject everytime you post something is spamming. And you know you have been warned about that already. With such frequency it will not take much time until you will be banned.


jinx25 wrote:'He would need to explain why he believes creationism is scientific when it clearly is not.'

'Evolution' (when i say 'evolution' i mean neodarwinian theory-all life on earth shares a common ancestor with a primordial prokartyote 3.5 bya through random mutation+natural selection) is (conveniently) a process that is alleged to have both started an stopped happening in the unobserved and unobservable (not empirical science) past. Empirical investigation into both 'evolution' and Genesis 1:1-31 is unobtainable. Creation has written history (Genesis) where as 'evolution' has none.


Why do you write about evolution if you answer question about creation? Again? (and this is the spamming)
Evolution has as much good history as creation, if man-written book is enough for you.
(peer-nonreviewed book is sufficient proof for you? LOL)


jinx25 wrote:'His assumptions start with the bible, this is not how science operates.'

Given that abiogenesis has some SERIOUS SERIOUS scientific problems (lolz?) and the complete absence of a mechanism for adding NEW nucleotides coding for NEW proteins (aka new genetic information) to me, that leaves 'evolution' as something that never happened. So yes my 'assumptions' now start with Genesis 1:1-31 as the origins of the universe. Evolutionists assumptions starts (usually by the height of blind faith) with 'EVOLUTIONVIANATURALSELECTION' did it despite usually having not even read the cornerstone book of the evolutionism doctrine (Charles Darwins 'On the origin of myths i mean species') or understanding how the process is (alleged) to work.


And again the spamming...
In what specifically is the Genesis better than evolution-books except it was written by complete amateurs who knew nothing about science and were high?


jinx25 wrote:Creation antiscientific? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Newton? Keppler? Faraday? Pasteur? Galileo?

So? What do their names prove? If they claimed there is no God, they would be burned by Inquisition. They couldn't afford something like that. Think about Giordano Bruno
http://www.biolib.cz/en/main/

Cis or trans? That's what matters.
User avatar
JackBean
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5667
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:12 pm

Postby jinx25 » Sat Nov 24, 2012 9:05 pm

No, but bringing this subject everytime you post something is spamming. And you know you have been warned about that already. With such frequency it will not take much time until you will be banned.


I was asked a question and i answered it. NDT is the most dogmatic inhibitory force EVER as witnessed by your comment. I expect to get banned soon. Goodbye everyone.

Written history goes back 6,000 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recorded_history

In all 6,000 years of eye witness testimony/written history has anyone ever observed a fish bring forth something other than a fish. If someone wants to believe it can happen, contrary to every observed law of nature in written history (6,000 years) that is their religious belief. Another name for 6,000 years worth of mans investigations/eye witness testimony of earth would be 'science' though i will not use that word as it is used dogmatically by atheists without understanding of its meaning.

Science (oxxfordictionaries.com)

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through OBSERVATION and EXPERIMENT:

Written history (6,000 years worth AKA SCIENCE) confirms Genesis, that animals bring forth 'after their kind' and shows NDT to be without foundation. Goodbye everyone.
jinx25
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:54 pm

Postby JackBean » Sat Nov 24, 2012 9:33 pm

It's nice to provide link if it doesn't exist, isn't it?

So there was an eye witness of creation?
http://www.biolib.cz/en/main/

Cis or trans? That's what matters.
User avatar
JackBean
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5667
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:12 pm

Postby jinx25 » Sat Nov 24, 2012 10:58 pm

Type in 'recorded history' on google, the wiki page. If someone believes Genesis it is inherent they believe there was an eye witness (God). I added up the genealogies in Genesis 5 and got 1656 years from creation week to Noahs flood.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=KJV

I have not added up the other genealogies but apparently they yield ~4,300 years from Noahs flood to today (obv only have to get to Jesus then +2k). Oldest tree

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methuselah_(tree)

BTW Newton and those other names mentioned above were CREATIONISTS and science is based on what those giants found out. At its foundation science is based on an orderly, logical and uniform universe ie. CREATION!
jinx25
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:54 pm

Postby JackBean » Sun Nov 25, 2012 9:37 pm

Sir Isaac Newton PRS MP (25 December 1642 – 20 March 1727 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton
Johannes Kepler (German: [ˈkʰɛplɐ]; December 27, 1571 – November 15, 1630) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Kepler
Michael Faraday, FRS (22 September 1791 – 25 August 1867) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Faraday
Louis Pasteur (play /ˈluːi pæˈstɜr/, French: [lwi pastœʁ]; December 27, 1822 – September 28, 1895)
Galileo Galilei (Italian pronunciation: [ɡaliˈlɛːo ɡaliˈlɛi]; 15 February 1564[4] – 8 January 1642) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo

###

Charles Robert Darwin, FRS (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin

Can you be so kind and tell me, how can they be for something that was written at least 100 years after their death?

So you rely on testimony of your imaginary friend instead of real people. Yeah, no further discussion really needed.
http://www.biolib.cz/en/main/

Cis or trans? That's what matters.
User avatar
JackBean
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5667
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:12 pm

Postby jinx25 » Sun Nov 25, 2012 10:04 pm

I do not know what you mean.
jinx25
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:54 pm

Postby JackBean » Sun Nov 25, 2012 11:18 pm

How could be Kepler, Galileo or Newton for evolution?
http://www.biolib.cz/en/main/

Cis or trans? That's what matters.
User avatar
JackBean
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5667
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:12 pm

Postby jinx25 » Mon Nov 26, 2012 12:35 am

They were not for 'evolution'. Newton put creation at 4000bc.
jinx25
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:54 pm

Next

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron