It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What predictions does Creationism make? (a fundamental requirement in science class)

page: 15
13
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: spygeek

Everything we do is technically science.


This statement isn't even CLOSE to being true. Science is conducted by a VERY precise procedure. Any deviation from that procedure is NOT science. Questioning things because of curiosity is not necessarily science.


See something you are curious about and ask questions trying to figure out what exactly it is that you observd? That's science. Observe something and come up with an explanation as to why it happened? That's science. Wonder if some th ing will float so you put it in water? That's science.

A2Do


No that is called being curious and trying to sate your curiosity. There IS a procedure called the Scientific Method, that if followed while trying to sate your curiosity would result in science being performed, but that is just a sub-group of the larger group of searching for answers.
edit on 9-11-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Agree2Disagree

As gethyped and krazyshot have pointed out, you clearly have little understanding of science.

For what anyone does to be considered science, one would have to employ the scientific method, creating hypotheses and theories through observation and experiment, testing predictions and repeatedly verifying results. Creationism supporters never do this.

Claims like your "everything we do is technically science" is demonstrable of lot of people's lack of understanding of how scientific method is used to arrive at logical conclusions, and why so many people are fooled by pseudoscience and science woo.

Creationism, along with many other details in the bible, is scientifically inaccurate. Taking a literalist interpretation of scripture requires the abandonment of scientific method and its findings. It is taking the words of a 2000-3000 year old book over what we can actually see to be the truth of our world.

Ergo, creationism, or any kind of biblical literalism, is not only unscientific, it is anti-science.
edit on 9-11-2015 by spygeek because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: spygeek

...explain that to my professor...or read an article...lol


Question: Why is my toilet bowl constantly running?

Background Research: Google (or perhaps just do like grad students do and skip this step entirely)

Hypothesis: Something is wrong with my toilet and I know nothing about toilets. Maybe jiggling the handle will help.

Test with Experiment: Jiggle the handle.

Analyze: Still running? Nope. Great. or Still running? Yup. Crap.

Hypothesis is true/not true!

Report Results: You can skip this part because nobody cares about your toilet bowl- except maybe the plumber you have to call to fix the toilet.

Here’s that process as your baby would apply it to using a spoon:

Question: How does this work?

Background Research: Watch adults around you.

Hypothesis: It goes in my mouth.

Test with Experiment: Put spoon in mouth.

Analyze: Wow! This tastes great!

Hypothesis is partially true! It goes in my mouth and tastes great too!

Report Results: Shout, slobber, throw spoon on the floor, cry until you get it back.


Sorry to say it...but even toddlers participate in what we affectionately call science...source


I did get it right, right?


Make an observation or observations.
Ask questions about the observations and gather information.
Form a hypothesis — a tentative description of what’s been observed, and make predictions based on that hypothesis.
Test the hypothesis and predictions in an experiment that can be reproduced.
Analyze the data and draw conclusions; accept or reject the hypothesis or modify the hypothesis if necessary.
Reproduce the experiment until there are no discrepancies between observations and theory.
source

Is that an accurate representation of the scientific method? If so, can you please elaborate how the above scenario of a running toilet or toddler learning to use a spoon does not qualify as an acceptable example....?

A2D
edit on 9-11-2015 by Agree2Disagree because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-11-2015 by Agree2Disagree because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 06:22 PM
link   
originally posted by: spygeek
originally posted by: vethumanbeing

spygeek: Still waiting for a creationism supporter to provide anything resembling a scientific argument in support of it, or even submit a theory that qualifies as scientific.

The ultimate creator Absolute Unbounded Oneness (a binary information system of 1s and 0s) allowed for both science and faith base systems to intertwine. So far, no handshake deal. Why the polarization, to what purpose? At least Science nor Faith have physically armed themselves in order to engage in physical warfare. Keep the "If you hear this joke you will die laughing" to a minimum.
edit on 9-11-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Agree2Disagree

Sure, the examples above comply with scientific method, they certainly don't validate your claim that "everything we do is technically science" though.

Also, these examples leave out a few important steps, including peer review and the formulation of a theory from the hypotheses to explain why the toilet is running or why the spoon goes in your mouth.

What exactly is your point here? that "everything we do is technically science"? or that everyday problem solving often follows a scientific methodology? You seem to have moved the goalposts with this reply.

In any case, none of this has anything to do with creationism, (which is not scientific), or its possible predictions, (of which none can be made).


originally posted by: vethumanbeing
originally posted by: spygeek
originally posted by: vethumanbeing

spygeek: Still waiting for a creationism supporter to provide anything resembling a scientific argument in support of it, or even submit a theory that qualifies as scientific.

The ultimate creator Absolute Unbounded Oneness (a binary information system of 1s and 0s) allowed for both science and faith base systems to intertwine. So far, no handshake deal. Why the polarization, to what purpose? At least Science nor Faith have physically armed themselves in order to engage in physical warfare. Keep the "If you hear this joke you will die laughing" to a minimum.


Science and faith based systems do not intertwine because they are completely different disciplines. There is a handshake deal, despite what anti-science fundamentalists and anti-religion atheists might claim, wherein they leave each other alone. It is possible to accept both with no contradiction.

Only really in America it seems is there a creationist backlash against science, starting in the 1960's as an attempt to prove the inerrancy of the bible, (an impossible task as the bible is quite errant), and undermine anything that might contradict it.

Science really doesn't care what fundamentalist religion claims, it stands on its own quite happily. "The beautiful thug about science, it's correct whether you believe it or not" - Neil Degrasse Tyson



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 07:53 PM
link   
originally posted by: spygeek
a reply to: Agree2Disagree

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

spygeek: Still waiting for a creationism supporter to provide anything resembling a scientific argument in support of it, or even submit a theory that qualifies as scientific.


vhb: The ultimate creator Absolute Unbounded Oneness (a binary information system of 1s and 0s) allowed for both science and faith base systems to intertwine. So far, no handshake deal. Why the polarization, to what purpose? At least Science nor Faith have physically armed themselves in order to engage in physical warfare. Keep the "If you hear this joke you will die laughing" to a minimum.



spygeek: Science and faith based systems do not intertwine because they are completely different disciplines. There is a handshake deal, despite what anti-science fundamentalists and anti-religion atheists might claim, wherein they leave each other alone. It is possible to accept both with no contradiction.

Disciplines describe opposing ideologies (reason for purpose) to prove one or the other less true. This seems Ego based. Krappa Krappa Gama is a better fraternity than Sigma Phi Zeta. Who started this division and why?


spygeek: Science really doesn't care what fundamentalist religion claims, it stands on its own quite happily. "The beautiful thug about science, it's correct whether you believe it or not" - Neil Degrasse Tyson

Science THUGS have an arrogance about them; not sure the foundation for this awareness as believe themselves to be an accidental form produced by a chaotic system with no driver in the seat.



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 08:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: spygeek
a reply to: Agree2Disagree

Sure, the examples above comply with scientific method, they certainly don't validate your claim that "everything we do is technically science" though.

Also, these examples leave out a few important steps, including peer review and the formulation of a theory from the hypotheses to explain why the toilet is running or why the spoon goes in your mouth.

What exactly is your point here? that "everything we do is technically science"? or that everyday problem solving often follows a scientific methodology? You seem to have moved the goalposts with this reply.

In any case, none of this has anything to do with creationism, (which is not scientific), or its possible predictions, (of which none can be made).


Perhaps I should have thrown an "almost" into that sentence. Or even "a large portion..."

Peer review is not a necessary step of the scientific method...It's actually its own unique system put in place for quality control purposes...It's also pretty important that you use common sense...just because something is "peer reviewed" does not mean it is entirely accurate. For example, some of the smaller more obscure journals may follow the rules and regulations and gain recognized peer review status, but being small and desperate for viewership, they may have reduced standards of acceptance. It's also important to understand that peer reviewers can be biased. Granted, these may be rare, but to say that it doesn't happen would be ignorant. Peers may be prejudiced against studies that contradict their own research or their preferred beliefs and therefore reluctant to give a pass to submission to anything contradictory. This is why most editors allow authors to request or recommend reviewers, or in some cases, to request that certain peers do not review their work.

My point is this...

A toddler uses the scientific method to learn to use a spoon.
A hillbilly uses the scientific method to fix his pick up truck.
A college student uses the scientific method to improve his/her next meal of ramen.

And although I cannot say creationists use the scientific method to arrive at their conclusions that god did it(because origin theories are not testable ATM)...I can say that they have a valid use of logic in that life does not typically arise from nonlife...

And As far as testable and predictive sciences go, creationism(or any other origins theory for that matter) does not qualify.
However, we have already covered the fact that theoretical sciences need not be testable...(lest you tell string theorists and their friends that they aren't actually scientists...)

My contention then, is that creationism is at its core, a theoretical explanation of origins. I place its validity on equal grounds with other theoretical explanations regarding origins, e.g. panspermia, biopoesis, cosmogeny, and endosymbiosis.

A2D



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 12:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree

And As far as testable and predictive sciences go, creationism(or any other origins theory for that matter) does not qualify.



Again it seems a lack of understanding of theoretical scientific method and how these theories are formulated is tripping you up here. Theoretical sciences still follow scientific method, the difference between them and experimental physical science is in the way it is tested. Origin theory, string theory and others do in fact qualify as testable through simulation and mathematical modelling. Experiments simulating the young earth show that abiogenesis is possible, if not likely. No such simulation of a creation theory is possible, as it relies on supernatural, physical law breaking mechanisms at the hand of an unmeasurable deity.


However, we have already covered the fact that theoretical sciences need not be testable...(lest you tell string theorists and their friends that they aren't actually scientists...)


Theoretical science must at the very least prove that a model is not at odds with fundamental natural laws, it must show that the model is realistically possible given what we know. Creationism ignores fundamental physical laws and can not be shown to be possible, therefore it can not be considered anything close to a form of theoretical science.


My contention then, is that creationism is at its core, a theoretical explanation of origins. I place its validity on equal grounds with other theoretical explanations regarding origins, e.g. panspermia, biopoesis, cosmogeny, and endosymbiosis.

A2D


Your contention is unfortunately based on incomplete knowledge and assumption. Creationism is not a theoretical explanation of origins, it is "at its core" a hypothetical flight of fancy. There is no way to way to model or simulate the creation of life by a God, unlike actual scientific origin theory, which can show quite clearly how life can form from nonlife through natural processes we know exist. Creationism also claims species (particularly humans) were created in their current form, this is contrary to material physical fossil evidence as well as genetics and dna evidence.

To place the scientific validity of creationism on equal grounds with abiogenesis and other mathematically provable theories is the equivalent of placing the scientific validity of a single article in a Watchtower magazine on equal grounds with complete volumes of the Encyclopaedia Britannica.

If there was an actual theory of creationism we could look at and evaluate, I might at least concede it has some theoretical merit. However there is no such thing as a scientific theory of creation, there are just a few creationists attacking evolution and throwing around untestable hypotheses.

There is a reason creationism is accepted by less than 0.15% of scientists.
edit on 10-11-2015 by spygeek because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 12:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Agree2Disagree




I place its validity on equal grounds with other theoretical explanations regarding origins, e.g. panspermia, biopoesis, cosmogeny, and endosymbiosis.

Panspermia can be demonstrated. Find related life on another planet.

General relativity is a very good example of "theoretical physics." Guess what? Einstein said exactly how it could be verified. Guess what? It was, in the very manner he "predicted."



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Panspermia is still only a theoretical explanation of origins...unless you want to say otherwise, then be my guest.

A2D



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: spygeek

There is absolutely a way to model creation...Perhaps what we have is a fundamental misunderstanding of what creation actually is.

You see, creationists don't just believe one thing...there are multitudes of creationists that believe different things...

I know of several who believe that evolution is the hand of god at work...Sure, +god does not need to exist in the equation, but it does, and that's their choice...to tell them that their belief is ignorant is...well...ignorant.

A2D



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Agree2Disagree




Panspermia is still only a theoretical explanation of origins.

An explanation which makes predictions about what can be observed if it is factual.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 10:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: spygeek

There is absolutely a way to model creation...Perhaps what we have is a fundamental misunderstanding of what creation actually is.

You see, creationists don't just believe one thing...there are multitudes of creationists that believe different things...

I know of several who believe that evolution is the hand of god at work...Sure, +god does not need to exist in the equation, but it does, and that's their choice...to tell them that their belief is ignorant is...well...ignorant.

A2D


"god does not need to exist in the equation, but it does"

creationism is the floundering child and evolutionary theory is the flotation device keeping the poor brat from drowning out of hubris. and it SICKENS me when proponents of creationism presume to borrow credibility from a legitimate scientific theory to support an unrelated and untested hypothesis.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Which still doesn't make it truth...

A2D



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

You can be sickened all you want...it won't stop them...

A2D



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: TzarChasm

You can be sickened all you want...it won't stop them...

A2D


True, but I suspect the theory of evolution will outlive them.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 01:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: TzarChasm

You can be sickened all you want...it won't stop them...

A2D


True, but I suspect the theory of evolution will outlive them.


This is true, places like this is where creationism comes to die. The militant creationist seems to oblivious to the fact that forums like this highlight their dishonest approach, for all to read, quickening the creationist extinction!




posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: spygeek

There is absolutely a way to model creation.


There is? Really? How? Can you provide a link to a mathematical model of creation? I've never found one, and i've searched high and low..


..Perhaps what we have is a fundamental misunderstanding of what creation actually is.


creationism is the belief that creation as described in Genesis is literal truth. Not sure what is misunderstood?


You see, creationists don't just believe one thing...there are multitudes of creationists that believe different things...


This is one of the biggest problems they have; they can't even get together and agree enough to hammer out a viable theory. Combine this with the denial of scientific method and the assertion "it's in the bible or it didn't/doesn't happen" and you can see how unscientific it is.


I know of several who believe that evolution is the hand of god at work...Sure, +god does not need to exist in the equation, but it does, and that's their choice...to tell them that their belief is ignorant is...well...ignorant.

A2D


Who's calling them ignorant? Not I. I have no problem with Theistic Evolution. In fact I applaud it. It's an honest effort to reconcile a relationship between scripture and the findings if science. It doesn't pretend to be its own scientific theory or demand to be taught in schools like creationism and intelligent design often do.

This thread is not about theistic evolution, it is about creationism and its viability (of lack thereof) as a scientific theory.
edit on 10-11-2015 by spygeek because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: spygeek

It's a theoretical model...lol but here have a read

Again, I'm not saying the creation model is valid science. I haven't said anything of the sort.

I don't know how or why some people believe I'm a creationist...I'm not by any stretch of the imagination...

Also, I'm not sure which creationists think that creation IS science...I'm pretty sure we all understand that science deals with natural phenomena...and creation would be considered SUPERnatural phenomena...

A2D



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 05:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Agree2Disagree



I don't know how or why some people believe I'm a creationist...I'm not by any stretch of the imagination...



Then why are you arguing the science like a well paid defense lawyer, who knows his client is as guilty as sin and "needs" to cast doubt on the science in order to get him off?




top topics



 
13
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join