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

a reply to: Verum1quaere

a star worthy post, informative and topical..

It should be noted though, that scientific inquiry inspired by dreams or spirituality is not the same as scientific endeavour based on dreams or spirituality. A great deal of passionate human endeavour and scientific inquiry has its original inspiration in the spiritual, from Descartes' enlightening angel, to Michio Kaku's description of string theory as the "mind of God", these descriptions give an emotional depth and spiritual relevance to the cold, material scientific theory.

How many scientists, working at their workbenches, understand that an angel chartered modern science?..."

none, i would imagine. they would rightfully give credit to Descartes and Aristotle and others such as them. It's one thing to have a dream about an angel that leads you to articulate a principle of defining scientific method, it is another to say that that angel physically existed as an entity and is solely responsible for chartering scientific method as a whole..

as FBB said:

Now to pit them back against each other, how do we know that these comments of theirs weren't made to satisfy the religious culture around them?

As a side note, it's interesting that creationism really began only in the 1960s as a fundamentalist Christian effort in the United States to prove Biblical inerrancy and falsify the scientific evidence for evolution. It was not inspired by a dream of an angel or a seance with spirits, but rather a literal interpretation of Genesis and the undermining of anything that might contradict it, like the theory of evolution. It didn't start out as a scientific field of inquiry, and it has never followed scientific method.

a reply to: Ghost147

Without a drive toward greater complexity the entire core of the theory fails.



Mwah...

originally posted by: spygeek

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69

originally posted by: cuckooold
I posted this in another thread, but it seems appropriate here as well.

This is how I think creationists think science works.

Funny! You could change that to say the exact same thing about science and it would still be just as true!!!

Both sides are guilty of that one...

.!.

Yeah.. You really couldn't..

Science's flowchart is more like this..

It
doesn't really matter what BS you choose to put in your flowchart... it's still BS.

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69

Propaganda is information that is not impartial and used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively (perhaps lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or using loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information presented.

Cause evolution isn't propaganda...

Not at all actually. Propaganda is typically disseminated by a select group to push a biased message that is in no way impeachable. Modern Evolutionary Synthesis does not fall under any of that criteria. The overwhelming affirmation by professionals who specializer in every imaginable scientific disciplines from every nation on Earth consisting of individuals representing every possible faith. Anyone with data showing something new or showing outdated information to be incorrect has but to publish their findings and submit them for review. So there is no singular and select group of people, despite your protestations to the contrary... There is no biased message and the data is in no way unimpeachable. This mindset of a vast worldwide conspiracy amongst every scientist of every discipline with egos the size of mountains who want nothing more than to one up their peers... But no, they're hiding away data and the truth to push a propaganda piece? The entire premise is absurd at best.

Evolution is full of holes clearly you are to blinded to see them!

Please, by all means enlighten the class with your wisdom on this matter. Tell us of all the holes, please.
FYI, evolution is a fact. The theory serves only to Exxon the HOW of evolution. It doesn't change the facts surrounding the reality of eviction itself.

WOW! the scientific community is completely unbiased! That's effing amazing...

And impossible.

Your bias is so comprehensive that you completely unable to see it.

Evolution will forget you...

a reply to: hudsonhawk69

Your inability to or refusal to understand the science you are attempting to thumb your nose at is disheartening and endemic in America these days. It's not your fault, I blame the education system. For the record, I don't have a bias when it comes to results in the lab. The data is what it is, my personal proclivities play no role whatsoever in the end results.


ETA Still waiting for you to expose all the holes in MES but it seems to always be lost on a more of ad hominem attacks.

One big red flag I see in the evolution only camp, is not being able to entertain the notion of evolution being a part of creation. Maybe the creator thought, "hmm, I think I'll add in a nice big helping of evolution into my project and see who, if anyone gets it"
And this is equal for creation only campers. Instead of just looking at it equally, it has to turn into a schoolyard fight where everyone is skipping class.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

Oh, I am the personification of "science", am I? Strange, science is a method, not a person.

No credible scientist entertains the extremist cultist views of the earth being 6-10k years old or that life hasn't evolved. Why? Because such absurd views are demonstrably wrong. Only the ignorant and delusional hold such views.

And yes, when you deny evidence and try and brainwash your children into accepting such extremist views, you are a cult.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
One big red flag I see in the evolution only camp, is not being able to entertain the notion of evolution being a part of creation.

I think you would be surprised by how many people of faith actually work in the biological and earth sciences then. The possibility of a creator doesn't factor into MES. Most individuals in those fields though are open minded enough to say that whether they believe or not, they are open to the possibility if the data presents itself. As it stands, evolution is an incontrovertible fact. The theory serves only to explore and exam the HOW of eviction, what the mechanisms behind it are.

Maybe the creator thought, "hmm, I think I'll add in a nice big helping of evolution into my project and see who, if anyone gets it"

For anyone to "get it" then your creator would have to leave a signature somewhere. Otherwise it doesn't care if anyone "gets it".

And this is equal for creation only campers. Instead of just looking at it equally, it has to turn into a schoolyard fight where everyone is skipping class.

Not really. For it to be a school yard fight, one side actually needs to go to the school and learn some basic science.

a reply to: hudsonhawk69

Ok... And how does that relate to the OP and Creationism?

a reply to: TzarChasm

Try to think of your own lines.

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69

originally posted by: spygeek

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69

originally posted by: cuckooold
I posted this in another thread, but it seems appropriate here as well.

This is how I think creationists think science works.

Funny! You could change that to say the exact same thing about science and it would still be just as true!!!

Both sides are guilty of that one...

.!.

Yeah.. You really couldn't..

Science's flowchart is more like this..

It
doesn't really matter what BS you choose to put in your flowchart... it's still BS.

so you are saying scientific method is bs?

is that what you are saying?

seriously?

on what grounds?

i don't even..

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
One big red flag I see in the evolution only camp, is not being able to entertain the notion of evolution being a part of creation. Maybe the creator thought, "hmm, I think I'll add in a nice big helping of evolution into my project and see who, if anyone gets it".

this is common misconception about what science says. it doesn't say there is no creator. it doesn't say anything about a creator whatsoever. a creator would be outside science, it is not possible to verify the existence of a creator using the scientific method. science simply makes no comment on the matter. it is possible that a creator did create life, but if it did, it did not do it using supernatural processes. that's about all science says. creationism on the other hand rejects evolution outright.

what it comes down to is this:
evolution happens. creationists deny this. other religious people hold the theistic evoluition view, which is consistent with science.
at most, science could say that a creator is not necessary for the universe and life to exist, but it does not say there is no creator.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Oh, I am the personification of "science", am I? Strange, science is a method, not a person.
No credible scientist entertains the extremist cultist views of the earth being 6-10k years old or that life hasn't evolved. Why? Because such absurd views are demonstrably wrong. Only the ignorant and delusional hold such views.
And yes, when you deny evidence and try and brainwash your children into accepting such extremist views, you are a cult.

Wild accusations. You realize God created the Scientist and allowed it to exist (like an egomaniacal specie of animal), they did not create themselves from labeled petri dishes.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

Are you suggesting Zeus created mankind? Because you clearly don't know your scripture very well if you do.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
One big red flag I see in the evolution only camp, is not being able to entertain the notion of evolution being a part of creation. Maybe the creator thought, "hmm, I think I'll add in a nice big helping of evolution into my project and see who, if anyone gets it"
And this is equal for creation only campers. Instead of just looking at it equally, it has to turn into a schoolyard fight where everyone is skipping class.

Had to invent "OFF" bug repellant for recreational campers (those insects are a major problem we never calculated upon transference of disease between specie). What I do not understand is the polarization; its either evolution or creationism. Why not a bit of both. I am telling you, the insects have to go (except the bees). Swallows and Bats will 'evolve' and eat something other than Gnats. Frogs will forget the Fly ever existed.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Are you suggesting Zeus created mankind? Because you clearly don't know your scripture very well if you do.

Zeus as what? Moses or Abraham reinterpreted in old testament bible speak?

a reply to: vethumanbeing

No, Zeus, king of the gods on Mt. Olympus. And it was Prometheus who created mankind, not Zeus. And certainly not the retcon Abrahamic god.

Zeus is simply the hellenized form of "Ze" or "Zo" which in turn is the original pelasgian (and today albanian) word for ... wait for it .... "God".

a reply to: sHuRuLuNi

No, that's nothing but hilariously bad christian retconning.

This just goes to show how silly it is to think that your cultural god out of the thousands that man has made up is somehow the real god.

a reply to: GetHyped

I am muslim and ALBANIAN, and I Sir, do know how I call God in my language.

a reply to: sHuRuLuNi

So you worship Zeus and his fellow gods, or are you desperately trying to rationalize the cognitive dissonance of your faith and reality with wordplay?

Attempting to rewrite Greek history to fit it with your cultural faith is... beyond silly.