Let me define science.greenspun.com : LUSENET : Ask Jesus : One Thread |
science: A field of study seeking to understand natural phenomena through repeated observations and experiments.Broad, but increasingly precise, relationships are sought between causes and effects. These relationships, called scientific laws, help predict future phenomena and explain past events.
Notice, this does not mean the first cause must be naturalistic. It is poor logic to say that because science deals with natural, cause-and-effect relationships, the first cause must be a natural event. Furthermore, if the first cause were a natural consequence of something else, it would not be the first cause. Scientific laws can provide considerable insight on ultimate origins even though the first cause cannot, by definition, be duplicated. Yes, there was a beginning.
Scientific conclusions, while never final, must be based on evidence.
scientific evidence: Something that has been observed with instruments or our senses, is verifiable, and helps support or refute possible explanations for phenomena.
This evidence implies a creation and a global flood. This does not mean the Creator (The First Cause) can be studied scientifically or that the Bible should be read in public-school science classes.
Those who want evolution taught without the clear evidence opposing it, in effect, wish to censor a large body of scientific evidence from schools. That is wrong. Also, the consequences of a global flood have been misinterpreted as evidence for evolution, not as evidence for a flood. That misinterpretation, unfortunately, is taught as science.
Explanations other than creation or a global flood may someday be proposed that are (1) consistent with all that evidence and (2) demonstrable by repeatable, cause-and-effect relationships. Until that happens, those who ignore existing evidence are being quite unscientific. Evolutionists’ refusal to debate this subject and their speculations on cause-and-effect phenomena that cannot be demonstrated is also poor science, especially when much evidence opposes those speculations.
Evolutionists raise several objections. Some say, “Even though evidence may imply a sudden creation, creation is supernatural, not natural, and cannot be entertained as a scientific explanation.” Of course, no one understands scientifically how the creation occurred—how space, time, matter, and the laws of physics began. Others, not disputing that the flood best explains many features on earth, object to a global flood, because the Bible—a document they wish to discredit—speaks of the flood.
Still others object to the starting point for the flood, but in science, all starting points are available. The key question must always be, “What best explains all the evidence?”
Also, the source of a scientific idea does not need to be scientifically derived. For example, Friedrich Kekulé discovered the ring structure of benzene in a dream in which a snake grabbed its tail. Kekulé’s discovery laid the basis for structural chemistry.
Again, what is important is not the source of an idea, but whether all evidence supports it better than any other explanation. Science, after all, is a search for truth about how the physical universe behaves. Therefore, let’s teach all the science.
-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 19, 2004
Morris/Parker
-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 19, 2004.
Can you sight any scientific papers backing up your statements:"Those who want evolution taught without the clear evidence opposing it, in effect, wish to censor a large body of scientific evidence from schools"
and
"EvolutionistsÂ’ refusal to debate this subject and their speculations on cause-and-effect phenomena that cannot be demonstrated is also poor science, especially when much evidence opposes those speculations."
I would like evidence published in high impact journals only please eg. Nature, The lancette etc
Thanks
-- bromis (bromis@bioactive.org), November 22, 2004.
You wont find any, for two reasons.Fist off, if faith where right an the evil evolutionist wante dot hide the truth and perpetuate therre religion of evolution, they woudl not publish articles showign the evidence of creation in hihg impact articles.
secondly, this is Faith... I have asked her ot back up numerous claims, and she has failed to, so dont expect much.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 22, 2004.
Faith can paraphrase, quote, and borrow from the book she is currently reading. But, that's the problem with such books. I think those books get put in the Science section of the bookstore instead of the Science-Fiction section.LOL.
:)
........
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 22, 2004.
This is exactly the reason *why* I hesitate to ever reveal my sources. When you are at a loss of any real argument you simply attack the book and author I mention. It is quite telling though.And you have no reason to assume I am currently reading this book just because I recommended it. Lol!!
Why don't you read it it or no bother responding? Clearly, no one on this forum gets it.
-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 23, 2004.
Why no answer my queatsions? or better yet, present information that supports creationism and tlls why it supports the data better, rather than merley attakcign creaitonism.Your last attempot at this as good, but ultimaley futile since the arguments where refuted alreayd.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 23, 2004.
{Jyst so the wornfg idea sin had...}-ZaroveThis is exactly the reason *why* I hesitate to ever reveal my sources. When you are at a loss of any real argument you simply attack the book and author I mention. It is quite telling though. And you have no reason to assume I am currently reading this book just because I recommended it. Lol!!
{I do use Ad Homs, I attack the ideas, unless the person becoems the issue. So why not reveal some Data though?}-Zarove
Why don't you read it it or no bother responding? Clearly, no one on this forum gets it.
{Read what? you only mentioend a coupel names, not a spacific work...bUT THE dATA, WHICH SI pUBLIC dOMAIN, SHOIDL BE SUFFICIENT...}- Zarove
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 23, 2004.
"This is exactly the reason *why* I hesitate to ever reveal my sources. When you are at a loss of any real argument you simply attack the book and author I mention. It is quite telling though. "-- Faith.No, it was until you revealed what was in the book that things start going sour. Obviously, it is the content of the book that is in question, not the author. We don't know the author. We don't kill the messenger, but we do kick the message around until it either kicks back or dies. That sounds reasonable, even to you Faith (?).
...........
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 23, 2004.
Zarove--If I am missing your questions, I am sorry. I do try to understand what you post.And I more than mentioned a couple names--I recomended a specific book written by two evolutionists/biologists turned Creationists--- named Henry Morris and Gary Parker. What book?
"WHAT IS CRESTION SCIENCE?" That's the name of the book!!!
I'm not about to retype the whole thing for everyone--it's very tedious, especially the technical points. But it is very clear to me that you could all use a little information from that book so that you8 would understand just what Creation Science is. I say this because none of you do understand at all!
-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 23, 2004.
Faith, I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think you can expect everyone to just go and get the book that you want them to read, since it may not be available to them, or they may lack interest and time to spend on it.I remember when we were discussing Marian doctrines and I recommended a tape series to you, but as far as I know, you never went and got the series to hear it. I do think it would have been helpful, as you seemed to misunderstand Catholic doctrines on Mary, and the series would have explained it very well using things like original Greek (something I cannot even approach doing).
Your recommendation does not oblige the person to read that book, and if it should, then please also get the tape series that I recommended. Here's a link: h ttp://shop.store.yahoo.com/christtheking/allgenshalca2.html. God bless,
-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com"), November 24, 2004.
Emily,My point is that if they are truly interested in knowing what Creation Science is--they can read the book. Zarove is saying that I didn't mention any references, offer any information or mention any authors. I was reminding him that I had. I already typed quite a bit from the book for them.
There is a difference here, in comparing your recommendation to the tape series--to me, and my recommending this book to them... in that I didn't mock your tape series or claim that you never made any such recommendation--all the while asking you to prove your claims and offer information.
-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 24, 2004.
Emily, My point is that if they are truly interested in knowing what Creation Science is--they can read the book. Zarove is saying that I didn't mention any references, offer any information or mention any authors. I was reminding him that I had. I already typed quite a bit from the book for them.{CREDIBLE sources!}-Zarove
There is a difference here, in comparing your recommendation to the tape series--to me, and my recommending this book to them... in that I didn't mock your tape series or claim that you never made any such recommendation--all the while asking you to prove your claims and offer information.
{Youoften cited this soiruce without mentioning it. You ikewise havent shown it to b reliable. Just existing doenst make it really that reliable.}-Zarove
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 26, 2004.
Nothing that doesn't say what you want to hear would be considered reliable, Zarove.Henry Morris and Gary Parker are each ex-evolutionists with degrees in biology and teaching who *saw the light*, and now use their education in biology to teach earth and life sciences in the creation model.
They are more credible than you are.
-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 26, 2004.
Nothing that doesn't say what you want to hear would be considered reliable, Zarove.{Wrong. im actually neitral on the issue of Creation/evolution. However I have seen too many bad arugments that are easily discredited. The problem is you don let cfacts speak for themselves.}- Zarove
Henry Morris and Gary Parker are each ex-evolutionists with degrees in biology and teaching who *saw the light*, and now use their education in biology to teach earth and life sciences in the creation model.
{But until i independantly conirm these claism its worthless. Likewise, the ARGUMENTS not the PROFFESSORS OF THE ARGUMENTS are beign discussed. Please learn to diffeentiate.}-Zarove
They are more credible than you are.
{ Not realy, not until they are verified. And there arguments don becoem better because they have degree's, as noted earlier.}-Zarove
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 26, 2004.
Incednetlaly, I am checkign the degrees. Morris alreayd has no degree. Yesz, hes a PHD, but he has no RE;EVANT degree.As with my Masters in Journalism, his degree is in an unrelated field. Now as stated, a man will not be judged base don his academic degree or lack thereofre, but the arugments themselves can be refuted wihtout appeal to aihority. when appeal to authority is made, which you, Faith, duid make, thrn the queatsion of rather oen accepts or rejectds said Authority is a valid matter for discsssuon. Henry Morris is rejected as an authority, below is why.Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. Hydraulic Engineering (Founder and President Emeritus of ICR) He has a B.S. from Rice University with honors in Civil Engineering and M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from the University of Minnesota. Dr. Morris majored in engineering hydraulics/hydrology while minoring in Geology and Mathematics. He has served on the faculties of Rice University, the University of Minnesota, the University of Southwestern Louisiana, and Southern Illinois University. From 1957 to 1970 he was Head of the Department of Civil Engineering at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech). While at Virginia Tech, Dr. Morris was able to get approval for Ph.D. programs in Civil Engineering and Hydraulics. Dr. Morris authored Applied Hydraulics in Engineering, which has been used by over 100 colleges and universities at one time or another. It is still used today as a reference and even the main text in some university classes. As of 1993 and 30 years after the first edition was printed, there was no comparable textbook available.
His degree is in Hydrolic engeneering. NOT in Biological sicnece. Thus his degree is witrthless to this discussion. Now I am willign to listen to his arguments, but reject his as anyhtign but a Mr. Harris, since his doctorae is not relevant to this topic.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 26, 2004.
Gary Parker has a Bio Degree, makign him your nly ( to date) source that has a degree of interest.Nevetheless, his argukents are still noticabely deicient.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 26, 2004.
Yeah if you would like some evidense I've got it. According to Dr. Jay L. wile's book exploring creation through physics, the ocean reviels the age of the earth. Over several surveys taken, the amount of salt taken in,a nd expelled from the oceanic cycle has been estimated to a fair degree of accuracy, and it has been determined that it actually increases every year. By this method the aprox. age of the earth has been estimated to be no more than ten million years old. Now there are many unaccounted for variables in this method, but they are mostly viewed as inequalities. Most of hte variable, if known, would almost definitly decrease the age of the earth. The reason why so many scientists flatly deny creation is that it imply's that as a species, there are just some things we can't understand, and that destroys the entire purpose of many scientists life, I pity them, but I won't accept lies to stroke th ego of our society.
-- ImNotABrainDeadChristian (fireproof7689@adelphia.net), December 08, 2004.