- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
A scientific hypothesis must, at a minimum fit with these points that creationism fails:
1. A scientific hypothesis is falsifiable. Nothing supernatural can be tested, therefore no
hypothesis involving the supernatural can be falsified; creationism fails.
2. A scientific hypothesis must be dropped when reality produce evidence to contradict it.
Such evidence is found in the fact that the sun is required for daylight, yet creationism has
its basis in the bible, and is therefore bound to the idea that daylight came first;
creationism fails.
3. A scientific hypothesis should be fertile, and give rise to new scientific endevours.
Creationism raises no questions about reality and seeks no furtherance of human
knowledge; creationism fails.
4. A scientific hypothesis should (if possible - otherwise see 2) be edited if relevant
evidence cannot be explained by it. In other words, you follow the evidence where they
lead. Creationism is based on the bible and cannot be altered without deviating from the
bible, no matter what reality tells us; creationism fails.
If you have any points, feel free to add them. I must run now.
5, if there is an alternative hypothesis T to hypothesis H that has been proven by the evidence but T logically contradicts H, H should be considered to be a disproved hypothesis in science whether H is really 'scientific' or not -this is just a matter of extremely basic logic.
Evolution has been proven correct by the evidence and contradicts at least some parts of Creationism therefore Creationism is a disproved hypothesis.
In addition, there are several other proved hypotheses from the evidence that contradict Creationism including the Big Bang and the slow geological processes that produce the oldest fossils and sedimentary rocks etc proving old Earth. So Creationism fails not just once because of this 5 but more than three times over!
Originally posted by C HessIt seems to me that the idea of absolutely proving how things came into existence is not a valid scientific topic.
A scientific hypothesis must, at a minimum fit with these points that creationism fails:
1. A scientific hypothesis is falsifiable. Nothing supernatural can be tested, therefore no
hypothesis involving the supernatural can be falsified; creationism fails.
2. A scientific hypothesis must be dropped when reality produce evidence to contradict it.
Such ...[text shortened]... y tells us; creationism fails.
If you have any points, feel free to add them. I must run now.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by EladarScience doesn't absolutely prove anything.
It seems to me that the idea of absolutely proving how things came into existence is not a valid scientific topic.
However that doesn't mean it doesn't prove things.
And how the universe came to be is absolutely a valid topic.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
Originally posted by EladarThis thread is about showing how creationism is not science, specifically by talking about
It seems to me that the idea of absolutely proving how things came into existence is not a valid scientific topic.
what makes a hypothesis scientific. What better place to clarify what a scientific
hypothesis is, than in the science forum?
Originally posted by C HessCreationism is an explanation of how things came into existence. Science can neither prove nor disprove how an event which was not observed actually happened.
This thread is about showing how creationism is not science, specifically by talking about
what makes a hypothesis scientific. What better place to clarify what a scientific
hypothesis is, than in the science forum?
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
Originally posted by EladarScience never proves anything. Scientific evidence either support or contradict a given
Creationism is an explanation of how things came into existence. Science can neither prove nor disprove how an event which was not observed actually happened.
hypothesis, but nothing is ever proven in science. Not even the theory of gravity. I don't
know why you think science can prove anything.
In math you have proof, of course, but the empirical sciences don't deal with proofs.
And again, this thread is about countering the claim that creationism is valid science by
demonstrating what makes for valid science.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by EladarWrong. And idiotically so.
Creationism is an explanation of how things came into existence. Science can neither prove nor disprove how an event which was not observed actually happened.
First 'god did it' doesn't explain anything.
It can't.
An explanation of something must be in terms of things we understand.
Other you have simply replaced the first mystery with another mystery.
We don't [and it is often claimed we can't ever] understand god, how god does things,
or why god does things, and thus god cannot ever explain anything.
God is a mystery, to explain something by invoking god you first must explain god.
Second. Of course science can prove [as long as you are not idiotically making prove mean
ontological 100% certainty] how an unobserved event occurred.
Example. If you go outside and look up at the moon you will see it's surface covered in craters.
The vast majority of which formed before humans existed, let alone modern day scientists
existed.
In fact many pre-date multicellular life forms.
Yet we still know and have proved that they were formed by impacts with asteroids/comets.
We didn't see any of these events but know how they happened and often have a good idea of when.
Nobody saw the asteroid that hit 65 mill years ago when the dinosaurs went extinct.
But we know that it hit, when it hit, where it hit, how big it was, roughly what it was made of,
and what angle it hit at.
What you say is nonsense.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by C HessCorrection.
Science never proves anything. Scientific evidence either support or contradict a given
hypothesis, but nothing is ever proven in science. Not even the theory of gravity. I don't
know why you think science can prove anything.
In math you have proof, of course, but the empirical sciences don't deal with proofs.
And again, this thread is about countering the claim that creationism is valid science by
demonstrating what makes for valid science.
Science does prove things, it just doesn't prove them absolutely.
Originally posted by C HessI meant absolutely true.
Right. I thought he meant absolute proof.
Science is useful when it explains how things work or how things can work. Once you move beyond how things work or how things can work you are stepping into the area of faith.
It seems to me that many people put their faith in Science, then try to yell down or belittle others who try to point out their error.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
Originally posted by EladarScience never deals with absolute proof. There's no such thing but in mathematics.
I meant absolutely true.
Science is useful when it explains how things work or how things can work. Once you move beyond how things work or how things can work you are stepping into the area of faith.
It seems to me that many people put their faith in Science, then try to yell down or belittle others who try to point out their error.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by EladarFaith means believing propositions to be true without evidence sufficient to
I meant absolutely true.
Science is useful when it explains how things work or how things can work. Once you move beyond how things work or how things can work you are stepping into the area of faith.
It seems to me that many people put their faith in Science, then try to yell down or belittle others who try to point out their error.
justify such belief or despite evidence that the proposition is false.
Science NEVER does this.
And correspondingly science neither contains nor requires faith.
Claims otherwise are a pathetic creationist lie.