Why creationism is not a valid scientific hypothesis.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
That's not science. Didn't you know science? You told us so? Shame on you!

Go to the Spiritual Forum if you want to preach about intelligent design.

The truth is hard to take isn't it?

Originally posted by Eladar
You can choose to believe that it happened or you can choose to deny it. It can't be proven by science. It is recorded by people and you can choose to believe it or reject it.

There is very little you can claim to know with that attitude. Miracle claims in the bible
comes to mind. Of course, in that case you would be absolutely right.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The truth is hard to take isn't it?

You mean that you would so gladly display your scientific ignorance - without an ounce of
embarrassment? In a science forum, no less. Yes, that's hard to take.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The truth is hard to take isn't it?

The truth is not hard to take. You don't have any experience of that. How would you know?

In the initial posting we could read:

1. A scientific hypothesis is falsifiable. Nothing supernatural can be tested, therefore no hypothesis involving the supernatural can be falsified; creationism fails.

How do you respond to this?

Because this show according to science that creationism has nothing to do with science.

Avoid the question and you show that you are not interested in science.

Originally posted by C Hess
There is very little you can claim to know with that attitude. Miracle claims in the bible
comes to mind. Of course, in that case you would be absolutely right.

If you claim to know anything, then you have a false assumption about your beliefs.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Eladar, do you agree with all what RJHinds says and believes?

No, I don't hold strong views on creation and timing.

To me he is just taking the opposite side of the same coin as you and your ilk. Unknowable is unknowable. We each have the right to believe what we want to believe. I believe God has given us each that right and no human is our master, so we don't need to conform nor justify our beliefs to other people.

Originally posted by Eladar
If you claim to know anything, then you have a false assumption about your beliefs.

Or maybe I'm just not insane.

Originally posted by C Hess
Or maybe I'm just not insane.

No, you are insane if you believe we know everything correctly. All we have is an understanding of how things work for us. I'm sure that a 1000 years from now, should things continue as they are, there will be a greater understanding and know that some of the things we believe now are true, really are not true at all at a deeper level.

Originally posted by Eladar
No, you are insane if you believe we know everything correctly. All we have is an understanding of how things work for us. I'm sure that a 1000 years from now, should things continue as they are, there will be a greater understanding and know that some of the things we believe now are true, really are not true at all at a deeper level.

Am I hearing you correct when you say you can't know ANYTHING?

I think it safe to say things like "I put my finger in a flame and it will get burnt''.

I think that is knowing. At least that one thing.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Am I hearing you correct when you say you can't know ANYTHING?

I think it safe to say things like "I put my finger in a flame and it will get burnt''.

I think that is knowing. At least that one thing.

You mean that you know what you can experience first hand. OK, I'll go with that definition of knowing. Explaining exactly how it happens and why may change with time, but the basic knowing that it hurts and you get burned I agree.

Originally posted by Eladar
No, you are insane if you believe we know everything correctly. All we have is an understanding of how things work for us. I'm sure that a 1000 years from now, should things continue as they are, there will be a greater understanding and know that some of the things we believe now are true, really are not true at all at a deeper level.

I don't believe we know everything, but you implied that we can't know anything with
certainty which is an absolutely insane comment to make. The scientific method has
allowed us to say some things with more than reasonable certainty, such as the fact that
evolution is indeed happening. The fact that we don't know everything in no way negates
the knowledge we have already accumulated.

Originally posted by C Hess
I don't believe we know everything, but you implied that we can't know anything with
certainty which is an absolutely insane comment to make. The scientific method has
allowed us to say some things with more than reasonable certainty, such as the fact that
evolution is indeed happening. The fact that we don't know everything in no way negates
the knowledge we have already accumulated.

I agree that science is useful for many things. I disagree that science can prove what was not witnessed. If you believe something that you did not experience first hand or can repeat then you accept it on faith.

Originally posted by Eladar
I agree that science is useful for many things. I disagree that science can prove what was not witnessed. If you believe something that you did not experience first hand or can repeat then you accept it on faith.

Well, I would argue that there are degrees of faith. The kind of faith you
seem to imply is blind faith, which is certainly not the case when it comes
to science; more specifically, the theory of evolution.

Imagine a murder scene. You have a suspect and a victim. You find the
suspects DNA on the murder weapon, so you know that the suspect held
the murder weapon. But that doesn't mean the suspect committed murder,
only that he at some point held the weapon. But then you find the victims
blood on the suspects clothes. Still, that could mean that he (who was the
one who discovered the scene) came in contact with the blood. But then
you find the suspects DNA underneath the fingernails of the victim and
scratch marks on the suspects neck. Still, it could be from an unrelated
fight. But during investigation we find out that the suspect actually haven't
met the victim in weeks before the murder, and that the scratch marks on
the neck is no more than a day old.

What you're doing when you suggest that we have to accept a scientific
theory on faith, is the equivalent of saying that we can't know with any
kind of certainty that the suspect above is in fact the murderer. It could
still be, surprisingly, that the suspect is not the murderer, but some pretty
extraordinary evidence to that effect would have to be produced before
any sane person can seriously entertain that belief. In fact, believing that
the murderer is not guilty would be blind faith, the kind you accuse
scientifically literate people of having in regards to scientific theories. We
have looked at much of the evidence, and they're pretty convincing.
Certainly nothing you can dismiss as blind faith.

Creationism on the other hand (which is what this thread attacks) fails
completely to meet with scientific standards for evidence, and any
creationist could therefore without any hesitation be accused of holding on
to blind faith.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
The truth is not hard to take. You don't have any experience of that. How would you know?

In the initial posting we could read:

1. A scientific hypothesis is falsifiable. Nothing supernatural can be tested, therefore no hypothesis involving the supernatural can be falsified; creationism fails.

How do you respond to this?

Because this ...[text shortened]... g to do with science.

Avoid the question and you show that you are not interested in science.

Didn't you see this response:

1. The Theory of Evolution relies on the supernatural ability of the god called "evolution" to do things that can not be tested. Evolution fails.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The Theory of Evolution relies on the supernatural ability of the god called "evolution" to do things that can not be tested. Evolution fails.

You've now drifted so far from reality that your words don't even make sense.
To call you a farce may have been an understatement.