Enoch2021 Posted January 19, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted January 19, 2014 Enoch, with that mindset, you might as well just turn off the telescopes like Hubble and SOHO, shut down the radio observatories like Greenbank and the Very Large Array, and every observatory around the globe, and miss out on all the cool and useful technologies that have come out of the space program because in your mind observational science is not "real" science. Likewise, you need to not listen to Creationists who point to the dramatic landscape changes, formation of a petrified forest, and rapid ecological recovery around Mt. St. Helens, because all of that is being reported from observational science as well. "Enoch, with that mindset, you might as well just turn off the telescopes like Hubble and SOHO" Listen, I can't take credit for the "Scientific Method".... as it turns out (with a little homework ) it was Aristotle that first proposed it. Now, to skewer him, your gonna need some serious smelling salts and a really big heater. The Scientific Method is: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypothesis. Oxford English Dictionary – entry for scientific. 'To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.' Rules for the study of natural philosophy, Newton 1999, pp. 794-6, from Book 3, The System of the World. Having said that, lets not be extreme. I don't want to shut these institutions down. There is much insight to be gained; However, the assumption laden conclusions that are extrapolated from these observations then treating/offering them as FACT or "Scientific", Well..... "Mt. St. Helens," Well there is a difference here in that some of these phenomenon were Directly Observed. Some insight can be gained on the speed, types (w/ associated characteristics), of these phenomenon as it relates to "stories" of similar phenomenon that have been said to occur over Millions and Millions and Millions Years. Is it "SCIENTIFIC"..........NOPE. So whether it's: Secular Scientists, Creation Scientists, Umpa Lumpa Scientists, Shang Ra La Scientists......if they don't follow the "Scientific Method" then any statements concerning the nature of things are claims that Scientists make.... instead of Scientific Claims. SEE: "Termed Scientific" above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spock Posted January 19, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,239 Content Per Day: 0.86 Reputation: 1,686 Days Won: 6 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted January 19, 2014 Hey Enoch, Do you clench your fist when you hear any or all of these words- Hubble, COBE, WMAP, and Planck. I'll bet you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LookingForAnswers Posted January 19, 2014 Group: Seeker Followers: 0 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,033 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 67 Days Won: 2 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted January 19, 2014 No, he sticks his fingers in his ears and goes la la la la I can't hear you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spock Posted January 19, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,239 Content Per Day: 0.86 Reputation: 1,686 Days Won: 6 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted January 19, 2014 No, he sticks his fingers in his ears and goes la la la la I can't hear you. If that is the case, I'm sure he is not alone. I wonder how many YEC proponents are actually open minded to read, seek out, and study scientific studies and observations, or do they look upon science as being anti-God. I have a feeling many run to AiG or ICR to find articles to refute the scientific articles being presented instead of taking the time to study the science findings first. Conversely, I wonder how many OEC people actually read those AiG articles or do they right them off as biased fluff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gray wolf Posted January 19, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 28 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,046 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 194 Days Won: 2 Joined: 09/25/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/30/1960 Share Posted January 19, 2014 My objection all along. AIG and ICR and others are more interested in debunkiing than in original research and proposing alternative scientific hypotheses. They claim no one in the community takes them seriously, but who is to blame for that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted January 20, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Author Share Posted January 20, 2014 "Enoch, with that mindset, you might as well just turn off the telescopes like Hubble and SOHO" Listen, I can't take credit for the "Scientific Method".... as it turns out (with a little homework ) it was Aristotle that first proposed it. Now, to skewer him, your gonna need some serious smelling salts and a really big heater. Aristotle? You found someone who claimed Aristotle performed experiments? Aristotle is actually easy to skewer, because everything he proposed is wrong! While Aristotle is considered "the father of science", it was because he was the first person who attempted to explain and understand the natural world (which is what science is about). But he was wrong in his conclusions because he philosophized about it (i.e. "Love makes the world go around.") However, the assumption laden conclusions that are extrapolated from these observations then treating/offering them as FACT or "Scientific", Well..... OK, I do not recall from my History of Science class learning these things; perhaps we did, but I never thought it important to remember the terms. So, I apologize for this and having to scrounge the internet to find the terms and explanations, but here we go again: Types of Experiments Natural Experiments A natural experiment also is called a quasi-experiment. A natural experiment involves making a prediction or forming a hypothesis and then gathering data by observing a system. The variables are not controlled in a natural experiment. Controlled Experiments Lab experiments are controlled experiments, although you can perform a controlled experiment outside of a lab setting! In a controlled experiment, you compare an experimental group with a control group. Ideally, these two groups are identical except for one variable, the independent variable. Field Experiments A field experiment may be either a natural experiment or a controlled experiment. It takes place in a real-world setting, rather than under lab conditions. For example, an experiment involving an animal in its natural habitat would be a field experiment. Source More on natural experiments More on field experiments Now, about how science is done, if someone disagrees with a conclusion (which is often done in the science field, even against the accepted ones), one has to explain and provide their evidences for their claims. Thus, if you are going to disagree with, say, the calculations to determine the distances to stars, you need to provide such evidence. Disagreeing with a conclusion because you have a problem with the conclusion will not get you anywhere. You need something substantial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted January 20, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted January 20, 2014 If that is the case, I'm sure he is not alone. I wonder how many YEC proponents are actually open minded to read, seek out, and study scientific studies and observations, or do they look upon science as being anti-God. I have a feeling many run to AiG or ICR to find articles to refute the scientific articles being presented instead of taking the time to study the science findings first. Conversely, I wonder how many OEC people actually read those AiG articles or do they right them off as biased fluff. This is what I've noticed, as just a general observation.....what I characterize as the "last port in the storm" when all reasoned arguments have been exhausted (often happens quite quickly), which speaks volumes: divert, divert, ad hominem, divert, strawman, thinly veiled and overt personal attacks/innuendo, baseless assertions, then divert some more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted January 20, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Author Share Posted January 20, 2014 Hey Guys - please be careful to debate the subject, not the person. It's annoying for others to read, hurtful to the person, and is against the TOS. The Servants (moderators) do shut down threads for such. OK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted January 20, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Author Share Posted January 20, 2014 When I was studying science in college, I had to come face to face with the YEC-Evolution/Cosmology debate. It wasn't easy. One class that helped a lot was a Comparative Study of Origins class. The instructor first led us through how our world view influences how we interpret things. Then he went through the different methods used by scientists to collect data a gain information in general. Then he took us on a journey from one topic to another - this is the subject, this is how data was gathered on that subject, this is the evidence gathered, these are the many interpretations made on that evidence, and why a particular interpretation was the most widely accepted interpretation of the data. Some of these interpretations were quite bizarre! One that stands out in my mind the most was that the first chapters of Genesis detailed the history of Mars, and then Noah and his family were transported on the ark from Mars to Earth, and that is why scientists are finding a different history here than what is found in the Scriptures. (Errrr....) In any event, by the end of the class, I came to the conclusion that the conventional cosmology/evolutionary model was impossible (that is, the existence of the universe, the formation of life, etc. without a Creator or even a guiding hand), but also that the standard YEC model (6000 year old universe) was likewise impossible. So, I've been having to seek out how to reconcile what is in Scripture with the evidences that are out there, plus reconcile how the age of the universe could be different form what the Bible seems to proclaim. It was a painful journey, and I can understand why the majority of Christians would rather throw up defenses rather than seek the matter out with an open mind (a willingness to have to re-interpret what they believe). The conclusion I've come to accept isn't popular; actually, I've been "persecuted" by both sides of the debate for this. But it is the answer than I can be at peace with, doesn't compromise my faith nor belief in the authority of Scripture (even though people claim I have), and reconciles what conventional science has to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LookingForAnswers Posted January 20, 2014 Group: Seeker Followers: 0 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,033 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 67 Days Won: 2 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted January 20, 2014 Thank you Nebula for that post, it is good to see where people are coming from. YEC delayed my conversion for a few years and I guess because of that I tend to get a chip on my shoulder. These sorts of discussions would be much better if people (and myself included) would just post what they believe and why vice trying to prove the other person wrong. To say that something is not science or that it is just fantasy does not help the situation and causes people such as myself to go on the defensive. I apologize to all for losing my cool and being so defensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.jpg.03b9a592ab3fbf402fba028ca0d40a97.thumb.jpg.2258d605d3ad1f34b6effde23d20e7d7.jpg)
Recommended Posts