Dialogue envisioning: Creationist vs Conventional scientist

[LookingForAnswers]

 

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.

No I perceive that by the logic and accuracy of His facts he doesn't feel threatened by that which

comes against it... Simple logic the eternal conclusion 'IS' cannot be 'not' but the present conclusion

'not' proclaims itself as 'IS' hence the confusion of sin! Love, Steven

 

 

if only there had been some facts to be logical and accurate, but alas all we got was a redefining of what is and what is not science.  And then we get you speaking in riddles like Yoda. 

[enoob57]

S: hey c, what about starlight? We are seeing light from stars wayyyyyyyyy longer than 10,000 years old.

C: there you go again s, wanting to talk science while all I want to talk about is the Bible and Hebrew grammar.

S: take for instance this supernova that was observed in 1987 that came from the large magellinic cloud galaxy not to far from our own galaxy. It has been determined through several independent studies that the light from this supernova explosion occurred 167,000 light years ago. Obviously, that is way more than 10,000.

C: good question s, and I don't have an answer right now. But let me check and see if Answers in Genesis has one. They are pretty good at doing that (coming up with rebuttals whenever science comes out with something new.)

S: do they have open minded scientists working there in AIG?

C: I think they are, but of course, they are not allowed to share any study or finding that would oppose their mission, which is to pooh pooh any science discovery that can possibly question the six day creation account.

S: what about all the Christian scientists who support an old earth? Do you consider their work knowing that they too have the Holy Spirit guiding their lives?

C: no, like I told you, we don't trust science or scientists even the ones who bow their knee to Jesus. They obviously sold their birthright like Esau did.

Disclaimer: a wee bit of a hyperbole with tongue in cheek, but was done to make a point or two. (Good writing does that at times.)

They say elevation is always evident by that which is lifted up...

As Christ was lifted up in death of the first sin, so that, life cannot

be determined by death but that of life which was before sin as lifted up

to life making sin the not it has always been! Love, Steven

[enoob57]

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.

No I perceive that by the logic and accuracy of His facts he doesn't feel threatened by that which

comes against it... Simple logic the eternal conclusion 'IS' cannot be 'not' but the present conclusion

'not' proclaims itself as 'IS' hence the confusion of sin! Love, Steven

 

if only there had been some facts to be logical and accurate, but alas all we got was a redefining of what is and what is not science.  And then we get you speaking in riddles like Yoda.

by your termed presence 'seeker' let me ask you this:

How do you expect to find life in death? When God Who 'IS' eternal

gives you only these three options of choice

John 14:6

6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the

life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

KJV

as God Who 'IS' before all (all being the created element)- that which

we know in the sensual experience- side bar to prevent the yoda:

sight, sound, touch, smell, taste and only sound, that of His Word,

being proclaimed can deliver you into life in Him!

I would rather be seen as a Bible proclaimer rather than a thumper but

at least I am elevating God's Word before His creation. As should be!

For it is The Eternal Word of Life that brought into being life in the first

begin but we chose death-the lie over truth and life!

Second chance called Grace of God choose Life found only in His Son...

Love, Steven

P.S. death was not before creation nor will it be after but exist for the

choice of all mankind being that of truth or of lie...

[Enoch2021]

 

"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.

 

 

"You found someone who claimed Aristotle performed experiments?"

 

I never said he performed experiments.

 

 

Natural Experiments/Field Experiments/Observational Studies.

 

and....?  Did you read through these?

 

source for the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiment#Natural_experiments,

 

Natural Experiments....

 

Natural Experiments or Quasi -experiments.  That should've tipped you off.

 

"Natural experiments rely solely on observations of the variables". 

 

"Usually, however, there is some correlation between these variables, which reduces the reliability of natural experiments relative to what could be concluded if a controlled experiment were performed. Also, because natural experiments usually take place in uncontrolled environments, variables from undetected sources are neither measured nor held constant, and these may produce illusory correlations in variables under study."

 

"Much research in several important science disciplines, including economics, political science, geology, paleontology, ecology, meteorology and astronomy relies on Quasi-Experiments".  Funny no mention of Biology, Chemistry, and Physics.    The EMPIRICAL Sciences.

 

 

Field Experiments.....

 

"Often used in the social sciences, and especially in economic analyses of education and health interventions....."

So we're moving from Historical into the Social Sciences?

 

"However, like natural experiments, field experiments suffer from the possibility of contamination: experimental conditions can be controlled with more precision and certainty in the lab. Yet some phenomena (e.g., voter turnout in an election) cannot be easily studied in a laboratory.

Voter Turnout???

 

 

Observational Study......

 

"Fundamentally, however, observational studies are not experiments."

Need I say more?

 

"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."

 

Analyzing calculations and the (alleged) "evidence" thereof is not an EXPERIMENT or a TEST.

 

I don't disagree with their "CURRENT" calculations, I'm sure the Mathematics are beyond reproach....However, unless you acquire that time machine to verify the numbers, well...it would be impossible for me to invalidate unverified data.   In other words, Validate the Data FIRST (which is impossible because it's in the past) then I'll hook up my "scientific" calculator and take a crack at er.  Savvy?

[nebula]

 

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.

 

"You found someone who claimed Aristotle performed experiments?"

 

I never said he performed experiments.

 

If in your belief repeatable, falsifiable experiments are the only valid method of obtaining truth scientifically, then you would need to tie Aristotle into the proposal of falsifiable experiments.

[LookingForAnswers]

Analyzing calculations and the (alleged) "evidence" thereof is not an EXPERIMENT or a TEST.

 

I don't disagree with their "CURRENT" calculations, I'm sure the Mathematics are beyond reproach....However, unless you acquire that time machine to verify the numbers, well...it would be impossible for me to invalidate unverified data.   In other words, Validate the Data FIRST (which is impossible because it's in the past) then I'll hook up my "scientific" calculator and take a crack at er.  Savvy?

 

 

So, something that took place yesterdays is impossible to validate since it's in the past.  What a great way to view the world.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

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.

 

"You found someone who claimed Aristotle performed experiments?"

 

I never said he performed experiments.

 

If in your belief repeatable, falsifiable experiments are the only valid method of obtaining truth scientifically, then you would need to tie Aristotle into the proposal of falsifiable experiments.

 

 

I was simply trying to ascertain who first envisioned the concept that was later codified into the Scientific Method.....

 

"According to David Lindberg, Aristotle (4th Century BCE) wrote about the scientific method even if he and his followers did not actually follow what he said."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

 

Any issues with that?

 

"tie Aristotle into the proposal of falsifiable experiments."

 

ahhh, I think I see.  To "Scientifically" Prove Aristotle or (insert any historical figure) actually existed (via the Scientific Method) would be impossible, eh?

 

Well some TRUTHS fall outside "science's" purview.

[LookingForAnswers]

 

 

 

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.

 

"You found someone who claimed Aristotle performed experiments?"

 

I never said he performed experiments.

 

If in your belief repeatable, falsifiable experiments are the only valid method of obtaining truth scientifically, then you would need to tie Aristotle into the proposal of falsifiable experiments.

 

 

I was simply trying to ascertain who first envisioned the concept that was later codified into the Scientific Method.....

 

"According to David Lindberg, Aristotle (4th Century BCE) wrote about the scientific method even if he and his followers did not actually follow what he said."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

 

Any issues with that?

 

"tie Aristotle into the proposal of falsifiable experiments."

 

ahhh, I think I see.  To "Scientifically" Prove Aristotle or (insert any historical figure) actually existed (via the Scientific Method) would be impossible, eh?

 

Well some TRUTHS fall outside "science's" purview.

 

 

One cannot even prove any current figure actually existed, we could all by living the the matrix and it could all be a lie.  going with this logic (and I use the term very loosely) nothing at all is provable.  You cannot even prove via the Scientific Method that you exist.

[nebula]

I was simply trying to ascertain who first envisioned the concept that was later codified into the Scientific Method.....

What Aristotle proposed is the basis for any means scientists use to collect and interpret data.

 

"tie Aristotle into the proposal of falsifiable experiments."

 

ahhh, I think I see.  To "Scientifically" Prove Aristotle or (insert any historical figure) actually existed (via the Scientific Method) would be impossible, eh?

 

Well some TRUTHS fall outside "science's" purview.

I have no idea where your line of thinking just went.

[Spock]

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.

What are those?