Dialogue envisioning: Creationist vs Conventional scientist

[Guest]

I took some science classes also, does not make me qualified to determine what is and what is not science.

 

 

No Scientist Is Qualified

 

Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. James 1:13-15

 

To Think For You

 

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. Isaiah 1:18

 

Or To Die

 

But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8

 

For You

 

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

 

~

 

PS: Just Because You Are Paying For Their Activities

 

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Ephesians 6:12

 

Does Not Mean You Must Swallow Their Bait

 

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Genesis 3:1(a-c )

 

Hook, Line And Sinker

 

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. Psalms 14:1

[LookingForAnswers]

We are talking about science, not salvation. 

[LookingForAnswers]

 

 

"The classroom teaches us science is about falsifying experimentation."

 

  It's called the "Scientific Method". 

 

 

 

"Then you take a field science class and spend your time learning by observing and analyzing what was observed."

 

That's not an EXPERIMENT.  The TESTING of a hypothesis is done via experiment. That is what an experiment is, it is a TEST.

Observations are not a test.  That's just step 1 of the Scientific Method.  An experiment is a physical TEST one carries out, an experiment is not created from "data", in fact an experiment is done to provide data.

Your "experiment" rests on the assumption that your hypothesis is THE ONLY CAUSE... How can you test what is the CAUSE of similarities when all you do is observe similarities??  Data analysis by definition is not an experiment because analyzing your data isn't you attempting to test something.

 

Do the tenets of Science: "Field" and "Classroom" change by location?

 

 

"But with things like astronomy, most people don't understand that working with the calculations, comparing that with data gathered, and running new data through the calculation is the experimentation and falsifying the theory."

 

That's not an Experiment....see response above.  Furthermore, What is your Independent Variable, Dependent Variable, and Control?  Comparing is just "comparing" it reveals nothing of causation.

 

 

"Anyway, the point is, if people can be shown in some way how science deals with things that can't be grown in a lab so to speak (which is unfortunately where classrooms are restricted)"

 

Empirical Science Deals with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD period, end of story.  If you wish, you can petition the Scientific Establishment to allow: Observations, Comparisons, and Ideas in place of Experimentation and Empirical Evidence.

 

I'm not saying that the Historical/Forensic Sciences (Cosmology, Paleontology, Archeology, Anthroplogy et al) aren't a respectable endeavor to undertake or study.  They are what they are...studies about the past.  And you can't do experiments on past events...it's that simple.

 

And again.....

 

“Cosmology may look like a science, but it isn’t a science. A basic tenet of science is that you can do repeatable experiments, and you can’t do that in cosmology.”

(Cho, Adrian, A singular conundrum: How odd is our universe? Science 3171848–1850, 2007.)

 

As opposed to Empirical Sciences or "Hard Sciences" (Biology, Chemistry, Physics et al).  These are ripe for experiments/ Scientific Method because they deal with DIRECTLY OBSERVABLE phenomenon.

 

Speaking of which....a prime example of this "Slight of Hand" technique with the term "Science": Evolutionary Biology.

 

Evolution by definition is a Historical Science. (Technically, I would say it's not even that) However....

 

'Evolution is biology as a historical science.'

Lodish, H., Baltimore, D., Berk, A., Zipursky, S.L., Matsudaira, P. and Darnell, J., Molecular Cell Biology, third edition, Scientific American Books, distributed by W.H. Freeman and Co., New York, p. 4, 1995.

 

Biology is an Empirical Science.

 

Evolutionary Biology is a contradiction in terms

 

 

Is this your own experience, Enoch, or did you pull these quotes from other sources that are trying to discredit modern science as a means of defending their positions?

 

Take my example of the layers of the earth. How could the scientific method be utilized to determine what is between our feet and the center of the planet?

 

 

Do a Google search of the quotes and see what you come up with...lots and lots of YEC websites.   That should answer your first question.

[alphaparticle]

 

 

YEC:  The Big Bang goes against "science"

 

Scientist:  Why/How?

 

Well the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (1LOT) "Pillar of Science", states: Nature can't create or destroy matter/energy...they can just change form.

And we are here

 

Scientist:  You're right.  Can I see that Bible of Yours???

 

YEC: Yes, you surely can

Scientist: The big bang was a change in form, not the creation of new matter or energy. 

 

YEC:  That is not what AIG told me!  

 

Very good! I was envisioning something like:

 

YEC:

Well the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (1LOT) "Pillar of Science", states: Nature can't create or destroy matter/energy...they can just change form.

And we are here

 

Scientist:

[insert quantum physics and string theory explanations.]

 

YEC:

 

 

 

Scientist:

[insert quantum physics and string theory explanations.]

 

YEC:  {insert and.....? }  are you postulating things just Pop into Existence from nothing without a cause and this somehow Invalidates 1LOT?  Can you provide a CITED reference with Time of Death and Obituary for 1LOT?

 

Are you aware that a Quantum Vacuum is SOMETHING?? .....

 

Alan Guth, professor of physics at M.I.T, “In this context, a proposal that the universe was created from empty space is no more fundamental than a proposal that the universe was spawned by a piece of rubber. It might be true, but one would still want to ask where the piece of rubber came from”

Guth, Alan The Inflationary Universe (New York: Perseus Books).1997, p. 273.

 

Philip Yam of Scientific American wrote, “Energy in the vacuum, though, is very much real. According to modern physics, a vacuum isn’t a pocket of nothingness. It churns with unseen activity even at absolute zero, the temperature defined as the point at which all molecular motion ceases”

Yam, Philip, “Exploiting Zero-Point Energy,” Scientific American, 277[6]:82-85. 1997, p. 82.

 

“Quantum mechanics tells us that the vacuum of space is not empty; instead, it crackles with energy”

Gefter, Amanda, “Touching the Multiverse,” New Scientist, 205[2750]:28-31, March 6 2010, p. 29.

 

"Some physicists assert that quantum mechanics…can produce something from nothing…. But this is a gross misapplication of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics never produces something out of nothing…. Theories that the Universe is a quantum fluctuation must presuppose that there was something to fluctuate—their “quantum vacuum” is a lot of matter-antimatter potential—not “nothing”

Sarfati, Jonathan D. “If God Created the Universe, Then Who Created God?,” Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 1998 12[1]:21.

 

'A more fundamental problem is that Tryon’s scenario does not really explain the origin of the universe. A quantum fluctuation of the vacuum assumes that there was a vacuum of some pre-existing space. And we now know that “vacuum” is very different from “nothing.” Vacuum, or empty space, has energy and tension, it can bend and warp, so it is unquestionably something.'

Vilenkin, Alex,  Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universes (New York: Hill and Wang). 2006, p. 185.

 

 

Scientist:

                 and  

 

 

Conventional Scientist now (Born Again Christian) :  I tried to tell him; In the beginning GOD.....

 

It (the vacuum state) is something, but this is where the S in question might well assert that 'something' in that sense has always existed.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

"The classroom teaches us science is about falsifying experimentation."

 

  It's called the "Scientific Method". 

 

 

 

"Then you take a field science class and spend your time learning by observing and analyzing what was observed."

 

That's not an EXPERIMENT.  The TESTING of a hypothesis is done via experiment. That is what an experiment is, it is a TEST.

Observations are not a test.  That's just step 1 of the Scientific Method.  An experiment is a physical TEST one carries out, an experiment is not created from "data", in fact an experiment is done to provide data.

Your "experiment" rests on the assumption that your hypothesis is THE ONLY CAUSE... How can you test what is the CAUSE of similarities when all you do is observe similarities??  Data analysis by definition is not an experiment because analyzing your data isn't you attempting to test something.

 

Do the tenets of Science: "Field" and "Classroom" change by location?

 

 

"But with things like astronomy, most people don't understand that working with the calculations, comparing that with data gathered, and running new data through the calculation is the experimentation and falsifying the theory."

 

That's not an Experiment....see response above.  Furthermore, What is your Independent Variable, Dependent Variable, and Control?  Comparing is just "comparing" it reveals nothing of causation.

 

 

"Anyway, the point is, if people can be shown in some way how science deals with things that can't be grown in a lab so to speak (which is unfortunately where classrooms are restricted)"

 

Empirical Science Deals with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD period, end of story.  If you wish, you can petition the Scientific Establishment to allow: Observations, Comparisons, and Ideas in place of Experimentation and Empirical Evidence.

 

I'm not saying that the Historical/Forensic Sciences (Cosmology, Paleontology, Archeology, Anthroplogy et al) aren't a respectable endeavor to undertake or study.  They are what they are...studies about the past.  And you can't do experiments on past events...it's that simple.

 

And again.....

 

“Cosmology may look like a science, but it isn’t a science. A basic tenet of science is that you can do repeatable experiments, and you can’t do that in cosmology.”

(Cho, Adrian, A singular conundrum: How odd is our universe? Science 3171848–1850, 2007.)

 

As opposed to Empirical Sciences or "Hard Sciences" (Biology, Chemistry, Physics et al).  These are ripe for experiments/ Scientific Method because they deal with DIRECTLY OBSERVABLE phenomenon.

 

Speaking of which....a prime example of this "Slight of Hand" technique with the term "Science": Evolutionary Biology.

 

Evolution by definition is a Historical Science. (Technically, I would say it's not even that) However....

 

'Evolution is biology as a historical science.'

Lodish, H., Baltimore, D., Berk, A., Zipursky, S.L., Matsudaira, P. and Darnell, J., Molecular Cell Biology, third edition, Scientific American Books, distributed by W.H. Freeman and Co., New York, p. 4, 1995.

 

Biology is an Empirical Science.

 

Evolutionary Biology is a contradiction in terms

 

 

Is this your own experience, Enoch, or did you pull these quotes from other sources that are trying to discredit modern science as a means of defending their positions?

 

Take my example of the layers of the earth. How could the scientific method be utilized to determine what is between our feet and the center of the planet?

 

 

"Is this your own experience, Enoch, or did you pull these quotes from other sources that are trying to discredit modern science as a means of defending their positions?"

 

I don't really understand your question.  Are the quotes my own experience?  I guess I "experienced" them when I first looked @ them..... they're just quotes to support a concept that is quite self evident.  Moreover, there's only 2 quotes and they are peripheral support to the MAIN Subject of the SCIENTIFIC METHOD which is ~ 99% of the post.

 

The sources are quite credible.

 

Are you asking me for my experience also? I'm new and I recently read in the TOS not to put any Education Level/Degrees under my profile because there is no way to VERIFY it.  I assumed that to apply to conversations with others as well and I didn't want to violate the Rule.  If someone will confirm/dis-confirm that and it is allowed, I will be happy to oblige.  I have worked in a couple of those areas under my name.....good?

 

"Take my example of the layers of the earth. How could the scientific method be utilized to determine what is between our feet and the center of the planet?"

 

Well the first step is OBSERVATION....so yes, to VERIFY with 100% accuracy you would need to start digging.  Sorry, I didn't create the "Scientific Method".  I'm not a Geologist but I'm sure you can conduct certain methods to go about ascertaining what is below our feet but to VERIFY and VALIDATE it...

get that shovel.

           

[Guest]

We are talking about science, not salvation. 

 

 

Beloved Scientism Is About

 

Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding? Isaiah 29:16

 

Walking Away From Salvation

 

Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. Hebrews 3:12

 

Whereas The Bible Is About

 

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. John 1:1-3

 

The LORD

 

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. Colossians 1:16-17

 

Jesus

 

But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 1 Corinthians 15:20-22

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

YEC:  The Big Bang goes against "science"

 

Scientist:  Why/How?

 

Well the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (1LOT) "Pillar of Science", states: Nature can't create or destroy matter/energy...they can just change form.

And we are here

 

Scientist:  You're right.  Can I see that Bible of Yours???

 

YEC: Yes, you surely can

Scientist: The big bang was a change in form, not the creation of new matter or energy. 

 

YEC:  That is not what AIG told me!  

 

Very good! I was envisioning something like:

 

YEC:

Well the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (1LOT) "Pillar of Science", states: Nature can't create or destroy matter/energy...they can just change form.

And we are here

 

Scientist:

[insert quantum physics and string theory explanations.]

 

YEC:

 

 

 

Scientist:

[insert quantum physics and string theory explanations.]

 

YEC:  {insert and.....? }  are you postulating things just Pop into Existence from nothing without a cause and this somehow Invalidates 1LOT?  Can you provide a CITED reference with Time of Death and Obituary for 1LOT?

 

Are you aware that a Quantum Vacuum is SOMETHING?? .....

 

Alan Guth, professor of physics at M.I.T, “In this context, a proposal that the universe was created from empty space is no more fundamental than a proposal that the universe was spawned by a piece of rubber. It might be true, but one would still want to ask where the piece of rubber came from”

Guth, Alan The Inflationary Universe (New York: Perseus Books).1997, p. 273.

 

Philip Yam of Scientific American wrote, “Energy in the vacuum, though, is very much real. According to modern physics, a vacuum isn’t a pocket of nothingness. It churns with unseen activity even at absolute zero, the temperature defined as the point at which all molecular motion ceases”

Yam, Philip, “Exploiting Zero-Point Energy,” Scientific American, 277[6]:82-85. 1997, p. 82.

 

“Quantum mechanics tells us that the vacuum of space is not empty; instead, it crackles with energy”

Gefter, Amanda, “Touching the Multiverse,” New Scientist, 205[2750]:28-31, March 6 2010, p. 29.

 

"Some physicists assert that quantum mechanics…can produce something from nothing…. But this is a gross misapplication of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics never produces something out of nothing…. Theories that the Universe is a quantum fluctuation must presuppose that there was something to fluctuate—their “quantum vacuum” is a lot of matter-antimatter potential—not “nothing”

Sarfati, Jonathan D. “If God Created the Universe, Then Who Created God?,” Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 1998 12[1]:21.

 

'A more fundamental problem is that Tryon’s scenario does not really explain the origin of the universe. A quantum fluctuation of the vacuum assumes that there was a vacuum of some pre-existing space. And we now know that “vacuum” is very different from “nothing.” Vacuum, or empty space, has energy and tension, it can bend and warp, so it is unquestionably something.'

Vilenkin, Alex,  Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universes (New York: Hill and Wang). 2006, p. 185.

 

 

Scientist:

                 and  

 

 

Conventional Scientist now (Born Again Christian) :  I tried to tell him; In the beginning GOD.....

 

It (the vacuum state) is something, but this is where the S in question might well assert that 'something' in that sense has always existed.

 

 

Hey ALPHA!!!! How's the family?

 

"It (the vacuum state) is something, but this is where the S in question might well assert that 'something' in that sense has always existed."

 

Well that's all it would be then is an "Assertion" but you still have a problem because it is Something.  And then if you presuppose the existence of that Something to account for it's own existence..... would it be bordering on Logical Absurdity?

[LookingForAnswers]

 

We are talking about science, not salvation. 

 

 

Beloved Scientism Is About

 

Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding? Isaiah 29:16

 

Walking Away From Salvation

 

Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. Hebrews 3:12

 

Whereas The Bible Is About

 

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. John 1:1-3

 

The LORD

 

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. Colossians 1:16-17

 

Jesus

 

But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 1 Corinthians 15:20-22

 

 

If you believe that science causes one to walk way from salvation you either have a mixed up view of science or a poor view of the Holy Spirit.

[nebula]

"When did God create these things, and how long were they in existence?"

 

I don't know

 

"Do you consider these to be a part of the Universe or that they predated the Universe?"

 

I consider them apart of the Universe.

 

 

So, you are OK with believing that the universe existed before day one of the Creation account, when God said, "Let there be light"?

[LookingForAnswers]

 

 

 

"The classroom teaches us science is about falsifying experimentation."

 

  It's called the "Scientific Method". 

 

 

 

"Then you take a field science class and spend your time learning by observing and analyzing what was observed."

 

That's not an EXPERIMENT.  The TESTING of a hypothesis is done via experiment. That is what an experiment is, it is a TEST.

Observations are not a test.  That's just step 1 of the Scientific Method.  An experiment is a physical TEST one carries out, an experiment is not created from "data", in fact an experiment is done to provide data.

Your "experiment" rests on the assumption that your hypothesis is THE ONLY CAUSE... How can you test what is the CAUSE of similarities when all you do is observe similarities??  Data analysis by definition is not an experiment because analyzing your data isn't you attempting to test something.

 

Do the tenets of Science: "Field" and "Classroom" change by location?

 

 

"But with things like astronomy, most people don't understand that working with the calculations, comparing that with data gathered, and running new data through the calculation is the experimentation and falsifying the theory."

 

That's not an Experiment....see response above.  Furthermore, What is your Independent Variable, Dependent Variable, and Control?  Comparing is just "comparing" it reveals nothing of causation.

 

 

"Anyway, the point is, if people can be shown in some way how science deals with things that can't be grown in a lab so to speak (which is unfortunately where classrooms are restricted)"

 

Empirical Science Deals with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD period, end of story.  If you wish, you can petition the Scientific Establishment to allow: Observations, Comparisons, and Ideas in place of Experimentation and Empirical Evidence.

 

I'm not saying that the Historical/Forensic Sciences (Cosmology, Paleontology, Archeology, Anthroplogy et al) aren't a respectable endeavor to undertake or study.  They are what they are...studies about the past.  And you can't do experiments on past events...it's that simple.

 

And again.....

 

“Cosmology may look like a science, but it isn’t a science. A basic tenet of science is that you can do repeatable experiments, and you can’t do that in cosmology.”

(Cho, Adrian, A singular conundrum: How odd is our universe? Science 3171848–1850, 2007.)

 

As opposed to Empirical Sciences or "Hard Sciences" (Biology, Chemistry, Physics et al).  These are ripe for experiments/ Scientific Method because they deal with DIRECTLY OBSERVABLE phenomenon.

 

Speaking of which....a prime example of this "Slight of Hand" technique with the term "Science": Evolutionary Biology.

 

Evolution by definition is a Historical Science. (Technically, I would say it's not even that) However....

 

'Evolution is biology as a historical science.'

Lodish, H., Baltimore, D., Berk, A., Zipursky, S.L., Matsudaira, P. and Darnell, J., Molecular Cell Biology, third edition, Scientific American Books, distributed by W.H. Freeman and Co., New York, p. 4, 1995.

 

Biology is an Empirical Science.

 

Evolutionary Biology is a contradiction in terms

 

 

Is this your own experience, Enoch, or did you pull these quotes from other sources that are trying to discredit modern science as a means of defending their positions?

 

Take my example of the layers of the earth. How could the scientific method be utilized to determine what is between our feet and the center of the planet?

 

 

"Is this your own experience, Enoch, or did you pull these quotes from other sources that are trying to discredit modern science as a means of defending their positions?"

 

I don't really understand your question.  Are the quotes my own experience?  I guess I "experienced" them when I first looked @ them..... they're just quotes to support a concept that is quite self evident.  Moreover, there's only 2 quotes and they are peripheral support to the MAIN Subject of the SCIENTIFIC METHOD which is ~ 99% of the post.

 

The sources are quite credible.

 

Are you asking me for my experience also? I'm new and I recently read in the TOS not to put any Education Level/Degrees under my profile because there is no way to VERIFY it.  I assumed that to apply to conversations with others as well and I didn't want to violate the Rule.  If someone will confirm/dis-confirm that and it is allowed, I will be happy to oblige.  I have worked in a couple of those areas under my name.....good?

 

"Take my example of the layers of the earth. How could the scientific method be utilized to determine what is between our feet and the center of the planet?"

 

Well the first step is OBSERVATION....so yes, to VERIFY with 100% accuracy you would need to start digging.  Sorry, I didn't create the "Scientific Method".  I'm not a Geologist but I'm sure you can conduct certain methods to go about ascertaining what is below our feet but to VERIFY and VALIDATE it...

get that shovel.

           

 

 

The Scientific Method was never designed to VERIFY with 100% accuracy, that misses the whole point of the Scientific Method.  I run into this same problem with people that try to use statistics to prove something, that is like using an apple to drive a screw, that is not what they are for.  Same goes for the Scientific Method, its purpose is not to VERIFY with 100% accuracy.