Robert Byers wrote:

CarlPierce wrote:At a very simple level science is simply testing theories of how things work against our observations and experiments, with no absolute preconceptions that can't be altered or reworked if the evidence suggests they conflict with reality.

Religion on the otherhand states that X, Y, Z are true and you should believe it to be true without evidence. When the evidence conflicts with your dogma you simply ignore or construct evermore stupid explainations to try to justify it. I.e animals running up hills to avoid floods etc.

If you can see the difference? then you can deduce why one method of understanding the world has proved infinitely more useful to humanity than the other.

A simple level is just a ordinary level. Testing is minor details of investigation.
Science is not a different species of human thought. Its not higher thinking.
so its the same.
So its open to error just like everything else.
So it can't claim to be so error free as to demand criticism of some conclusions is anti science.
They try to stop creationist criticisms or define our criticisms as anti science.
My point here is there is no big difference or rather there is no science.
JUst a word to cover more complicated things.
Not a special or impressive methodology.

So evolutionists should drop evolution is scientific as if that means its founded on high standards of ibvestigation and say no more.
Its on the merits.
No more degree waving.

The reason Creationism is dismissed as not being science is that it ignores evidence that has been verified to be true over and over. Creationism does not proceed from the Scientific methods. It already has drawn its conclusion, dismisses a mountain of evidence against it and sticks to at best a molehill in its favor. Even that is being generous because that molehill really comes down to misunderstandings of what evolutionary theory says and/ or things evolutionary theory hasn't explained yet which in no way can discount the overwhelming evidence that it happened. In fact, most often, it comes down to appealing to the general public to whom the science can be woefully misrepresented because they don't have the background to evaluate the evidence and often already have decided what they "believe" for reasons that have nothing to do with the evidence.

In fact, that was the first criticism I ever heard about Creationism, that, having failed to produce evidence for their claims and having miserably failed to present let alone pass any sort of falsifiable hypothesis, they simply turned away from their fellow scientists and instead appealed to the general public who neither generally knows or cares about the scientific method or the evidence. They just know what they want to believe- at least some of them.

sennekuyl wrote:

Robert Byers wrote:

CarlPierce wrote:At a very simple level science is simply testing theories of how things work against our observations and experiments, with no absolute preconceptions that can't be altered or reworked if the evidence suggests they conflict with reality.

Religion on the otherhand states that X, Y, Z are true and you should believe it to be true without evidence. When the evidence conflicts with your dogma you simply ignore or construct evermore stupid explainations to try to justify it. I.e animals running up hills to avoid floods etc.

If you can see the difference? then you can deduce why one method of understanding the world has proved infinitely more useful to humanity than the other.

A simple level is just a ordinary level. Testing is minor details of investigation.
Science is not a different species of human thought. Its not higher thinking.
so its the same.
So its open to error just like everything else.
So it can't claim to be so error free as to demand criticism of some conclusions is anti science.
They try to stop creationist criticisms or define our criticisms as anti science.
My point here is there is no big difference or rather there is no science.
JUst a word to cover more complicated things.
Not a special or impressive methodology.

So evolutionists should drop evolution is scientific as if that means its founded on high standards of ibvestigation and say no more.
Its on the merits.
No more degree waving.

As people have been telling you it is the error checking that makes science valid. How do you judge 'the merits'? Appeal or attractiveness? Nope that still goes to evolutionary biology (and science).
Verbosity?
Most remote chance of possibility? Impossiblity?
Unverifiability?

I like the idea its about error checking. I did say the BEST claim for science existing would be high standard of investigation .
A high standard is, like in mechanics, very careful about error.
I still say science is just ordinary thinking however careful.
Then the issues of error possibility in ORIGIN issues becomes a big issue.

rustynuts II wrote:

Robert Byers wrote:
A simple level is just a ordinary level. Testing is minor details of investigation.
Science is not a different species of human thought. Its not higher thinking.
so its the same.
So its open to error just like everything else.
So it can't claim to be so error free as to demand criticism of some conclusions is anti science.
They try to stop creationist criticisms or define our criticisms as anti science.
My point here is there is no big difference or rather there is no science.
JUst a word to cover more complicated things.
Not a special or impressive methodology.

So evolutionists should drop evolution is scientific as if that means its founded on high standards of ibvestigation and say no more.
Its on the merits.
No more degree waving.

So how would you define or categorise "Creation Science" Byers? Is this a higher level of thought and investigation? Do these august bodies/people, 'do' science?:

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/: courtesy of Walt (aka Wally Hydropants) Brown.
http://www.drdino.com/: Creation Science Evangelism courtesy of the wonderful 'Dr' Hovind & son.
http://www.icr.org/: "ICR exists to conduct scientific research.."
http://www.csm.org.uk/: Creation Science Movement.

Don't try to goalpost-shift by claiming there is no such thing as Creation Science, because it's out there plastered all over the Web. Please tell us what is so different and acceptable to you about their brand of 'science' without resorting to apologetics or reference to the Bible? Bet you can't do it.

The great Henry morris, YEC leader, said all origin issues were not science ones.
Scientific investigation he said was not, or very much, applicable to origin issues.
The term creation science is used but its all the same thing.
Creationism(s0 investigate nature/ confront other ideas on the same methodology as anyone.
A few wee presumptions just start the the thing off.

Beatrice wrote:Robert, I'm a bit confused by your op.... I'm not quite sure what you mean. Are you saying that science is not a method but a "state of mind"?

Well I said what I said.
No not a state of mind.
I'm saying science does not exist as a unique species of human investigation and conclusions.
Its just people thinking. Ideas being backed up by attempts to furnish evidence.
having said this then the attempts at evidence must be on the merits.
Evolutionism strives to prove its case by saying it is of a unique investigative methodology and so everyone agree with its conclusions.
Other creationists say origin issues are all not open to the scientific method because its about past events and processes.
I say there is no scientific method.
Just attempts to be careful about drawing conclusions.
Science is just regular thinking and open to regular processes of error.
Science is a word invoked to say regular processes of eror are overcome.
NOPE.

Evolution has and is greatly trying to prove itself on the merits of its methodology.
Not the merits of the evidence.

Moonwatcher wrote:

Robert Byers wrote:

CarlPierce wrote:At a very simple level science is simply testing theories of how things work against our observations and experiments, with no absolute preconceptions that can't be altered or reworked if the evidence suggests they conflict with reality.

Religion on the otherhand states that X, Y, Z are true and you should believe it to be true without evidence. When the evidence conflicts with your dogma you simply ignore or construct evermore stupid explainations to try to justify it. I.e animals running up hills to avoid floods etc.

If you can see the difference? then you can deduce why one method of understanding the world has proved infinitely more useful to humanity than the other.

A simple level is just a ordinary level. Testing is minor details of investigation.
Science is not a different species of human thought. Its not higher thinking.
so its the same.
So its open to error just like everything else.
So it can't claim to be so error free as to demand criticism of some conclusions is anti science.
They try to stop creationist criticisms or define our criticisms as anti science.
My point here is there is no big difference or rather there is no science.
JUst a word to cover more complicated things.
Not a special or impressive methodology.

So evolutionists should drop evolution is scientific as if that means its founded on high standards of ibvestigation and say no more.
Its on the merits.
No more degree waving.

The reason Creationism is dismissed as not being science is that it ignores evidence that has been verified to be true over and over. Creationism does not proceed from the Scientific methods. It already has drawn its conclusion, dismisses a mountain of evidence against it and sticks to at best a molehill in its favor. Even that is being generous because that molehill really comes down to misunderstandings of what evolutionary theory says and/ or things evolutionary theory hasn't explained yet which in no way can discount the overwhelming evidence that it happened. In fact, most often, it comes down to appealing to the general public to whom the science can be woefully misrepresented because they don't have the background to evaluate the evidence and often already have decided what they "believe" for reasons that have nothing to do with the evidence.

In fact, that was the first criticism I ever heard about Creationism, that, having failed to produce evidence for their claims and having miserably failed to present let alone pass any sort of falsifiable hypothesis, they simply turned away from their fellow scientists and instead appealed to the general public who neither generally knows or cares about the scientific method or the evidence. They just know what they want to believe- at least some of them.

Thats what ones critic says.
We would say we take on the evidence against us very well. And offer our own evidence.
We work with the data and make our case.
Very well and successful.

Prove it's not just a line a reasoning and not a very good one at that.

John

The thing is Robert, your petty little godling isn't responsible for any of this. There was no 'creation'. In the beginning was fire and ice. That's all you need to know. Go read the Sagas. Bow before Odin, repent for your evil christian ways, and hope he does't watch you cast into the pit of Niflheim, to be gnawed on by worms. At least that's what Odin says is on the cards for you. Unless you have evidence to the contrary. If you have, how about posting something over here ... http://www.rationalskepticism.org/general-faith/why-god-allah-doesn-t-exist-t27116.html

Robert Byers wrote:
I still say science is just ordinary thinking however careful.

The fact that you have the temerity to type this on a computer connected to the internet makes my head spin.

Robert Byers wrote:

Beatrice wrote:Robert, I'm a bit confused by your op.... I'm not quite sure what you mean. Are you saying that science is not a method but a "state of mind"?

Well I said what I said.
No not a state of mind.
I'm saying science does not exist as a unique species of human investigation and conclusions.
Its just people thinking. Ideas being backed up by attempts to furnish evidence.
having said this then the attempts at evidence must be on the merits.
Evolutionism strives to prove its case by saying it is of a unique investigative methodology and so everyone agree with its conclusions.
Other creationists say origin issues are all not open to the scientific method because its about past events and processes.
I say there is no scientific method.
Just attempts to be careful about drawing conclusions.
Science is just regular thinking and open to regular processes of error.
Science is a word invoked to say regular processes of eror are overcome.
NOPE.

Evolution has and is greatly trying to prove itself on the merits of its methodology.
Not the merits of the evidence.

Those are some strong assertions given the manifest ignorance on what science is being displayed here.

Yet again Robert, you're 'not even wrong', and the pin-up boy for the Dunning-Kruger effect. We should start a calendar for 2012...

Robert Byers wrote:
I like the idea its about error checking. I did say the BEST claim for science existing would be high standard of investigation .
A high standard is, like in mechanics, very careful about error.
I still say science is just ordinary thinking however careful.
Then the issues of error possibility in ORIGIN issues becomes a big issue.

Has anyone, ever, in the history of the universe claimed that science is based on anything other than 'ordinary thinking'?

Do you think people say that science is about magical thinking, or something?

You makee no sensee.

I think this Byers is not the real one; we've got ourselves a spoof here.

Spearthrower wrote:I think this Byers is not the real one; we've got ourselves a spoof here.

We should test it - Byers, how did polar bears get white fur?

Robert Byers wrote:

Moonwatcher wrote:

Robert Byers wrote:

A simple level is just a ordinary level. Testing is minor details of investigation.
Science is not a different species of human thought. Its not higher thinking.
so its the same.
So its open to error just like everything else.
So it can't claim to be so error free as to demand criticism of some conclusions is anti science.
They try to stop creationist criticisms or define our criticisms as anti science.
My point here is there is no big difference or rather there is no science.
JUst a word to cover more complicated things.
Not a special or impressive methodology.

So evolutionists should drop evolution is scientific as if that means its founded on high standards of ibvestigation and say no more.
Its on the merits.
No more degree waving.

The reason Creationism is dismissed as not being science is that it ignores evidence that has been verified to be true over and over. Creationism does not proceed from the Scientific methods. It already has drawn its conclusion, dismisses a mountain of evidence against it and sticks to at best a molehill in its favor. Even that is being generous because that molehill really comes down to misunderstandings of what evolutionary theory says and/ or things evolutionary theory hasn't explained yet which in no way can discount the overwhelming evidence that it happened. In fact, most often, it comes down to appealing to the general public to whom the science can be woefully misrepresented because they don't have the background to evaluate the evidence and often already have decided what they "believe" for reasons that have nothing to do with the evidence.

In fact, that was the first criticism I ever heard about Creationism, that, having failed to produce evidence for their claims and having miserably failed to present let alone pass any sort of falsifiable hypothesis, they simply turned away from their fellow scientists and instead appealed to the general public who neither generally knows or cares about the scientific method or the evidence. They just know what they want to believe- at least some of them.

Thats what ones critic says.
We would say we take on the evidence against us very well. And offer our own evidence.
We work with the data and make our case.
Very well and successful.

It is considerably more than one critic. It is an almost universal opinion by the scientific community of Creationist "methodology". It is rampant with misrepresentation of valid science that seems to serve the primary purpose of convincing the general public.

Who do you make your case too? Who deems it successful?

chairman bill wrote:The thing is Robert, your petty little godling isn't responsible for any of this. There was no 'creation'. In the beginning was fire and ice. That's all you need to know. Go read the Sagas. Bow before Odin, repent for your evil christian ways, and hope he does't watch you cast into the pit of Niflheim, to be gnawed on by worms. At least that's what Odin says is on the cards for you. Unless you have evidence to the contrary. If you have, how about posting something over here ... http://www.rationalskepticism.org/general-faith/why-god-allah-doesn-t-exist-t27116.html

Forsoothe, thou speakest true (Yes I am a member of the Marvel Odin movement). But thou forgottest to say that one must die in battle like a warrior born if one wisheth to arise to the spires of eternal Valhalla.

Robert Byers wrote:The great Henry morris, YEC leader, said all origin issues were not science ones.

And the "great" Henry Morris was scientifically ignorant so we can ignore verything he had to say about science.

Robert Byers wrote:<snip>

Well I said what I said.<snip>

Problem is you spend so little time ensuring what you say is likely to be understood by the reader we can be sure of little except it is wrong. If it weren't so entertaining teasing out snippets of coherency and the potential for persons to be taken in by your sheer confidence, I'm not sure you would garner much response.

If you spend more time on enabling the reader to easily understand your intent, your statements may not be so ... easily brushed off. You'd only have to provide evidence and reasoning. Much like science.

You said you liked my comment about error checking. You aren't doing it.

Heh. I just realised that scientific peer review process is somewhat similar to evolution. No wonder creationist don't like doing it.

And for the next in this series of exposés, Breivik will be here to share with us his treatise On Integrating into a Multicultural Society.

Spearthrower wrote:And for the next in this series of exposés, Breivik will be here to share with us his treatise On Integrating into a Multicultural Society.

Robert Byers wrote:

rustynuts II wrote:

Robert Byers wrote:
A simple level is just a ordinary level. Testing is minor details of investigation.
Science is not a different species of human thought. Its not higher thinking.
so its the same.
So its open to error just like everything else.
So it can't claim to be so error free as to demand criticism of some conclusions is anti science.
They try to stop creationist criticisms or define our criticisms as anti science.
My point here is there is no big difference or rather there is no science.
JUst a word to cover more complicated things.
Not a special or impressive methodology.

So evolutionists should drop evolution is scientific as if that means its founded on high standards of ibvestigation and say no more.
Its on the merits.
No more degree waving.

So how would you define or categorise "Creation Science" Byers? Is this a higher level of thought and investigation? Do these august bodies/people, 'do' science?:

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/: courtesy of Walt (aka Wally Hydropants) Brown.
http://www.drdino.com/: Creation Science Evangelism courtesy of the wonderful 'Dr' Hovind & son.
http://www.icr.org/: "ICR exists to conduct scientific research.."
http://www.csm.org.uk/: Creation Science Movement.

Don't try to goalpost-shift by claiming there is no such thing as Creation Science, because it's out there plastered all over the Web. Please tell us what is so different and acceptable to you about their brand of 'science' without resorting to apologetics or reference to the Bible? Bet you can't do it.

The great Henry morris, YEC leader, said all origin issues were not science ones. Scientific investigation he said was not, or very much, applicable to origin issues.

Did he? Oh yes that's right [The Genesis Flood - Introduction]:
"Our present study therefore has a twofold purpose. In the first place, we desire to ascertain exactly what the Scriptures say concerning the Flood and related topics. We do this from the perspective of full belief in the complete divine inspiration and perspicuity of Scripture, believing that a true exegesis thereof yields determinative Truth in all matters with which it deals. The second purpose is to examine the anthropological, geological, hydrological and other scientific implications of the Biblical record of the Flood, seeking if possible to orient the data of these sciences within this Biblical framework. If this means substantial modification of the principles of uniformity and evolution which currently control the interpretation of these data, than so be it."
In other words, science doesn't apply to Da Fludde, etc, because, as has been pointed out to you a million times, scripture trumps everything.

The term creation science is used but its all the same thing.

All the same thing as what? Just ordinary human reason?

Creationism(s0 investigate nature/ confront other ideas on the same methodology as anyone.
A few wee presumptions just start the the thing off.

Ah, those pesky presumptions again! And this is where you completely fail to see the absurdity and downright mendacity of your position: creationists have all the presumptions/presuppositions, scientists do not. But of course you'll never admit that you are wrong.