Creation Muesum

[Homeless Nutter]

Oh my word, that would be heinous! Going to the Creation Museum on free-day as a huge atheist group (wearing shirts to that effect, so they know?) is an amazing idea, Rexbeccarox!!
[...]

Except the security would most likely just unceremoniously kick the whole group out. Christians aren't big on tolerance at the best of times - when they're on their "home turf" and in great numbers - you'd be lucky if they didn't burn anyone at the stake...

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Oh my word, that would be heinous! Going to the Creation Museum on free-day as a huge atheist group (wearing shirts to that effect, so they know?) is an amazing idea, Rexbeccarox!!
[...]

Except the security would most likely just unceremoniously kick the whole group out. Christians aren't big on tolerance at the best of times - when they're on their "home turf" and in great numbers - you'd be lucky if they didn't burn anyone at the stake...

Then it makes excellent cell phone video footage, eh?

I doubt they'd throw you out. Never miss a chance to "witness to sinners", y'know. As long as y'all weren't being disruptive. 

Besides, it's a risk for them-- remember, they claim to fairly-win, in open debate with nonbelievers. Being seen leading us away as we scream "Help, help, I'm being repressed!" a la Monte Python, while only amusing to us, would be devastating to an already fragile balance with use of public funds for religious purposes.

[Bob Kelso]

I don't have to see it to know creationism is bullshit.

On the Creation Museum, they use science to prove their view.

No. No they do not. 

They bastardize science, ignore everything that stands in their way and bring bile to the lips of everyone that values intellectual honesty.

[RoadRunner79]

I think that we are getting off topic here.  I at least am not claiming scientific knowledge for "every single core Christian claim" nor that the Bible is a science book.  What I was discussing, was a priori generalization, that anything viewed to be Christian science, is antithetical to "real science"  That is scientific claims that support a Christian worldview are automatically viewed as pseudo-science by definition (based on the result rather than the method.)  

As I said, the demarcation of science is a tough philosophical nut to crack.  And I don't know that I am qualified to draw that line.  However; for me personally my view leans towards method, and the basis of the conclusion, not the conclusion itself.

So, you disagree with me in your first paragraph, and then agree with me in your second: the basis for the conclusion one draws is the most important part of determining whether that conclusion is properly scientific, and this is precisely the reason why christian science is not science, because it skips out on a huge base element of a rationally drawn conclusion.

No, I think we agree... what makes it science or not, is the method, and reasons for the conclusion.  What is the foundation for the claim (not to be confused with motivation for the study).  All I am saying, is that one cannot automatically categorize the claim as pseudo science based on where the conclusion results.  

As well, I don't believe that the categorization as science is dependent on a true or correct conclusion.  Opposing views where at least one view must be false, can still be both labeled as scientific study.

---

It is a generalization based on evidence. That I provided above. "Reputable" Christian sources all use the statement of faith.

If interested you may want to check out Reasons to Believe.  I also like the Uncommon Descent Blog (some may consider this creationist, some may not).  Both look to science for explanation quite a bit.  I don't really use AIG, and agree with you in that case quite a bit, although I would not categorically label everything there as pseudo science.

If you could, provide a "naturalist" source, claiming to be performing science, that states that if they discover evidence that contradicts their claim, they will disregard it. I'll wait...

How about statements here, that claim science is the only source for truth, even though that very claim contradicts itself.

No. You are not doing science in a lecture hall. If you do testable, repeatable experiments in the lab that produce results that corroborate your hypothesis, you are but a fly in the wall of the mountains of other experiments that have done the same results.

I think you are misunderstanding.  This was in response, that if one starts with a conclusion, and proceeds to provide scientific verification for that conclusion, that it is not science.

Please, if you would, link to a creationist experiment. What have the creationists tested that provides a prediction of future phenomena, as a scientific theory would? I'll wait...

This would seem to preclude historical sciences by definition.  Which scientific claims of a creation nature would be considered (at least to my understanding).  

And now you're mincing words. One does not need to witness a gene mutating in order to witness the evidence that it leaves. I don't need to be there to see a Mt. Vesuvius erupting, but by dating the igneous strata and exhuming the mummified remains of the Pompeians, we can tell a story. Be careful in tugging at this string, because it will unravel your sweater.

I was just clarifying when you said "Empirical observation is the only method for arriving at a realistic conclusion" that you did not mean that making inferences based on the evidence was out of bounds for your scientific classification.

[Edwardo Piet]

Messy quotes again lol

[SteelCurtain]

It is a generalization based on evidence. That I provided above. "Reputable" Christian sources all use the statement of faith.

If interested you may want to check out Reasons to Believe.  I also like the Uncommon Descent Blog (some may consider this creationist, some may not).  Both look to science for explanation quite a bit.  I don't really use AIG, and agree with you in that case quite a bit, although I would not categorically label everything there as pseudo science.

Same shit, different salad. Starting out with an unassailable conclusion. This, by definition, right of the bat, cannot be science:

Scripture
We believe the Bible (the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments) is the Word of God, written. As a "God-breathed" revelation, it is thus verbally inspired and completely without error (historically, scientifically, morally, and spiritually) in its original writings. While God the Holy Spirit supernaturally superintended the writing of the Bible, that writing nevertheless reflects the words and literary styles of its individual human authors. Scripture reveals the being, nature, and character of God, the nature of God's creation, and especially His will for the salvation of human beings through Jesus Christ. The Bible is therefore our supreme and final authority in all matters that it addresses.

Creation
We believe that the physical universe, the realm of nature, is the visible creation of God. It declares God's existence and gives a trustworthy revelation of God's character and purpose. In Scripture, God declares that through His creation all humanity recognizes His existence, power, glory, and wisdom. An honest study of nature - its physical, biological, and social aspects - can prove useful in a person's search for truth. Properly understood, God's Word (Scripture) and God's world (nature), as two revelations (one verbal, one physical) from the same God, will never contradict each other. (bold mine)
http://www.reasons.org/about/our-mission

The request is still hanging, roadrunner. You have yet to provide a scientific claim that creationists have proffered which has advanced the scientific realm in any manner. One claim that provides an explanation which can be tested, which can be recreated, which is falsifiable, which can be used to predict future phenomena. You know, the basic hallmarks of scientific theory.

If you could, provide a "naturalist" source, claiming to be performing science, that states that if they discover evidence that contradicts their claim, they will disregard it. I'll wait...

How about statements here, that claim science is the only source for truth, even though that very claim contradicts itself.

Who here is performing a scientific experiment? Read the request again. I am not talking about members of an atheist forum debating you. I am talking about a scientific community that a priori rejects any evidence that doesn't fit their hypothesis. Please, find a mission statement like the one above on a scientific journal or academic body. I am patient.

No. You are not doing science in a lecture hall. If you do testable, repeatable experiments in the lab that produce results that corroborate your hypothesis, you are but a fly in the wall of the mountains of other experiments that have done the same results.

I think you are misunderstanding.  This was in response, that if one starts with a conclusion, and proceeds to provide scientific verification for that conclusion, that it is not science.

When you are in a classroom, you are being taught something. Those experiments aren't to prove evolution. They are to explicate the lesson. In your example, a maths professor would have to derive the quadratic formula every time he wanted to calculate roots. Once a concept has been demonstrated, then it need not be proven every time it is taught.

You see, the only people who won't accept that the quadratic formula has been proven or that 2+2 = 4 is the Christian "scientists." Evolution is literally the most demonstrated, tested, supported, robust theory that mankind has ever conceived. There is absolutely no question that it happens. What we are continuing to discover is the methods by which it happens, which are amazingly complex and interwoven.

Please, if you would, link to a creationist experiment. What have the creationists tested that provides a prediction of future phenomena, as a scientific theory would? I'll wait...

This would seem to preclude historical sciences by definition.  Which scientific claims of a creation nature would be considered (at least to my understanding).

We are talking about biology here. I was under the impression that this was a "Creation as an alternate explanation for evolution" discussion. If creation is an alternate explanation for evolution, then it ought to have the same (or since it's Jeebus, better) explanatory power, no? So, if these creation "scientists" are doing science, lets see a peer reviewed paper or scholarly article that explains an observed phenomena and can be used to predict future phenomena. They should be studying God's little gift of cancer, say, and looking to the Bible to tell them how to cure it, or even simpler, what to expect when they pray about it. (Hint: not a damn thing)

There should be tons of these papers. Right?

Wrong. You know why? Because creationists don't answer questions. They manipulate the data, outright ignore contradictory evidence (by design,) and attempt to undermine real science. You cannot even imagine the fields of science that would be completely wiped out if evolution wasn't a fact. All of the things we've learned about human biology, embryology, immunology, etc, etc, etc---are based from the foundation of evolutionary science. It is so thoroughly supported by the evidence that it is moronic that we even have to have this conversation.

And now you're mincing words. One does not need to witness a gene mutating in order to witness the evidence that it leaves. I don't need to be there to see a Mt. Vesuvius erupting, but by dating the igneous strata and exhuming the mummified remains of the Pompeians, we can tell a story. Be careful in tugging at this string, because it will unravel your sweater.

I was just clarifying when you said "Empirical observation is the only method for arriving at a realistic conclusion" that you did not mean that making inferences based on the evidence was out of bounds for your scientific classification.

No, making inferences based on the evidence is what scientists do. Making conclusions before you even look at the evidence is not what scientists do.

[Huggy Bear]

So, I just want to be clear here: I literally just get through pointing out that the majority of the aspects of creationism have not been demonstrated as possible, and your immediate response is to lean heavily on an aspect of creationism that hasn't been demonstrated as possible?

Besides, the incoherent nature of the "timeless creator" concept has nothing to do with the physicality- or otherwise- of god. It has to do with the nature of time, which is measured in specific demarcations as applied to events that happen and are apprehended by minds. If god exists, chose to create a thing, and then had creation happen, those things are all distinct events that happened and can be measured in units of time. Events occur in a temporal framework, there is literally no possible way they could not.

Time is relative....

2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

can you tell me what a "spirit" is made of? If you don't know what a spirit is, how can you understand it's existence? The closest thing you'll get to describing God from a natural point of view, is as light.

I don't really care. It's not my job to learn every detail of your specific fanfiction of your religion's undemonstrated claims. You can't come into a discussion like this one and seriously expect us to follow along with you before you demonstrate the shit you're talking about even exists first.

Light is formed from energy. mass is also formed from energy.... Do the math.

The math says that "it's in the bible!" is not sufficient justification for a concept or claim.

No, that math is according to science...

Matter can be formed from energy correct? If God IS light that would mean that he IS energy (i'm over simplifying here, I don't presume to know what God is made of... but we do know that light is created by energy)

This means it is entirely within the boundaries of science, for an entity of pure energy to create matter.

Am I Lawrence Krauss? Is any other cosmologist besides Lawrence Krauss, Lawrence Krauss? No? Then why do you think we should all be beholden to what Krauss says, rather than what we actually think?

Oh, and just as further evidence that you have no idea at all what you're talking about: You apparently don't know the difference between the big bang, which is an event describing the expansion of a singularity- the nature and previous history of which is currently unknown- of spacetime into a universe which gradually developed into the one we had now, and the creation of the universe. Because I'll give you a hint, Huggy: that singularity wasn't nothing. It was, in fact, everything there ever has been. Literally the opposite of nothing, so if you're going to talk about the big bang, then "from nothing" is, indeed, a strawman.

*emphasis mine*
You would seem to agree with the bible

John
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not

Here it is stating the God WAS the singularity in the beginning in which all things existed.

[downbeatplumb]

[quote pid='1093262' dateline='1445625614']


John
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not

Here it is stating the God WAS the singularity in the beginning in which all things existed.

[/quote]

No it says god is a word because superstitious people thought words had power.
To the extent that they believed that you could be killed with a curse or cured with a prayer. We laugh at the primitives now but these were their child like beliefs in the past.

[Homeless Nutter]

[...]Besides, it's a risk for them-- remember, they claim to fairly-win, in open debate with nonbelievers. Being seen leading us away as we scream "Help, help, I'm being repressed!" a la Monte Python, while only amusing to us, would be devastating to an already fragile balance with use of public funds for religious purposes.

Well - that all would apply, if they were at all rational and not a bunch of vindictive assholes. But if they were that - they probably wouldn't be creationists in the first place and there sure wouldn't be a creationist museum, which was clearly designed as a middle finger towards all scientifically savvy non-believers.

I still remember when Ben Stein's abortion of a movie, "Expelled" came out and they kicked PZ Myers - who appeared in the movie - out of the screening, before it even started. Like late-stage alcoholics on cheap booze, christians very easily get drunk on power - however laughably small amount of it they may have - and disregard the consequences...

I mean - they would probably simply make a statement, accusing atheists of disruptive behavior, or whatever. And if their target audience accepts dinos with saddles - why wouldn't they believe in nasty atheist hooligans invading their bullsh*t museum with intent to cause mischief?

[houseofcantor]

 I also like the Uncommon Descent Blog (some may consider this creationist, some may not).

Dembski's a total douchebag.