RE: Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)
January 7, 2011 at 7:27 pm
(This post was last modified: January 7, 2011 at 7:28 pm by Welsh cake.)
Statler Waldorf;113265 Wrote:The scientific method is used in operational sciences, not origins sciences (Evolution). You can’t very well observe, test and repeat the past now can you?Stick to interpreting the Bible Statler, keep making excuses for it, that's what you excel at.
Understanding the methodology behind the scientific body of techniques we use for investigating, inquiring, and predicting phenomena through observing and collecting empirical evidence to formulate rigorously-tested hypotheses to provide explanations of reality that are reliable, are currently beyond your grasp.
Quote:Ruling out possible answers beforehand (the supernatural) is not being objective and is hardly scientific.Define "natural" and its scope or limits first. Until you do, "super-natural" is a meaningless word.
Quote:First of all this is not testing the validity of the claims, you would have to directly observe the age of the earth to do that.Likewise, you have apply your own convoluted logic and live 248 Earth years to directly witness Pluto make one complete orbit around the sun, maybe if we pray sincerely to your infallible-brand-of-god and hope he'll let us live that long? Maybe we'll fail miserably and die without knowing, and all because you couldn't be bothered to use your brain and apply the laws of physics to calculate the mechanics of any given celestial bodies' orbital motion through space-time.
NO. We have the math. We have radiometric methods. They're not always as accurate as we'd like, but science doesn't stop working therefore it cannot fail in anything outright, the learning process doesn't stop, we are constantly developing calibration methods to refine their dating accuracy all the time.
Quote:CMI is an international scientific organization that publishes a peer-reviewed journal that has many articles written by experts that confirm the validity of the creation model.Okay. Creationist magazines are NOT peer-reviewed scientific journals. You really should proof-read your posts BEFORE the stupidity leaps off the webpage and burrows into my skull.
Quote:It may not be by your arbitrary definition, but I am not about to let you redefine the English language for the purpose of the debate. Using the actual definition of science the Journal of Creation is very much a scientific source, it takes a systematic approach to gaining knowledge about the physical world.ENOUGH ALREADY. Creationist magazines are NOT peer-reviewed scientific journals.
