CDZ Questions About Creation

[Boss]

This thread is not intended to be a Creation vs Evolution debate but rather an opportunity to ask questions of those who believe in Intelligent Design or that a higher power (God) created life on Earth.

It is also an opportunity for those who believe in Intelligent Design to express that belief and the reason(s) for it. Anyone can ask and anyone can answer but please keep in mind that the aim here is to have an adult conversation based on mutual respect and civility, not to insult those with a different viewpoint. If you cannot refrain from personal attacks, ridicule, and name calling, please be courteous enough to not post anything.

God does not roll dice. Albert Einstein

God does not roll dice.
This relates to Einstein’s reaction to the part of Nature described by Quantum Mechanics, which is undoubtedly one of the pillars of modern physics. He felt that natural laws could not be like the throw of dice, with inherent randomness or probability. But this is exactly what Quantum Mechanics tells us – that at the fundamental level Nature is inherently random, codified in Heisenberg’s famous Uncertainty Principle.

 

[Searcher44]

What is the Creationist explanation for the existence of the species known as Polar Bears?

Why would you expect a creationist to have an explanation for any particular species? The over-whelming majority of Christians admit they cannot and do not "know the mind of God." If you think they should have an explanation for such a mundane question you must expect them to know why there are 3 flavours of quarks or why gravity is such a weak force compared to the force that holds nuclei together.

 

[Agit8r]

Who created the creator?

 

[320 Years of History]

This thread is not intended to be a Creation vs Evolution debate but rather an opportunity to ask questions of those who believe in Intelligent Design or that a higher power (God) created life on Earth.

....

I asked some and nobody has yet offered a cogent reply. Apparently the intended purpose of the thread isn't materializing....that or receiving cogent answers isn't part of the offering/intent....

Clearly not the way you would like it to. The purpose of this thread is not to prove anything or to discredit those with whom you disagree. If that is your objective (as I suspect it is), you're probably in the wrong thread.

As I wrote before, I want cogent replies to the questions I asked. As a theist, I already know what responses I'd give to the questions I asked. Folks who've carefully read my posts in this thread, and in the "Evolution vs. Creationism" thread that inspired this one, likely already have gleaned what my responses would be. I asked to see if any has any different, perhaps even more credible, ones.

 

[Boss]

Who created the creator?

Why would something have to "create" something that isn't physical? What does that even mean? What created matter? What created energy? What created light?

 

[S.J.]

This thread is not intended to be a Creation vs Evolution debate but rather an opportunity to ask questions of those who believe in Intelligent Design or that a higher power (God) created life on Earth.

....

I asked some and nobody has yet offered a cogent reply. Apparently the intended purpose of the thread isn't materializing....that or receiving cogent answers isn't part of the offering/intent....

Clearly not the way you would like it to. The purpose of this thread is not to prove anything or to discredit those with whom you disagree. If that is your objective (as I suspect it is), you're probably in the wrong thread.

As I wrote before, I want cogent replies to the questions I asked. As a theist, I already know what responses I'd give to the questions I asked. Folks who've carefully read my posts in this thread, and in the "Evolution vs. Creationism" thread that inspired this one, likely already have gleaned what my responses would be. I asked to see if any has any different, perhaps even more credible, ones.

You're asking for physical evidence of creation, the same way we ask for physical evidence of evolution. That cannot be done and no one is claiming it can, so your questions are pointless in relation to this topic. I don't know what else to tell you. If you want a "Creation vs. Evolution debate you should start a different thread.

 

[320 Years of History]

This thread is not intended to be a Creation vs Evolution debate but rather an opportunity to ask questions of those who believe in Intelligent Design or that a higher power (God) created life on Earth.

....

I asked some and nobody has yet offered a cogent reply. Apparently the intended purpose of the thread isn't materializing....that or receiving cogent answers isn't part of the offering/intent....

Clearly not the way you would like it to. The purpose of this thread is not to prove anything or to discredit those with whom you disagree. If that is your objective (as I suspect it is), you're probably in the wrong thread.

As I wrote before, I want cogent replies to the questions I asked. As a theist, I already know what responses I'd give to the questions I asked. Folks who've carefully read my posts in this thread, and in the "Evolution vs. Creationism" thread that inspired this one, likely already have gleaned what my responses would be. I asked to see if any has any different, perhaps even more credible, ones.

You're asking for physical evidence of creation, the same way we ask for physical evidence of evolution. That cannot be done and no one is claiming it can, so your questions are pointless in relation to this topic. I don't know what else to tell you. If you want a "Creation vs. Evolution debate you should start a different thread.

You perhaps have me confused with someone else. I asked two questions, neither of which call for physical evidence.

 

[320 Years of History]

Oh, I've always said that we cannot KNOW things, we can only have faith that we know. A lot of people become upset when they hear this but it's a fact. Physical science is bound by the laws of physics and nature, it cannot evaluate that which is outside of physics. Therefore, creative forces beyond the physical are not something we can examine with physical sciences.

Furthermore, if there were ever to become some way of verifying a creative metaphysical force through science, it would automatically cease to be something metaphysical, by definition. I've often said, if science ever proved God exists, the Atheists would chortle... See? We told you there was no such thing as God!

Think about that... once upon a time, humans believed the rain came from God. Then science comes along and explains how rain happens and suddenly, the rain doesn't come from God, it's a natural phenomenon. BUT... do we understand why two molecules of hydrogen bond with one molecule of oxygen to form a compound which is liquid at a certain temperature range, a solid or gas if the temperature is extreme, and a foundation to all life as we know it? Do we understand why (not how) these elements evaporate into the atmosphere to form clouds and then become too heavy to stay there and fall back to the ground? Nope... we just know that it does and we can explain how it works.

The cosmological constants... there are about 40 of them... are set precisely as they need to be in order for a physical universe to exist and in order for carbon-based life to exist as well as planets and suns. Nothing in physics dictates that universes MUST contain these constants, ours just does. Many will shrug this off and say... just the way it is... but it's like someone winning the powerball lottery 40 times in a row, except with 10^120 numbers available as possibilities. Are we really THAT lucky? I don't think that is rational.

Red:
Yes, we do know why, and the reason why has nothing to do with forming "a compound which is liquid at a certain temperature range, a solid or gas if the temperature is extreme, and a foundation to all life as we know it." The things you identified -- forming a compound that can exist in multiple matter states, or forming one that is able to serve as the foundation of life as we know it -- are outcomes of the fact that hydrogen and oxygen atoms do bond for form a water molecule. They are not the reason why those two atoms do so.

The reason they do so is found in the "octet rule," that is, because the atoms "want to"/"prefer to" exits with stable electron shells, and lacking enough electrons to do that on their own, they find other atoms with which they can bond, thereby producing an overall stable molecule even though alone neither element was stable. This can be relatively easily seen when one examines what inert elements do as compared and contrasted with what unstable elements do. Take neon or helium, for example. Neither any need or "inclination" to bond chemically with anything else. They're fine with forming a physical bond with other substances, but not a chemical one.

As for the liquid, gas, or solid thing, that's just a matter of the temperature at which one encounters a given element. Go somewhere cold enough, for example, and nitrogen is a liquid, colder still and it's a solid. The same thing happens with gold, which in hot enough environments will become a gas. That is so with all elements except helium.

Blue:
Are you by some chance seeking to highlight the distinction between sentient action and non-sentient action? Something akin to "why Billy stepped on Mary's foot" as opposed to "by what mechanism ihs limbs and muscles did so?" That statement sure seems like you are.

Everything you are explaining is HOW things work.
You tell me atoms "want" to do stuff... are they intelligent?

"because the atoms "want to"/"prefer to" exits with stable electron shells"

So you still have not answered WHY this happens.

And you can explain how things happen to me all day long... you can't explain why they are that way. I understand the principles behind nitrogen and solid-liquid-gas states but that doesn't tell me why those principles are the way they are.

Why do atoms behave the way they behave?

This stuff fascinates me because every time science thinks it is finally going to be able to peek into something and reveal the answers to our universe, it discovers things that can't be explained. It runs into things that don't fit our physics in some fundamental way. For instance, they cannot isolate and measure nature's most fundamental elements, they refuse to allow it. Particles behave as waves until they are observed and then become particles. If we try to fool them, they can seemingly go back and time and change what they were. Electrons can be in two places at the same time... how is that possible? They can also be no place in time but still exist. "Spooky action at a distance" is what Einstein called it.

We look into a black hole... which Einstein predicted the existence of and later said it was his "biggest blunder" but then we actually discovered many of them and they are at the center of virtually every galaxy. We see that Einstein's Theory of Relativity is demonstrated at the Event Horizon where matter approaches the speed of light and time slows down... inside the black hole, beyond the Event Horizon, time no longer exists. Physics spirals wildly out of control. Mathematics says there is literally infinite energy and gravity but no time or space. What does that even mean in terms of our physics comprehension?

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that although we know atoms hook-up with other atoms in the quest to obtain stable configurations for each, we don't know why they seek stable arrangements. If that's so, it follows, in my mind at least, that you are seeking an answer that lies at the convergence point of science and spiritual belief, and that issues from rationally considering the information presented in both disciplines. That is, you seek an answer to the question, "Why is the universe the way it is?" To the best of my knowledge, the answer is, at a high level, presented as the one the teleologists and the non-teleologists give. And, yes, there has appeared no confirmation that either approach has the correct answer.

Boss, if you are already familiar with teleological and non-teleological responses and thinking, you need not read further, for what follows is merely a high level presentation of the two perspectives. If not, here -- Why is the Universe the Way it Is? -- is a pretty good high level overview of the two accounts.

I suppose each of us has to come down on one side or the other of that debate, but to your point, neither side "knows" whether they are right.

 

[Boss]

Oh, I've always said that we cannot KNOW things, we can only have faith that we know. A lot of people become upset when they hear this but it's a fact. Physical science is bound by the laws of physics and nature, it cannot evaluate that which is outside of physics. Therefore, creative forces beyond the physical are not something we can examine with physical sciences.

Furthermore, if there were ever to become some way of verifying a creative metaphysical force through science, it would automatically cease to be something metaphysical, by definition. I've often said, if science ever proved God exists, the Atheists would chortle... See? We told you there was no such thing as God!

Think about that... once upon a time, humans believed the rain came from God. Then science comes along and explains how rain happens and suddenly, the rain doesn't come from God, it's a natural phenomenon. BUT... do we understand why two molecules of hydrogen bond with one molecule of oxygen to form a compound which is liquid at a certain temperature range, a solid or gas if the temperature is extreme, and a foundation to all life as we know it? Do we understand why (not how) these elements evaporate into the atmosphere to form clouds and then become too heavy to stay there and fall back to the ground? Nope... we just know that it does and we can explain how it works.

The cosmological constants... there are about 40 of them... are set precisely as they need to be in order for a physical universe to exist and in order for carbon-based life to exist as well as planets and suns. Nothing in physics dictates that universes MUST contain these constants, ours just does. Many will shrug this off and say... just the way it is... but it's like someone winning the powerball lottery 40 times in a row, except with 10^120 numbers available as possibilities. Are we really THAT lucky? I don't think that is rational.

Red:
Yes, we do know why, and the reason why has nothing to do with forming "a compound which is liquid at a certain temperature range, a solid or gas if the temperature is extreme, and a foundation to all life as we know it." The things you identified -- forming a compound that can exist in multiple matter states, or forming one that is able to serve as the foundation of life as we know it -- are outcomes of the fact that hydrogen and oxygen atoms do bond for form a water molecule. They are not the reason why those two atoms do so.

The reason they do so is found in the "octet rule," that is, because the atoms "want to"/"prefer to" exits with stable electron shells, and lacking enough electrons to do that on their own, they find other atoms with which they can bond, thereby producing an overall stable molecule even though alone neither element was stable. This can be relatively easily seen when one examines what inert elements do as compared and contrasted with what unstable elements do. Take neon or helium, for example. Neither any need or "inclination" to bond chemically with anything else. They're fine with forming a physical bond with other substances, but not a chemical one.

As for the liquid, gas, or solid thing, that's just a matter of the temperature at which one encounters a given element. Go somewhere cold enough, for example, and nitrogen is a liquid, colder still and it's a solid. The same thing happens with gold, which in hot enough environments will become a gas. That is so with all elements except helium.

Blue:
Are you by some chance seeking to highlight the distinction between sentient action and non-sentient action? Something akin to "why Billy stepped on Mary's foot" as opposed to "by what mechanism ihs limbs and muscles did so?" That statement sure seems like you are.

Everything you are explaining is HOW things work.
You tell me atoms "want" to do stuff... are they intelligent?

"because the atoms "want to"/"prefer to" exits with stable electron shells"

So you still have not answered WHY this happens.

And you can explain how things happen to me all day long... you can't explain why they are that way. I understand the principles behind nitrogen and solid-liquid-gas states but that doesn't tell me why those principles are the way they are.

Why do atoms behave the way they behave?

This stuff fascinates me because every time science thinks it is finally going to be able to peek into something and reveal the answers to our universe, it discovers things that can't be explained. It runs into things that don't fit our physics in some fundamental way. For instance, they cannot isolate and measure nature's most fundamental elements, they refuse to allow it. Particles behave as waves until they are observed and then become particles. If we try to fool them, they can seemingly go back and time and change what they were. Electrons can be in two places at the same time... how is that possible? They can also be no place in time but still exist. "Spooky action at a distance" is what Einstein called it.

We look into a black hole... which Einstein predicted the existence of and later said it was his "biggest blunder" but then we actually discovered many of them and they are at the center of virtually every galaxy. We see that Einstein's Theory of Relativity is demonstrated at the Event Horizon where matter approaches the speed of light and time slows down... inside the black hole, beyond the Event Horizon, time no longer exists. Physics spirals wildly out of control. Mathematics says there is literally infinite energy and gravity but no time or space. What does that even mean in terms of our physics comprehension?

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that although we know atoms hook-up with other atoms in the quest to obtain stable configurations for each, we don't know why they seek stable arrangements. If that's so, it follows, in my mind at least, that you are seeking an answer that lies at the convergence point of science and spiritual belief, and that issues from rationally considering the information presented in both disciplines. That is, you seek an answer to the question, "Why is the universe the way it is?" To the best of my knowledge, the answer is, at a high level, presented as the one the teleologists and the non-teleologists give. And, yes, there has appeared no confirmation that either approach has the correct answer.

Boss, if you are already familiar with teleological and non-teleological responses and thinking, you need not read further, for what follows is merely a high level presentation of the two perspectives. If not, here -- Why is the Universe the Way it Is? -- is a pretty good high level overview of the two accounts.

I suppose each of us has to come down on one side or the other of that debate, but to your point, neither side "knows" whether they are right.

So... Like two hydrogen atoms are cruising around on Saturday night and they spot a fine looking oxygen atom... one says to the other... man, you reckon she'd have a threesome with us? And the other says... Meh, she's probably not that kind of atom.... but I bet she would be interested in a stable arrangement?

AGAIN... I am simply saying that we don't know WHY things happen the way they do in our universe. Yes, we can explain HOW things work, HOW things happen. We can even speculate as to why we think they happen. But we really don't know and a lot of things come down to... well, just because that's how things are. We accept this and move on but we haven't answered the question of WHY and we can't.

Previously mentioned was the multiverse theory... so how can we have a scientific theory on something that can never be observed, tested or measured? How did such a thing become a prominent and leading theory in the modern science community? And the answer is somewhat two-fold... One: there needs to be some explanation for our particular set of finely-tuned cosmological constants. Second: the math in quantum mechanics predicts it's a possibility. And thus we have the basis for the hypothesis and theory, even though it can't be observed, tested or measured.

I guess my point in all this is... How is it different to believe in something out there spitting out billions and billions of universes of which ours happens to be one in which we can exist... and belief in an almighty creator?

 

[S.J.]

This thread is not intended to be a Creation vs Evolution debate but rather an opportunity to ask questions of those who believe in Intelligent Design or that a higher power (God) created life on Earth.

....

I asked some and nobody has yet offered a cogent reply. Apparently the intended purpose of the thread isn't materializing....that or receiving cogent answers isn't part of the offering/intent....

Clearly not the way you would like it to. The purpose of this thread is not to prove anything or to discredit those with whom you disagree. If that is your objective (as I suspect it is), you're probably in the wrong thread.

As I wrote before, I want cogent replies to the questions I asked. As a theist, I already know what responses I'd give to the questions I asked. Folks who've carefully read my posts in this thread, and in the "Evolution vs. Creationism" thread that inspired this one, likely already have gleaned what my responses would be. I asked to see if any has any different, perhaps even more credible, ones.

You're asking for physical evidence of creation, the same way we ask for physical evidence of evolution. That cannot be done and no one is claiming it can, so your questions are pointless in relation to this topic. I don't know what else to tell you. If you want a "Creation vs. Evolution debate you should start a different thread.

You perhaps have me confused with someone else. I asked two questions, neither of which call for physical evidence.

I don't have you confused with anyone else. Your questions are based on links you post to evolution sites which attack creationism to make evolution sound more plausible. For the 50th time, this is NOT a "Creationism vs. Evolution" thread. If that's the discussion you want to have, you need to start another thread for that purpose. I don't think you're trying to derail the thread, I think you're just missing the point of it.
I don't mind if somebody else wants to answer your questions, I just don't want to be drawn into the C vs. E discussion at this time.

 

[320 Years of History]

I asked some and nobody has yet offered a cogent reply. Apparently the intended purpose of the thread isn't materializing....that or receiving cogent answers isn't part of the offering/intent....

Clearly not the way you would like it to. The purpose of this thread is not to prove anything or to discredit those with whom you disagree. If that is your objective (as I suspect it is), you're probably in the wrong thread.

As I wrote before, I want cogent replies to the questions I asked. As a theist, I already know what responses I'd give to the questions I asked. Folks who've carefully read my posts in this thread, and in the "Evolution vs. Creationism" thread that inspired this one, likely already have gleaned what my responses would be. I asked to see if any has any different, perhaps even more credible, ones.

You're asking for physical evidence of creation, the same way we ask for physical evidence of evolution. That cannot be done and no one is claiming it can, so your questions are pointless in relation to this topic. I don't know what else to tell you. If you want a "Creation vs. Evolution debate you should start a different thread.

You perhaps have me confused with someone else. I asked two questions, neither of which call for physical evidence.

I don't have you confused with anyone else. Your questions are based on links you post to evolution sites which attack creationism to make evolution sound more plausible. For the 50th time, this is NOT a "Creationism vs. Evolution" thread. If that's the discussion you want to have, you need to start another thread for that purpose. I don't think you're trying to derail the thread, I think you're just missing the point of it.
I don't mind if somebody else wants to answer your questions, I just don't want to be drawn into the C vs. E discussion at this time.

Those two videos do not form the basis of the questions. The purpose of those links is solely to indicate to responders that they should not include in their reply the fallacious argument of which I'm already aware.

Fallacious reasoning has nothing to do with whether one favors creationism or evolution. It has only to do with the rigor of one's remarks. I just don't want to get replies that are not cognitively rigorous and that have in them illogical lines of expression.

I happen to be aware of one logically irrational answer to the questions I posed. I simply don't want to receive from responders that very same line. That is why I posted the videos that show the irrationality of those lines; I am already aware where lay the logical fallacy in that line of argument, and the video shows where it is.

 

[S.J.]

What are the central elements to which adherents of intelligent design point and that forms the basis for their attempts to present that concept as being scientific?

I have not claimed that creationism is scientific, and the only arguments I've heard have been based on logic, not scientific experimentation or lab observations so I can't answer that. There is no physical evidence of a creator, other than the results, therefore the same scientific method cannot be applied, which is what I think you're looking for.

How, as an adherent to intelligent design, do you overcome the rational flaws inherent in the premise of irreducible complexity that biochemist Michael Behe presents as evidence of the verity of intelligent design?

I've never used the irreducible complexity argument to explain creation and I don't know anyone else that has (although I'm sure some do). I think that's one of those tactics used by evolutionists to win the debate by making creationists look stupid but I suppose it's fair game.
I will say, however, that even the less complex systems that CAN be explained scientifically does not disprove creation and not just the complexity but the logic in the purpose of them are still an indication of intelligent design.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Personally, I don't believe such questions are worth our time.

Well it's fine for you to say this but Science simply begs to differ.

As far as your probabilistic analysis of the universe being the result of the intervention of an intelligence goes, why do you care?

Like I said, perhaps "intelligence" is simply the most suitable grunting noise us carbon forms can make to describe it?

I think I care because I think most humans would like to feel they know the truth. I can't accept the idea that this is all a fluke of circumstance and has no real purpose or reason. Basic logic tells me that is probably not the truth because the laws of physics as we understand them are ordered and logical as opposed to chaotic and random. There is more to it than math and chemistry can reveal.

Science begs to differ? I beg to differ with your differ.

Logical positivism rejects all questions which are not subject to logical or empirical verification. Igtheism or Ignosticism says, in essence, that these questions are not profitable to pursue.

Of course most human beings would like to feel they know the truth. In fact, I would suggest that virtually every human being needs to know the truth. That every human being is threatened by the veil of the unknown, which we describe with concepts like hell to reflect our fears and heaven to reflect our hopes. Your unwillingness to accept random chance and purposelessness are the essence of the human condition. Is there more to reality than math and chemistry can reveal? Of course there is. Do all disciplines claim a degree of certitude they can't back up? Yep. Try to get grant money with vagueness and doubt.

The search for the truth is not political though, and it is not the province of any one school of knowledge. Religion doesn't need to compete with science. All disciplines influence one another, but they don't try to imitate each other. ID is religion imitating science for political purposes. There is no truth to be found in that.

 

[Boss]

Science begs to differ? I beg to differ with your differ.

You can beg to differ with my differ and I can beg to differ with your differ of my differ right back... we're not Science. The practice of Science is asking questions, not drawing conclusions or giving up asking questions. Those are the two things Science is NOT.

Logical positivism rejects all questions which are not subject to logical or empirical verification. Igtheism or Ignosticism says, in essence, that these questions are not profitable to pursue.

"Logical positivism" is a PHILOSOPHICAL principle that has nothing to do with Science. It certainly doesn't CONTROL Science and IF it did, most of what Science has discovered would have never been discovered. It is Science's constant push to continue asking questions even when they don't "logically" conform from a philosophical standpoint, which has led to all manner of profound enlightenment. Once was the "logical positivism" that the Earth was the center of the universe and it was simply not considered logical or even SANE to presume that this was not the case. 6

So that is the deal about Science that you're not seeming to grasp here. Science does not draw a conclusion that something is "illogical" therefore it is impossible.

 

[320 Years of History]

The practice of Science is asking questions, not drawing conclusions or giving up asking questions. Those are the two things Science is NOT.

Hang on there. Science most certainly draws conclusions. Specifically it draws conclusions that issue rationally and directly from the answers it receives from the questions it asks.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Science begs to differ? I beg to differ with your differ.

You can beg to differ with my differ and I can beg to differ with your differ of my differ right back... we're not Science. The practice of Science is asking questions, not drawing conclusions or giving up asking questions. Those are the two things Science is NOT.

Logical positivism rejects all questions which are not subject to logical or empirical verification. Igtheism or Ignosticism says, in essence, that these questions are not profitable to pursue.

"Logical positivism" is a PHILOSOPHICAL principle that has nothing to do with Science. It certainly doesn't CONTROL Science and IF it did, most of what Science has discovered would have never been discovered. It is Science's constant push to continue asking questions even when they don't "logically" conform from a philosophical standpoint, which has led to all manner of profound enlightenment. Once was the "logical positivism" that the Earth was the center of the universe and it was simply not considered logical or even SANE to presume that this was not the case. 6

So that is the deal about Science that you're not seeming to grasp here. Science does not draw a conclusion that something is "illogical" therefore it is impossible.

I didn't say science does that, I said I do that, personally. Science doesn't rule out subjects to study, but neither do they study that which offers nothing but the opportunity for pure speculation. LP is indeed a philosophy. It is a perfect example of the kind of cross disciplinary influence I mentioned before. It is scientific philosophy. It applies scientific principles to questions of existence and states that it is impossible to study that which cannot be defined. It brings together semantics, philosophy, mathematics and science. I am a proud ignostic. Long live Bertrand Russell!

LP certainly doesn't control science, it influences it. So do practical considerations like budgets and grants and the needs of the military and industry. Science also take incremental steps, generally, not giant leaps. Most scientific inquiry seeks to build on that which went before, step by step. Most scientists, therefore, won't propose studying Bigfoot, for example.

You have consistently avoided addressing any of the points I have made regarding the political motivations underlying creationism and ID. They are a cynical exercise on the part of right wing think tanks to inject religion into the public classrooms of America. Nothing more.

 

[JakeStarkey]

ID and creationism rely on psuedo-scientific arguments, including such as specified and irreducible complexity. These suggested philosophies have been easily refuted by most of the biological profession and research papers specifically.

1. ID and creationism are not science, cannot replace science, and do not belong in the science classroom.

2. Evolution is not a salvation issue.

 

[Boss]

The practice of Science is asking questions, not drawing conclusions or giving up asking questions. Those are the two things Science is NOT.

Hang on there. Science most certainly draws conclusions. Specifically it draws conclusions that issue rationally and directly from the answers it receives from the questions it asks.

Hang on nothing... SCIENCE can't draw conclusions. SCIENCE is a practice. HUMANS draw conclusions... sometimes they use Science to do so.... but Science has no way of forming or articulating a conclusion... only people can do that.

Science is the practice of examination. Whenever you have used Science to form a conclusion, the instant you've established the conclusion you stopped practicing Science and began the adoption of faith in your conclusion. Science has finished it's work... you're now practicing faith-based belief in your conclusion.

 

[320 Years of History]

The practice of Science is asking questions, not drawing conclusions or giving up asking questions. Those are the two things Science is NOT.

Hang on there. Science most certainly draws conclusions. Specifically it draws conclusions that issue rationally and directly from the answers it receives from the questions it asks.

Hang on nothing... SCIENCE can't draw conclusions. SCIENCE is a practice. HUMANS draw conclusions... sometimes they use Science to do so.... but Science has no way of forming or articulating a conclusion... only people can do that.

Science is the practice of examination. Whenever you have used Science to form a conclusion, the instant you've established the conclusion you stopped practicing Science and began the adoption of faith in your conclusion. Science has finished it's work... you're now practicing faith-based belief in your conclusion.

Fine...scientists.

 

[Boss]

I didn't say science does that, I said I do that, personally. Science doesn't rule out subjects to study, but neither do they study that which offers nothing but the opportunity for pure speculation.

Oh but YES Science DOES do that. We've already been through the examples. The Multiverse Theory... there is nothing we can do but speculate. It's being studied in the realm of theoretic quantum physics. Black holes... again, all we can do is speculate because we can't see inside a black hole. Predictions are made based on speculation. At the sub-atomic level... we cannot observe nature's most fundamental elements, they refuse to allow it. We speculated about a Higgs boson until we eventually discovered it.

Any scientific hypothesis is a speculation until there is scientific evidence to support it. The vast majority of scientific discovery is the result of speculative hypothesis which evidence was found to support. When you say idiotic things like "nothing but the opportunity for pure speculation" you dismiss science altogether. It's as if you believe the only thing science is good for is to examine what is already proven. Thank god most scientists don't subscribe to your ignorance.