Go Back   Science Forums Biology Forum Molecular Biology Forum Physics Chemistry Forum > General Science Forums > Physics Forum
Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Physics Forum Physics Forum. Discuss and ask physics questions, kinematics and other physics problems.


The definition of science and the credibility of ID

The definition of science and the credibility of ID - Physics Forum

The definition of science and the credibility of ID - Physics Forum. Discuss and ask physics questions, kinematics and other physics problems.


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-05-2008, 01:54 AM
Greywolf
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default The definition of science and the credibility of ID




"No One" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered users see links. ]...
How Can the Study of Creation Be Scientific?

Let me define science:

Science: A field of study seeking to better understand natural
phenomena through the use of observations and experiments.

Broad, but increasingly precise and concise, relationships are sought
between causes and effects. These relationships, called scientific
laws, help predict future phenomena and explain past events.

Notice, this does not mean that the first cause must be naturalistic.
It is poor logic to say that because science deals with natural,
cause- and-effect relationships, the first cause must be a natural
event.

Well why don't you just cut to the 'chase' and ask Mr. Intelligent Designer
to poke his heads through the clouds and wave 'Howdy' to us all once in a
while? Or is that too dang *impossible* for Mr. Lord of the Universe to
manage?

Furthermore, if the first cause were a natural consequence of
something else, it would not be the first cause.

Do I take that to mean that 'God the Father' didn't have a mommy nor a
daddy? Oh, excuse me: 'God the Intelligent Designer'? And where would a
non-first cause arise from fully endowed with supernatural powers,
supernatural intelligence, and the knowledge to 'Design' a 'universe' and
even 'life' itself? From non-existence and a complete lack of *anything*? If
so, prove it. And speculation is not proof. Proof is proof. And 'faith' is
not 'proof' either.

Scientific laws can
provide great insight on ultimate origins even though the first cause
cannot, by definition, be duplicated.

Who says so? What about in other universes?

Yes, there was a beginning.
Scientific conclusions, while never final, must be based on evidence.

Scientific Evidence: Something that has been measured with instruments
or detected with our senses, is verifiable, and helps support or
refute possible physical explanations.

All evidence must be based on observable, natural phenomena that
others can check. To most people, this evidence implies a creation and
a global flood. This does not mean that the Creator (The First Cause)
can be studied scientifically

Why not? If 'He' created the universe there *surely* would be some
irrefutable evidence that he did. What? You have a deity who created the
universe but doesn't want even a tell-tale trace of evidence that he did to
remain . . . for *what* possible reason again?

or that the Bible should be read in
public-school science classes. (I have always opposed that.) Those who
want evolution taught without the clear evidence opposing it,

and that 'clear evidence' would be *what* again? And what do you do with the
massive amount of corroborating evidence pointing to evolution as the best
possible answer for the development of life? Toss it aside because certain
people want religion taught in public school science classrooms?

in
effect, wish to censor a large body of scientific evidence from
schools.

And that 'large body of scientific evidence' refuting evolution and proving
the existence of deity is . . . *what* again? The Hubbell telescope detect a
massive 'Holy' Throne (and a 'sister' throne to the right of it) in deep
space or something?

That is wrong. Also, the consequences of a global flood have
been misinterpreted as evidence for evolution, not as evidence for a
flood.

What scientifically validated 'global flood' are we talking about here? The
one involving 'Gilgamesh' or the one involving 'Noah' and his family?
(Psssst. There was no such 'global flood' involving either of em' . . .
ssshhhhh!)

That misinterpretation, unfortunately, is taught as science.

Maybe in home-schooling it is. Not in a 'real' science classroom.

Explanations other than creation or a global flood may someday be
proposed that are (1) consistent with all that evidence and (2)
demonstrable by repeatable, cause-and-effect relationships.

Yeah. By people who believe there are cows grazing on the moon as well.

Until that
happens, those who ignore existing evidence are being quite
unscientific.

Where's the 'science'? All I see is religion trying to be slipped under the
door dressed in a lab coat.

Evolutionists' refusal to debate this subject and their
speculations on cause-and-effect phenomena that cannot be demonstrated
is also poor science, especially when so much evidence opposes those
speculations.

So much evidence? Where in the hell is it? Hiding on the dark side of the
moon?

Evolutionists raise several objections. Some say, "Even though
evidence may imply a sudden creation,

And *how* many scientists us the word 'creation'?

creation is supernatural, not
natural,

and the proof of the supernatural is . . . Oh, I *know*, I know: In the
Bible, right? Like in Matthew 27:52-53 perhaps?

and cannot be entertained as a scientific explanation."

So what you're saying is that 'Intelligent Design' should rightfully be
labelled 'religion' since there's no real 'science' to support it, right?

Of
course, no one understands scientifically how the creation occurred--
how space, time, matter, and the laws of physics began.

And since there's not one eensy-teensy bit of proof of things
'supernatural', it can be rightfully discarded as being 'scientific', right?

Others, not
disputing that the flood best explains many features on earth, object
to a global flood, because the Bible--a document they wish to
discredit-- speaks of such a flood.

But of which there isn't a damn bit of proof for.

Still others object to the
starting point for
the flood, but in science, all starting points are possibilities.

Too bad they're not in regards to a flood for which there is not a trace of
scientific proof of.

The
key question must always be, "What best explains all the evidence?"

The dang Keebler Elves having too much 'free-time' on their hands, I
suspect.

the source of a scientific idea does not need to be
scientifically derived. For example, Friedrich Kekulé discovered the
ring structure of benzene in a dream in which a snake grabbed its
tail.

By golly. I believe that's true.

Kekulé's discovery laid the basis for structural chemistry.
Again, what is important is not the source of an idea, but whether all
evidence supports it better than any other explanation. Science, after
all, is a search for truth about how the physical universe behaves.
Therefore, let's teach all the science.

Including 'astrology'?

Causes and Effects: All of us, including students, should be free to
reach our own conclusions about origins after learning the evidence
and all reasonable explanations. Withholding that information in
schools or misrepresenting it in the media is inexcusable.

When Darwin (along with Alfred Wallace) proposed their views in regards to
natural selection as a principle component of evolution they could have been
blown out of the water had not the evidence then and *since* then prove to
be true? That's because the 'science' was correct. Why not have Mr.
Intelligent Designer sashay his Intelligent Designing ass out in front of us
all and end the debate once and for all? Or is Mr. Lord of the Universe too
non-existent, too 'man-made' and make-believe to be able to handle that?

The first cause appears to be supernatural, or beyond the natural.
Subjects outside the natural (including biblical descriptions of
creation and the flood that are so consistent with the physical
evidence) are inappropriate for publicly financed science education.
However, excluding what is observable and verifiable in nature, along
with possible causes, including supernatural, is bad science,
misleading, and censorship. Creation science, then, is the study of
this scientific evidence.

That was a long-winded way of saying there's no real 'science' behind
Creationism because its all too supernatural to prove -- hence *OUTSIDE* the
bounds of science, and thus the science classroom, right?

Hey! I think I've spotted some cows grazing on the moon. Pretty supernatural
if you ask me. Think we should introduce this supernatural phenomenon into
the science curriculum as well. It's 'supernatural' you know.

Greywolf

*That* was pretty low-brow. But I'm in very dire straights and it helps to
take some of the 'edge' off of what's going on out here. So take it for what
it's worth.



Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-23-2009, 05:56 AM
Pipette Filler
Points: 305, Level: 6 Points: 305, Level: 6 Points: 305, Level: 6
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: The definition of science and the credibility of ID

Science is a way we model the world with limited intelligence, and so is religion. If you look at it from a broad enough perspective, it's all the same.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-29-2009, 05:57 AM
Pipette Filler
Points: 10, Level: 1 Points: 10, Level: 1 Points: 10, Level: 1
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: The definition of science and the credibility of ID

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greywolf View Post
"No One" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered users see links. ]...
How Can the Study of Creation Be Scientific?

Let me define science:

Science: A field of study seeking to better understand natural
phenomena through the use of observations and experiments.

Broad, but increasingly precise and concise, relationships are sought
between causes and effects. These relationships, called scientific
laws, help predict future phenomena and explain past events.

Notice, this does not mean that the first cause must be naturalistic.
It is poor logic to say that because science deals with natural,
cause- and-effect relationships, the first cause must be a natural
event.

Well why don't you just cut to the 'chase' and ask Mr. Intelligent Designer
to poke his heads through the clouds and wave 'Howdy' to us all once in a
while? Or is that too dang *impossible* for Mr. Lord of the Universe to
manage?

.

Greetings Greywolf,

My name is Larry Thomas and I am currently writing to you from Wiesbaden , Germany . I am currently looking for your review of my research and a review from others within the general public,the government, the media and those in the religious and academic communities.

The total work itself is religion and science based and was created in 2004 and is a combination of several fields of study such as, Neurology, Cosmology, Biology, Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics, Engineering, Astronomy, Religion, History, etc just to name a few in advance.

The written work is posted on a free website which has its annoying Ads, so your pop-up blockers should be set at max on your web-browser to avoid them. The address of the material is posted at ascensionq.20fr.com or it can be Googled under the title of the research called Ascension Q.

Each page has its own hyperlinked words which link to Wikipedia for a simple explanation of that word or topic and for visual reference for any person, place or thing in discussion. Some may find that some of the information is argumentative in the way that it is being used, so these links and video references can be used to cross-check what I wrote about for that subject when I used that specific word or topic for any explanation or analogy.

The graphics used in most of the diagrams represent actual things and representations in computer model form and in photographic imagery. Several of the computer models and images present in the site itself are already in publication in some science books and documentary films seen today. Each diagram is accompanied by a descriptive paragraph which explains the diagram in more detail other than the story that the diagram presents itself when one studies it in a hieroglyphic way.

The research covers the field of quantum physics which states that there may be a spiritual underpinning to the entire known material universe. My work explains what the soul is and what it is made of and it explains the process by which the soul ascends into the universe through scientific and religious information and beliefs.

There are many scientific video references dealing with the discussion of the soul attached to this research which should be viewed to understand how a theoretical physicist, philosopher, neurologist or psychologist views the soul and if science can actually seek the soul as discussed in these documentaries. The research shows and points out the connections between man and the universe and how its design is reflected in us in a mirror image like comparison.

The design or structure of the observable universe ( cosmic web) as we know it has the same appearance as the human neurons when seen from afar. Other patterns that give indications of mans connection to the universe is the hair spiral galaxy pattern resting on the back of each human head. Even the process of fertilization from copulation shows that the sperm cells and the ovum mimic the visual characteristics of a star or sun during solar flare activity or eruptions.

Most scientists will say that we are in the universe and the universe is within us which seems to be true and holds more similarities than just our elemental composition when one sees the same designs or patterns reflected or mirrored in and on us.

Science is now taking a deeper look at consciousness in the universe at the sub-atomic level and discovering that there is an ocean of intelligence that permeates the quantum world and also gives rise to matter.

My work in detail is a combination of ideas and concepts brought together by intuition and scientific study. Its first approach in its unorthodox form doesn't make any predictions that would lay it on the grounds of testable subjects. But a full review of the material through the ideas and the concepts could give the reviewer his own inner predictions on the subject through understanding the Ideas and the concepts.

Some of my work in particular can be tested for instance I have a page called Fractal Man in my work. I've discovered through careful observation and through testing that a measurement and perhaps a gene as well can determine the dominate hand a person will use.

The prediction states that the fractal spiral located on the back of the human head has a center point that falls on the side of either the left or right hemisphere of the head ( this also relating to the brain as well) to reveal the dominate hand of that person.

Testable approaches to this prediction involve placing a line down the center of a person’s head which separates the hemispheres. The eye of the spiral tends to fall on either side of the head in credible examples through images.

The observer of the experiment writes down the location of the eye of the spiral on either side of the head before knowing the test subjects dominate hand. All of the data can be recorded from 100 test subjects with high defined spirals to discover that an accuracy rate in using this technique would show that a dominate hand theory would he high.

The spirals on the back of the head of people born in the northern hemisphere have spirals that spin counter clockwise.This is the same direction hurricanes spin in as well in the northern hemisphere. The typhoons of the southern hemisphere spin the opposite direction and the spirals in the human head for those living in that region should be as well. There are cases where there are two spirals on the back of the head which point to ambidexterity in that person

There is defiantly a pattern present there which would indicate such results as projecting a hand dominance in human beings with a high enough accuracy rate through this technique. I have had a high success rate of projecting a persons dominate hand by observing the back of their heads before knowing the subjects strongest hand.

Further DNA or biological testing could result in a discovery of a biological process that determines hand dominance at birth either from the mother or the father depending on whose dominate biological process overrides who. The awkward multiple spirals could be related to these other type of handedness

. There are four main types of handedness:

* Right-handedness is most common. Right-handed people are more dexterous with their right hands when performing a task.

* Left-handedness is less common than right-handedness. Left-handed people are more dexterous with their left hands when performing a task. About 8-15% of people are left-handed.

* Mixed-handedness, also known as cross-dominance, is being able to do different tasks better with different hands. For example, mixed-handed persons might write better with their left hand but throw a ball more efficiently with their right hand. However, many writers define handedness by the hand used for writing, so Mixed-handedness is often neglected.

* Ambidexterity is exceptionally rare, although it can be learned. A true ambidextrous person is able to do any task equally well with either hand. Those who learn it still tend to sway towards their originally dominant hand.

There is strong evidence that prenatal testosterone contributes to brain organization. One theory is that high levels of prenatal testosterone results in a higher incidence of left-handedness. This could be why there are more left-handed males than females and also the increased incidence of left-handedness in male twins.

Some other interesting studies have been done that show the possibility of handedness occurring as early as in the womb which would indicate a biological process.

This spiral pattern is also seen in the DNA, hurricanes, typhoons, spiral galaxies, whirlpools, sunflowers, a vortex and in spin at a sub atomic level.

All of the pages are linked to the homepage Ascension Q which should be referred to in case one gets lost in all the pages so any link should be "right" clicked and opened in a new tab or window and closed out after review. I would appreciate any feedback that you would have to offer in regards to the information posted on the website and within the video references. Please feel free to contact me via the contact information on the contact page or through this email address.

The TEXT size and page style can also be adjusted through the "VIEW" option of YOUR web browser. Choosing "No style" in the view option under "page style" renders the page into a white background with black lettering and no multicolored text.

Feel free to pass the research along to any that you know of that would be interested in an honest review of the material. Thank you.

With humble regards

Review these three pages from my work entitled "The Universe" , "The Unified Field" and "God Brain" for a quick look into what is being covered in this work.

The Universe: ascensionq2.20fr.com/custom.html

The Unified Field:ascensionq3.20fr.com

God Brane
ascensionq2.20fr.com/custom3_2.html
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
credibility , definition , science


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2005 - 2012 Molecular Station | All Rights Reserved
Page generated in 0.18475 seconds with 15 queries