[
Replying to post 84 by DrNoGods]
Not even close. If I hypothesize that the moon is made of cheese, that can be tested in many ways from Earth-based measurements of its orbital characteristics (to determine its mass), its diameter (from which its density can be determined if the mass is known), its albedo for ideas on surface composition, its surface structure which we can see with telescopes, etc. All of these measurements can be analyzed to test the cheese hypothesis and possibly rule it out, or not. Then we can consider how reasonable it is that the moon is made of cheese, given what we know about how cheese is made and where it comes from. This would rule out cheese, but the point is a hypothesis that the moon is made of cheese can be tested and assessed via the scientific method.
On the other hand, if Humphreys found a bible verse that even remotely suggested that the moon could possibly have some connection to cheese, he could claim that it was in fact made of cheese because the bible said so, and develop a theory of anything he wants and you'd defend it. He has no obligation to show that his assumption that it was made of cheese is correct or valid. All he has to do if find a bible verse that suits his needs and off he goes. But you obviously don't see the problem with this approach, and it certainly is not science by any stretch.
Totally incorrect.
As I have said before creation science has a two axioms:
1. Any theory must agree with what the Bible says.
2. Any theory must also obey the laws of physics unless Scripture directly expresses God's direct involvement.
Example:
At one time there was a hypothesis described the waters above as an icy layer above the Earth that collapsed during Noah's flood. It was shown that if this were the pressure on the earth would crush everything on the Earth. There were more problems that violated the laws of physics so that theory was discarded.
You being a naturalist also have two axioms
1. Any theory must be devoid of an intelligent being.
2. Any theory must also obey the laws of physics unless it expresses God's direct involvement.
Example: BB theory has failed many times to make successful predictions.
1. Star formation of population III stars
2. Lithium in the universe
3. Inflation
4. Cosmological constant problem
5. Boltzmann Brain paradox
For most theories these failed prediction would cause the theory to be discarded but because their is no alternative theory it is not discarded.
Quote:
Science is not a popularity contest. Besides are you trying to say that the Doctorates creationist have from even secular universities are not valid. Besides creationist theories make far better predictions than secular theories. in cosmology.
I'm making no comments on the degrees any of these creation "scientists" have, and indeed many of them have published papers in refereed journals on what you call secular subjects. But the nonsense these people publish in creation journals and websites would never be published in legitimate science journals specifically because it isn't science. What they do in this area is purely to try and legitimize creationism by pretending that it is compatible with modern science, and they've failed miserably. It has nothing to do with what degrees they have ... it is because trying to make creationism compatible with modern science cannot be done.
The two sets of axioms above only clash at creation events and the flood event. Both of these events in history are a result of God's direct involvement in history. How can these to sets of beliefs be harmonized at these moment in history with the conflicting axioms above.
So why would creation scientist even want the opinion of people who have a totally different belief system. Secular scientist have nothing to offer creation scientist.
So keep going on about how creation theories cannot get published in seculary journals. You know what else is true no theories supporting BB has been published in creation journals.
Quote:
Christians did not create the scientific method to prove that God existed. Christians created the scientific method to discover more about God in the creation He made.
The scientific method developed over time from the contributions of people from all over the world, with all kinds of religious beliefs (including none). It wasn't developed only by Christians, and it was not developed to discover anything about gods.
What!! Where do you get that from?
Francis Bacon
Quote:
I can get a sermon out of science.
That's evidently all you have gotten out of it, because preaching is what you do in most of these posts. The science comments are almost always demonstrably wrong. You cannot make creationism compatible with modern science, or justify it using modern science. It simply cannot be done.
According to your worldview maybe. But what can you expect from people who throw causality out the window with a worldview that has the universe and life coming from nowhere and nothing. So it seems that your view or modern physics means that there is not such thing as causality one of the most basic of physics principles. Wow!!