Difference between revisions of "Debate:Is creation science scientific?"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Conservative (talk | contribs) |
PeterHockey (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
I was reading about the [[starlight problem]] and the solution according to [[creation science]] is that [[God]] created the light in transit. While this seems plausible, it doesn't seem like something that an experiment can be devised to test this claim. Hence it is not falsifiable. Of course if it were possible to disprove the existence of God, then it would be falsifiable, but that isn't possible. Any thoughts? | I was reading about the [[starlight problem]] and the solution according to [[creation science]] is that [[God]] created the light in transit. While this seems plausible, it doesn't seem like something that an experiment can be devised to test this claim. Hence it is not falsifiable. Of course if it were possible to disprove the existence of God, then it would be falsifiable, but that isn't possible. Any thoughts? | ||
[[User:PeterHockey|PeterHockey]] 09:24, 5 September 2016 (EDT) | [[User:PeterHockey|PeterHockey]] 09:24, 5 September 2016 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
:Origins science is a historical science and not operational science. It is like archaeology. See: http://creation.com/origins-vs-operational-science | :Origins science is a historical science and not operational science. It is like archaeology. See: http://creation.com/origins-vs-operational-science | ||
:However, the biblical creation model makes certain predictions which the evidence very strongly suggests are true. For example, the universe had a beginning, big gulf between life and non-life [http://creation.com/origin-of-life], large gulf between man an animals (For example, no animal orchestras), no life on other planets has ever been found is a reasonable inference of the biblical model [http://creation.com/did-god-create-life-on-other-planets] whereas the evolutionist SETI project as an expensive failure and they are getting desperate now [http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/07/desperate_for_c102977.html], etc. etc. etc. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 10:24, 5 September 2016 (EDT) | :However, the biblical creation model makes certain predictions which the evidence very strongly suggests are true. For example, the universe had a beginning, big gulf between life and non-life [http://creation.com/origin-of-life], large gulf between man an animals (For example, no animal orchestras), no life on other planets has ever been found is a reasonable inference of the biblical model [http://creation.com/did-god-create-life-on-other-planets] whereas the evolutionist SETI project as an expensive failure and they are getting desperate now [http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/07/desperate_for_c102977.html], etc. etc. etc. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 10:24, 5 September 2016 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::Ok, I think I see what you mean, but concentrating on the [[starlight problem]], it doesn't make any predictions other than what it's trying to explain. So how is that valid? | ||
| + | [[User:PeterHockey|PeterHockey]] 11:08, 5 September 2016 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 15:08, September 5, 2016
By this I mean "is creation science falsifiable?" I was reading about the starlight problem and the solution according to creation science is that God created the light in transit. While this seems plausible, it doesn't seem like something that an experiment can be devised to test this claim. Hence it is not falsifiable. Of course if it were possible to disprove the existence of God, then it would be falsifiable, but that isn't possible. Any thoughts? PeterHockey 09:24, 5 September 2016 (EDT)
- Origins science is a historical science and not operational science. It is like archaeology. See: http://creation.com/origins-vs-operational-science
- However, the biblical creation model makes certain predictions which the evidence very strongly suggests are true. For example, the universe had a beginning, big gulf between life and non-life [1], large gulf between man an animals (For example, no animal orchestras), no life on other planets has ever been found is a reasonable inference of the biblical model [2] whereas the evolutionist SETI project as an expensive failure and they are getting desperate now [3], etc. etc. etc. Conservative (talk) 10:24, 5 September 2016 (EDT)
- Ok, I think I see what you mean, but concentrating on the starlight problem, it doesn't make any predictions other than what it's trying to explain. So how is that valid?
PeterHockey 11:08, 5 September 2016 (EDT)