The Student Room Group

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Hjjgjgj

Jhgjghjgkgk

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
There is no such thing as scientific evidence for creationism, because to be scientific it must be testable and falsifiable. The role of a supernatural being in forming the universe is completely untestable and therefore wholly outside the realms of science.

Those who claim that people are not being 'open-minded' when they reject the views of creationists on scientific terms clearly don't understand the basic principles of science, scientific methodology and how it differs from faith.
Reply 2
a nice quote from Tim Minchin (who stole it from a book but don't know the book): "if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out" which is just awesome i think haha

but yeh there is no evidence of creationism, and it is utterly wrong and ridiculous
Oh yay, another debate that will be inconclusive!
Reply 4
Kew
There is no such thing as scientific evidence for creationism, because to be scientific it must be testable and falsifiable. The role of a supernatural being in forming the universe is completely untestable and therefore wholly outside the realms of science.

Those who claim that people are not being 'open-minded' when they reject the views of creationists on scientific terms clearly don't understand the basic principles of science, scientific methodology and how it differs from faith.


I understand the basic principles of science. (Oh TSR)
Reply 5
Charlieee_
a nice quote from Tim Minchin (who stole it from a book but don't know the book): "if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out" which is just awesome i think haha

but yeh there is no evidence of creationism, and it is utterly wrong and ridiculous


I was hoping you guys would save this for later but.....
Reply 6
Kew
There is no such thing as scientific evidence for creationism, because to be scientific it must be testable and falsifiable. The role of a supernatural being in forming the universe is completely untestable and therefore wholly outside the realms of science.

Those who claim that people are not being 'open-minded' when they reject the views of creationists on scientific terms clearly don't understand the basic principles of science, scientific methodology and how it differs from faith.


There isn't really such thing as scientific methodology, because there is no ahistorical method that has existed since the 'birth of science'. The scientific method has always been relative to the society that it has existed in. At least faith has abit of consistancy!!!! :P
Reply 7
Tw!stEd
There isn't really such thing as scientific methodology, because there is no ahistorical method that has existed since the 'birth of science'. The scientific method has always been relative to the society that it has existed in. At least faith has abit of consistancy!!!! :P


" At least faith has abit of consistancy!!!! " - It has no rules/methodology.
Reply 8
SuperGuy
I understand the basic principles of science. (Oh TSR)

Then why do you imply that creationism has scientific credentials?
Creationists: here's the conclusion, what facts can we find to support it?
Science: here are the facts, what conclusions can we draw from them?
Reply 10
SuperGuy
" At least faith has abit of consistancy!!!! " - It has no rules/methodology.


Whereas Science will make a set of rules and change them 10 years down the line.
Reply 11
Tw!stEd
Whereas Science will make a set of rules and change them 10 years down the line.

The empirical nature of science never changes, which is why science is a process and constantly improves itself as more evidence is discovered. This is its greatest strength.
Kew
The empirical nature of science never changes, which is why science is a process and constantly improves itself as more evidence is discovered. This is its greatest strength.


Spot on! :biggrin:
Reply 13
Kew
Then why do you imply that creationism has scientific credentials?


I'm being inviting to creationists so I can see the general arguments of those on this site. I've asked for those who believe in the theory of evolution to hold back for a bit but..... of course as a teen or someone in their twenties eager to prove something to the world, you feel you have to try and assert your belief in your intellectual superiority wherever the chance may present itself. Hope it's working out well for you :wink:.
Reply 14
SuperGuy
I'm being inviting to creationists so I can see the general arguments of those on this site. I've asked for those who believe in the theory of evolution to hold back for a bit but..... of course as a teen or someone in their twenties eager to prove something to the world, you feel you have to try and assert your belief in your intellectual superiority wherever the chance may present itself. Hope it's working out well for you :wink:.

For your information, I wasn't trying to 'assert' my 'intellectual superiority', and I'd be interested to hear why you think I was, as it wasn't my intention. Don't make assumptions about people you know nothing about. I was contributing to what I thought was a debate; I'm sorry, I didn't realise I wasn't supposed to put across the anti-creationist view.
SuperGuy
I'm being inviting to creationists so I can see the general arguments of those on this site. I've asked for those who believe in the theory of evolution to hold back for a bit but..... of course as a teen or someone in their twenties eager to prove something to the world, you feel you have to try and assert your belief in your intellectual superiority wherever the chance may present itself. Hope it's working out well for you :wink:.


:confused:
She's just pointing out the flaw in the logic of your post, not trying to prove a personal point. There's no need to get personal about it, as that is not what Kew had in mind.
SuperGuy
I'm being inviting to creationists so I can see the general arguments of those on this site. I've asked for those who believe in the theory of evolution to hold back for a bit but..... of course as a teen or someone in their twenties eager to prove something to the world, you feel you have to try and assert your belief in your intellectual superiority wherever the chance may present itself. Hope it's working out well for you :wink:.


:confused:
She's just pointing out the flaw in the logic of your post, not trying to prove a personal point. There's no need to get personal about it, as that is not what Kew had in mind.
Reply 17
Kew
For your information, I wasn't trying to 'assert' my 'intellectual superiority', and I'd be interested to hear why you think I was, as it wasn't my intention. Don't make assumptions about people you know nothing about. I was contributing to what I thought was a debate; I'm sorry, I didn't realise I wasn't supposed to put across the anti-creationist view.


I asked for you to hold back for a bit. Your lack of care about that part of the post is what leads me to believe so. I wouldn't put it down to incomprehension because you seem to have a good level of education behind you. At 25, many would be considerate to the last part of my post but obviously, what you "thought" was more important at the time.
Reply 18
FormerlyFrisbeeFan
:confused:
She's just pointing out the flaw in the logic of your post, not trying to prove a personal point. There's no need to get personal about it, as that is not what Kew had in mind.


I was simply trying to be inviting to creationists, who, may believe what they have to present is scientific evidence but she was so eager to show what she can do and in the process and in the process was quick to indirectly comment on my knowledge of "the principles of science". Then responds with a post about being judgemental.
SuperGuy
I was simply trying to be inviting to creationists, who, may believe what they have to present is scientific evidence but she was so eager to show what she can do and in the process and in the process was quick to indirectly comment on my knowledge of "the principles of science". Then responds with a post about being judgemental.


I am hardly a theist but for god's sake... (chortle)
nothing religious can be proved or disproved via science. our science is based on the rules that govern us - i.e. the laws of physics etc. A divine entity would not be bound by those rules. Theists recognize this, hence do not try to present evidence for their claims.

It may be irrational to blindly believe something for which you have no evidence, but this is irrelevant. The point in hand is that it makes you look somewhat of a mug to attempt to point out that there is no evidence for evolution in such an underhand way, when both sides of the argument -believers and non believers- accept that this is the case.

Latest

Trending

Trending