Tu

You still aren't getting me, no mixed methodologies, when I say collaborative effort it means that a study is taken from clues and then researched, the scientific part is strictly scientific, however its directed in a specific direction that is all, no requirement on the scientists side to look into the theology side. Where the results end up is yet to be seen. However all I've said in regards to this is that the clues are most compelling (notice that I haven't mentioned which religion and this has nothing to do with the scientific aspect of this discussion) I hope I have finally clarified this point.
As for the list of creation scientists you would need to go through each ones contribution individually. I have read one in particular who is mentioned in the list and he would definitely qualify.

My name is Alanood (Alan is a guys name)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alanood

Tu

You still arent getting me, no mixed methodologies, when i say collaborative effort it means that a study is taken from clues and then researched, the scientific part is strictly scientific, however its directed in a specific direction that is all, no requirement on the scientists side to look into the theology side. Where the results end up is yet to be seen. However all ive said in regards to this is that the clues are most compelling (notice that i havent mentioned which religion and this has nothing to do with the scientific aspect of this discussion) I hope i have finally clarified this point.
As for the list of creation scientists you would need to go through each ones contribution individually. I have read one in particular who is mentioned in the list and he would definitely qualify.

My name is Alanood (Alan is a guys name)

---

HI Alan,

Sorry but I am a bit slow on the uptake. It's probably my age. Are you saying that you are one of the contributing scientists? If you are then you are just the person I want to talk to.

You are correct. What you have put forward as a theory is scientific. Like any scientific theory it is subject to falsification. I grant you that so far your theory is scientific. However, I do stress so far.

As Karl Popper pointed out all of those years ago you cannot prove a theory with certainty but you can disprove it with certainty.

I have read some of the expositions of the scientists represented on the link. I can't say it is true for all of them but the ones I have read fall into Popper's falsification trap. How so?

These scientists rightly point out such things as the inconsistencies of the geological record, fossil record and the inadequacies of evolution when it comes to explaining the evolution of the platypus. Another scientist quite rightly points out the inadequacies of Newtonian mechanics when it comes to explaining the micro world. Newtonian mechanics cannot explain the world of the very tiny.

As I said before, all scientific theories will eventually run into an explanatory gap and a new theory needs to be developed to explain the new observations. This is actually how science progresses. I am sure you are aware of that.

As Popper found out all of those years ago applying the falsification principle to science doesn't work. In other words, falsification principles are not a tool that can be used against science.

Contributors to the website (the ones I have read) consistently want to claim that because of the inadequacies of the prevailing theories. IN other words,we have produced a number of counter examples; hence the theory must be false. What is need is a new explanation to explain the inadequacies.

Despite the fact that Popper banged his fist on the table and demanded, "falsification, falsification, falsification of scientific theories". Science wouldn't budge an inch. Why was this the case?

In the end the answer was quite obvious. The falsification principle was in fact an absolutist theory. I could outline the reasons for this if you like but basically falsification itself cannot be falsified. Science of course can be falsified. So yes, Popper was proposing a metaphysical theory.

Popper may as well have banged on the table and demanded, "absolutism, absolutism, absolutism". Or," metaphysics, metaphysics, metaphysics". It amounts to exactly the same.

In the end science ignores such claims. Not because it wants to but because it is not part of the scientific methodology.

I have this feeling that you are going to justify your observations by way of an absolutist explanation. It makes no difference as to the absolutist explanation. It can be the falsification principle or a supernatural being working his will upon the world. It makes no difference. It is still an absolutist explanation.

Once you do this you will loose the interest of mainstream science. Not necessarily because they are a society of atheists. It is more a case of losing their interest because you have switched methodologies on them midstream.

The evidence for this is that there are no serious scholarly papers of the nature you have described circulating in mainstream science. You have lost their interest.

In the end I think Creationism is a very good metaphysical theory. Unfortunately it is not a scientific theory. Besides, what's rush to jump onto the scientific bandwagon. Metaphysics is much more pleasing.

Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alanood

Tu


My name is Alanood (Alan is a guys name)

---

Hi Alanood,

My apologies I have messed that up completely. I understand what you are saying now. Your name is Alanood, not Alan.

I will address you in the correct manner in future. Sorry.

Tut