Timeline for Why aren't creationism and natural science on the same intellectual level?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 7, 2018 at 22:09 | history | edited | Frank Hubeny | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
grammar for clarity
|
| Mar 25, 2015 at 19:29 | comment | added | user6552 | "I've seen coloured dinosaurs..." And I'm pretty sure I've seen numerous statements from decades ago saying clearly the uncertainty and artistic license that is 90% of the exhibits in museums and "science" TV programs. It's not science unless it's in the proper language in a reputable journal. Maybe your confusing the science reporter with the scientist. Even words coming straight from a scientist's mouth is not science unless he is using the proper vocabulary, in the proper context. It's too bad that people are gullible and it's so easy to mistake crap for real science. | |
| Feb 9, 2015 at 9:14 | comment | added | algiogia | From an article dated 27 January 2010 on the National Geographic (news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/01/…): "Pigments have been found in fossil dinosaurs for the first time, a new study says" and "The finding may also open up a new world of prehistoric color, illuminating the role of color in dinosaur behavior and allowing the first accurately colored dinosaur re-creations[...]". I'm pretty sure I've seen coloured dinosaurs in museums BEFORE 2010: scientists had guessed the colors based on modern reptiles. | |
| Feb 8, 2015 at 18:18 | comment | added | Cygon | "I agree that "science" operate in a way more formal than say, art. But there are many things accepted as incontrovertible truth by the scientific community without proof that it is actually true." - that is not how science works. Researchers put years of tedious work into developing a model (a set of rules which match their observations), eg. analyzing tracks, food in fossil's stomachs, distance to relatives, etc. for the probable social habits of Dinosaurs. Then they publish it for peer review, where a pack of other ravenous scientists try to refute their model. | |
| Feb 7, 2015 at 7:40 | comment | added | user2338816 | @algiogia My question is perhaps the most widely known example of a 'loaded question', one that has no intention of getting an answer but rather of confusing the issue and confounding the respondent. It contains a probably fallacious presupposition and attempts to limit respondent to a single answer. That's much like the question you asked. But you're right, I should've labeled it as such. | |
| Feb 6, 2015 at 8:36 | comment | added | algiogia | @user2338816 are you insinuating I'm a caveman or something? I thought at least on Philisophy one was free to expose his ideas. But I see trolls and ignorants are every were... | |
| Feb 6, 2015 at 6:22 | comment | added | user2338816 |
But how can they, just from the bones, decide the color of their skins, their cry, their social behaviour. Well, since no one decides such things "just from the bones", it's a waste of everyone's time even to ask such an irrelevant question. (Have you stopped beating your wife yet?)
|
|
| Feb 4, 2015 at 15:46 | comment | added | algiogia | @vonjd how this contradicts creationism? | |
| Feb 4, 2015 at 15:39 | comment | added | algiogia | @Spike0xff I've actually studied in a Science High School, so I know about the scientific method: the same method Newton used to define his theories. Theories later contradicted by Einstein. Scientists come to their truth with suppositions. "Supposing that statement A is true, if nobody can demonstrate otherwise, than this my new theory is true..." Beware, I'm not trying to say science is a bad thing or is wrong, most of the discoveries look correct. Just that often the truth is what scientists convince the others to believe... ;) | |
| Feb 4, 2015 at 11:35 | comment | added | vonjd | What I like about your answer is that it is even an inner-theological conflict: The rules God used to create contradict creationism. | |
| Feb 3, 2015 at 17:42 | comment | added | Spike0xff | This would be more persuasive if you demonstrated more knowledge of science, for example, how scientists have come to their theories about the color of dinosaur skins, cries, & behavior. VERY few things are 'accepted as incontrovertible truth' in science, and you may find that 'proof' is not used in science in the sense you seem to be using it. Also there's a well-known methodology (called the scientific method) that you have to follow to be a scientist: Printing 'scientist' on your business card doesn't cut it. | |
| Feb 3, 2015 at 15:05 | review | First posts | |||
| Feb 3, 2015 at 17:53 | |||||
| Feb 3, 2015 at 15:00 | history | answered | algiogia | CC BY-SA 3.0 |