User:Facepalm/Creation science

This is a transcript of a discussion that occurred on Conservapedia between a Logical Thinker and one Conservative. As I didn't know the proper procedure for making screencaps at that time, so I ended up having to copy-paste it. As far as I am aware, this is the final version of the discussion before it was deleted by Conservative and the user banned.

Inaccurate title?
Not to seem negative, but it appears as though the premise of this article is logically flawed. This can't technically be science because rather than setting out to disprove a hypothesis, creation science sets out to prove it. Using this method of thought, I don't see any part of this article that could prove creation science falsifiable; therefore, it fails to conform to the scientific method and is not science.

Following this reasoning, shouldn't someone move the content of this page to the "Christian apologetics" page instead and only keep the scientific arguments that back up God's Word? Just my thoughts. Sorry if I sound a bit confusing. LogicalThinker 10:21, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
 * I have a project for you. Why don't you go to 30-40 reference works and give us their definition of science. That would be a good start since this issue seems important to you. conservative 10:43, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

Well, first of all, I just re-read the article and saw the final section, and I must question its validity. To begin, I'm not a liberal, but I must agree with the people that you cited in that some of what exists on this page isn't necessarily scientific. Can you please explain to me what the counter-argument for this is?

Regarding the definition of science: I don't really have the inclination to search through several reference works to find a basic concept. Besides, Conservapedia has it in its own scientific method page, and I thought that might suit us for the topics of this discussion: Though I could be wrong, it seems to me like some of what's on this page isn't so much testing the validity of the hypothesis as looking for its validity. I think this is an important distinction, so really, I don't think all of the arguments presented here shouldn't be considered scientific. Again, I'm not a liberal, but I'd just like it if the page made sense so future members could better distinguish between the different kinds of arguments.
 * 1) Observation of phenomena
 * 2) Formulation of a hypothesis
 * 3) Predictions, using this hypothesis
 * 4) Testing

Also--and this came as a surprise to me--I don't understand how you refer to all proponents of evolution as "evolutionists". It was my understanding that evolution is a commonly accepted belief with a good deal of evidence to support it (Wikipedia has a pretty big page about it, though I don't know if you accept it as a source) and it's not as though it's inherently contradictory to conservative views.

Sorry if I misunderstood something, as I'm kind of new here. Not to mention a bit young and naive. LogicalThinker 11:26, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
 * I thought engaging in endlessly defining would be an enjoyable exercise for you. Atheists love to spend hours talking about the definition of atheism, etc. Since you have no evidence that atheism is true and you can't refute the great amount of evidence for Christianity, playing word games and engaging in endless definition battles is all you got. Maybe someone will want to climb on your gerbil definition wheel, but I am certainly not interested. conservative 13:09, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

I don't understand why you're being so harsh. I'm not trying to promote atheism or anything like that. All I'm saying is that by your own standards (as I've quoted above), the premise of this article is incorrect. I just hoped that you would be able to recognize that in good faith and try to correct it. So far, you haven't given me a single reason why this minor change shouldn't happen, not do you appear to have a justification for your own hostility. LogicalThinker 13:20, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
 * Are you an atheist? If not, what worldview do you hold? Atheism is often called the "stealth religion" because often its holders do not want to admit publicly they are atheists. conservative 13:44, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
 * The reason I ask if you are an atheists is that you have all the classic signs. You want to engage in endless definition battles, your appeal to supposed "common acceptance", your strawman arguments, your snide attitude, your reluctance to say whether or not you are an atheist, the username "Logical thinker" (see: Brights Movement) etc. etc. conservative 13:52, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

I'm Christian, thank you very much (though unlike some, I don't feel the need to preach my ideals at every turn, and I do believe in evolution and other basic scientific concepts), and I created the username because I wanted to distinguish myself from those other members of my religion who blindly clutch at faith without reason.

Once again, however, you seem to be completely ignoring my main point. All I'm trying to do is make a correction, and you seem to be trying to put words in my mouth and brush off everything I say without an explanation. And I'm not trying to spend hours trying to discuss definitions, but rather help in a positive contribution. Is this how you treat good-faith editors? LogicalThinker 14:02, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
 * Yes, of course. A humble Christian with the username "Logical Thinker".  It's so obvious now. As much as I hate to say it, your "superior atheist intellect" was thwarted. Either that or you are a faux Christian. conservative 22:46, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

Sorry, I still don't understand. Am I atheist just because I believe in some scientific knowledge? Regarding my name, are logic and Catholicism somehow contradictory? I based my username upon the reasoning that they aren't. Why are you criticizing me? I've done nothing wrong, and I'm only trying to help.

And once again, you haven't addressed any of the reasons I pointed out. Please look at them if you can. LogicalThinker 22:51, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
 * Both the evolutionist cp:Ernst Mayr and creationist Duane Gish maintained that origins science is in the realm of historical science and not very amenable to repeatable experiments. LogicalThinker, I would suggest focusing your high powered intellect on researching the various definitions of the word "science" and their rationales. I have no interest in hopping aboard your gerbil wheel and wrangling with you for an extended period. :) conservative 23:33, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
 * As far as whether or not Catholicism and logic are at odds, feel free to demonstrate they are in great harmony and please adequately address the more well known Protestant apologetics. Even though I agree with some of the work of Thomas Aquinas, I don't think you can do it "LogicalThinker".conservative 23:48, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

I wasn't aware that "historical science" (which I've honestly never heard of as a part of any field, by the way) was a scientific discipline that is detached from scientific rules. If we're going to resort to science to resolve this argument, then could you please explain this to me? LogicalThinker 23:53, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
 * I would suggest examining the links I provided and doing independent research on your own. See if you can answer the 15 questions being posed to evolutionists for example. conservative 00:07, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

I assure you that I will do so. However, to remain on topic (which I suggest you do as well) I have not been able to find a single reputable scientific source that addresses "historical science" as a scientific form of its own, and certainly one that fails to follow the scientific method. History is not a science, but rather a form of recording, though historians do use the scientific method.

Also, you seem to have trouble understanding me. I do not have any problems with apologetics; rather, it was simply my belief that the title is erroneous and should be fixed. I hope that I haven't caused any issues. =) LogicalThinker 03:11, 18 June 2011 (EDT)