Originally posted by RatX
[b]So you with to use modern taxonomy to explain the "science" of creationism , or not ? If it is truely solid science , it should use accepted scientific terminology , shouldn't it ?
With? Do you have a lisp? j/k
Ok, does "solid science" rely on terminology? It should be other way... Should Creationists try to adapt their theories according to t ...[text shortened]... pose, soon will a lot of today's) The more we find out, the more we realise how little we know.[/b]
Do you want to trade insults or discuss this topic ? I can do either fvkrf
@ce . - Which would you like to do ; drop the childish insults and debate or trade names and barbs?
Science does not come from terminology . The terminology comes from a need to label or classify discoveries science has made . The reference of "solid science" comes from ID and Creationism wanting to be taken seriously as scientific theory equally considered with TOE . It's being advertised as being every bit as serious as TOE , and a credible scientific theory to explain the fossil record , how species origionated , how/why life forms are similar to one another . If it is truely a science which can be of use , it must interface at certain points with other scientific disciplines though it may diverge at a certain point . For example , whether a creationist or darwinist , there would be very simple agreements in talking about a deer that a certain structure is called a "leg" , or an antler . There is also some agreement that this animal is a unique creature ; Odocoileus virginianus in the case of a white tail deer would be recognized as by both creationists and darwinists as a separate species or "kind" of animal from say and elk or moose . As the topics get more complex , such as how or if white tailed deer are related to elk and moose , there may begin to be divergances of opinion . I am trying to pinpoint what you feel is common ground between the two camps . The topic of taxonomy has come up . Do you accept the modern taxonomic classifications of living things "Phylum, Class , Order, Family, Genus , Species" , or do you not accept that system of classification ?
Something to consider for you : Scientists understand that science changes ' lots of yesterday's science has be disproven , and that some of today's science will change in light of new facts . Science is self correcting this way . Dogma is not . When it was proven that the earth orbits the sun , and not the other way around , was this error in scripture corrected ? No it was not . It had stones thrown at it's credibility and it's adherents were persecuted - much the same as you attempt to do with TOE and it's adherents . Yes the more we find out , the less we know . One of the truely wonderful things about science is it opens new worlds and gives us questions which leads to even more new things . Religion does not question and therefore scientifically is a dead end .