Creation science II

Thank you for recapitulating my point!That is exactly right. Creation Scientists utilize the very same methods, technics, data/evidence etc.. to perform their studies. What is different is their hypothesis or model that they start with and set out to confirm.Maybe you don't think the model or hypothesis is scientific, but then I would argue that the evolution model is no more scientific in this regard. Each group is looking to prove or confirm something about life's origins without being able to actually test origins itself. We can only test our model by studying the evidence left behind as a result of origins. In this respect, we are on equal footing, even if you disagree.

But there is no difference between evolutionists and creationists with respect to how they came up with their model or hypothesis. Neither group has concrete evidence that their theory about how life might have originated is true for sure. We each come up with our hypothesis based on what we *think* the evidence will reveal. No one has concluded that macroevolution is true because they can see it happening. It is an extrapolation, something that some *believe* is what microevolution must necessarily lead to. It is an assumption no different than that of the creationist who believes that microevolution reveals design and that the second law precludes anything but creation.Everyone keeps asking me to show you evidence that creationists are doing science with acceptable scientific methods. Well I have offered you a book choc-ful-of-examples and facts about it. I cannot find much online available for me to direct you to. Most things are copyrighted and unless I am going to sit and type you a book, there is not much more I can offer. As I have stated, I am not looking to debate the science, just to show you that creation science is indeed every bit as much a scientific endeavor as is evolution. Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

I completely agree with this: That is pretty much what I have been trying to say. Neither model can pass the litmus test for being truly scientific.Science is based on observation of facts and is directed at finding patterns of order in observed data. The essence of the scientific method is measurement, observation, repeatability. The great philosopher of science, Karl Popper stresses that "falsifiability" is the necessary criterion of genuine science. A hypothesis must-at least in principle-be testable and capable of being refuted, if it is truly scientific.Clearly neither model of origins--creation or evolution (Darwinian)--is scientific in this sense. Neither one can be tested for the simple reason that we cannot repeat history. The origin of life, the origin of man, the origin of the universe and all such events took place in the past and cannot now be studied in the laboratory. They are beyond the reach of the scientific method in the proper sense.That does not mean, however, that their results cannot be observed and tested. This is, we can define two models of origins and then make comparative predictions as to what we should find if creation is true, and conversely, what we should find if evolution is true. The model that enables us to do the best job of predicting things that we then find to be true upon observation is the model most likely to be true, even though we cannot prove it to be true by actual scientific repetition. See "What is Creation Science?" Morris/ParkerYou may wish that you can wrap things up nicely and simply determine that creationists are not practicing science, but then you would have to come to the same conclusion about evolution in the vertical sense.

I didn't know that you accepted anything from ICR or AIG, otherwise, I could link you to alot of arguments against radiometric dating and show you that even if you disgree with their findings, they are coming to their conclusions based on performed scientific studies. Answers | Answers in Genesis

Lol! But I think you are entertaining on the side of delusional if you think that you have shown that you understand what creation science really is. I believe that you have shown the exact opposite, of course. We don't need to explore anything with regard to what I said about the comparison of models...both are equally unscientific in their format, but the evidence can be studied scientifically to support or refute the hypothesis. No one has disproven the creation model by scientific means. No, not at all. In fact, the evidence is a better fit for creation in my opinion. Thanks for trying, though : )Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

You say: That is a total misrepresentation of what I actually said. I never said that creation science isn't science without elaborating that I am talking about the model. The practice of studying the evidence is indeed scientific. I also pointed out that the evolutionary model in the vertical sense is also not a scientific model. I explained why.There is nothing about true science that says we cannot study created objects and order.If you want to talk about improbability, Modulous, you should consider the odds that life could somehow just spontaneously generate itself up out of nothing and then proceeded to leap from the most simplest of forms to some of the most complex forms that we see today--especially considering the second law. If we were to throw heaps of electronic peices and parts into the air enough times, we stand a better chance of seeing those parts organize themselves into a computer.

Many have chosen to shun creationist's writings simply because they wrongly believe that it is religion in disguise. This situation exhibits a huge degree of closedmindedness which is quite alien to the spirit of true scientific inquiry.

that creation scientists aren't performing scientific experiments or studies using real scientific methods, etc. I am so tired of people actually thinking they are saying something true when they claim that creation science is about religion or theology or whatever other false claim they love to fall back on when challenged by creationists. That's all. Whether you agree with their findings or not is besides the point. Whether creationists are right about the unreliability of radiocarbon dating or not is also besides the point. My point is that they arrived at their conclusions based on the scientific data, experiments and results. The fact that these things confirm Scripture is just icing on the cake for those who believe that God has given us His Word and that it is a reliable source for understanding and living life to its fullest. Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

I am referng to origins. How did life begin in evolutionary theory? What mechanism caused life to suddenly appear? From what I have seen evolutionists are quick to say that they don't address origins. Even Darwin's "Origins of Species" did not really address origins. What could you say? Evolution in the vertical sense- that is, "macroevolution," transmutation of one type of organism into a more complex type of organism. This idea can take us all the way back to the very begining, to the primordial soup of life's earliest moments and hints at origins, but never really addresses it completely. When creationists claim that they have no problem with evolution in the horizontal sense, e.g.., the different variations of dogs, we hear that that is all evolution is really about--studying how life proceeds, the processes involved in the continuation of life. Horizontal variations (microevolution) is of course not really evolution at all, nor are mutations. When it comes to macroevolution, a process that has never been observed to occur, it should not be called scientific.Creationists are not trying to prove God or how God created because that is beyond the scope of our reach in the same way it is impossible for you to actually observe or see how life might have begun through a random process of time and chance--which is the underlying model of macroevolution--even if you won't admit it. Otherwise, there would have to be some acknowledgement that a creator had to cause life. Certainly you can fall back on the idea that a Creator caused life through a process of evolution but does the evidence really prove such a thing? That is the heart of the debate and disagreement between evolutionists and creationists.Creationists do not believe that the evidence reveals a process of evolution in the vertical sense. Creationists believe that the evidence supports the idea that such creative processes that started life are no longer continuing today. Everything has been created and life simply exists within the structure of its particular design. Humans were always humans, dogs always dogs and even your spiders have changed very little since the time of their creation.You are among those who simply want to misrepresent what Creation Science is all about. They have more than just unspecified ideas, quite a bit more. There are scores of physical evidences that the earth is not nearly as old as the evolutionist claims for example. These evidences are well documented in creationist literature. Some of these include the decay of the earth's magnetic field, the buildup of atmospheric radiocarbon, the efflux of helium into the atmosphere, the influx of uranium, nickel, and other chemical elements and ions into the ocean, the break up of comets, the influx of comic dust, and many others all indicating (even with the uniformitarian assumptions) that the earth is certainly not as old as you hope. But you don't want the creationist to bring these things up. You want them silenced. I would think that if you were so sure of yourself, that you would rather enjoy the challenge and put this debate to rest. But instead, all that you can do is try to discredit the validity of the science by attacking it as a religion in disguise, which is totally disingenuous. When I say "you," I am not refering to you personally : )Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

I am glad to see that you at least recognize that scientific study and inquiry were used by this creationist and that you want to look at it based on scientific merits. Knock yourself out and explain in scientific terms why these examples and explanations are wrong if you want to. Remeber that i am just happy that you would come this far.Here is another example of a similar study:An excerpt: Dating Dilemma: Fossil Wood in Ancient Sandstone | Answers in Genesis Because this fossil wood now appears impregnated with silica and hematite, it was uncertain whether any original organic carbon remained, especially since it is supposed to be 225—230 million years old. Nevertheless, a piece of the fossil wood was sent for radiocarbon (14C) analysis to Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Boston (USA), a reputable internationally-recognized commercial laboratory. This laboratory uses the more sensitive accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) technique, recognized as producing the most reliable radiocarbon results, even on minute quantities of carbon in samples.The laboratory staff were not told exactly where the fossil wood came from, or its supposed evolutionary age, to ensure there would be no resultant bias. Following routine lab procedure, the sample (their lab code GX—23644) was treated first with hot dilute hydrochloric acid to remove any carbonates, and then with hot dilute caustic soda to remove any humic acids or other organic contaminants. After washing and drying, it was combusted to recover any carbon dioxide for the radiocarbon analysis.The analytical report from the laboratory indicated detectable radiocarbon had been found in the fossil wood, yielding a supposed 14C ‘age’ of 33,720 430 years BP (before present). This result had been ‘13C corrected’ by the lab staff, after they had obtained a d13CPDB value of —24.0 . This value is consistent with the analyzed carbon in the fossil wood representing organic carbon from the original wood, and not from any contamination. Of course, if this fossil wood really were 225—230 million years old as is supposed, it should be impossible to obtain a finite radiocarbon age, because all detectable 14C should have decayed away in a fraction of that alleged timea few tens of thousands of years.Anticipating objections that the minute quantity of detected radiocarbon in this fossil wood might still be due to contamination, the question of contamination by recent microbial and fungal activity, long after the wood was buried, was raised with the staff at this, and another, radiocarbon laboratory. Both labs unhesitatingly replied that there would be no such contamination problem. Modern fungi or bacteria derive their carbon from the organic material they live on and don’t get it from the atmosphere, so they have the same ‘age’ as their host. Furthermore, the lab procedure followed (as already outlined) would remove the cellular tissues and any waste products from either fungi or bacteria.Conclusions
This is, therefore, a legitimate radiocarbon ‘age.’ However, a 33,720 430 years BP radiocarbon ‘age’ emphatically conflicts with, and casts doubt upon, the supposed evolutionary ‘age’ of 225—230 million years for this fossil wood from the Hawkesbury Sandstone.Although demonstrating that the fossil wood cannot be millions of years old, the radiocarbon dating has not provided its true age. However, a finite radiocarbon ‘age’ for this fossil wood is neither inconsistent nor unexpected within a Creation/Flood framework of Earth history. Buried catastrophically in sand by the raging Flood waters only about 4,500 years ago, this fossil wood contains less than the expected amount of radiocarbon, because of a stronger magnetic field back then shielding the Earth from incoming cosmic rays. The Flood also buried a lot of carbon, so that the laboratory’s calculated 14C ‘age’ (based on the assumption of an atmospheric proportion in the past roughly the same as that in 1950) is much greater than the true age.

You have to remember what my original "assertion" is in the first place and stop trying to drag me into a scientific debate on some subject matter of your choosing and something that I am not really interested in debating.Remember that whether or not any of these studies (whatever the subject matter) are right or wrong has no bearing on the fact that they are scientific studies. That's my point. I believe I have provided plenty of examples as to what Creation Science is.

and beyond my point of contention--which is that creation science is not a study of God, how God created or of religion, but a study on the merits of scientific methods, data and study, even if you disagree with their findings.And to Bluejay,I am adding this response to this post for you because I am on my way out and can't wait the fifteen minute time control I am under by the moderators..But yes, creationists can absolutely study the evidence for signs of creation and design without having to get involved in proving a Creator or "how" he created.Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

Thanks Percy, very entertaining indeed : )I hate to have to inform all of you, but when it comes to historical science or (origins science,) we are all on equal-footing. It really does boil down to faith and religious belief or unbelief for both sides of the issue, whether you believe in evolution or creation.Science has given us many wonderful things. We have sent men to the moon, we have modern medicine, electricity, computers, etc. All of these things involve doing science in the present. This type of science is called operational science, I am sure you know.However, when it comes to figuring out what happened in the past, science is limited because we cannot do experiments directly on the past events of history. These things cannot be repeated. In origins science, observations made in the present are used to make inferences about the past. Experiments that can be done in the present that relate to the past are limited and require a deal of guesswork by both the evolutionist or creationist scientists.The farther into the past the event being studied, the longer the chain of inferences involved, the more guesswork, and the more room there is for non scientific factors to influence the conclusions--this is true for both the creationist and the evolutionist scientists. So what may be regarded as "science" regarding the past may not be much more than the scientist's personal world view. Unfortunately, the respect earned by operational science confounds many into thinking that the conjectoral claims arising from evolutionist's origins science carries the same authority--not knowing, of course the creationist's view due to discrimination. This discrimination is aimed only at silencing the alternate point of view.When it comes to historical science, it is not so much the evidence in the present that is debated (except of course, by your weak attempts here) but it is the inferences about the past.Evolutionists put their faith in nothing, completely ignoring the only source that has left us a record of the past. Creationists put their faith in God believing His Word and therefore coming to different conclusions from those who have no reliable source about the past at all. Nothing.You can argue until you are blue in the face that what you are doing is science and that what creationists are doing is not. But that is a hottly debated issue where evolutionists have not won. You can keep nitpicking the details all you want. I am not interested in debating different issues as much as I am interested in settling the misconception that creation science is not a science, while evolution in the vertical sense, macroevolution is. Nonsense.
*******************************************************************Percy, up here From below, a response:I can't wait around for fifteen minutes. So I am again forced to add a reply through the edit button.I think I have made my case. Neither creation or evolution can be considered true science in the "origins" sense due to the reasons I gave. In fact, they are both really more of a phiosophical view on life. Maybe they should be taught as such in school.Only when you are willing to actually deal with and compare the ywo models will you be really able to consider what is being done in school, a science. I realize that you are erroneously trying to give the impression that that is what you want to do here, with me. But honestly, Percy, is it going to be a fair debate? Of course not. But it can be done by those real scientists from both sides and offered as a course in schools. The main thing is to get past the false claims made by evolutionists that cause a total dismisal of the creationist's side.This is my only concern as I know that creationists can hold their own once they are receiving their due respect in the scientific community : )Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

..is a study of the evidence left behind, looking to test the creation model hypothesis which says that life was created suddenly and all things were completed at that time. There are no longer any processes occuring today. Life is what it is and besides the (micro) evolution of all created types--there is nothing truly new. There is nothing about true science that says we cannot test origins results for signs of created/designed law and order. I have, by-the-way, offered plenty of description of what creation science is and what it does. I have to go...

Proving that Creation Science is "right" is not the same thing as proving that Creation Scienc is a science. There will never be the possibility of proving either position (Creation or Evolution) because of the fact that origins happened in the past and cannot be revisited in any real concrete fashion. It will forever remain in the past and be something we can only hypothesize about.But this doesn't mean that we can't at least get past the notion that somehow what evolutionists have concluded is a scientific conclusion whereas the creationist's conclusions are not. This is nonsense. We are all on equal-footing in this respect. There is no denying that what creationists do is scientific in regard to experiments, testing and studying the evidence. In this way, we are no different from evolutionists who also test the physical evidence of the present.I am not looking to prove creationists are right. I am just looking to put to rest the "fallacy" that Creation Science isn't science while Evolution is.Also, by types I am refering to species..e.g., human beings, dogs, cats, etc.Also so, sorry to post and run, but i really have to go...Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.