Creation science II

To continue the discussion of creation science.This thread is not for a discussion of evolution, its supporting data, or any disagreements with that data. It is for discussion of creation science.A wiki definition of creation science is as follows:

Creation science or scientific creationism is a movement within creationism which attempts to use scientific means to disprove the accepted scientific theories on the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution and prove the Genesis account of creation.

It is clear from this that creation "science" does not follow the scientific method. In fact, there seems to be nothing to separate creation "science" from religious apologetics.If you disagree, please show how creation science is science.----- Note - Previous edition of this topic:
People Don't Know What Creation Science IsEdited by Adminnemooseus, : Add link to previous edition of this topic.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This thread is not about evolution. Please avoid bringing it up in subsequent posts.Creationists seem to oppose sciences when they conflict with a fundamentalist or literal interpretation of the bible. How can this be considered science?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Creationists have no right to alter the scientific method and still claim to be doing science, but we see that all the time.Creationists have no right to just ignore any evidence that contradicts their a priori beliefs. But we see that all the time. The RATE study is a classic example; spending somewhere over a million dollars of creationist money, several creationists with scientific training addressed the problem of decay constants. Their results confirmed what science has claimed, but they refused to accept their own results. Only if you follow the scientific method. Behe, on the witness stand at Dover, admitted that his definition of science was sufficiently broad so as to include astrology. He had to have a definition this broad so as to include intelligent design, so he just stretched the normal definition of science all out of shape just to suit his religious beliefs. That is not science, but creation "scientists" do this sort of thing all the time.Don't you ever wonder just how scientific creation "science" really is when it comes up only with answers that support the biblical account of creation? Or do you prefer your science to come out just as your religious beliefs dictate no matter what? Again, that is not science, but creation "scientists" do this sort of thing all the time. We have a good grasp of what creation "science" really is--and its not science. This has been determined both by scientists (who are the arbiters of what is and what is not science) and by the U.S. Supreme Court.Science follows the scientific method. That means it works from evidence to theory (explanation). It doesn't start with a conclusion (biblical inerrancy) and force the data to conform to that conclusion. As an example, science doesn't calibrate the radiocarbon curve by use of the "global flood" to force radiocarbon dates to support a young earth. Creation "science" does, and I have seen this on several creationist websites.Now creation "scientists" can do whatever they want. But unless they follow the scientific method they have no business calling it science. That will only be possible if creationists bring evidence; so far they have avoided evidence like the plague. They have to because scientific evidence fails to support their religious beliefs. That is why they are trying to force creationism into the schools disguised as creation "science" and subsequently as intelligent design. If they had scientific evidence they wouldn't have to try to stack school boards with creationists to get their religious beliefs into the schools, and run PR factories such as the Discovery Institute--staffed with lawyers and PR flacks.But there is one thing upon which we can all agree: creation "science" isn't going anywhere.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

They can't just call it science. Science requires evidence, and they have none.That's why they try to assume the mantle of science by using the term "creation science." They crave the respect accorded to science, but they have no way of achieving it honestly.They can't use the scientific method--they avoid that, and scientific evidence, like the plague. Both produce the wrong results! And they know it!Its quite clear, creation "science" is religious apologetics dishonestly masquerading as science in an attempt to sneak back into the public schools. It is precisely the opposite of science.Kelly's posts on this thread have served to reinforce this.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

I've read most of those and dozens of others. They are a mix of misrepresentation, omission, ignorance, religious belief and outright nonsense all trying to look like science.But that is off topic for this thread.We have threads on radiocarbon dating on which you could discuss this issue, or you could start a new thread. Then we could go into the issue in some detail.But be warned: several of the posters here actually know something about radiocarbon dating. I've submitted nearly 600 radiocarbon samples over 30+ years, and have both written and lectured on the subject. Many of us here know when something claimed on one of those sites is accurate and when it is junk. Venture there at your own peril!

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

That's too easy.A good look at Snelling's claims can be found in the following: The sample wasn't wood at all. It was an iron concretion with contamination.This is typical though of the creation "science" approach to radiocarbon dating: look for any sample that gives an apparently anomalous age, ignore tens of thousands of other samples, and loudly crow to your fellow believers that you have proof of a young earth. Ignore anyone who points out where you went wrong. Oh, and avoid the peer-reviewed technical journals like the plague.Here's another such error found all over the internet: Coal from Russia from the Pennsylvanian, supposedly 300 million years old, was dated at 1,680 years. The original source for this false claims seems to be Ken Ham, Andrew Snelling, and Carl Weiland’s The Answers Book, published by Master Books, El Cajon, CA, in 1992 (page 73).If you research this back to the original article in Radiocarbon you find the error comes from sloppy translation from the Russian! The coal is nothing more than charcoal from an archaeological deposit. This sample is even included in the section of the report dealing with archaeological samples, and the paragraph discusses archaeological data.But the term coal in place of charcoal was enough to fool Ken Ham, as well as dozens of subsequent creationist authors and webmasters who apparently were salivating to find 300 million year old coal radiocarbon dated to recent times, and who repeated Ham’s false claim without bothering to check its accuracy. Again, typical of creation "science" that finds the answers it seeks and steadfastly refuses to correct its errors. I have a lot more such examples but I think we need to hear from Kelly why she thinks radiocarbon dating is inaccurate. But I doubt that we'll hear anything but a repeat of the original claim. From her posts, it doesn't appear that Kelly sees any need to back up her statements with supporting documentation. I guess we're supposed to fall all over ourselves agreeing with her because of the righteousness of her belief. (Sorry, real science doesn't work that way.)

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

One typical creation "science" response to old radiocarbon dates is to make up some reason whereby all dates older than about 4,000 year or so are incorrect due to some effect of the global flood. Thus, a date of 40,000 years would be "corrected" because of some flood effect, and would come out about 4,000-4,500 years instead.Complete nonsense, of course, but typical of creation "science."

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

That's a creationist falsehood. They have dictated, because of religious belief, that there shall be no transitionals. Poof! No transitionals! But that doesn't make it true.Here is a transitional (one of many). Note its position in the chart which follows (hint--in the right center):

---

Fossil: KNM-ER 3733Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)Species Name:
Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8),
Homo erectus (3, 4, 7),
Homo erectus ergaster (25)Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)See original source for notes:Source: Default 404 | Museum of Science, Boston
Source

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Kelly, your understanding of evolution and what it posits is so flawed that it is not even worth trying to discuss this with you. You are like a programmed robot, always parroting what you have been programmed to say. The evidence presented by others is ignored if it doesn't fit with your programming. You just keep repeating the same mantra over and over as if that made it factual. It doesn't.But you have made one significant contribution: you have demonstrated to all here what creation science really is. And you have shown, as I posted way back at the beginning, that it is the exact opposite of science.Bye for now.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

And copyright law gives even greater leeway to reviews than Fair Use.A detailed review/analysis where small sections are reproduced and dissected is usually no problem, even when those small sections add up to much of the work. Or so I've been told.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

A group of scientists, also creationists, did just that. With over a million dollars in creationist money they set out to show the decay constant was a variable, and that radiometric dates are all wrong.Their results confirmed what scientists have claimed all along.The creationists refused to believe their own results.Two references:Assessing the RATE Project: Essay Review by Randy Isaac:
Assessing the RATE ProjectDo the RATE Findings Negate Mainstream Science?:
Page not found - Reasons to Believe

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Theories explain facts. (I don't know how many times we've tried to explain this, but for some reason it doesn't sink in.) Nonsense. The reason the creation "scientist" comes up with his conclusion is its in the bible. There is nothing else they can come up with. If the facts don't point in that direction they are ignored, misrepresented, or distorted until the conclusion comes out the way the bible says it has to.That's not science. That's the exact opposite of science.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Ring species demonstrate mutation and evolution, and all of the intermediates (transitionals) are still there to be studied.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Ring species... Your answers are straight out of the creation "science" playbook.Particularly, if it seems to support evolution, deny it. You may not know what it is but deny it anyway.You're opening posts are not very impressive, nor even very entertaining. Certainly they do nothing to convince me that you are an advocate of real science. More likely we'll be hearing about the "true" science that creation "scientists" have been talking about lately. ("True" science being any science that has nothing to do with evolution.)I suspect your real goal here is to promote creationism in the guise of creation "science." That's the exact opposite of science.Bye for now.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.