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.
Let me explain this to you by analogy. Imagine that a man dresses up in a white coat, puts a stethoscope round his neck, picks up a kitchen knife and goes running out into the street and starts randomly stabbing passers-by.
You are in the position of someone saying: "No, this guy isn't a psychopath, he's a surgeon. That fact that you claim that all his patients died is beside the point. I'm not debating whether he's a good surgeon or a bad surgeon, I'm just trying to get you all to admit that he is a surgeon and that what he was doing was surgery."
You've been fooled by the superficialities of the white coat, the knife, and the fact that he inflicts incisions on people. But these are not sufficient to make it surgery.
... 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.
Kelly, Kelly, Kelly. It's this sort of naked creationist dishonesty that makes it so pointless debating with you people.
Suppose that I told you that the underlying model of creationism was that a dog created the world six days ago --- "even if you won't admit it" --- and proceeded to argue against that instead of against your real opinions.
Would you not conclude:
(1) That I had no arguments against what creationists actually think, or I'd have used them.
(2) That there must be no good arguments against creationism, or I'd have found them and used them.
(3) That I was either incredibly ignorant, or actually insane, or a blatant, shameless liar.
Hey, i never meant to be arrogant, since so mlany creationists/ID supporters lectured me about what was true, not true, etc.
This was intended only to add some humour to the thread :)
True, i don't think "creation science" has brought any serious info that has the potential to contradict the evolution theory, but that doesn't prevent me from writing such lines, from time to time, wether you find it funny or not. Don't go thinking i'm persuaded i know it all, and that i make jokes in some state of jubilation.
I don't know why Kelly hasn't replied yet. Sometimes I don't understand her at all. It's as if someone were hitting her and though she has hands to defend herself she does not seem to know how to use them, nor even what they are. So I shall have to put up the defense that Kelly is failing to provide herself.
While I thank you for pointing out my error, the actual date of teh sample according to Kelly's paper (I believe they called it the "evolutionary" age, which made me chuckle) is orders of magnitude greater. 25,000 years vs 60,000 years is inconsequential when the actual age is in the millions of years. The point remains that the sample is too old to be accurately measured using C14 dating, and the "researchers" knew or should have known that basic fact when setting up this experiment. It was a sham.
The dates you mention from Snelling's paper (again, the link is Radiocarbon in "Ancient" Fossil Wood) are the erroneous evolutionist dates. Snelling references them only to prove how incongruent the Ar/Ar and radiocarbon dates are.
Further, you've continued to make the assertion that the Earth is only about 6000 years old without supporting that assertion.
The age of the Earth was just mentioned in passing, what we're really discussing is the inaccuracy of evolutionist approaches to radiometric dating. The creation science dating for the wood of about 4300 years old is derived from correlations with coal beds deposited during the flood, see the conclusions section of the paper.
You crammed many unrelated assertions into your final paragraph, I'm afraid I'm going to have to deal with them one at time.
More importantly and related to the topic, you've still failed to address the fact that the methodology used in the paper was one of apologetics, that of attempting to support a preconceived conclusion, and not an application fo the scientific method.
It is the evolutionists with the preconceived conclusions. We've long known that the earth is only some thousands of years old, and proper scientific analysis of the radiometric evidence reveals this to be true. The paper scrupulously describes the painstaking scientific methods used to gather, preserve and analyze the samples. I grant that the paper doesn't present the precise analysis, but that's because this information is in the papers in the references.
The conclusions of the paper dismissed even their own results while attempting to handwave the discrepancy away with unsupported assertions of Floods and a young Earth and without and explanation of a mechanism that would account for such discrepancies even were the assertions factual.
Scientific papers do not present all previous findings in every new paper. Previous findings are only referenced. There's no handwave. If you wish to know the evidence for the global flood and a young Earth you need only seek it out in the references.
The conclusion did not follow from the evidence...
Of course it did. The two types of dating using evolutionist methods were discordant. Creationist dating was concordant. What could be more conclusive?
...the experiment was purposefully rigged to give an inaccurate reading by using the wrong tool,...
But radiocarbon dating is the precisely right tool for material less than 60,000 years old, and that's what was used for the organic sample. What is wholly inappropriate was the evolutionist use of Ar/Ar dating for material less than 60,000 years old. Unfortunately, reliable dating techniques do not exist at present for relatively young inorganic material.
...and then this "evidence" was "interpreted" to validate the conclusion that existed before the experiment was even conceived.
I can tell it bothers you that the evidence points to a conclusion you disagree with, but you have to follow the evidence where it leads.
Creation Science remains not science.
Rather than repetitively stating your conclusions over and over again, I suggest you build an actual case for what you believe using evidence and argument.
I can't tell whether I'm doing a good or bad job. Don't feel obligated to play along if you don't want to. I thought it might be instructive for Kelly to see an example of how one might go about trying to illustrate the use the scientific methods by creation scientists, but she ignores so much of what is posted that who knows if she's even noticing.
The paper scrupulously describes the painstaking scientific methods used to gather, preserve and analyze the samples.
Actually, and this is a key point, it doesn't. It describe in intricate details various methods used to ensure the sample was properly processed in the lab, but it doesn't describe the method for gathering the sample, or the means by which it has been preserved, it only says:
quote:In July 1947, a small piece of coalified wood measuring almost 3 centimeters in length (Figure 2), was found in a "sand bed"
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 : )
Kelly, all you're doing in this thread is writing the same introductory paragraphs over and over again to a paper on why creation science is real science, but you never go on to write the paper itself.
If you're going to convince people that creation science is real science, the only way you can do this is to provide examples of creation scientists doing real science.
What you actually seem to be arguing is that neither creation science nor evolution can really ferret out from preserved evidence what happened in the past, so it's all a matter of world view.
Only an examination of the evidence can settle this, something you're very studiously avoiding.
You've already blown away a thread and a half on this avoidance strategy, we may as well let you make it 2 whole threads. After that I think we're going to have to assume you're not really willing to examine evidence.
First,Kelly, we are supposed to be talking about creation science only here, not evolution. Do you know any scentific theories that needs to reference rival theories to be explained? If creation science is science, it should not be needed to use evolution to describe what it does.
Then, how do you expext to convince people that creation science is science without debating? It seems to be a very strange position and does the opposite of what you are seeking.
I also need to add that to compare the two models, you need to show us what is the creationist model first (btw it's also the subject of this thread). After all, it's you who said that we didn't know what the creationist model was. The comparison should be done after that and in an other thread.
..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...