Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation science II
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 51 of 312 (502003)
03-09-2009 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Kelly
03-09-2009 9:13 AM


Re: Creatioists are not trying to prove or even figure out
Hi Kelly,
Just providing some corrections..
Neither the evolutionist or creationist can go back in time to that moment or recreate it in a lab. In this respect, the scientific method is impossible...
The scientific method does not require going back in time, so it is untrue that "in this respect, the scientific method is impossible."
I really think that the origins question is more of a philosophy on life.
The origin of life is an active area of scientific investigation.
But this doesn't mean that we can't each test the evidence or data left from that origins moment...
Yes, precisely. Scientists study the evidence left behind, there are reams of papers produced by scientists studying the origins of life.
People here have been asking you for information about creation scientists' studies of "that origins moment". Where are they? Could you find for us a reference to even just a single paper by a creation scientist who is studying the scientific origin of life?
To put a finer point on it, you go on to say:
In this respect, creationists' are using the same evidence and scientific methods to test their hypothesis or model of what they think may have happened and what is happening presently.
Please show us even just one scientific paper where "creationists' are using the same evidence and scientific methods to test their hypothesis or model of what they think may have happened and what is happening presently."
Evolutionists claim they aren't addressing origins...
No one's ever said that. There's no one studying life's origins who isn't also an evolutionist, i.e., someone who accepts the synthetic theory of evolution (where "synthetic" refers to the synthesis between Darwinian theory and modern genetics). What you're thinking of is that evolution and abiogenesis are two different but closely related areas of study. Abiogenesis is about the origins of life. Evolution is about what happened to life after it appeared.
The two opposing models...
There are not two opposing models. Evolution is a scientific theory that explains the changing diversity of life on this planet. Creation science is religious apologetics. If you think otherwise, then just produce a scientific paper from a creation scientist.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 9:13 AM Kelly has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 52 of 312 (502006)
03-09-2009 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Kelly
03-09-2009 9:57 AM


Re: Do you think that evolutionists are any different?
Kelly, this thread is not about scientific views on evolution, it's about creation science. The [forum=-5] forum has over 800 threads where evolution has been and is being discussed. Please go there if you would like to criticize evolution.
Of if you'd like to discuss the reliability of radiocarbon dating then please go to the [forum=-3] forum.
The issue that Coyote brought up concerning radiocarbon dating is that creation scientists force radiocarbon dates into a young earth scenario, and that would be on-topic in this thread. Why don't you ask Coyote if he could be specific about this, and then you could point out the scientific merits of the creation science claims.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 9:57 AM Kelly has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 55 of 312 (502016)
03-09-2009 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Kelly
03-09-2009 10:29 AM


Re: In spite of the discrimination against creation scientists
Kelly, the idea is to express your arguments and evidence in your own words, not send people to fetch your arguments and evidence for you. If you've found creationist papers studying the origins of life, then produce the references for them right here in a message to this thread so that we may discuss them.
This is from the Forum Guidelines:
  1. Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.
  2. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 10:29 AM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 10:50 AM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 60 of 312 (502028)
03-09-2009 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Kelly
03-09-2009 10:50 AM


Re: I am interested only in first showing
Now you're not even making any sense. First you say:
Kelly writes:
I am interested only in first showing that creation science is a science.
Then you say:
I am not interested in debating the findings until you first concede that we are discussing "different" scientific findings and not whether or not one group's studies can be considered scientific.
How are you going to show creation scientists employ legitimate scientific methods if you're not going to present any of their research?
Your position is that creation scientists practice legitimate science. Our position is the opposite, that they do not.
So you're insisting that we first concede your position before you'll discuss the evidence for it.
You can't continue wasting thread bandwidth like this for very much longer.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 10:50 AM Kelly has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 65 of 312 (502042)
03-09-2009 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Kelly
03-09-2009 11:39 AM


Re: Radiocarbon dating
Hi Kelly,
I think you've almost given us something we can work with.
The creation science position on radiocarbon dating is that it is unreliable. So what you need to find is the creation science research demonstrating this unreliability.
You cited Steven Austin's findings about Mount St. Helens using potassium/argon dating, but your message is about radiocarbon dating, so let's keep the focus on that. You also cited Mount Ngauruhaoe data, but that, too, is not radiocarbon dating.
So your message contains no references to creationist research concerning the unreliability of radiocarbon dating, and that's what you need to find.
When we're finished with radiocarbon dating then we can discuss the other types of radiometric dating.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 11:39 AM Kelly has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 74 of 312 (502065)
03-09-2009 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Kelly
03-09-2009 12:58 PM


Re: I am sorry
Kelly writes:
I cannot find much online available for me to direct you to.
Yeah, I know, ain't Google a bitch? It can't find nothing!
Since you're apparently incapable of doing your own research, here's a paper for you: Radiocarbon in "Ancient" Fossil Wood by Andrew A. Snelling, a member of ICR.
Seek your evidence of the scientific approach of creation scientists in this paper.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 12:58 PM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 2:00 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 85 of 312 (502093)
03-09-2009 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Kelly
03-09-2009 2:00 PM


Re: Thanks Percy
The reason creationist papers appear in venues like ICR and AIG instead of mainstream journals is because they do not employ scientific methodologies. You don't accept this, and so we must examine some creationist papers in detail so that you can convince us that they did follow valid scientific methods, or we can convince you that they didn't. So one more time, the paper I suggested you use as an example is:
I think you'll find that the evolutionists here will find it very challenging to explain how that paper fails to adhere to scientific methods and why it wouldn't be acceptable in scientific journals.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 2:00 PM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Richard Townsend, posted 03-09-2009 5:36 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 91 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 6:35 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 93 of 312 (502132)
03-09-2009 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Kelly
03-09-2009 6:35 PM


Re: No, actually it is based on discrimination
Kelly, you've been asked over and over to support your assertions with evidence, but you haven't.
I tried to help you by seeking out a creationist paper that evolutionists will have a lot of trouble with, but you're ignoring it.
Please take a look at rule 4 from the Forum Guidelines again:
  1. Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.
People like you who repeat assertions with no supporting evidence or argument and without ever moving the discussion forward is why rule 4 was written. You can't continue in this way for very long.
Read the paper and use it as evidence to support your position:
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 6:35 PM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Kelly, posted 03-10-2009 10:34 AM Percy has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 106 of 312 (502184)
03-10-2009 9:16 AM


Radiometric Dating is Unreliable
For some reason Kelly is unwilling to argue her position on the basis of any real-world evidence, so I'm going to try to take up the gauntlet for her.
This paper by Andrew Snelling of ICR seems particularly condemnatory of the reliability of radiometric dating:
Over the past decade or so Andrew Snelling has identified a number of organic samples that date anomalously young. His method is to take fossil wood that is encased in ancient layers and subject them to radiocarbon dating. His findings indicate that while the geologic layers date very ancient, millions of years old, the encased fossil wood dates much younger, only some tens of thousands of years old. He concludes that all methods of radiometric dating are unreliable.
Snelling painstakingly describes the sample preparation process and is able to rule out all possible sources of error, eliminating each one. The careful sample preparation process rules out all possible sources of contamination, both in the field and in the lab. Therefore the radiocarbon age determined by the laboratory must be accurate, and since it contradicts the Ar/Ar dating of the encasing geologic layer, radiometric dating is unreliable. The results are instead consistent with an age of the earth of only some thousands of years, and with a global flood around 4300 years ago.
Let's argue this on the merits. Let the data, methods and analytic techniques employed by Snelling speak for themselves.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Kelly, posted 03-10-2009 10:01 AM Percy has not replied
 Message 115 by Coyote, posted 03-10-2009 11:19 AM Percy has replied
 Message 116 by Stile, posted 03-10-2009 11:30 AM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 126 of 312 (502259)
03-10-2009 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Coyote
03-10-2009 11:19 AM


Re: Radiometric Dating is Unreliable
[enable-creationist-writing-style]
Coyote writes:
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.
Bzzzt! You lose. An article from 2003 cannot possibly be making comments about a 2008 paper five years later.
Please try again.
[/enable-creationist-writing-style]
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Coyote, posted 03-10-2009 11:19 AM Coyote has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 127 of 312 (502261)
03-10-2009 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Stile
03-10-2009 11:30 AM


Re: Radiometric Dating is Unreliable
Hi Stile,
Yes, Ar/Ar dating and radiocarbon dating are both types of radiometric dating.
[enable-creationist-thinking-style]
Stile writes:
How can the "radiocarbon age determined by the laboratory must be accurate" be true if we are concluding that "all radiometric dating is unreliable?"
It's only unreliable when misinterpreted by those using the much discredited "ancient earth" world view. Once you interpret the data properly, radiometric dating is fairly reliable. It extrapolates from known physical processes to derive age dates for time of formation, but those who hold the reins of power within science keep these processes from being interpreted properly. Creation scientists understand how to properly interpret the data.
The material found in the formation was wood. It was dated to around 45,000 years old using radiocarbon dating. The encasing material was dated to millions of years old. Obviously these dates contradict one another, but a proper analysis yields consistent dates around the time of the flood.
[/enable-creationist-thinking-style]
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Stile, posted 03-10-2009 11:30 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Stile, posted 03-10-2009 2:18 PM Percy has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 129 of 312 (502268)
03-10-2009 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Rahvin
03-10-2009 1:18 PM


Re: Radiometric Dating is Unreliable
[enable-creationist-style]
Rahvin writes:
Kelly, I very much hate to break it to you, but Percy was setting you up.
On the contrary, it is you evolutionists who are being set up for a fall as your untruths are revealed. For example:
First, as others have mentioned, radiocarbon dating cannot be used on samples more than around 25,000 years old...
Misinformation like this reveals just how desperate you evolutionists are as you cling to your outmoded theories. Even Wikipedia knows better than you, this is from the lead paragraph of the Wikipedia article on radiocarbon dating:
Radiocarbon dating, or carbon dating, is a radiometric dating method that uses the naturally occurring radioisotope carbon-14 (14C) to determine the age of carbonaceous materials up to about 60,000 years.
While it is theoretically possible for organic material to date as old as 60,000 years, the reality is that the world could not be much more than around 6000 years old, and radiocarbon dating bears this out.
[/enable-creatist-style]
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Rahvin, posted 03-10-2009 1:18 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Rahvin, posted 03-10-2009 3:09 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 131 of 312 (502275)
03-10-2009 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Rahvin
03-10-2009 3:09 PM


Re: Radiometric Dating is Unreliable
[creationist]
Rahvin writes:
Ooooh, a Devil's Advocate!
Devil's advocate? Sir, I am *God's* advocate, not that he needs one. At end times you will be judged, you would do well to remember that!
I am short of time right now, but I hope my able partner Kelly will soon post for you the truth about radiometric dating, such as that the evidence has always pointed to a young earth.
[/creationist]
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Rahvin, posted 03-10-2009 3:09 PM Rahvin has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 143 of 312 (502342)
03-11-2009 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Rahvin
03-10-2009 3:09 PM


Re: Radiometric Dating is Unreliable
Hi Rahvin,
[creationist]
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.
Rahvin writes:
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.
[/creationist]
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.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Rahvin, posted 03-10-2009 3:09 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Dr Jack, posted 03-11-2009 9:14 AM Percy has not replied
 Message 146 by Kelly, posted 03-11-2009 9:49 AM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 147 of 312 (502355)
03-11-2009 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by Kelly
03-11-2009 9:49 AM


Re: Is it Science?
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.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Kelly, posted 03-11-2009 9:49 AM Kelly has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024