The Nature of Scientific Inquiry - Contrasted with Creation "Science"

Excellent point, PM. I recall years ago (1990?) an article in the Seattle Times about the discovery of a new late Cretaceous primate in Texas. The article discussed the finding, comments of the researcher, etc. But the last few lines of the article reflected the lack of knowledge of the writer by saying something like "this find is a shock to scientists who previously believed man evolved in Africa". I am surprised that creos didn't grab onto that one. I am sure that the writer was trying to find a snappy way to end the article, and through ignorance added another piece of public misinformation to the mix.It is tough as a scientist to avoid such pitfalls, especially when researching something in the public eye like evolution or medical research. As we speak I am somewhere in the Gulf of Mexico on a research vessel investigating shipwrecks from WWII (STEM Education Programs & Online Learning | PAST FoundationTHE PAST FOUNDATION) with an ROV. I am part of the invertebrate biologist team looking at these wrecks as artificial reef systems. While working there is a documentary team filming everything and asking questions. The filmakers are great, but there is little time to carefully phrase answers and less time to look over what is being used in the documentary. The fear is that I will misspeak or be unclear and have that immortalized, especially because of the public and political attention on this project. Just my two cents worth (and a cheap plug for my research )

---

"Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." Aaron Levenstein

Hey Schrafinator, saying something like that is fairly useless and mildly offensive. It is useless because entire point of this forum is to debate that point, and you can't just claim victory like that. It is offensive because you are calling me unscientific.The only reason I don't take a lot of offense at this is because I used to be the same way, but in regards to evolution. I could not understand how someone could possibly be so stupid or dishonest as to believe something so unscientific and falsified as evolution. Eventually, I realized that someone who disagrees with me can have good reasons for doing so, and that they even may be intelligent.I respectfully disagree with you, and ask for you to do the same back.

Sorry, JT, but Schraf is right. In fact, the YEC idea was falsified long before Darwin published his book. YEC has never been able to explain the world we see around us and certainly fell apart as soon as we began to understand where the stars were really located.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Let me rephrase myself: you cannot just make an unsupported statement like that. Not only do you not support your statement, even if you did, you would not be able to in a single post. In fact, the scope of that statement is such that there are ENTIRE FORUMS DEDICATED TO DEBATING IT.I am not saying you are wrong - I couldn't back that statement up in a single post, either. What I am saying is that I disagree with you, but acknowledge that you are quite possibly a smart, scientificall and logically minded, well educated individual. I also acknowledge that the issue is not settled.What you are doing is assuming that I am stupid because I disagree with you. That is tempting and understandable, but it is also arrogant and rude. If I am wrong, you can (in other threads)show me the evidences and arguments; don't just tell me that I am unscientific and ignorant.I am not mad or offended (much), because I understand where you are coming from, but I would appreciate your stopping.Thanks,
JTThis message has been edited by JT, 08-07-2004 06:46 PM

When you go out at night do you see stars?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yes. I think know where you are heading with this; something about literalism. But I'll let you phrase your own argument instead of answering it before you actually get there. Fire away.

Do you know where those stars are actually located?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

A litle over a mile. By the way, did you know that limits on the heights of skyscrapers are there so they don't catch fire from touching a star? That, by the way, is why no skyscraper over one half a mile high can be built. The top would melt.

Okay. I see there is little point in going on with this. Enjoy your beliefs.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

Hey Schrafinator, saying something like that is fairly useless and mildly offensive. It is useless because entire point of this forum is to debate that point, and you can't just claim victory like that. It is offensive because you are calling me unscientific.

---

But Creationist arguments are unscientific, by and large.That can be easily demonstrated on an argument-by-argument basis.I'm sorry that you are offended by this, but that's not really relevant.I am quite confident that I can point out how nearly any Creationist argument/conclusion is unscientific. I've been doing it for years.
In fact, the very premise of Creationism is unscientific.Try me.

quote:

---

The only reason I don't take a lot of offense at this is because I used to be the same way, but in regards to evolution. I could not understand how someone could possibly be so stupid or dishonest as to believe something so unscientific and falsified as evolution. Eventually, I realized that someone who disagrees with me can have good reasons for doing so, and that they even may be intelligent.

​

I respectfully disagree with you, and ask for you to do the same back.

---

Look, it's nothing personal, but Creationism is not scientific.I can demonstrate that it isn't scientific.Just because you want it to be doesn't make it so.

quote:

---

Let me rephrase myself: you cannot just make an unsupported statement like that. Not only do you not support your statement, even if you did, you would not be able to in a single post. In fact, the scope of that statement is such that there are ENTIRE FORUMS DEDICATED TO DEBATING IT.

---

OK, so let's start debating it.I propose that Creationism is not scientific because it begins with it's conclusion; that a particular interpretation of certain parts of the Christian Bible are literally true.All evidence in nature that supports this view is pointed out by Creationists in support of their preconceived conclusion, but any contradictory evidence is ignored or twisted into something it isn't.By contrast, real sciecne first looks at the evidence. It hypothesizes why the evidence appears as it does. Theories are fleshed-out hypothese, explanations of why the evidence appears as it does, that have been confirmed by many observations.See, the Creationists decide what they MUST find in nature without ever looking at nature.That isn't scientific.OK, care to rebut?

quote:

---

I am not saying you are wrong - I couldn't back that statement up in a single post, either. What I am saying is that I disagree with you, but acknowledge that you are quite possibly a smart, scientificall and logically minded, well educated individual. I also acknowledge that the issue is not settled.

---

Sure it is.Creationism isn't scientific, it's religious.Creationists do not play by the rules of science, as I have demonstrated above.I can proovide many, many more examples if you would like.

quote:

---

What you are doing is assuming that I am stupid because I disagree with you.

---

No, what he is doing is disagreeing with you and giving you FACTS as to why he thinks you are wrong.

quote:

---

That is tempting and understandable, but it is also arrogant and rude. If I am wrong, you can (in other threads)show me the evidences and arguments; don't just tell me that I am unscientific and ignorant.

---

He did tell you.He repeated what I had said, which was that Young Earth Creationism was falsified by Creationist Geologists 200 years ago. They had gone looking for evidence of a young Earth and a worldwide flood and found evidence instead of an ancient earth and many local flooding events.Rocky Road: Adam SedgwickThose are the facts. What contrary facts do you have?

quote:

---

I am not mad or offended (much), because I understand where you are coming from, but I would appreciate your stopping.

---

Stopping disagreeing with you and providing explanations as to why we think you are wrong?Um, this is a debate board, you know.

quote:

---

A litle over a mile.

---

The sun is only a mile away?Says who?Show the evidence that this is the case.

quote:

---

By the way, did you know that limits on the heights of skyscrapers are there so they don't catch fire from touching a star? That, by the way, is why no skyscraper over one half a mile high can be built. The top would melt.

---

Then why don't airplanes touch stars and melt? They go higher than half a mile high.

I was kidding! Sorry for the miscommunication. I am really bad at sarcastic humor. Every time I say something completely ridiculus, in an effort to be funny, people believe me. Even my own family, and they should know better! Oh well. I guess I'll add disclaimers.Schrafinator says: Because they are sprinkled with magic, heat retardant pixie dust. I though even evolutionists knew that. (disclaimer: The previous two sentences were meant as a joke.)Anyway, Jar, I think stars to be millions of light years away. I now see where you were going with this. How could, in six thousand years, the light from such distant stars reach the earth? I have heard convincing arguments on the subject (which do not include modifying the speed of light), and will gladly debate about that with you after I'm done in this thread. (I don't have enough time for more than this and the mythical bible thread right now.)This message has been edited by JT, 08-07-2004 10:05 PM

True, and it drives me crazy. However, most of them hold a glimmer of truth; they are just articulated badly. I didn't take issue with that contention, that is very much under the scope and topic of the current debate. What I didn't like was the statement that 7D, YEC has been falsified.Before I answer the rest of your post, I want to have your definition of "creation science" and "creationism;" I want to make sure I understand exactly what you are saying.Thanks,
JTThis message has been edited by JT, 08-07-2004 10:06 PM

quote:

---

True, and it drives me crazy. However, most of them hold a glimmer of truth; they are just articulated badly.

---

Well, no, most of them really don't hold a glimmer of truth.Mosty of them are just wrong.Sorry.

quote:

---

I didn't take issue with that contention, that is very much under the scope and topic of the current debate. What I didn't like was the statement that 7D, YEC has been falsified.

---

Young Earth Creationism, as a scientific claim, or group of scientific claims, has been falsified.Additionally, since many of the claims of YEC appeal to the supernatural, they cannot be falsified, and thus are not scientific.

quote:

---

Before I answer the rest of your post, I want to have your definition of "creation science" and "creationism;" I want to make sure I understand exactly what you are saying.

---

These are the definitions I like the best:creationism and creation science - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com"Creationism is a religious metaphysical theory which claims that a supernatural being created the universe. Creation Science is a pseudoscientific theory which claims that (a) the stories in Genesis are accurate accounts of the origin of the universe and life on Earth, and (b) Genesis is incompatible with the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution. ?Creation Science? is an oxymoron since science is concerned only with naturalistic explanations of empirical phenomena and does not concern itself with supernatural explanations of metaphysical phenomena."