|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: why creation "science" isn't science | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3850 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
quote: A look at the statements of faith by which the leading Creationist groups operate demonstrates this claim to be incorrect. What is and what is not "Creationism" is determined primarily by what these leading organizations do. I think first we'll have to know more about who you refer to as "we", whether it is yourself, you and your fellow Creationists in this forum, or whether it is a global reference to "creation science". I have already quoted the Answers In Genesis SOF part F in this forum, but the URL for it is www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp and the important part of it is that the starting assumptions are that the world was created through supernatural processes, that the flood occured, that evolution simply does not occur, and that the Bible is infallible. These themes are essentially universal in Creationist statements of faith.
quote: quote: [This message has been edited by gene90, 01-17-2002]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
quote: quote: But generally the creationist view is that they do have special infallable knowledge.
quote: I find it acceptable that a creation hypothesis is put forward. Then you can indeed look for scientific evidence to support it. But all the scientific evidence creationists put forth consists of perceived flaws in the theory of evolution, which are proposed to be gaps for the creation hypothesis to fill. But there is no evidence presented, in support of the creation hypothesis itself. Moose Edited to fix UBB code ------------------Old Earth evolution - Yes Godly creation - Maybe [This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 01-17-2002] [This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 01-17-2002]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2197 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Well, it isn't science, as science as defined in my original post, which is a very good definition.
quote: Um, what? Have you read the ICR and CRS websites at all?
quote: Sorry, but you most certainly do assume knowledge of nature a priori. If you decide that the Flood happened before you even go looking at the natural evidence, and you do not allow any evidence that the flood didn't happen to sway you from your belief that it did happen, then you are assuming prior special infallable knowledge. This is not science. If you can show me that the ICR and CRS is in any way different from my portrayal of Creation Science, be my guest, but I doubt that you can do it.
quote: Your problem is that you still think that creationists somehow do any science. They do not. Creationists do not submit papers to peer-reviewed publications. They do not do research. They spend most of their time trying to poke holes in real sceintist's research when it disagrees with their interpretation of the Bible. Evidence which seems to agree with their interpretation is eagerly accepted and praised.
quote: When you state that you "believe the Flood happened", YOU are the one mixing faith with science. That is a completely unscientific way to think about a problem. You have decided ahead of time that the Flood happened. Then, after you have decided what happened, you pick and choose what evidence seems to back up the claim that the flood happened. the scientific method never assumes it can know ahead of time what it will find. A hypothesis relating to a theory about natural events is proposed (prediction). Observations are made and evidence is gathered, and only then are conclusions made about ifthe evidence tends to support or refute the hypothesis. Creation science has it backwards. Tell us what the potential falsifications of a Theory of a World wide Biblical FLood be, if such a theory existed?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: Actually,creationists do submit papers to scientific journals, but........ "A 3 year database search of 4,000 publications -- Focussing on the names of people associated with the ICR & on phrases & keywords such as "creationism"-- Didn't turn up a single paper. A follow up study of 68 journals found only 18 of 135,000 total manuscript submissions concerned scientific creationism, & all 18 were rejected. Reasons cited included "flawed arguments", "ramblings," & a "high scholl theme quality." "(Creation & Earth History, Arthur N Strahler 1999 p.526) Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"But generally the creationist view is that they do have special infallable knowledge."
--Generally mabye, I would have to admit that AiG or ICR may feel that it is the way they think creationism has to be universaly speaking. Though this makes no relevance now, you are unable to say that Creation science is this way, because creationists look at Creation science in their own view and what to include in it. I also will admit that if Creation Science is including the Faith, then it isn't real science. Though I do believe that AiG and ICR and such and so creationist organisations make these on their statements of belief, not how they are going to do their research. I believe the same things, though I disclude the supernatural in the realm of the science of creationism, excluding origins. To fight against any statement of belief that any other organisation proclaims makes really no relevance in this forum unless they are here to defend it. This goes also for any belief of an evolutionist for the creationists to undermine. "I find it acceptable that a creation hypothesis is put forward. Then you can indeed look for scientific evidence to support it. But all the scientific evidence creationists put forth consists of perceived flaws in the theory of evolution, which are proposed to be gaps for the creation hypothesis to fill. But there is no evidence presented, in support of the creation hypothesis itself."--Ofcourse there is evidence presented in suport of the Creation theory, everything that evolution has that is evidence for evolution that I have ever seen has a relevance to an interperetation for the Creation theory. And in many cases it seems more logical, but this is mostly because the evolutionists claim that they will find more information to work with their theory, this is completely relevant and shouldn't be disscredited against, though we cannot work with something that has not been discovered yet. --------------
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2197 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
LOL!!
I stand corrected! LOL!!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cobra_snake Inactive Member |
This arguement really bugs me.
Why is it Creationists are the only group of people that let their pre-determined ideas affect their research or interpretation of the facts? My belief is that scientists obtain the same flaw as Creationists. I believe most scientists accept evolution with little doubt and information they find is interpreted according to the evolutionary outline. You may disagree with me, as you are entitled to. However, nobody can offer me any proof that scientists are free from bias.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"Well, it isn't science, as science as defined in my original post, which is a very good definition."
--I totally agree with the definition of science, and it is exactly what I will work with, there is a small problem with saying that 'creation science' isn't scientific, because then you include the entire creation science society, the beleifs of every creationist claimed to be unscientific. I haven't much of a problem with you trying to say that some Creationist organisation is unscientific, that we can possibly work with, but saying 'creation science' as a whole, should not be claimed. "Have you read the ICR and CRS websites at all?"--Yes I have, but you cannot argue the definition of creation science on the foundation of any organization as being the fundimental and the reality in its whole. To argue with 'creation science' in its whole will lose, though to argue with ICR or AiG's statements of faith is another story and another topic. "Sorry, but you most certainly do assume knowledge of nature a priori."--This is my faith, not my logic. I don't exactly 'assume' I 'believe'. "If you decide that the Flood happened before you even go looking at the natural evidence, and you do not allow any evidence that the flood didn't happen to sway you from your belief that it did happen, then you are assuming prior special infallable knowledge."--I never claimed this? I do not say that it is infallibly correct that the Global Flood happend, just as you think that the evidnece is overwhelming toward evolution, I look at the exact same thing and say that it is feasably explained by this Global Flood. To prove the flood didn't happen to me, you have to prove that it isn't possible, I only believe its possibility in the realm of 'creation science', and I cannot claim it as otherwize unless I have some sort of video tape of its happening or something of that nature. It is my faith that says it happend. This isn't an argument against Creation science. "This is not science."--I agree "If you can show me that the ICR and CRS is in any way different from my portrayal of Creation Science, be my guest, but I doubt that you can do it."--For one, this would take alot of reading. Second, it has no relevance to creation science, it is an argument against the science of these organizations, not against creation science. "Your problem is that you still think that creationists somehow do any science. They do not."--You have been unable to prove me wrong. And even if you were to claim this against any of those organisations, I could flip up one of their articles and discredit your assertion that they do no science. Though to say anymore more research would be needed. "Creationists do not submit papers to peer-reviewed publications. They do not do research."--Ofcourse they do, some of their work is even looked up to to some secular unbiased scientists. If your implying that we need to subit something to national geographic or nature magazines or anything of that nature, it isn't going to happen, they are quite biased and ther have been some attempts and even some successes though, following attempts to fireingm, discrediting them, and blocking them towad new science submitions. "They spend most of their time trying to poke holes in real sceintist's research when it disagrees with their interpretation of the Bible."--No creatinist disagrees with any scientists findings, we find fossils, ok, we find layers, ok, we find radiometric decay, background radiation, etc, the interperetation of this is where we differ. "Evidence which seems to agree with their interpretation is eagerly accepted and praised."--Who wouldn't be happy to see more evidence? Evolutionists do the same, this isn't something to attack but is a strength to science. "When you state that you "believe the Flood happened", YOU are the one mixing faith with science."--But that isn't my science? The evidence is my science. "That is a completely unscientific way to think about a problem. You have decided ahead of time that the Flood happened. Then, after you have decided what happened, you pick and choose what evidence seems to back up the claim that the flood happened."--Actually I look at the evidence, and figure out what could have happend, its backwords. I don't pick and choose, I look at everything and it must comply and be explinations of everything and why it is the way it is. "the scientific method never assumes it can know ahead of time what it will find."--Agreed, though it suggests what it could find to be evidence for the theory, such as background radiation for the big bang was predicted. "A hypothesis relating to a theory about natural events is proposed (prediction)."--exactly "Observations are made and evidence is gathered, and only then are conclusions made about if the evidence tends to support or refute the hypothesis."--Correct, and I find it fascinating that it complies with the Bible. Refutations of various mechenisms for the Global Flood are made, thus, the theory is refined, juast as with the ToE, and as we have discussed before, this is a strength, not weakness. "Creation science has it backwards."--Argue with ICR, not Creation science. "Tell us what the potential falsifications of a Theory of a World wide Biblical FLood be, if such a theory existed?"--More than one ice age, inability of enough water, inability of variation to where it is today, polar bears and penguins, etc. Not enough room on the boat, inability of any assertion made in Genesis, or any impossiblity. --------------
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"Actually,creationists do submit papers to scientific journals"
--Just wondering, what journals? And wheres the quote from. -------------
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5900 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Hi TrueCreation!
I've been following a number of the threads on this board. You have often repeated: quote: I find this an interesting statement. Could you please provide one or two specific examples of this evidence? When I say specific, I don't mean a general statement like "the geologic record" or "irreducible complexity". I hope you can provide an example such as "evaporites in the Toroweap Formation of the Grand Canyon are evidence of Creationism because...", or "the 1300 separate dinosaur trackways of the Purgatoire Valley, erroneously attributed to the Jurassic, are evidence of Creationism because...". Or if you'd prefer biology, how about "the existence of a vestigal pelvis in the rainbow boa, but not in many other snakes, is evidence of Creationism because...", or "the three separate reproductive designs in modern sharks is evidence of Creationism because...". You get the picture. Specifics. Thanks in advance.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"This arguement really bugs me."
--Likewize "Why is it Creationists are the only group of people that let their pre-determined ideas affect their research or interpretation of the facts?"--Again I would have to say that it is wrong, and thus your statement is falsified, from your assertion as pointing toward 'creationists' you can point the finger at any indidual (though it would be a pointless conversation and argument against the creationist and not the science in most cases) if you want but don't direct it toward the 'creationists' I equally cannot make a statement against 'the evolutionists' and If I have, I stand corrected and I admit my falicy in my word usage. Pre-determined Ideas do not effect my view on any scientific aspect, my belief and my evidence/my science are seperate. "My belief is that scientists obtain the same flaw as Creationists. I believe most scientists accept evolution with little doubt and information they find is interpreted according to the evolutionary outline. You may disagree with me, as you are entitled to. However, nobody can offer me any proof that scientists are free from bias. "--My belief is that all belief's are bias, science is not, though some people (evolutionists and creationists) feel they should mix their pre-conceived Idea into their research, thus ignoring anything they find against it. --------------
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"Hi TrueCreation!"
--Hey Quetzal! "I've been following a number of the threads on this board. You have often repeated: "--Yes I have "I find this an interesting statement. Could you please provide one or two specific examples of this evidence? When I say specific, I don't mean a general statement like "the geologic record" or "irreducible complexity". I hope you can provide an example such as "evaporites in the Toroweap Formation of the Grand Canyon are evidence of Creationism because...", or "the 1300 separate dinosaur trackways of the Purgatoire Valley, erroneously attributed to the Jurassic, are evidence of Creationism because...". Or if you'd prefer biology, how about "the existence of a vestigal pelvis in the rainbow boa, but not in many other snakes, is evidence of Creationism because...", or "the three separate reproductive designs in modern sharks is evidence of Creationism because...". You get the picture. Specifics."--Thanx, I love specifics, makes you have to think. I agree also, it gets frustrating when all someone will say is point to the geologic record, radimetric dating, trees, vague statements like so. Considering Evaporites - This is often credited as being from long term vaporation as the cause of sun shine for instance. Though the high Chemical purity shows that it wasn't exposed to dry dusty climates for long periods of time. A creatinist interperetation of this would be, they formed rapidly from the interaction between hot and cold seawater during undersea volcanic activity a hydrothermal deposit. Earlier I remember there was a comment saying that some of the grand canyon was formed from uplift (suggesting magmatic activity and possibly volcanic or heated sediment floors). "the 1300 separate dinosaur trackways of the Purgatoire Valley, erroneously attributed to the Jurassic, are evidence of Creationism because..."--The effects of sedimentary deposits in the flood are more contributed toward 'jumps'. Or seemingly quick deposits of sediments, thus giving days, or weeks of time to give creatures time to make trackways. The sudden disapearence of dinosaurs could be contributed to a massive catastrophic activity in which would allow more mammals to survive rather than the overgrown lizards, possibly the setting in of the ice age. "the existence of a vestigal pelvis in the rainbow boa, but not in many other snakes, is evidence of Creationism because..."--I'll see if I can't find another interperetation of this, though one is that some snacks such as this rainbow boa were a variant with a sort of leg. As this could even agree with the bible saying that the serpent in the garden of eden would crawl on its belly for the rest of its days. Also vastigials, though virtually almost every one can be contributed to a definant function, it is a 'devolving' process. To slowely lose something isn't a problem for creationists. "the three separate reproductive designs in modern sharks is evidence of Creationism because..."--I believe you are refering to the different egg development designs in sharks, Viviparity, Oviparity, and Aplacental Viviparity (Ovoviviparous). This could be a product of variation, though it seems more likely contributed to the different kinds that were on the earth and in the seas after the creation, as there is a large variation in each of these 3 development mechenisms. "Thanks in advance."--Welcome very much -------------
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
No one claims scientists are free of bias. However, a scientist is one who uses the scientific method to reduce that bias and come to reliable and valid conclusions. Whether creationism is scientific is entirely dependent on whether it can be operationalized within the scientific method. To date any "theory of creation" introduced is either not able to be operationalized or it has been falsified.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cobra_snake Inactive Member |
quote: I think bias is still apparent in scientists, despite the scientific method. And if any bias is involved, science can not be pure. Science is not just facts. It is interpretation of the facts. If a bias affects the interpretation, the science is not perfect. I think Evolutionists and Creationists are equally guilty of letting bias affect interpretation. By the way TrueCreation, my question: "Why is it Creationists are the only group of people that let their pre-determined ideas affect their research or interpretation of the facts?" My question was not meant that way. I should of said, "Why is it Creationists are CONSIDERED the only group of people that let their pre-determined ideas affect their research or interpretation of the facts?" Our viewpoints are relatively similar on the matter.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe T Member (Idle past 2197 days) Posts: 41 From: Virginia Joined: |
TrueCreation said:
quote: There are several problems with the hydrothermal deposit hypothesis: 1. There are areas where hydrothermal deposition is occurring now. The deposition of halite, gypsum and calcite are not associated with these deposits. Typically these are mineral deposits such as sulfates, oxides and silicates of iron, copper and manganese. These mineral deposits are not associated with salt deposits, which would tend to falsify the hydrothermal hypothesis. 2. Hydrothermal deposits are not in large banded planes like we see with evaporites. 3. The energy associated with hydrothermal events leaves its marks on the geology of the area. We do not find this evidence around salt deposits. 4. We have salt domes up to 1 km thick which is difficult to explain by hydrothermal deposition. Water must have 10 times the salt content of seawater for deposition to take place. I do not think that you have to do the math to see the problems with forming huge salt deposits over short periods of time from mixing of super saturated hot and cold seawater. 5. Evaporite deposits are found with things that we see on the surface such as animal footprints, raindrop impressions and cracks from drying which you would not find at the bottom of the sea. 6. We currently have basins where evaporates are forming [Ojo de Liebre in Baja California (Mexico) or the 20km long drowned river valley Bocana de Virrila (Peru)] and these deposits look like the evaporite deposits we see in the geological record. 7. The rocks over which we see evaporite deposits are not like the basalts we find on the sea floor. Much, much more can be found at the following website. Go about 1/3 of the way down to get to the evaporite section. While you are there read some of the other challenges that flood geology has and maybe you can come back to explain again why science supports a global flood and young earth.
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/f.htm Furthermore your claim that, the high Chemical purity shows that it wasn't exposed to dry dusty climates for long periods of time is just not so. Study after study has shown that salt deposits contain exactly the types of impurities one would expect from subarial (surface) deposits. Below is a small sampling courtesy of Glenn Morton. Glenn is a former young earth creationist who wrote articles for the CRS until his work in the petroleum industry convinced him that the world was old and that there had been no global flood. His site is here http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/. quote: regards, Joe T.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024