why creation "science" isn't science

---

TrueCreation writes:
If you wan't to get someone to question whether the basic fundamentals of evolution have ever occured or not, don't ask the Smithsonian, and other wealthy evolutionary organizations.

---

If you prefer to view evolution as some vast conspiracy then it's far broader than that, encompassing all major universities around the world and many of the world's significant religions.--Percy

Such a questioning would be absurd given the overwhelming support.And it is irrelevant to the question of whether or not there is evidence that falsifies evolution. Nor does it address how creationism is scientific. Indeed, the telling aspect of the discussion is how creationists cannot introduce a scientific theory of creationism nor can they offer any key falsifications of evolution. The discussion instead centers on some sort of conspiracy which is so good that there is absolutely no evidence of it.Cheers,
Larry

So identify a competing theory with testable hypothesses, confirming evidence, potential falsifications and hasn't been falsified. If creationism is science this should be trivial. Complaining about some sort of conspiracy says nothing about the evidence.

Why should evolution be questioned if the evidence is consistent and there aren't competing theories? What evidence calls it into question?

Hi TrueCreation:I was wondering if you'd had a chance to look at my response (Message 50) to your explanations (Message 43) - which was itself a response to my Message 41. I thought we had the start of something interesting there - exploring your statement that the evidence for creationism is as valid as that for evolution (and in fact the same evidence can be used for both).I know you're involved in multiple conversations on this thread, but I hope to hear from you. Reminder: you are free to pick other specific examples of evidence for Creationism if you don't like the ones I used.

"That means your evidence is inadequate. It also means that we've heard this on before and refuted it so many times that it's not worth our time."
--These challenges are 'new' at the time challenges, thus it is simply wrong and a bias assertion to say that you shouldn't look at it or give a response without lying or lowering its meaning because, 'we've heard it before and refuted it so many times that it's not worth our time'. An example is that this is the case with the smithsonian's bias, also Science Mag's refusal to higher creationists."I'm not sure what you mean here in relation to you last post."
--This was more of me seeing a comment and I thought I would comment.------------------

"You really think that some scientist wouldn't love to make a name in replacing the evolutionary paradigm? Your problem is that there is history here. Your side has obviously lost credibility. Follow the lead of Darwin and come back with overwhelming evidence."
--Its not that, its the preasure for who your working for, and the bias of your peers when working as a scientist. Some scientists would I agree feel this way, though the majority will hide it just to keep their jobs.-------------------

"If you prefer to view evolution as some vast conspiracy then it's far broader than that, encompassing all major universities around the world and many of the world's significant religions."
--I would not at all accuse anyone working as an evolutionist of working by a conspiracy. I simply believe that with the massive overall acceptance to the teaching of evolution in these universities and in these organizations you would be almost all alone and ready to have your science ridiculed if there be the slightest of a flaw in it. Its a strive to keep your job, the reason also considering the bias against creationists just because they are creationists.------------------

"Such a questioning would be absurd given the overwhelming support."
--Besides the fact that the vast majority of this overwhelming support is given its basis on the assumption that evolution has happend, the point was that scientists working with evolution in almost all cases will overlook the question of the foundation of evolution, has it even happend? So they move on to test their theory that requires this to be true."And it is irrelevant to the question of whether or not there is evidence that falsifies evolution."
--This is the question he was asking."Indeed, the telling aspect of the discussion is how creationists cannot introduce a scientific theory of creationism nor can they offer any key falsifications of evolution."
--Creation science is nothing less than scientific, I stand by this response and challenge anyone to defend it as it is true."The discussion instead centers on some sort of conspiracy which is so good that there is absolutely no evidence of it."
--What kind of conspiracy? Because it defenantly isn't involved with creation science as there is no conspiracy initiated in the science.-------------------

"Why should evolution be questioned if the evidence is consistent and there aren't competing theories? What evidence calls it into question?"
--This wasn't the point Cobra was making, its that people often overlook this basis, in which the majority of this 'overwhelming evidence' earns its basis on the assumption that evolution has certainly happend. Also evolution has an abundance of theories, using different ones you can get a vast veriety on the way evolution has taken place.------------------

"Hi TrueCreation:"
--Hey Quetzal "I was wondering if you'd had a chance to look at my response (Message 50) to your explanations (Message 43) - which was itself a response to my Message 41. I thought we had the start of something interesting there - exploring your statement that the evidence for creationism is as valid as that for evolution (and in fact the same evidence can be used for both)."
--I did get the chance of looking over it for a response, and infact I have a good response to it except for the debate about evaporites, I am not the most knowledgable on evaporites and salt domes and I am in the midst of looking for information creationist and uniformitarian explinations on them to sort it out and come to a conclusion of a response. I do think we do have a very interesting thing going on with evaporites, more research is needed on my part though, have any resources?"I know you're involved in multiple conversations on this thread, but I hope to hear from you. Reminder: you are free to pick other specific examples of evidence for Creationism if you don't like the ones I used."
--Yes it is a bit cumbersome in here being pretty much the only active creationist in the forum. I think it would be good to move on to more examples, though this does not conclude the consideration of evaporites which I am interested in.------------------

TrueCreation: Take your time. Just didn't want to lose sight of what we were doing. It's an interesting conversation. I'll try and dig up (sorry) good basic references on geology, but to be honest, your best bet would be accessing the library of any decent-sized university. There are also a fair number of references on-line (I'd start with peer-reviewed geology, geographic society, and geophysics pubs).I look forward to hearing from you when you get a chance.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"That means your evidence is inadequate. It also means that we've heard this on before and refuted it so many times that it's not worth our time."

​

--These challenges are 'new' at the time challenges, thus it is simply wrong and a bias assertion to say that you shouldn't look at it or give a response without lying or lowering its meaning because, 'we've heard it before and refuted it so many times that it's not worth our time'.

---

Then why do we keep hearing them over and over after being soundly refuted? I keep hoping to find something new from creatonists in these debates, but to no avail.

Please provide some evidence of this vast conspiracy....If it exists there should be some evidence for it more than simple assertion by creationists.

All scientists have their work ridiculed. It is called peer review or a job/visiting lecture. They are quite vicious in some cases, but I'm unclear on why a creationist couldn't handle this process, but evolutionists can?