why creation "science" isn't science

"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.------------------

"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."
--I was refering to when they are new and hasn't been falsified yet. I am still waiting for a descent answer to the reason a human skull was found in 212 million year old strata.------------------

"Please provide some evidence of this vast conspiracy....If it exists there should be some evidence for it more than simple assertion by creationists."--Dean Kenyon of Stanford University was a strong supporter of Evolution, he wrote books on evolution, he got converted and wrote the book 'pandas and people'. They tried to fire him, but they couldn't so they made him a lab assistant. Theres alot of censorship in any kind of teaching in contrast with creationism or creation science in universities and various science magazines. Dispite this, I think 'conspiracy' wouldn't be much of a correct word usage in the context.------------------

"All scientists have their work ridiculed. It is called peer review or a job/visiting lecture."
--Yes and this should be the strong point of science, and it is, and in any case should be recognized as so."They are quite vicious in some cases, but I'm unclear on why a creationist couldn't handle this process, but evolutionists can?"
--The ratio of creationists and evolutionists teaching in universities would be somewhat of a simmilarity of these forums or much more, about one creationist for ever so many evolutionists. And as you recognize throughout these forums, I wouldn't point anyone out, but you sense much 'bias' if the word should be used in the context, against a creationists response when they feel they have adiquately refuted their statements. Now there is no moping or groaning or crying or bickering (hopefully, I have seen bickering in some live debates), but there is bias against. There are so many scientists making millions of dollars doing research on the evolution topic, what would happen evolution were somehow absolutely disproved without a reasonable doubt, or even there be a recognizable strong influence or comback on the creationists side. I didn't know much anything about the creationists viewpoints untill a couple years ago, and is seldom given reference to in articles and essays and constantly attempting refutation while doing simply a poor job.------------------

"I'm sorry, I missed the cite to that finding. Please provide"
--Hm.. Im not sure if its in this forum or another one.. oh well, this is it, http://www.edconrad.com and I am refering to the 'man as old as coal' article, at the bottom of each page there is a continue so there are I believe 4 pages, not all exhasperating reading but consists of many pictures.------------------

"Kenyon was at San Francisco State, he was not fired, but removed from teaching an intro class on biology and reassigned to teaching labs not made a lab assistant."
--What is your source? Though I would believe that your source was more accurate than mine, as mine was a comment made in a debate. I would still assert my position on bias against creationists, as is still acknowledgable."What Kenyon was introducing into the classroom is questionable at best. He tried to teach ID, but the problem is there is no scientific work that supports ID. He is teaching a science class and in doing so is introducing a "theory" that has no peer reviewed work supporting it and indeed no empirical support.The stunning thing is that the committee on academic freedom found for him. While academic freedom is a wonderful, it seems to have gone too far here. Kenyon was free to do research as he saw fit--he just was limited from teaching concepts that have no supporting scientific work. Cite a peer reviewed piece that he could have been basing these lectures on ID?You seem to have found a perfect example of how creationists are allowed to carry out research in the academy, though teaching isn't allowed because there isn't any research to base it upon. And even then there was support to allow him to teach the Intro class from the university's committee on academic freedom and the AAUP."
--Reference, i'd be interested.------------------

"Actually, I am guessing the ratio is even greater in favor of those who accept evolution is science departments. They are scientists after all and they use the scientific method. Something no one has demonstrated creationists are capable of using."
--Have I not demonstrated so? I look forward to rebutals and encourage further discussion on any topic regardless of what creationist aspect it refutes, sure I am more excited when It is the other way around, but unbias is knowledge."The problem with your claim is that it claims that the overwhelming support for evolution is biology and other scientific departments is due to bias that is unfounded. The bias is a result of studying the issue and as such is not an untested assumption, but an inference derived from the evidence. Creationism isn't an issue in biology departments because there is no scientific theory related to it. It is a religious position held by conservative Protestants primariy in the United States."
--There is absolutely nothing that you can observe in biology that I would disagree with, its the conclusions they draw, such as saying this is something new, when its a variant, or if you do this thousands of times it will evolve into something else."You have made the assertion that this is the result of some bias that exists out there, but offered no evidence that creationists are being judged on anything but the merits of their position."
--As I pointed out I was refering to the forums in here, as in contrast to the universities, not everybody sertainly but there are people out there that push against creation science because of their bias, though there are also honest 'seakers of truth' as i call them, that back up anything that is scientific and don't allow bias to interfere with the way they deal with creationists."After all, if their position is unable to tell us anything about the natural world, it isn't going to be represented in science."
--This is exactly what creation science does, it deals with reality and the real world, no one has been able to show me this is wrong."You assert that biologists are wrong, but ignore the obvious conclusion when discussing the scientific consensus that the consensus exists because of the evidence."
--The interperetations biologists may make will make contrast with what they feel the evidence points to, it is in need of human interperetation, thus I disagree with nothing you can observe in biology, on the other hand, I do disagree with the conclusions given by them."Complaining about the consensus is rather irrelevant unless you can enter into a discussion of the theory and the evidence."
--which is exactly what happens, discussion, converstaion and exposition on the topical theory."The first step in claiming that creationism is scientific would be to provide a scientific theory of creation."
--Creationism, that is, contributing all the aspects of the biblical creationist, is sertainly unscientific. Creation science I see as the science involved in it. It seems you are asking for a scientific explination of origins, which automatically exits the realm of science, science cannot explain origins, we know next to nothing to explain it by any natural process."Scientists in universities are making millions of dollars on this issue? ROTFL---you are deluded. Research scientists are comfortable, but they are not making millions of dollars. A few like Gould or Dawkins might, but that would be based on their popular writings as much as anything else."
--Correct, I wouldn't interperet my assertion on the whole scientific community, heck, some of them are striving to get a descent pay or a job in the least. The 'leading' people and the ones working under them are who I would be refering to."If a scientist were able to provide key falsifications to evolution they would win fame and a good deal of fortune starting with the Nobel Prize."
--I heard this exact assertion in a debate with I believe Dr. Gould with Kent Hovind, actually what was quite interesting is that Gould displayed quite a lack of understanding of the theories in creationism, thus the statement is unsurprizing."What is especially strange about your claim though is that if biology was operating by this sort of system, why would it still be producing so many results? If, as you claim, biology is simply following a herd mentality instead of the evidence, why is biology making so many breakthroughs? Shouldn't the system be breaking down according to your claims? If the scientific method relies on evidence and inference, how could it work so well in most areas, but be ignored in another?"
--As I would emphesize that I would disagree with nothing that biology observes and sometimes even predicts, in biology, evolution technically happens, evolution as change, bacteria are a very large area of biological study and has brought out many breakthroughs and results, though it makes no relevance to whether 'E'volution has happend on a macro scale. It would change no inference if Creationists were opperating the table."Again this is an assertion that is based on the unsupported claim that creationism is a scientific alternative."
--Creation science is scientific, but technically isn't an alternative because it is simply science that was given a name so that people would realize there is another interperetation of the facts."Conversely, and by any reasonable conclusion, one might just understand that evolution is the best theory that fits the evidence. To make this claim you must first address how creationism is scientific and then show how evolution fails."
--Can it be observed, or mathematically tested and experimented on with contrast to reality? Then it is science. Can it not be observed and/or is based upon assumption(s) and ignore further evidence, or claim anything irrelevant without reason or explination? Then it isn't science.
--It would depend on what evolution your talking about, that evolution happens is a fact to a degree, that it is what is responsible for our origins out of nothing/non-living material/ or the origin of humans from apelike ancestors and the like, is not purely scientific, and shouldn't be treated as so, it cannot be observed, or experimented on.------------------

"How can I rebut something that is not formalized?"
--Ask for emphesis, as I need it all the time."And what does "unbias is knowledge" mean?"
--Unbias is knowledge is my short phrase that simply states that with an unbias and open mind, you will gain real knowledge, if you are in the discussion with a bias mind, you will gain nothing no matter what is refuted. It means that discussion on a topic such as this should include all scientific aspects to come to any conclusive idea."Except that in science there must be potential falsifications for a theory. What are they for creationism?"
--What theory would you like me to attempt to explain? And yes, as many as there are that say that creation theories (need they accept that there is any) cannot be falsified, there are many falsifiabilities, as I am beginning to discuss in the forum 'uniformitarianism'."Then why are you not able to provide a theory? Or even better, why not identify a finding that creationists have discovered in modern biology using a creationist theory?"
--http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000067.html restate the question here and ask me or any other creationist to provide a theory on a specific topic, not like theory of geology, or theory of the flood, or theory on cosmology, etc."That is nice. However, those interpretations come with potential falsifications. Please address them for evolution and provide them for creationism."
--An enterperetation on what specific problem? http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=1&t=67&p=1"So explain the history and diversity of life on Earth. That is what evolution does. How does creation science do it?"
--'e'volution from a common ancestor, take dogs for instance, there are hundreds of kinds of dogs, they all had a common ancestor, its a Dog. Take bacteria for instance (these would be producing variants since the fall or the start of creation) they all had a common ancestor, it was bacteria. http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=1&t=67&p=1"And you are still deluded. While science professors do better than say those in the social sciences for some unexplicable mis prioritization, they aren't making millions of dollars."
--Ok I think I will withdraw this argument whether it is good for my side or good for your side, I think we are running into a brick wall from my wording. I probley shouldn't have said millions of dollars, as there are very very few, if any that make such a load. I would re-emphesize that they simply make...alot of money, mabye not millions, but thousands, some few hundreds of thousands. Some even get more up there from grants do do research. I think this argument isn't going too far."How can he be familiar if it isn't a formal theory. Perhaps you should identify the theory with a clear explanation of what it explains and what it does not. This should include testable hypotheses, confirming evidence and potential falsifications and not previously have been falsified."
--Which theory would you like, there are a wide veriety just as evolution has on various topics, and various theories on single topics. http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=1&t=67&p=1"As I would emphasize you are completely confused about how science works. Science is about making inferences. If you want to say all inferences are relative, you are not partaking in science. Inferences are made to interpret the evidence. Those interpretations have to be able to be falsified. Saying that two mutually exclusive positions are okay to have around, is saying that science cannot make any conclusions reliably and therefore science is irrelevant. ... Science makes inferences based on the evidence and if it can't do it reliably, it wouldn't be any more reliable in one are than in another."
--Excuse my incorrect wording ( It would make no 'difference') If I was not partaking in science, I would be unable to discuss and debate with you."An operating table has little to do with biology in where the discoveries are coming from."
--An operating table as an analogy."So what is the scientific theory of creationism? Or a theory that falls under that model? You seem completely oblivious to the fact that if there are alternative models, we can test those models based on their implications and determine which is more accurate. So far, there is no way to test creationism according to you because it fits all of the facts and all of the potential facts even."
--http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000067.html restate the question here and ask me or any other creationist to provide a theory on a specific topic, not like theory of geology, or theory of the flood, or theory on cosmology, etc."Yes, evolution can be observed and especially specific features of biology can be tested that fit with evolution. And they have been tested. How about creationism?Science relies on observations. Those observations aren't necessarily experiments, but tests of the implications of a theory. In the case of humans and chimps, given what we know of genetics, they should share more common genetic traits that are non-functional if they share a common ancestor. And surprise, they do. Evolution explains this, how does creationism?"
--Yes creationism uses this same scientific methodology, further discussion on what creation science has can be discussed here --> http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=1&t=67&p=1 as you have repeatedly asked for discussion to lean towad this question.-------------------

---

This message is a reply to:
	Message 107 by lbhandli, posted 01-21-2002 10:28 PM		lbhandli has not replied

---

Reply    Peek

"Do you fault scientists as biased for overwhelmingly accepting the evidence for the Germ Theory of Disease, or the Atomic Theory of Matter, or the Theory of a Heliocentric Solar System? The ToE has at least as much evidence, and in some cases MORE evidence, to support it than any of these theories."
--The ToE does not have the evidence that a Heliocentric Solar system has, as we cannot observe 'E'volution. All we see is bacteria today and bacteria tomorrow, cats today, and cats tomorrow, they seem to be gaining nothing, if my assertion is wrong, I would be most interested in seeing it as so."Do you think that scientists "believe" in these theories just to keep their jobs? You must have a very low opinion of the integrity of scientists, then. As my husband is a scientist and many of my friends are, as well, I take issue with your baseless characterization."
--I sertainly don't, as many scientist out there are 'seakers of truth' and arent just evolutionists ready to make creationists look bad whenever they can. But this does not mean bias is out there, in some it is very negative, some think that creationism has already been refuted so, interen, evolution is the right-of-way. I would not use the word 'belief' as many scientists may not believe in evolution and some may even be creatinists, but they work in that area and they would like to keep their Jobs. I would not assert your friends and your husband as being bias against anything creationists have to say or provide, I would simply say that it is out there."You seem to have a very strange view of how science is done. Science is very, very contentious. Careers are often made when old theories held to be very important and solid are refined and changed. Like Einstein did with Newton.Presenting your work to your peers is a harrowing experience if you don't have your act together, as there are competing ideas all the time, and those holding these other viewpoints will grill you on yours. (it's harrowing even if you know your stuff, actually) Consensus is reached over time, with repeated observations. Eventually, we get nearer and nearer to reality."
--This is not my view at all of how science is done, as I have emphesized in my posts that this is not the weakness of science, but the strenght through refining, and subjecting theories to various tests to claim feasability or factual agreement."Also, the ToE could be completely falsified tomorrow, but it wouldn't make Creationism correct IN THE SLIGHTEST."
--I would agree it would not make Creationism correct in the slightest, I never proposed this to be the case. But take for instance, the age of the earth has been reduced to 50,000 years maximum, Evolution if not completely abandoned would have to be absolutely and utterly refined to even be a guess. I think most people would agree that if everything is only 50,000 years old, there would have to have been a creation, thus a creator. This does not say anything to the Creationist accept that their theory is stronger in say the dating methods and other various aspects of science."Positive evidence is nowhere to be found for Creationism. Creationism is not testable, as it makes no predictions and is not falsifiable."
--Where do you come by in this claim? Whats an example, as no one has been able to show me why creationism 'is not testable, and it makes no predictions and is not falsifiable.' The question of the theories creation science has to explain phenomena we see today I am continueing a discussion in the 'positive evidence of creationism' forum, present your case there and present specific arguments."I have said this many times without ANY comment from Creationists."
--Without any comment? I have numerously commented on these, and whether you would disagree or not, let us continue in this question in the ''positive evidence of creationism' as I believe you would be most fundementally interested in participating.------------------

"There is bias against BAD WORK, yes. All peer review does is to check the logic, methodology, and mathematical accuracy of a paper. If all the numbers, logic, and methods checked out on a paper, it might well be published. The people reviewing the paper don't always agree with the premise or conclusions of the paper, and this is not a reason to reject it for publication. IOW, there are "out there" ideas that get published as long as the work is good."
--There should be no bias, period, especially against bad work, as it speeks for itself when adiquatelly refuted, showing bias against lowers you to a lower level. If I created an extreamly popular creation magazine and refused to higher you as an evolutionist, would you not say I am being biased?"Oh, and one does not have to be a professional scientist to publish papers in scientific journals. Anyone who follows correct methodology and has relevent data to put forth may publish. OTOH, there are several people with advanced science degrees which work at the ICR and CRS. They rarely even bother to submit work to peer-reviewed journals."
--Yes I am aware of that, and I would even be honored myself to be published in say CRS or ICR's peer reviewed technical literature, though I would be weary from my experience, though it is much, it seems unadiquate as I discover new things every day."ROTFLMAOPIMP!!!!! I am truly laughing so hard that I have tears in my eyes here!! LOLOLOLOL!!
--Um....ok dont' hurt yourself there now uh..buddy. "Most university Biologists do not make very much money, dear. We are talking in the tens of thousands of dollars for most of them. You don't even get into six figures unless you are ver important in the field. Sure, there are people like Gould who make more, but they are rare, and I would say that he makes most of his money through popular press books, not from Harvard.Every graduate student must struggle with the choice between going into industry, where they won't be able to research what they want to but will make more money, and in staying on the university track, where he will have more intellectual freedom, but will not make much money.The reason, at the end of the day, that Biology and science is supported over Creationism is because of science's enormous predictive power. Cerationism has no predictive power, because it makes no predictions which haven't been falsified."
--My same response would be the same as my response to lbhandli in my post #136. This assertion is causeing far too much pointless trouble.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-25-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-25-2002]

"Here is a list of 29 evidences for "mcro" evolution, complete with potential falsifications:"
--It would be great to discuss this link, but I must emphesize, that It would be exhasperating for me to comment on anything in there, select one of their 'evidences' and we can discuss it's validity.-------------------