Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   why creation "science" isn't science
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 365 (2597)
01-21-2002 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by TrueCreation
01-21-2002 3:18 AM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--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.
That assumption has been tested, however. You have not addressed the evidence for evolution with any substance other than to insist it is all an assumption. Why don't you specifically address a problem with evolution instead of insisting there are problems (in a different thread).
quote:
"And it is irrelevant to the question of whether or not there is evidence that falsifies evolution."
--This is the question he was asking.
Again, this might be better suited for another thread, but please provide any alleged falsifications with full citations to the literature.
quote:
"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.
Argument by assertion. The onus is on you to provide a scientific theory of creation or concerning some aspect of "creation science" that is testable, has confirming evidence, has potential falsifications, and has not been falsified. Claiming it to be true is different than demonstrating such a thing. This would be the appropriate place to demonstrate it.
quote:
"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.
The conspiracy you are claiming exists throughout the entire scientific community.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by TrueCreation, posted 01-21-2002 3:18 AM TrueCreation has not replied

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 365 (2598)
01-21-2002 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by TrueCreation
01-21-2002 3:23 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[B]"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. [/QUOTE]
Such as? Could you be specific? This again is an assertion with no support. The literature for evolution is quite vast, why don't you pick an example from it?
quote:
Also evolution has an abundance of theories, using different ones you can get a vast veriety on the way evolution has taken place.
Cite these different theories with specific literature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by TrueCreation, posted 01-21-2002 3:23 AM TrueCreation has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 365 (2602)
01-21-2002 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by edge
01-21-2002 11:00 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by edge, posted 01-21-2002 11:00 AM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by lbhandli, posted 01-21-2002 1:05 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 365 (2603)
01-21-2002 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by lbhandli
01-21-2002 11:13 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by lbhandli, posted 01-21-2002 11:13 AM lbhandli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by lbhandli, posted 01-21-2002 1:38 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 365 (2606)
01-21-2002 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by lbhandli
01-21-2002 11:15 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by lbhandli, posted 01-21-2002 11:15 AM lbhandli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by lbhandli, posted 01-21-2002 1:53 PM TrueCreation has replied
 Message 111 by nator, posted 01-22-2002 1:29 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 365 (2607)
01-21-2002 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by TrueCreation
01-21-2002 12:36 PM


I'm sorry, I missed the cite to that finding. Please provide

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by TrueCreation, posted 01-21-2002 12:36 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Cobra_snake, posted 01-21-2002 1:34 PM lbhandli has replied
 Message 102 by TrueCreation, posted 01-21-2002 7:57 PM lbhandli has replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 365 (2611)
01-21-2002 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by lbhandli
01-21-2002 1:05 PM


quote:
Originally posted by lbhandli:
I'm sorry, I missed the cite to that finding. Please provide
Hey buddy, you need to chill out. TrueCreation shouldn't have to single-handedly find citations for reasons why all of your excuses are invalid. You should simply use logic and common sense.
Logic and common sense tell you that scientists (being man) have flaws. One of the flaws just may include bias. Why is it so hard for you to understand that scientists are likely to be biased?
I openly admit that Creationists are biased (including myself). The fact that most evolutionists pretend that they are unaffected by the temptation of bias only discredits them further.
And I am still unclear as to how the "scientific method" washes clean all of the affects of bias.
I don't think you understand how easy it is to be biased towards evolution. Since most of the evidence scientists have is based on inferences of what occured in the past, it is easy to twist ideas to match your theory. Obviously, Creationists are similarly capable of twisting the facts. Therefore, one must choose which bias to be biased under: the Creationist model or the evolutionists model.
Given current knowledge it seems very respectable to be biased under the Creation model.
By the way TrueCreation: I think you are doing an excellent job debating.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by lbhandli, posted 01-21-2002 1:05 PM lbhandli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by lbhandli, posted 01-21-2002 2:09 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 99 of 365 (2612)
01-21-2002 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by TrueCreation
01-21-2002 12:56 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--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.
Could you please attempt to make a modest effort to get basic facts down?
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 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.
The big question is, where is the theory of creationism?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by TrueCreation, posted 01-21-2002 12:56 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by TrueCreation, posted 01-21-2002 8:04 PM lbhandli has replied

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 100 of 365 (2615)
01-21-2002 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by TrueCreation
01-21-2002 1:03 PM


quote:
"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.
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.
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.
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. After all, if their position is unable to tell us anything about the natural world, it isn't going to be represented in science. You assert that biologists are wrong, but ignore the obvious conclusion when discussing the scientific consensus that the consensus exists because of the evidence. Complaining about the consensus is rather irrelevant unless you can enter into a discussion of the theory and the evidence. The first step in claiming that creationism is scientific would be to provide a scientific theory of creation.
quote:
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,
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.
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.
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?
quote:
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.
Again this is an assertion that is based on the unsupported claim that creationism is a scientific alternative. 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.
Cheers,
Larry

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by TrueCreation, posted 01-21-2002 1:03 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by TrueCreation, posted 01-21-2002 8:33 PM lbhandli has replied

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 101 of 365 (2616)
01-21-2002 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Cobra_snake
01-21-2002 1:34 PM


quote:
Hey buddy, you need to chill out. TrueCreation shouldn't have to single-handedly find citations for reasons why all of your excuses are invalid. You should simply use logic and common sense.
No, you need to understand what sort of discussion is occuring. He made a specific claim regarding the finding of a fossil that would be problematic for evolution. I asked for a citation supporting that find. What exactly is unreasonable in asking for that? The claim is one of evidence and therefore logic and common sense are rather hard to use without some evidence to discuss that is nothing more than an assertion at this point.
quote:
Logic and common sense tell you that scientists (being man) have flaws. One of the flaws just may include bias. Why is it so hard for you to understand that scientists are likely to be biased?
I have not said they are not biased, now have I? What I have been saying, rather frequently, is that bias is a product of the scientific method. Let's say one is going to test a hypothesis. The test is done and the evidence fits the hypothesis. What does one conclude from the test then?
Generally one would conclude that the hypothesis is correct at least until further testing. This is a bias. This is a good bias in relation to the scientific method. Getting up and yelling that one is biased in discussing scientific work is rather silly. Of course, people are biased, otherwise they would have nothing to report.
The absurd way the term bias has come to be used in our society seems to rest on the assumption that no one should ever conclude anything or they may be called bias. Any rational and productive humans beings are biased based on the evidence and conclusions based on that evidence. Saying a scientist is biased is the most self-evident claim I have ever heard because if a scientist wasn't biased, they wouldn't be doing scientific work.
The point of the scientific method is to determine how the world works. In doing so, one must develop a bias or one isn't doing science.
quote:
I openly admit that Creationists are biased (including myself). The fact that most evolutionists pretend that they are unaffected by the temptation of bias only discredits them further.
Nothing has discredited them yet so I'm unclear on your further reference. Perhaps you would like to discuss the scientific theory of creation.
quote:
And I am still unclear as to how the "scientific method" washes clean all of the affects of bias.
Given your use of the term bias, I have no idea how it is relevant. However, the scientific method does require that one identify tests and carry them out as well as potential falsifications. Perhaps you would like to identify observations that would be potential falsifications of creationism?
quote:
I don't think you understand how easy it is to be biased towards evolution. Since most of the evidence scientists have is based on inferences of what occured in the past, it is easy to twist ideas to match your theory.
Such as?
quote:
Obviously, Creationists are similarly capable of twisting the facts. Therefore, one must choose which bias to be biased under: the Creationist model or the evolutionists model.
Or use the scientific method to identify testable hypotheses and test the models. This is the point after all. Of course, we would have to have a scientific theory of creation to test first.
Cheers,
Larry

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Cobra_snake, posted 01-21-2002 1:34 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 365 (2629)
01-21-2002 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by lbhandli
01-21-2002 1:05 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by lbhandli, posted 01-21-2002 1:05 PM lbhandli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by lbhandli, posted 01-21-2002 10:06 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 365 (2630)
01-21-2002 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by lbhandli
01-21-2002 1:38 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by lbhandli, posted 01-21-2002 1:38 PM lbhandli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by lbhandli, posted 01-21-2002 10:12 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 365 (2632)
01-21-2002 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by lbhandli
01-21-2002 1:53 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by lbhandli, posted 01-21-2002 1:53 PM lbhandli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by lbhandli, posted 01-21-2002 10:28 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 365 (2643)
01-21-2002 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by TrueCreation
01-21-2002 7:57 PM


Ed Conrad is your reference? ROTFL---a full blown, out right net kook is probably not the best reference. Hell, he even has his own usenet group--I'm not even sure if Wollman has that.
Of course, Ed is a full blown, out-right net kook who has also been repeatedly refuted.
http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/t_origins/carbbones/carbbones.html
Andrew Macrae actually took some time in doing so and Ed has blabbered on for some time about Andrew's incompetence, though he has never offered anything to refute Andrew.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by TrueCreation, posted 01-21-2002 7:57 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 106 of 365 (2644)
01-21-2002 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by TrueCreation
01-21-2002 8:04 PM


http://posh.roundearth.net/90's.htm
http://www.megabaud.fi/~tsand/miscevo.html
The Wall Street Journal was the original source of the top article. Tero kept a series of posts on it as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by TrueCreation, posted 01-21-2002 8:04 PM TrueCreation 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