why creation "science" isn't science

"OK, I am starting to become annoyed."
-- G-Whiz, likewize."We have observed evolution. We have observed speciation. I have linked to specific evidence. I have posted specific evidence. (goatsbeard)"
--I have already explained that this is exactly what we see, speciation! My word for speciation being variation. This is what we do see, and THIS is the Fact of evolution, this is the only implication that we can 'directly' observe and thus claim it as Fact. We do not see bacteria becomeing, anything but bacteria, we do not see dogs becomeing non-dogs, or cats producing non-cats, this is what we cannot observe, and is why a Heliocentric solar system is more suportive by 'observation'."Now, address these SPECIFIC evidences or STOP saying that we do not observe evolution."
--I have tried and tried again, seemingly unable to emphesize further, we do observe 'e'volution, but it is 'e'volution, ie speciation/variation. We need to observe 'E'volution for it to be more accurate than say the Heliocentric solar system."WHAT'S MORE, we cannot observe a heliocentric solar system, either. We infer it from the evidence."
--Now what is that evidence Schrafinator?"Um, I hate to break it to you, TC, but most Biologists pay little attention to Creationists."
--Isn't that what I told you? That it is not abundant, but that it is out there and it makes relevance."Creationists do a fine job of making themselves look bad all by their lonesomes."
--By what means? This would be an often portrayed assertion that is in great need of back-up, what is it creationist do 'a fine job of making themselves look bad'?"Young Earth Creationism HAS been refuted about 200 years ago."
--You mean back in the day when they would claim as evidence for evolution that there were hundreds of vastiges in your body? I highly speculate doubt on this assertion, and is once again in need of backing up evidence. I hold out well in these discussions of the aspects of science even as a slightly in-experienced debating/discussing creationist, especially in this forum."Now, wait a minute. You first said that scientists believe in what they do just to keep their jobs. Now you are saying that some scientists are forced to keep quiet their Creationist leanings in order to keep their jobs."
--I first did not say that 'scientists believe in what they do just to keep their jobs', scientists teach/educate/research evolutionary topics so they can keep their jobs. And I did not say that some scientists are 'forced' to keep quiet their Creationist leanings in order to keep their jobs, they want to do that so they can keep their jobs."Second, my husband and friends ARE biased against Creationism because they are biased IN FAVOR OF positive evidence."
--Then they don't know the chain that Creationism and positive evidence have. And you have been unable to show me that this is true."It has been explained to you several times that bias in favor of the evidence is something that is developed in scientists, yet you continue to misuse the word. Please stop doing so."
--How am I misusing the word? Bias should not be involved in the way scientists portray their ideas, evidence, and conclusions."Nope, it doesn't say that at all.What you propose is replacing a falsified scientific theory with an unscientific religious notion."
--Would you propose a feasable theory that evolution would be able to cooperate with 50,000 years from nothing to explain today's phenomena? Just the basic main Idea is what I would need."ID does not explain anything."
--For one, I think you missunderstand the argument of ID, and also, I don't think I made reference to the ID argument.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-26-2002]

"You still don't understand what peer review is all about.Peer review is part of the refutation process. "
--I didn't make relevance toward peer reviewed literature?"There are certain basic standards of competancy that a paper must possess before it is deemed worthy of publication in a professional journal. Some journals have very high standards, so getting your work into the more prestigious ones, like Nature and Science, which cover all fields, is a serious boost to a scientist's career, even if they only get in once."
--Science magazine refuses to higher Creationists, this is simmilar to the question I am asking you."You know all of those references that you see in the middle of scientific papers that look something like /Futyama, 1999/? They, reference the past, peer-reviewed work of this person as support of the current work.In this way, past work is used to support the work, or also past work is used to show how your own work could be wrong. In addition, past work pointed out to be wrong, according to your new evidence. all of this happens over many papers and much work from many people.Even the best papers by the most gifted scholars are generally returned from the review committee at least once for revisions.Letting in all papers, regardless of how poor the quality, would be like a publisher of a professional culinary journal letting anybody who wanted to submit recipes and techniques for publication without ever testing them to see if the recipes or techniques were any good or made sense."
--Ok, what makes this relevant to this discussion?"Do you think, for example, that the Theory of the Galactic Goat should be published in a scientific journal?"
--Ofcourse not."They may have something the call peer review, but it certainly isn't scientific peer review."
--So your one of the peer reviewers? You would have to be or know one of them to have this claim be true.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-26-2002]

"IMHO,creationism cannot exist in a religious vacuum...meaning that no one would come to the conclusion that the many geological and biological aspects of the world are the result of an all powerfull God if they had not been taught to believe this before hand. the main difference between Science and religion,which can be recognized in the creation vs evolution debate is that Science does not bother with the why...merely with the how,whereas creationist RELIGION starts off with the why(i.e. God created the earth for us because he loves us or want us to glorify him or whatever) and then go from there."
--You are associating a question irrelevant to the conversation on 'creation science' not creationism, as creationism is a higher hierarchy of creationist material, as being a creationist this includes your faith and the science and makes contrast. As creation science is purely science, thus in creation science it does nto start off with a why, but a what/when/how.------------------

"But the point is that creation "science" cannot exist by itself."
--But it does, and this baseless assertion gives no releveance untill someone can prove it right, which no one has done."Someone who was not taught about christian beliefs or other religious beliefs would not be a creationist. That someone would would not look at the strata say and conclude "oh this is the result of divine intervention"."
--The Flood of Noah does not at all have to be a result of divine intervention, or a spiritual being, ie God."And while it is true that they would not necessarely conclude it was the result of evolution either,they would likely come to that conclusion after studying other geological phenomenon. No amount of observing the world by someone ignorant of all religious beliefs would lead that someone to conclude to divine influence."
--Again, it does not have to be the result of divine influences, as I argue differntialy, and as long as you are directing this toward myself, it is baseless.-------------------

"So then you believe that if indeed there was a flood 4450 years ago,it could have been a completely natural phenomenon that happened say like an earth quake happens? You believe that it is possible that the alledged Flood was not a punishement send by God?"
--Indeed.------------------

"but wouldn't that belief be indirect contradiction with the Bible?"
--Not at all, how would it be a contrediction?------------------

"Because the Bible is quite clear on this. God said to Noah that mankind was filled with wickedness and that HE would destroy the world by drowning it in a flood. Now if you are saying that it is possibel that the flood may actually have had nothing to do with God whatsoever(i.e. it was not send by God at all),then you believe that it is possible for the Bible to be false?"
--This is not what I said, I am saying that the origin of the cause of the flood is God's doing, such as God making the earth so that it would come to the catastrophic event in this time. God said he is bringing floodwaters to destroy the earth, that means he did it, but he was using water to do it, thus he is the cause of the flood waters, and the flood waters is the cause of the scientific naturalism implications that it caused. This is surelly complementary. I believe that the bible is true, but I know that it is falsifi'able'.------------------

"I see. But why did you say that is was possible for the flood to be completely independant of God's will earlier?"
--I do make the implication and realization that it is fully possible for it to all have been purly a miracle, but as I discussed earlier, the evidence does not seem to cooperate with this, and personally, I think it very logical for God to make it evident that he placed judgement on the people of the day for their wickedness for our reminder.------------------

"I think you misunderstood what i said. I asked you earlier if you believed that it was possible for this aledged flood whom you say is supported by so many scientific evidence to be a purely natural phenomenon with no relation whatsoever to an outside will(i.e. God) as a causal effect and your reply was "INDEED". Then,when i point out that this would mean you believe it is possible for the Bible to be false,you said "NO IT DOESN'T" So i'm a little confused here..."
--I believe the bible is falsifi'able' not false. I just make the realization that God is an infinite God and he can do what he wants and could have done all of this to make it look like it is today all through pure miracles, but my argument is that the evidence says the contrary and on a personal level, I think it is near inconceivable, also then it would be outside the realm of science and would not be discussed. I say that God did not direct the Flood exactly, he directed its happening, ie the origin of its happening, preasure in the earths core or something of that nature he planned to happen when he created the world, or a meteor to hit the earth and cause this effect.-------------------

"Ok so then you dont believe that the flood could have been a completely natural phenomenon that occured purely by chance,like an earthquake. thanks for clearing that up."
--Yes I do believe it was 'purely' natural phenomena, but with the way you are reasoning, I would have to include the origin of life into the relevance of the possibility of evolution, thus pulling it back to a 'back to the drawing board' position.------------------

"the way i am reasoning is i give absolutely no consideration whatsoever to the why because there simply is no way to know about the why. My sole interest is the how. And if you cant demonstrate to me the existance of God,you cant use IT with me as a cause for your flood."
--Ok good, then lets discuss it this way, which is what we are discussing, the 'How' and I am fully open to this discussion. But I thought you just said your not considering the 'why' and then you wan't me to demonstrate the cause, the cause being the why.------------------

"I meant that for you...as far as i'm concerned,the Noachian world wide flood never happened so it cant have any cause. And this
will be my position until someone presents me with undeniable proof that it did...and by that I mean proof than can only be explained by a world wide flood."
--The first thing I would say is, proof, you will not find, evidence you will find, evidence that can only be explained by a world wide flood is plausable, as I have found throughout the ToE its always a matter of it could have happend this way too. Give me a specific aspect for the Flood to explain and I will attempt an explination.-------------------

"I'll give you three."
--Great "1- There are trees which have been identidied as being about 8000 years old through their rings. If there had been a world wide flood 4450 years ago,then the oldest living tree could only by 4449 years old."
--I have encountered this problem before, I wrote this short article a couple months back using many quotes.

quote:

---

Don Batten, Ph.D. :

​

'Tree ring dating (dendrochronology) has been used in an attempt to extend the calibration of carbon-14 dating earlier than historical records allow, but this depends on temporal placement of fragments d (from long-dead trees) using carbon-14 dating.'

​

Dendrochronology has been used in an attempts to extend the calibration of carbon-14 dating earlier than historical records allow. The oldest living trees, such as the Bristlecone Pines (Pinus longaeva) of the White Mountains of Eastern California, have been dated by counting tree rings at 4,900 years old. This would mean they pre-dated the Flood which occurred around 4,350 years ago, taking a straight-forward approach to Biblical chronology.

​

Recent research on seasonal effects on tree rings in other trees in the same genus, the plantation pine Pinus radiata, has shown that variation of up to five rings per year can be produced and extra rings are often indistinguishable, even under the microscope, from annual rings.

​

Don Batten :

​

'...evidence of false rings in any woody tree species would cast doubt on claims that any particular species has never in the past produced false rings. Evidence from within the same genus surely counts much more strongly against such a notion.'

​

Creationists have shown that the Biblical kind is usually larger than the ‘species’ and in many cases even larger than the 'genus'.

​

If you considering that the immediate post-Flood world, it would have been much wetter with less contrasting seasons until the Ice Age retreated, large quantities of extra growth rings would have been produced in the Bristlecone pines. Though extra rings are not produced today often because of the seasonal extremes. Taking this into account it is no wonder this would bring the age of the oldest living Bristlecone Pine into the post-Flood era.

​

Claimed older tree ring chronologies are dependent on the cross-matching of tree ring patterns of pieces of dead wood found near living trees. This procedure depends on temporal placement of fragments of wood using carbon14 dating, assuming straight-line extrapolation backwards of the carbon dating. Having placed the fragment of wood approximately using the 14C data, a matching tree-ring pattern is sought with wood that has a part with overlapping 14C age and that also extends to a younger age. A tree ring pattern that matches is found close to where the carbon ‘dates’ are the same. And so the tree-ring sequence is extended from the living trees backwards.

​

Though this may sound fairly reasonable, it is a circular reasoning process. It assumes that the approximately correct to linearly extimate the carbon ‘clock’ backwards. There are very good reasons to doubt this. The closer one gets back to the Flood the more inaccurate the linear estimation of te carbon clock will become, perhapsradically so. Conventional carbon-14 dating assumes that the system has been in equilibrium for tens or hundreds of thousands of years, and that 14C is thoroughly mixed in the atmosphere.

​

Now superficially this sounds fairly reasonable. However, it is a circular process. It assumes that it is approximately correct to linearly extrapolate the carbon ‘clock’ backwards. There are good reasons for doubting this. The closer one gets back to the Flood the more inaccurate the linear extrapolation of the carbon clock would become, perhaps radically so. Conventional carbon-14 dating assumes that the system has been in equilibrium for tens or hundreds of thousands of years, and that 14C is thoroughly mixed in the atmosphere. However, the Flood buried large quantities of organic matter containing the common carbon isotope, 12C, so the 14C/12C ratio would rise after the Flood, because 14C is produced from nitrogen, not carbon. These factors mean that early post-Flood wood would look older than it really is and the ‘carbon clock’ is not linear in this period (see The Answers Book, chapter 4).

​

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/tree_ring.asp

---

"2- The some glacier formation in the poles have been identified as being nearly 40 000 years in age. That kinda messes up the entire biblical time table,including the flood."
--I agree, this would mess it up, so to start, how did they date these glacier formations anyway?"There are civilisations,such as the Egyptians,the Babylonian/Sumerians,the Mayans and the Chinese which presents us with compelling historical evidence that their beginings date back AT LEAST well before 3000 BC...with no mention of any world wide flood in their historical records...which would mean that either the flood occured WELL BEFORE 2455 BC or it didn't happen at all. In fact,the Mayan calender represents very precisely that in 2012,we we be at the end of a mayan cycle...which lasts 26 000 years!"
--Mind if I can see this evidence? And possibly a reference to how they depict the relevance of the Mayan callender?------------------

"Umm, TC? Why do you go to such lengths regarding carbon dating when the example Ludvan gave you has nothing to do with it?"
--Well really, I didn't go to much of a lenth, it was a disk, a click, and a copy paste away, with ofcourse a quick refinition of the material. Besides--->'Claimed older tree ring chronologies are dependent on the cross-matching of tree ring patterns of pieces of dead wood found near living trees. This procedure depends on temporal placement of fragments of wood using carbon14 dating, assuming straight-line extrapolation backwards of the carbon dating. Having placed the fragment of wood approximately using the 14C data, a matching tree-ring pattern is sought with wood that has a part with overlapping 14C age and that also extends to a younger age. A tree ring pattern that matches is found close to where the carbon ‘dates’ are the same. And so the tree-ring sequence is extended from the living trees backwards.'-------------------

"The tree ring argument is considered to be valid by most scientists. Thas all i can say about it."
--So we withdraw Dendrochronological argument, once again this is the strenght of science, not its weakness, and doesn't give a fatal blow to any theory, though it is evident for the Dating of the Flood."The age of the glaciers were mesured by the amount of layers that form them."
--I understand what you are getting at now, well actually these aren't annual layers, I'm not sure whether they are seasonal/ cold,warm,cold,warm or whatnot of them, but I think cold/warm,cold/warm is a good one. There was a plane that went down called the 'lost squadron' in I believe in the 1940 in Greenland. When they went there to go get it, they found it was burried in hundreds of feet of ice, and when they went down there to get it they found numerous of these 'annual' ice layers, many hundreds of them, so they cannot be annual layers, I always wondered why they never tested this, ie plant some sort of device in the ice and come back a couple years later or something of that nature."As for the ancient civilisations,they all have historical records that goes back 3000 BC and since the Mayan cycle will end in 2012 and is 26000 long. so it stands to reason that this cycle began 25992 years ago...well before the stated date for the creation of earth according to the book of Genesis."
--I even remember reading of these records in my World History class, pretty much the same thing you are telling me now, though they never discussed these historical records accept that they go back to these dates or how they dated them."And there is good reason to believe this to be accurate,since the mayan calender is the most precise calender know to man..even more precise than the ones we use today,which are given a 1-5% error margin by historians. No historian has been able so far to find ANY fault with the mayan calender."
--What is this mayan calender? Is there a good article on it somewhere or a place it is discussed? I always get this and always wonder how they know that it shows events that took place in these times."I'm not saying that this automaticaly means that the Bible is wrong mind you but there is strong evidence to suggest that it is."
--I have yet to find it.------------------