Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   why creation "science" isn't science
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 182 of 365 (3052)
01-29-2002 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by Cobra_snake
01-26-2002 2:58 PM


quote:
"Young Earth Creationism HAS been refuted about 200 years ago."
That's a pretty bold statement and it's also a baseless assertion.
Be careful. I do not generally assert that which I cannot back up.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/6040/flood21.htm
"By 1831, six years before Louis Agassiz presented his ideas on ice ages, geologists had been forced by the evidence to abandon their ideas that the deposits they had called "drift" had been formed by an earthwide flood. Almost to a man these geologists were deeply committed Christians, and they had called the deposits drift specifically because of their belief that they had drifted to their final resting places in the Flood. Science and Creationism explains
this in more detail:[275]
Flood geology was considered and tested by early-nineteenth-century geologists. They never believed that a single flood had produced all
fossil-bearing strata, but they did accept and then disprove a claim that the uppermost strata contained evidence for a single, catastrophic, worldwide inundation. The science of geology arose in nations that were glaciated during the great ice ages, and glacial deposits are similar to the products of floods. During the 1820s, British geologists carried out an extensive empirical program to test whether these deposits represented the action of a single flood. The work was led by two ministers, the Reverend Adam Sedgwick (who taught Darwin his geology) and the Reverend William Buckland. Buckland initially decided that all the "superficial gravels" (as these deposits were called) represented a single event, and he published his Reliquiae diluvianae (Relics of the Flood) in 1824. However, Buckland’s subsequent field work proved that the superficial gravels were not contemporaneous but represented several different events (multiple ice ages, as we now know). Geology proclaimed no worldwide flood but rather a long sequence of local events. In one of the great statements in the history of science, Sedgwick, who was Buckland’s close colleague in both science and theology, publicly abandoned flood geology and upheld empirical science in his presidential address to the Geological Society of London in 1831.
‘Having been myself a believer, and, to the best of my power, a propagator of what I now regard as a philosophic heresy, and having more than once been quoted for opinions I do not now maintain, I think it right, as one of my last acts before I quit this Chair, thus publicly to read my recantation.... ‘There is, I think, one great negative conclusion now incontestably established that the vast masses of diluvial gravel, scattered almost over the surface of the earth, do not belong to one violent and transitory period....
‘We ought, indeed, to have paused before we first adopted the diluvian theory, and referred all our old superficial gravel to the action of the Mosaic flood.... In classing together distant unknown formations under one name; in giving them a simultaneous origin, and in determining their date, not by the organic remains we had discovered, but by those we expected hypothetically hereafter to discover, in them; we have given one more example of the passion with which the mind fastens upon general conclusions, and of the readiness with which it leaves the consideration of unconnected truths.’

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Cobra_snake, posted 01-26-2002 2:58 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 183 of 365 (3054)
01-29-2002 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by TrueCreation
01-26-2002 3:09 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[B]"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.[/QUOTE]
Please provide an operational Theory of Creation, complete with positive evidence, testable hypotheses potential falsifications that have not already been falsified.
We can do all of these things with the ToE, but I have never seen anything remotely like it from the Creation "science" camp.
quote:
--The Flood of Noah does not at all have to be a result of divine intervention, or a spiritual being, ie God.
Why are flowering plants, trees & grasses found ONLY in the topmost layers, if all the fossils were laid down by the flood? Did they run for high ground?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by TrueCreation, posted 01-26-2002 3:09 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by TrueCreation, posted 01-29-2002 11:30 AM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 184 of 365 (3055)
01-29-2002 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by RetroCrono
01-27-2002 11:06 PM


quote:
Originally posted by RetroCrono:
[b]I haven't read through this whole topic but anyway, here's my two cents.
My grade 8 science teacher told me that science is the study of everything. This is the best definition I've ever had of science.[/QUOTE]
No disrespect to your 8th grade teacher, but this is not the best definition of science. Adequate for 8th-graders, maybe...
Here is a better one, and I suggest that you read the whole excerpt at the web site. Then you will learn something and will not continue to say uneducated, rather absurd things about what constitutes a scientific theory and what doesn't:
http://www.skepdic.com/science.html
"Science is first and foremost a set of logical and empirical methods which provide for the systematic observation of empirical phenomena in order to understand them. We think we understand empirical phenomena when we have a satisfactory theory which explains how the phenomena work, what regular patterns they follow, or why they appear to us as they do. Scientific explanations are in terms of natural phenomena rather than supernatural phenomena, although science itself requires neither the acceptance nor the rejection of the supernatural."
(FYI, 'emperical' means 'testable')
quote:
However, when taking part in science, this, as you all probably know do. You conceive a hypothesis (it doesn't have to be testable, the big bang is not testable, only on computer screens where by the results are designed, not tested. This isn't a real big bang!)
The Big Bang is not testable, but the predictions of what we will find in nature which are based upon the Big Bang theory are testable, and the results have tended to suport the validity of the theory.
quote:
You then get evidence to support your hypothesis then it becomes a theory. Simple! If the evidence contradicts the theory, get a new hypothesis. Creationist propose the Bible as there hypothesis, they then go out and gain evidence to make it a valid theory. Creation and ToE are the two best theories, if you dissaprove of one, jump ship and take on the other theory. Don't sit back and claim one of them isn't science.
Your definition of science is too simplistic and yet is what I thought science was when I was 14 years old, too.
There is no scientific "Theory of Creation", unless you would like to provide one.
I have been involved in these debates for years, and I have probably read a great deal more scientific, and also Creationist, literature and writing than you have, and I have never been shown a "Scientific Theory of Creation", no matter how long I have searched or how many Creationists I have asked for one.
quote:
I don't see how creation isn't science. It follows the best definition I've ever been given of science and also abides with the workings of a scientific model. What is so hard to undertand?
From:
http://www.skepdic.com/creation.html
Creation science is not science but pseudoscience. It is religious dogma masquerading as scientific theory. Creation science is put forth as being absolutely certain and unchangeable. It assumes that the world must conform to its understanding of the Bible. Where creation science differs from creationism in general is in its notion that once it has interpreted the Bible to mean something, no evidence can be allowed to change that interpretation. Instead, the evidence must be refuted.
Creation scientists are not scientists because they assume that their
interpretation of the Bible cannot be in error. They put forth their views as irrefutable. Hence, when the evidence contradicts their reading of the Bible, they assume that the evidence is false. The only scientific investigation they do is aimed at proving some evolutionary claim is false. Creation scientists see no need to test their theory, since God has revealed it. Infallible certainty is not the hallmark of science. Scientific theories are fallible. Claims of infallibility and the demand for absolute certainty characterize not science but pseudoscience."
[QUOTE]Everything in science starts of with a belief, no matter how straight forward (such as gravity) it seems, it is still just a belief.[/b]
A falsifiable, testable "belief" based upon observation, rather than a belief based solely upon religious faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by RetroCrono, posted 01-27-2002 11:06 PM RetroCrono has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Rookie, posted 01-29-2002 6:59 AM nator has not replied

  
Rookie
Inactive Member


Message 185 of 365 (3060)
01-29-2002 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by nator
01-29-2002 12:47 AM


You bring some great points to the table! I'm still learning about both evolution and creation myself. So I'm pretty neutral. You did say that creation requires faith to be believable if I"m not mistaken. But I respectfully ask that doesn't evolution require faith? I mean evolutionists increasingly talk like creationists in that they point to a fact but cannot provide an explanation of the means. I'm not attacking any side. I'm just asking honest questions to learn. Thanks for your time.
[This message has been edited by Rookie, 01-29-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by nator, posted 01-29-2002 12:47 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by mark24, posted 01-29-2002 7:43 AM Rookie has not replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 186 of 365 (3061)
01-29-2002 7:30 AM


Yes, I must say that is a very intelligent statement for a rookie! Don't let them persuade you otherwise. Evolution requires faith in an idea that we are all from a common ancestor. The mechanisms for this are rather unrealistic (in my opinion), but the mechanisms are even doubted by many prominent evoluitionists. Also, the skeptic file is a good read, but don't believe it unconditionally. The way it was written, it is clear that the writer was not an unbiased source. I tend to think science should be the attempt to find THE TRUTH. I don't see why a designer (God) is viewed as so unrealistic in the evolutionary camp. I suppose they think science is only the study of natural means, not supernatural means, but I think searching for the truth is more important than following an evolutionists guideline for science.
P.S. I have been busy recently, but I soon will reply to all of your posts.

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5194 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 187 of 365 (3062)
01-29-2002 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by Rookie
01-29-2002 6:59 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Rookie:
You bring some great points to the table! I'm still learning about both evolution and creation myself. So I'm pretty neutral. You did say that creation requires faith to be believable if I"m not mistaken. But I respectfully ask that doesn't evolution require faith? I mean evolutionists increasingly talk like creationists in that they point to a fact but cannot provide an explanation of the means. I'm not attacking any side. I'm just asking honest questions to learn. Thanks for your time.
[This message has been edited by Rookie, 01-29-2002]

Hi, Rookie, & welcome.
Faith, for the purposes of this argument means "strong belief in the doctrines of religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof". Now, there are other meanings of faith, but this is the contextual meaning of religious faith. It is creationists who say that evolution requires faith, what they are attempting to conflate is the meaning I gave above, with "faith" that the earth will turn tomorrow. This faith is based on observation, & IS NOT the same thing. They are trying to imply that evolution has no proof, when it does.
Tell me, what would you expect if a car hit you at 150 mph? Death, right? You probably have never seen someone be hit by a car at 150mph, but based on evidence (road safety tests, safety videos etc.), know that it is a very bad thing. So, do you have faith, in a religious context that you will die in this scenario? No, of course not. You are basing the premise on your own observations. But this is exactly the word game that is being played by creationists. They are taking two meanings of the same word & trying to roll them into one.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Rookie, posted 01-29-2002 6:59 AM Rookie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by TrueCreation, posted 01-29-2002 11:39 AM mark24 has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 188 of 365 (3069)
01-29-2002 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by nator
01-29-2002 12:19 AM


"Please provide an operational Theory of Creation, complete with positive evidence, testable hypotheses potential falsifications that have not already been falsified."
--I have given you very many of what the creationists theories on are the ice age, many mechenisms for the Flood of Noah, Carbon 14 Dating, Magnetic Reversals and variations in polarity, and more with potential falsifications and supportable evidence, if you seriously want me to give you a direct answer to this question, provide a much more specific one, as I am not ready to write a book on creationists hypothesi and theoretical applications.
"We can do all of these things with the ToE, but I have never seen anything remotely like it from the Creation "science" camp."
--Flowering plant material are found in coal deposits, coal deposits are found so far starting with the Carboniferous period, 230 million years before they supposedly evolved, and I believe right in there with gymnosperms. They are not found in strata, discluding their pollen because characteristic factors are brought into play.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by nator, posted 01-29-2002 12:19 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by joz, posted 01-29-2002 11:40 AM TrueCreation has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 189 of 365 (3070)
01-29-2002 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by mark24
01-29-2002 7:43 AM


"Faith, for the purposes of this argument means "strong belief in the doctrines of religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof". Now, there are other meanings of faith, but this is the contextual meaning of religious faith."
--Slightly correct in the religious boundary, ie including a supernatural entity in your calculation or hypothesis to prove it at the least feasable, but this does not apply to the evolution/creation discussion unless you are asking for the Creationists theory on the Origins of life and the Universe, as this requires faith obviously, as does the naturalistic causes of the universe and life, as since we know next to nothing on how it can happen, it requires a degree in faith. As for Evolutionary doctrine that simply states that all forms of life have a commen ancestor, this requires a degree in faith, no matter the evidence whether contredictory or supportive, there is faith somewhere in there, on a level of faith being used as a synonym (does look like my spelling is correct
) for a belief, as you must have to believe in quite a number of things for your explination to be logical.
"It is creationists who say that evolution requires faith, what they are attempting to conflate is the meaning I gave above, with "faith" that the earth will turn tomorrow. This faith is based on observation, & IS NOT the same thing. They are trying to imply that evolution has no proof, when it does."
--It simply has no proof of it actually happening, it has proof in different aspects I would believe for it to be possible, but nothing more.
"Tell me, what would you expect if a car hit you at 150 mph? Death, right? You probably have never seen someone be hit by a car at 150mph, but based on evidence (road safety tests, safety videos etc.), know that it is a very bad thing. So, do you have faith, in a religious context that you will die in this scenario? No, of course not. You are basing the premise on your own observations. But this is exactly the word game that is being played by creationists. They are taking two meanings of the same word & trying to roll them into one."
--Then if this is the problem, we need to discuss the meaning of faith, and how it applies to aspects on evolution and its origins as along with creationism and creation science.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by mark24, posted 01-29-2002 7:43 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by mark24, posted 01-29-2002 6:29 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 190 of 365 (3071)
01-29-2002 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by TrueCreation
01-29-2002 11:30 AM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
If you seriously want me to give you a direct answer to this question, provide a much more specific one.
I already have on the big bang or big dud thread...
I asked for a creationist model of the universes expansion that made incorperated both the Hubble red shift AND creation ex nihilo X thousand years ago (where X is of the close order of 10)...
Is that specific enough?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by TrueCreation, posted 01-29-2002 11:30 AM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by mark24, posted 01-29-2002 11:44 AM joz has not replied
 Message 192 by TrueCreation, posted 01-29-2002 11:47 AM joz has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5194 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 191 of 365 (3076)
01-29-2002 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by joz
01-29-2002 11:40 AM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
I already have on the big bang or big dud thread...
I asked for a creationist model of the universes expansion that made incorperated both the Hubble red shift AND creation ex nihilo X thousand years ago (where X is of the close order of 10)...
Is that specific enough?

TC,
Not to barge in on Joz's baby, but that extra galactic light has absorbtion lines, so your model needs to account for these as well.
In fact, it needs to account for equal to or more observations than the current BB.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by joz, posted 01-29-2002 11:40 AM joz has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 192 of 365 (3077)
01-29-2002 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by joz
01-29-2002 11:40 AM


"I already have on the big bang or big dud thread...
I asked for a creationist model of the universes expansion that made incorperated both the Hubble red shift AND creation ex nihilo X thousand years ago (where X is of the close order of 10)...
Is that specific enough?"
--Yes this is pretty much what I am looking for, you might get a very vague answer on this one, as piles of books would have been written on this one also, but to tell you the truth, I am going to wait untill I can get ahold of the book 'starlight and time' by Humphreys and then i'll answer it, as from such a question it requires me to know other creationist theories on the subject, as I would most likely end up claiming things totally wrong if I didn't know the material, cosmology and cosmogeny are recent interests of mine, as geology and geophysics has been relatively the most profound influence on my scientific knowledge and understanding.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by joz, posted 01-29-2002 11:40 AM joz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by joz, posted 01-29-2002 11:53 AM TrueCreation has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 193 of 365 (3078)
01-29-2002 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by TrueCreation
01-29-2002 11:47 AM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
I am going to wait untill I can get ahold of the book 'starlight and time' by Humphreys and then i'll answer it, as from such a question it requires me to know other creationist theories on the subject, as I would most likely end up claiming things totally wrong if I didn't know the material, cosmology and cosmogeny are recent interests of mine, as geology and geophysics has been relatively the most profound influence on my scientific knowledge and understanding.
OK bud I await your post...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by TrueCreation, posted 01-29-2002 11:47 AM TrueCreation has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-29-2002 12:32 PM joz has replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 194 of 365 (3080)
01-29-2002 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by joz
01-29-2002 11:53 AM


"I am going to wait untill I can get ahold of the book 'starlight and time' by Humphreys"
For those not already aware of this - there was a massive discussion of Humphreys' book at Percy's Yahoo: Evolution versus Creationism club, a while back. I for one, don't want to see it again.
Moose
------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by joz, posted 01-29-2002 11:53 AM joz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by joz, posted 01-29-2002 12:42 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 195 of 365 (3081)
01-29-2002 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Minnemooseus
01-29-2002 12:32 PM


what got said?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-29-2002 12:32 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by John Paul, posted 01-29-2002 4:20 PM joz has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 196 of 365 (3087)
01-29-2002 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by joz
01-29-2002 12:42 PM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
what got said?
John Paul:
Are you familiar with Humphreys book, Starlight and Time? He concludes that:
"The visible universe was once inside an event horizon (This means it was once either within a black hole or a white hole. We have seen that if it were inside a black hole, it would be contracting, which is not indicated by the evidence. Therefore
The visible universe was once inside a white hole. (It may, however, have commenced as a black hole before expansion started...) pg 24
As the event horizon was crossing Earth, billions of years or processes would be taking place outside of that event horizon and that God basically Created the universe using general relativity.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by joz, posted 01-29-2002 12:42 PM joz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by TrueCreation, posted 01-29-2002 4:24 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 198 by John Paul, posted 01-29-2002 4:30 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 202 by lbhandli, posted 01-29-2002 7:32 PM John Paul 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