why creation "science" isn't science

"here a short article about the end of the mayan calender."
--I read it, its great and all, but it does not at all answr my question. My question is how do we know that say the mayans began 3115 BC is it by oral tradition? Historical documents? Radiometric Dating? What is it? They even themselves make reference to my question but never discuss how they got this date:

quote:

---

...and thereafter the National Cycle began (3115 BC) when the first nations were formed, we started writing and the first pyramids were built...

---

------------------

"We know that according to Mayan writings,their calender lasts for 26000 years,divided into 5 cycles of equal lengh. From that,we can only infer that there is a reason why the mayan Calender is build that way and the obvious logical conclusion is that it began 25990 years ago."
--Seems logical, though incorrect if you look at what it is based on such as is evident by this very quote in the link you gave me:

quote:

---

The Sun has not conjoined the Milky Way and the plane of the ecliptic since some 25,800 years ago, long before the Mayans arrived on the scene...

---

"And if in fact it did begin 25990 years ago,then the world is at least 25990 years old and not merely 6000 like the Bible says."
--Not the best conclusion to lean towards."Of course,it could be that the Mayan just picked that number out of the clear blue sky for some obscure reason but the fact that their calender is otherwise incredibly precise does lend some credence to their claims."
--So far, I can agree, their callender is quite amazing, though it does not at all seem to be based on a 'number out of the clear blue sky for some obscure reason'.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-27-2002]

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

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

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

"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. ThereforeThe visible universe was once inside a white hole. (It may, however, have commenced as a black hole before expansion started...) pg 24As 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."
--Gotta get that book I ordered it 2 weeks ago, it should be here any day now, I was actually expecting it today It might get here late, but untill then i'd be happy to discuss another creationist theory.------------------

"TC...on my new thread,you implied that i did not understand the world wide flood...what exactly did you mean by this...what did i not understand?"
--You didn't understand, I would not accuse you of purposfully missunderstanding, or ignoring, but you seem to be well attached to what you believe in now, and thus rejecting the mechenisms for the flood whether I prove it feasable or not, I have found a few but not many contredictions in your posts towards me also, as It seems I am changing your views on different aspects but then seem to want to ignore it. The mechenisms for the flood are what you don't seem to want to swallow, I would be very happy to further discuss the various implications of the flood.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-30-2002]

"What "different conclusions" are they going to come up with, other that the "Biblical perspective" they already have going into the study?"
--interperetation is something you will see all throughout the debate, we see things in a different interperetation, for example, dating methods, you would say that these give you dates, we say they give you measurements, not dates, strata, you say that they were deposited over millions of years being why they are so uniform and contain fossils displaying evolutionary time scales, we say that thes signify a Massive flood of a Global scale, etc."What if the creation scientists discover that that earth wasn't created in 6 days, isn't quite young, etc.?"
--Then we've got a problem."Just like the Rev. Adam Sedgewick did, many years ago."
--Argument from athority doesn't really work too well.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-30-2002]

"Well that was a nice tap dance number on your part to avoid answering a simple question...very creationist-like."
--A vague question gets a vague answer."There have been absolutely no contradiction in my posts reguarding your arguments,most of which i have allready pointed out to be irrevocably flawed."
--Why can't you prove their flaws then? As I have shown otherwize."Allow me to point out one exemple among many."
--Great, lets do that."The other day,i told you that your Bible was quite clear on the fact that every land dwelling things and every foil(flying creatures) not in the Ark perished. You went on about a one day experiment with leaves,insects and swimming pool and tried to equate that to an aproximation of the biblical flood to show that insects could have riden out the flood and answered every one of my very logical counterpoints with your usual groundless "but things were different back then"...well here you go,strait out of the book of Genesis..."
--Genesis is extreamly clear that only everything outside the ark that breaths through lungs and walks on the ground perished, nothing else completely died out. Obviously things were different back then, I hope you can agree with this, and is evident that they were, 900 pound beavers, etc. As for your 'well here you go,strait out of the book of Genesis..."'. I really don't know what your talking about."007:022 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was
in the dry land, died."
--Yup sure did."007:023 And EVERY LIVING SUBSTANCE was destroyed which was upon the
face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and THE CREEPING
THINGS, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed
from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that
were with him in the ark."
--Amen "Cant get any clearer than that...not only were those whose nostril were the breath of life but EVERYTHING that dwelled on land..."
--Pretty close, the bible says everything that has the breath of life And dwelled on the earth died.------------------

"And science is designed to choose between different interpretations."
--Not exactly right, science tells us what we are viewing, ie science tells us we have so much of a quantity of radioisotopes in a given sample, science tells us their decay rate, science tells us many other things about the world, what we do is say what this means, ie the interperetation."This isn't a postmodern enterprise. Saying you have a different interpretation is rather irrelevant. What is relevant is whether your 'interpretation' stands up to being tested."
--Sure is.------------------

"you're just concentrating on the first paragraphe while completely ignoring the second...those are two different description of what occured...not one and the same. meaning everything with the breath of life AND everything that creeps on the earth AND every foil in the air."
--No I am taking both into consideration, and they both say the same thing, elaborated more in one though."All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was
in the dry land, died."
--Between '...the breath of life', and 'of all that...' it is a run-on sentence, simple english grammer, it is a continuation of the sentence, thus including both those in whose nostrils was the breath of life and was on the dry land.------------------"And EVERY LIVING SUBSTANCE was destroyed which was upon the
face of the ground"

"Congratulations. You have just changed the scientific method. Of course, you are completely wrong, and in a manner that is astounding.Science is a method that infers from tests of hypotheses. Those tests seek out evidence to confirm or falsify the hypothesis. You seem to be redefining it as a collection of facts. This is simply incorrect. The scientific method is specifically designed to determine what fits the evidence best. Any claim to the contrary is silly."
--I would be to disagree with this being what science is, as this seems to be lower on the hierarchy of the definition of science, as science does infact tell us these things, what we do is make a hypothesis, a hypothesis is not science, a hypothesis is 'scientific', not direct science. For the scientific method you would be completely right, but not for what science is in its foundation.------------------

"The radiometric record of the sample functions as a clock,if you have the ability of how to read it. It's a clock than can malfunction or be misused. Just like reading a book, except in a different language. Creationist may be getting measurements, but science knows the language to read the measurements for meaning. The creationist side may think that they know how to read it, but they don't have the needed education."
--To imply that creationist don't have their education is not the brightest idea in any debate, as it is not an attack of the evidence but of the creationist. Considering the Radiometric Clock, this would be finely used but it makes many assumptions as makes relevance to the clock, as I stated a while ago in the Dating Methods contrevorsey discussion, which would considerably throw the whole concept off."The Rev. Sedgwick (correct spelling this time, I hope) was a minister of high regard, in the (I presume) church of England. He had the full fundimentalist beliefs: 7 days of creation, young earth, flood - But he was also one of the great early geologists. He came around to a long creation, old earth, no evidence of flood belief. Sould be a strong witness for both science and the church."
--Not really, its someone to discuss with, but again to make the relevance of whether anything is right or wrong on a persons judgment such as this, is an argument from athority, if I could use it freely, the ToE would be in rubble.------------------

"My Cokesbury RSV mentions "swarming things" as well, so I think insects (such as termites, mosquitoes, biting flies, and fire ants) are pretty much covered."
--Yes it does say swarming things..that breath through nostriles, insects and the like don't breath through nostriles.Genesis 7:21"And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, birds, cattle, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm upon the earth....(23)He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the air....""And it goes on for a few more lines."
--Yes and it does go on a few more lines, including directly afterword:Genesis 7:22 - "Eerything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died."--It is a continuity of the sentance before, as we use the same method of grammer abundantly today.------------------

"I am saying that some people have stronger educations in some areas, relative to other people."
--This is a much better way to put it, as it seemed from what you said previously, as if you were directing towards Creationists in general that they don't have an education or something of the nature."Everyone is ignorent in many areas - For example, I am not remotely qualified to argue with Stephan Hawkings in his area of expertise."
--I think that anyone with a open mind that has an interest with a basic knowledge of the concepts qualify for discussion, though I would say that anything that they discuss whether win or lose in the debate if there is an obvious win or loss depiction, makes no relevance. Simply a discussion of what is on your mind and opening up and ready to receive new information, though I would say that entering in such a discussion, should have to the minimum basic knowledge."I am not able to read the information of complex mathematics."
--Likewize, I rely quite a bit on others calculations, as I am not too prone towards the calculus and physics implications in scientific equations, I will admit I get stuck in a rut when someone asks me for calculations ."I think that most creationists are indeed ignorant in the theory and methodologies of isotopic dating."
--I don't think we are ignorant, I anyone could point out someone in either side ignorant of different aspects and scientific variants. As for myself, I am not being ignorant, I know in the beginning of this radioisotopic dating discussion about 40 posts back or so, it seemed to be that way, but I found that there was either ignoring of what people were saying, or missunderstanding towards ones point. Right now I thik the aspect of contamination is important."There is a more detailed summary of the work of the Rev. Sedgwick, posted by Schrafanater, somewhere at this site. I found it before, using the search feature, but now, searching for "Sedgwick" turns up nothing."
--Hm.. It would be nice to discuss Sedwick and some of his material I think, I was unaware of him previously."I don't think that citing the conclusions of the Rev. Sedgwick is an "argument of authority"."
--Oh, ofcourse this would not be an argument from athority, as discussion of his conclusions is very much urged (as long as you can keep up with the science, as I am not aware of his biological knowledge and the sufficience in his possible high educated grammer would be tough to grasp), what would be an argument from athority is saying that, for example, since Sedwick is so knowledgable in so and so field, these calculations are very much true or valid, that is, to present the argument not on the basis of the conclusion but the person and his high standard."He was an expert in both theology and the study of geology, in his time. Would you claim that the good Reverend had a bias against creationism?"
--Wouldn't know really."Until his scientific enlightenment, he was as much of a creationist as anyone. I think citing such an experts opinion is most valid."
--I agree it is valid, but not valid to the degree of since he was an expert that his conclusion has to be right, or something of the nature.------------------