why creation "science" isn't science

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

Has anyone posted thsi link yet?So you want to become a 'Creation Scientist'...Follow the links in that article for a more detail.This is what I have been trying to tell people. Creationists look at the same evidence- the same DNA, rocks, atoms, stars, fossils, living organisms etc., just come to different conclusions because of a differing worldview.Newton knew the universe was God's Creation, so did Kepler- does that make their scientific discoveries less for that?------------------
John Paul

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?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"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.

​

---

Isn't that what I said?When the word faith is applied to creationism it means "strong belief in the doctrines of religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof".When creationists apply it to evolution they mean "strongly held belief or theory".The two meanings are different (both taken from New Oxford Dictionary), & are conflated by creationists, in the hope that a casual reader will take the meaning of faith re. evolution as "strong belief in the doctrines of religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof".If not, whats the point in saying so?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Unfortunately the scientific method is designed to test "interpretations" of the data. Please provide how to test the creation "model" that everyone keeps claiming exists. Indeed, weren't you off to come up with one? What happened there?

A question has been posted in a new thread. Please address it.

"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]

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
Has anyone posted thsi link yet?

​

http://www.answersingenesis.org/cec/docs/creation_scientist.asp So you want to become a 'Creation Scientist'...

​

Follow the links in that article for a more detail.

​

This is what I have been trying to tell people. Creationists look at the same evidence- the same DNA, rocks, atoms, stars, fossils, living organisms etc., just come to different conclusions because of a differing worldview.

---

From the above link:

quote:

---

There aren’t courses that train you to become a ‘creation scientist’. Rather a ‘creation scientist’ is just a scientist who views the world from a ‘big picture’ Biblical perspective. I.e. the universe was originally created ‘very good’ by God in six actual days a few thousand years ago; the perfect world was marred by Adam’s sin, and later suffered the watery judgment of the global Flood, in which all air-breathing, land-dwelling animals (except those representatives on the Ark) died.

---

Extracted from JP's message above

quote:

---

Creationists look at the same evidence- the same DNA, rocks, atoms, stars, fossils, living organisms etc., just come to different conclusions because of a differing worldview.

---

What "different conclusions" are they going to come up with, other that the "Biblical perspective" they already have going into the study?What if the creation scientists discover that that earth wasn't created in 6 days, isn't quite young, etc.?Just like the Rev. Adam Sedgewick did, many years ago.Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

​

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"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.

​

---

Well that was a nice tap dance number on your part to avoid answering a simple question...very creationist-like. There have been absolutely no contradiction in my posts reguarding your arguments,most of which i have allready pointed out to be irrevocably flawed. Allow me to point out one exemple among many. 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...007:022 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was
in the dry land, died.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.Cant get any clearer than that...not only were those whose nostril were the breath of life but EVERYTHING that dwelled on land...

"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]

And science is designed to choose between different interpretations. 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.

"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.

"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"