What IS Science And What IS NOT Science?

Razd you're trying to turn this thread into assessing the quality of science. That's not what the title or the OP address. It's about what is and is not science. That's it. If you want to discuss what different folks consider is good or bad quality science it should be another thread topic.Let me again remind everyone what motivated me to open this thread. Folks were alleging that there's no creo science and implying that ID cannot be a factor in science so I opened this thread to debate that issue and that alone.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

Tell ya what, Schraf, melady, I make you a deal. You get our man into your school and we'll get your man into our church, both doing a bonafide science lecture.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

Thanks Holmes. Thanks very much! This is essentially what I've been trying over and over to get across from the title of this thread all the way here to page seven.I've just finished emailing Chris and hoping he will find time in his busy schedule to apprise me/us on some specifics of some of the science he is doing regarding the guppy/mutation research and other stuff he does. He also uses core sampling from bedrock, plate tetonics, et al which is an integral factor in his oil related work as well as integral to the creo/evo science issues having him in an occupational science which apprises him on stuff other scienists are not engaged in.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

Ned, I'd have left off with the guppies way back upthread if I could've, but you people are the ones who are blowing this up to a major thing. That's why I likened it to "straining at guppies and swallowing whales." I figured I'd given enough on it from the gitgo for anyone to consider it as science, no matter what evaluation you people have as to the quality of the science being done. Again, this is suppose to by my thread and my OP and title says it's not about quality of science being done, but that it is covered under the definition of science.Too many people here in this thread are trying to debate, as Holmes has so susinctly stated, that nothing is science that doesn't include every single aspect of a total science thesis all the way from hypothesis to peer review. Well, as Holmes correctly argues along with me, that's just not true. Doing science can be any segment of science activity in any given project or research. I thought I made that crystal clear a long way back in this thread, but it appears that only Holmes is listening to what I've been trying to get across. Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

I received an email response from Chris Miller and he corrected me regarding his guppies in that he artificially selects them for variations. I believe he made the point that there was a limit or boundary to how many variables he could come up with. I took this as a means of communicating to us that there is a limit to which the natural process can go within the species and mistakenly used the term, mutation. I have emailed back to ask him if he regards this as doing science and to ask also if there are any of his activities which he considers to be actually doing science relative to the evo/creo issues.He says he never mentioned zebras or the arctic ice. I do view creation science programs on Sky Angel TV occasionally and perhaps I attributed the ice/zebra thing to the wrong source. I apologized to Cris for getting things wrong and apologize to you folks for the mistakes regarding him also. I will wait for his answers to my other questions and apprise you of anyting new.As for creationism science I have also cited the work of ICR scientists and archeologists and do stand by my claims that ICR does do science relative to the creo/evo debate. I know most of you consider their science as poor science but I remind you that this thread is not a debate on who's science is considered good or poor science by members but rather whether what is being done is doing science. It is my contention that the English language dictionary should have a major bearing on what is defined as science. Refusal to admit that standard allows for biased groups to claim their preferred hypotheses and theories to dogmatically and exclusively dictate what is science and what is not to advance their own science ideological agenda. I will do some more searching on specifics before going further with this debate so far as my participation goes. Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

The following is a segment of an ICR report which serves to substantiate the qualification of ICR's science graduate school department heads and as well to explain problems they (abe: have had in the past) regarding the state relative to what we are debating in this thread, i.e. what is science. A Unique Creationist School of Science (V: ICR, For Such a Time as This) | The Institute for Creation Research Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

Buzsaw writes:
As for creationism science I have also cited the work of ICR scientists and archeologists... Percy, below is the message 52 comment from this thead that I am referrig to.http://EvC Forum: What IS Science And What IS NOT Science? -->EvC Forum: What IS Science And What IS NOT Science? OK, as you say, I'll leave off with Chris Miller and do some more investigation of other science ICR does. I suppose I could say that in their science classes they are doing science regularly in their college level and science graduate school labs and research training, writing science theses et al. Why shouldn't that come under the definition of science as to doing science? I'm quite sure there is other stuff I can get up on them. Give me some time. Percy, I read and assimilated every word of 144 long ago. I would hope you did so also with points I have made. Things you seem to be ignoring regarding what I've been saying:1. Science theory projects begin with hypothesis. Beginning hypotheses of creationists factor in ID whereas beginning hypotheses of secularist hypothesis does not in most evo hypotheses. Interpretation of, for example, fresh water in arctic ice laced with plant life, animals, mud, polen, et al from IDist creo beginning hypothesis interprets as per ID hypothesis where as it does not from secularist hypothesis. Both science hypotheses work from same ice water evidence with each interpreting the observed evidence as per respective hypothesis. Your #144 did not address this.2. Not all science activity is for the purpose of establishing science theory and obtaining peer review. Many given other science objectives may be the purpose for doing the science. Your 144 seems to require all or none to be regarded as doing science.3. I don't think I have ignored any points you made in 144 which apply to science examples I've mentioned.4. Just as you disagree with most creo arguments on what is science, most of us believe you are incorrectly alleging that ID science (as per science hypothesis) does not exist. I believe you said elsewhere that "ID is not science." That's tantamount to me falsly alleging that "evolution is not science". IMO, we could work together to keep the peace here at EvC if both were recognized by all as a viable beginning hypothesis for science debate and activity, allowing each to debate and do science on the basis our own science hypotheses freely and uncensored. So long as it is a cite established policy that ID and creo is not science it's pretty hard to have any meaningful evo/creo science debate.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

Percy asked that I leave off Chris Miller and I will honor that reqest, but so as to offer a measure of defense to my integrity, I stated up front that I was going by recall and not sure of specifics. Relative to you comment above, this seems to be the reason for Chris, in the seminar, to bring up the subject of the guppies and that purpose was to communicate to us that there indeed was a boundary as to how far the selection could go as per his observation of his hobby which I had misinterpreted as a research project. This was to argue against evolution and for ID creationism. I first confused this with mutation which he corrected me on via emial. The man does public seminars so the man should expect to be quoted and referrenced in such things as forums et al. Since he gave us no printed material to go on except one very brief page, all I had to go on was memory.My apologies for reading too much into what Chris was doing. Btw, he did have bedrock core samples there to show us related to his occupation which he used in his seminar for observaton, stating that there were fossils in some core samples et al as he was discussing tetonics et al. I'll not say anymore about Chris Miller so please do not ask. I have nothing to back up anything anyhow since he left no printed specifics and appears to busy to address some specific questions I asked via email. It's been a few weeks and there was too much to remember and get it right. I see it was a mistake to use him and wouldn't have in retrospect.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

But legitimate creationist science does not ignore inconvenient evidence. You keep ignoring my contention that science begins with hypothesis and the creationist hypothesis establishes a different perspective on which all the evidence observed is interpreted. We use exactly the same evidence you use. We do not ignore it. I gave the example of the fresh water ice in the arctic and you apparantly ignored that, in which animals (tropical, in fact such as mastadons, polen, plants, mud and such not native to the region are found. Secularists attribute the fresh water ice to subterranian rivers, as I can best ascertain whereas we attribute all this to the flood hypothesis.My point is that neither of us ignore evidence used by the other. It's that as per our varied hypothesis from which we begin science we interpret the evidence differently. The problem is that you people expect us to debate and do our science on the premise of your hypothesos and our refusal to do that is erroneously taken by you as unscientific. This, imo is what is causing much of the evo/creo problems we are encountering in the science forums. I see the problem differently. How can you resolve the differences when you begin your science from a highly polarized hypothesis, your's requiring millions of years to effect life as observed today and ours being done relatively rapidly? Or when your Grand Canyon took millions of years and ours took relatively sudden catastrophic phenomena such as a ww flood leaving the probability of a pre-flood atmosphere far different than that of the post flood one? It becomes impossible for either of us to do science on the basis of the other's beginning hypothesis.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

You're spinning and obfuscating everything I said. I said:1. We are using the same (equating) evidence. That's all we're equating. I gave the example, the Grand Canyon. We're both looking at the same sediment layering, et al.2. I did not say we're both working in the same way.. Again, the only same thing is the evidence observed. As per the flood, I repeat;
a. Our hypothesis is a ww flood effecting disastrous tetonic movement, volcanoes, upheavel of mountain ranges, sinking of ocean floors, Mt St Hellens kind of cutting canyons, et al. We work to falsify that by the observed evidence whereas you work to falsify millions of years of sedimentation et al.
b. Our flood hypothesis, for example calls for a pre flood totally different atmosphere in which the elements such as carbon, nitrogen, et al are were much different than what is observed today. Your millions of years of uniformitarian planet assumes same elements relatively uniformly all those millions of years to assume your radiometric dating is correct. That's not necessarily true. Not all creatinists, including myself are not necessarily YEC. For over three years now I've been saying I am not a YEC, in that my hypothesis calls for an unknown earth age, more likely old than young. Many others also are not YEC. We do not believe the Genesis account says how old the earth is. Having a pre-flood atmosphere different than post flood does not require a young earth thousands of years old. LOL! The science effecting your conclusion was based on a beginning hypothesis radically unlike mine/ours, factoring in uniformitarianism rather than a disastrous ww flood. No. To accept mine you need big time tetonic plate moving, canyon cutting, lava spewing, polar freezing, atmosphere changing, climate changing, life burying, oil and coal producing, fossil creating, sediment layering, catastrophic flood to cover the earth with water which was previously in the atmosphere as well as subterranian rivers et al. We believe the evidence best suits that hypothesis from which to interpret the observed evidence.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

I see the following research project as doing science from a creationist hypothetical perspective. If not, why not? A Critique of ICR's Grand Canyon Dating Project

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

Percy, I did some homework before initially stating that science begins with hypothesis. Below is just one statement from a physics course site. There are other sites that agree. http://acept.asu.edu/courses/phs110/ds2/chapter2.html

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

DA, we're not here to assess the quality of any given science project. For the umteenth time, we're here to determine what is and is not science. Is this ICR IDist creationist science research project science or not?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

Then why is this place called EvC (Evolution vs Creationism)? There remains no debate here and no creo science participation as per your Forum Guidelines. I said it before and I say it again. Ban all creationists from all science forums and post it up front on your home page that creos are welcome here but stay out of science. CREATIONISM AND INTELLIGENT DESIGN ARE NOT SCIENCE. THEY ARE RELIGIOUS ONLY!.I say close this thread now, save us all a lot of work and time and save your site all this bandwith for evo vs evo science debate and discussion. I see this as a waste of my time. Edited by Buzsaw, : Provide reason for edit Add a word

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

You might as well close this thread Percy. I'm done with wasting my time on science here.