why creation "science" isn't science

"That is nice, but when one refers to science in the modern sense one is referring to that which is understood according to the scientific method. Your postmodern dissembling to the contrary, that is what reasonable people understand. Other uses of the term in a discussion over evidence concerning how the natural world works is silly."
--I think it would be accurate to say that the scientific method is 'how' you would be to 'look' at science. Science to me is most accurate when depicted as a study of the universe and everything in it. The scientific method would be to examin of how or why it works the way it does, thus a hypothesis on the observable then you descend in the hierarchy towards theory with potential falsification and fact if possible."If you disagree provide what you think science is. Of course, your response will center on something about how this is incorrect and not spelling an argument of yours."
--I don't think incorrect is the right word, but not a full depiction seems logical.------------------

"In the modern since we are talking about the method. The above is barely understandable. It doesn't appear to be any sort of critique of the method.
So would you bother telling us what a full depiction is?"
--How does it not appear to be any sort of critique of the method? Am I missing something, I think that my depiction needs some development, I don't think drastic alterations will be neccessary though.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-02-2002]

"See the entire paper.I must confess, I seem to have overstated Sedgwick's earlier fundimentalism.Also note - Schrafanater's info on Sedgwick is at message 182 of this topic.The bottom line remains - Sedgwick's work was quite fundimental in the development of the science of geology.Added by edit: Adam Sedgwick (1785-1873) - To point out the time frame."
--Wow, I think I understated my own understandment from the start of the Sedgwick conversation, I was to presume he were still alive! Thats a bit of a time ago there have I might add a very many advancements in mainstream and flood geology since the day. He was I would agree a fundemental in the devlopment of geology.-------------------

"Now for MY biological model for Creation. (As with your model, mine will not involve origin.)"
--As I should do, as unbiased discussion is knowledge is my little motto, I will go through some of your potential ambiguities associated with the mechenisms driving your theory into locomotion."1. Mutations should almost always cause a bad effect."
--This statement is almost true today, as we are very much specialized today almost any mutation is bound to be ill-beneficial, though after the Flood when variation was at a minimum, many mutational effects would have been very beneficial, though it is possible it was an pre-existing gene activated, mutational effects could have conjured up the polar bear in its different characteristics from the brown or black bear. It has slightly webbed feet, no pigment inducing variations in color of hair, a more narrow snout, etc."2. Mutations should rarely or never increase the amount of information."
--The concept of 'Information' is quite vague I would have to say in my own understanding, ofcourse I would know what new information is, but it is hard to define it to a more elaborated standard. New information would be the causes of added DNA makeup that induce new features into an organism, ie, if something never had stomach tissue previously, and as we see it has now, this would be new information, or the quadrant of the brain that gives us the capability to speak, the cone cells in the eye, a new type of cell with different advancements in its celluar makeup. Though this is very vague, you would see the point, but more emphesis would be needed."3. Speciation should occur as a product of the great variability programmed into living things, combined with mutations."
--Hm..I think emphesis would be needed on this potential ambiguity."4. All living things should be fully formed from the start. (i.e. no reptiles with "half-wings" or "half-feathers."
--This is not neccessarely true, it is true that all living things should be fully formed from the start, but how do we know what these forms were? Technically there could be a reptile with its own specialized feathers, (I highly doubt it and would probley even dismiss it myself unless I were to have more understandment on the issue) but yes the point being that all things should be fully formed from the start is true. Considering half wing/half feathers, I once heard the argument from an Dr. Gould that they presume to instate the argument involving new information. His mechenism was that they can observe viruses carry new information from one organism to another. I don't know much about archaeopteryx, but even if the thing is what they presume it to be, ie a reptile with feathers, It could have been from this mechenism, though this does not contour too well with the ToE on new mechanics in organismal traits and advancements."5. Due to the typically negative effect of mutations, speciations should arise primarily as a result of LOSS or CORRUPTION of information, which makes the species less varied."
--Less varied? Variation produces more specialization, not less, if this is what you are to impose. And infact I believe new information (not in a scence of it not previously existing) arises by being activated and thus bringing about its genetic trait, thus speciation. And Mutational effects would have been very much a causality, but much more beneficial mutational effects would have been abundant compaired to the rarities we see today."I hope you find my model at least somewhat scientific, although I have a feeling not too many people will. Ah well, let the debate rage on."
--It is a scientific hypothesis, ready to enter discussion.-------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-02-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-02-2002]

"Gee, because it is a run-on sentence with no real point to it?"
--Are you looking for emphesis because you don't understand what I am writting, or are you saying that there is no point, because the point is clear, this is my rudimentary definition of science and the scientific method. I am asking if there is something I am missing or should add.------------------

"'the scientifice method is how you would be to look at science' has some sort of meaning to you? To me it looks like gibberish. This is probably because 'you would be' is inappropriate as the verb for 'to look at science'"
--Sometimes people need emphesis on my grammer, as sometimes I freely admit, it looks like a jumbled mess. I use many run-on sentances much of the time too, I try to space them out with periods though. But anyways, I do emphesis a little on what I mean later on in the paragraph when I say 'The scientific method would be to examin of how or why it works the way it does, thus a hypothesis on the observable then you descend in the hierarchy towards theory with potential falsification and fact if possible.' Lets continue with the response, I believe you responded to this so we can move on."The scientific method would be to examin of how or why it works the way it does, thus a hypothesis on the observable then you descend in the hierarchy towards theory with potential falsification and fact if possible."
--What would your own definition of the scientific method be, so we could compare and contrast."What is missing here? I know, A VERB! And it is a run-on sentence from the last one. A TWOFER!"
--Hm.. ok I think that is enough on the grammmer, a comment on what I state besides my grammer would be nice."Hierarchy has no known meaning here because you haven't identified it."
--Hierarchy, in this usage it would be as if it were a tree with branches spreading with higher divisions of specialization, or higher grade or rank to the explination. Thus, hypothesis would be the lowest, then theory, then fact, then absolute at the top, though I don't think absolute is appropriate unless we are contrasting on something that infact we are seeing. Ie I know there is a monitor in front of me, or something of that nature."While you are able to form a sentence, you haven't addressed why it is logical."
--Why what is logical? My perception on the definition of science and the scientific method, I am simply giving you my straw man, so we can work from there."Making grammatical errors in posting isn't a big deal unless you end up with nothing but gibberish. I make them all of the time, however, you have ended up with nothing but gibberish."
--I think Gibberish is a missconception, though I do make errors alot of the time, missunderstandment is more logical to the criticism of my grammer."That is a definition of science."
--This is a much more elaborated and brauder definition of science than mine, but both have the same logic to it."Now, the scientific method is more involved and described here:"
--Also a more elaborated definition of mine, they both have the same logic to it, mine was like a straw-man though."Now, given I have no idea what you are trying to communicate, could you provide some intelligible reasons why these aren't appropriate for the describing what science is in a discussion of studying the natural world?"
--I think these are appropriate, I don't find any radical difference in them by contrast. I just put it into my own miniscule vocabulary and wording.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-03-2002]

What do we think of my post #245 as a response to Cobra's creation theory? No one seems to like it or are ignoring it .------------------

"I have a question...do the creationists who frequent message boards like this ever actually READ within the field? I'm not trying to be snide or insulting. I, like (no doubt) most of them, am a busy person, trying to fit a family, work, etc., into my life - yet, because I am interested in the field, I do my best to keep up with current literature, even if only via the popular books of people like Gould, Dawkins, etc. If they're pasting to these boards, presumably they, too, have an interest in the topic. So why do they constantly ask questions that have been exhaustively dealt with in easily accessible, simple to read books on the subject? KingPenguin's last question has been dealt with by authors such as Dawkins, Dennet, Gould...at far more length, and with far more detail and accuracy than any answer he is likely to get here. In sum: why don't you guys read the books, if you want to find out the information?"
--I don't know about the other creationists in these forums, but technically I could say the same about many (I ofcourse won't mention any names) Evolutionists that havent had the pleasure of reading some rather abundant creationist literature on subjects, mainly quantifying the many arguments against Noah's Ark Feasability and some points on the Flood Tectonic Action, thoush some are very well thought-out and well worth intelligent conversation. For myself, I try to keep up with as much literature as I can, currently I am more straying into the development of Geology and Geophysics and Plate Tectonics and the like on Earth Behavior, so I have less time to read other literature, and further reducing my ability to read more is being on this board, but ofcourse I always get a good abundance of new information and love to read it when I receive it on the boards. There is a rather lengthly book on Evolution which Gould authored, I will attempt to read it sooner or later, but untill I am satisfied at some reasonable point in my geophysics.------------------

If your accusations were true, I wouldn't be able to survive in these discussions as even a well worth debate. I have already proposed the problem numerous numerous times on why Creation science has nothing to do with being based on the truth of the bible as yourself and few others continually assert. I would wish it to stop unless a creationist implies this definition incorrectly, then and only then could you say that the way they say creation science is, is not a scientific method.------------------

"We've gone out of our way to provide Statements of Faith for your inspection. Did you fail to read them? Are you claiming that they do not exist?"
--No its that these statments of faith do not represent creation science. They represent their Creationist beliefs, as in accord with evidence interperetations, which is creation science. How you interperete the evidence is creation science. What this that this interperetation goes along with the bible as for support for inerrancy is the belief of Creationism. Its kind of like Evolutionism, Evolution is their belief on how things came to be today. Their support it is how they interperete the evidence to go along with Evolution.------------------

"Nonsense. Every creationist ultimately retreats to scripture."
--Odd how I have never resorted to retreating to scripture in the way you put it in context."Several posters on this board has as much as said so."
--Mabye, but that doesn't mean they are right, and through experience throughout debate and discussion on the Creation and Evolution topic I have found that you need not to do such a thing."Baumgardner has publically stated that the Bible says so and that's that! Or is he wrong on this point?"
--Depends on what point your trying to get, I don't remember him saying anything like "We have to retreat to scripture!", or somthing simmilar."I think you are pretty much alone on this one."
--That doesn't mean I am wrong, and it only takes one to stand out and prove a point.------------------

"Well then, for you to say what creationists do, or what creation science is, would be presumptuous, eh?"
--I don't say what creationists do, they can do what they want, its what creation science is that I'll say. Creationists can take science to the worst if they like for all I really care, it would be pretty sad, but it makes no difference, I see both sides doing it all the time, its horrible!"Perhaps it was on the Discovery Channel show on evolution. I was shocked that he would admit his reliance on scripture for guidance."
--Oh yea I remember that one, hehe, Im sure "The point is that you are the one who said creation science does not rely on scripture. If you are in the minority can you really say this? (this para edited)"
--Ofcourse, ever heard 'its little people like you that make the difference', hey, they may mean it sarcastically, but Im all for it. . Besides its simply unlogical to take creation science another way.------------------

"Nope, science doesn't use Statements of Faith, remember? Also the scientific method doesn't allow data shoehorning. Creationism runs off it."
--Ehem.. Come on, if you wan't to go up and say these sertain organizations work like this, great go for it, you might even win. But with your notion that Creationism and creation science are one in the same, you stand to be corrected.------------------

"That's the first part of my claim, that those organizations do work like that. The second part of my claim is that these aren't isolated groups but the leaders of Creationism, that essentially define what "Creationism" and "Creation Science" are.I still don't see the dichotomy between the two."
--The thing is, is that a word is not defined by an organisation that is based on that word, the word defines the organization. Now in this case they are Creationist organisations, not purely creation science. thus creation science does not define their method of research. I could go through huge Evolutionist organisations such as talk.origins, and find things in there that would say that they don't know what they are talking about, and do not consider the facts. Now does this mean that they are not scientific organizations, sertainly doesn't. That would be a problem higher in the hierarchy, more braudly classified. I would call them Evolutionism organizations, that use science. Now whether an organization supporting evolution were to make it look like a tinker toy, that wouldn't make any difference.-------------------

"Indeed...it would be time for you to turn to your creationist leaders and tell them to drop the bible completely from this debate and concentrate on the pure,imperical science of the debate of evolution and creationism because thats where the answers are...not in some dusty old book writen ages ago by scientific illiterates ans superstitious fools."
--Take a good reading of the questions God asks Job in the Book of Job. I'm sure you will find in every one how it illistrates its scientific accuracy. I don't think anyone beamed up Job to the 21st century to teach him any science. But really, I don't think that they are using the bible to prove science, they are using science to prove the bible (or atleast give evidence thereof).------------------