why creation "science" isn't science

quote:

---

TrueCreation: We do not assume that we have prior special infallable knowledge, we simply say hey look at this book, and look at science, science is evidence that this book is right. This is your flaw in what your view is on 'scientific creationism'.

---

quote:

---

We do not assume that we have prior special infallable knowledge

---

But generally the creationist view is that they do have special infallable knowledge.

quote:

---

we simply say hey look at this book, and look at science, science is evidence that this book is right.

---

I find it acceptable that a creation hypothesis is put forward. Then you can indeed look for scientific evidence to support it. But all the scientific evidence creationists put forth consists of perceived flaws in the theory of evolution, which are proposed to be gaps for the creation hypothesis to fill. But there is no evidence presented, in support of the creation hypothesis itself.MooseEdited to fix UBB code------------------
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

​

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 01-17-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 01-17-2002]

quote:

---

Cobra Snake: My point is that scientists are very likely to let bias affect their interpretation of the facts. I don't see why that is so hard to understand.

---

The thing is, science has checks to correct biased results. The first scientist must be careful with his or her work, or risk looking bad when other scientists descover flawed work.Real scientists don't do cover-ups for the mistakes of other scientists.Which isn't to say that this system of checks can't be occasionly blotched. Example: The long time it took for science to catch the Piltdown man hoax. But the PM was a minor detail, and it did ultimatly get exposed.Moose------------------
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

quote:

---

And it should be pointed out also that REAL scientists dont assume that any part of their theories is "innerant". They test their theories,making every attempt to knock them down and inviting anyone to do the same. If the theory can wistand all these tests,it becomes accepted as a valid interpretation of the facts at hand.

---

Case example of scientists who apparently weren't careful enough with their research. Those guys who came up with "cold fussion". Boy, were they shot down.Moose------------------
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

quote:

---

And it should be pointed out also that REAL scientists dont assume that any part of their theories is "innerant". They test their theories,making every attempt to knock them down and inviting anyone to do the same. If the theory can wistand all these tests,it becomes accepted as a valid interpretation of the facts at hand.

---

Case example of scientists who apparently weren't careful enough with their research. Those guys who came up with "cold fusion". Boy, were they shot down.Moose------------------
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

​

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 01-19-2002]

"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

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]

Moose :"What "different conclusions" are they going to come up with, other that the "Biblical perspective" they already have going into the study?"
TC--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.Moose: 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.I hope to comment more of TC remarks later."Just like the Rev. Adam Sedgewick did, many years ago."
--Argument from athority doesn't really work too well.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.------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

quote:

---

Moose: 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.

​

TrueCreation -- 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.

---

I am saying that some people have stronger educations in some areas, relative to other people. Everyone is ignorent in many areas - For example, I am not remotely qualified to argue with Stephan Hawkings in his area of expertise. I am not able to read the information of complex mathematics. I think that most creationists are indeed ignorant in the theory and methodologies of isotopic dating.

quote:

---

Moose: 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.

​

TrueCreation -- 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.

---

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.

quote:

---

From http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#authority :
Argument From Authority: The claim that the speaker is an expert, and so should be trusted.
There are degrees and areas of expertise. The speaker is actually claiming to be more expert, in the relevant subject area, than anyone else in the room. There is also an implied claim that expertise in the area is worth having.

---

I don't think that citing the conclusions of the Rev. Sedgwick is an "argument of authority". 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? Until his scientific enlightenment, he was as much of a creationist as anyone. I think citing such an experts opinion is most valid.MooseEdited to correct UBB format
Added by edit: Shrafanater "Sedgwick" cite found, at message 182 of this topic.------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

​

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 02-01-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 02-01-2002]

The Google search for "Adam Sedgwick":
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22adam+sedgwick%22&btnG=Google+SearchFrom the top of the Google list:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/sedgwick.html

quote:

---

Sedgwick's own geological views were generally catastrophic -- he believed that the history of the Earth had been marked by a series of cataclysmic events which had destroyed much of the Earth's life. In this belief he followed Cuvier, and he was opposed to Charles Lyell's models of slow, gradual geological change and a more or less steady-state Earth. However, Sedgwick was interested in the possibility that at least some of the "catastrophic" changes implied by the rock record might be shown to be gradual. He originally followed his collegue William Buckland in believing that the uppermost Pleistocene deposits had been laid down by the Biblical Flood, but retracted this belief after many of these deposits turned out to have been formed by glaciers, not floods. Sedgwick also did not object to evolution, or "development" as such theories were called then, in the broad sense -- to the fact that the life on Earth had changed over time. Nor was he a young-Earth creationist; he believed that the Earth must be extremely old. As Darwin wrote of Sedgwick's lectures, "What a capital hand is Sedgewick [sic] for drawing large cheques upon the Bank of Time!"

---

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.Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

​

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

Christian1 - The Hovind challenge has its own thread at:
Topic: Every evolutionist has a chance to win $250,000 http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=1&t=48&p=1Let's not start it again here.Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe