|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4737 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: People Don't Know What Creation Science Is | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Kelly Member (Idle past 5517 days) Posts: 217 Joined: |
Why is that?
I think I have done a fairly good job at trying to express how it is that creation science is a scientific study of the evidence just as evolution is..I mean, at least to the degree that it is possible, anyway. You seem unnerved by the possibility that creation could have a leg to stand on. Is that because it might then give some credence to Scripture for those of us who have faith in God? I only ask this because most Catholics do not want to accept Scripture as the authority of God. Would this shake things up for you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.4 |
The evidence confirms the creation model better than the evolution model. Most known facts that confirm the creation model were made long before Darwin, and by creation scientists. But still you give no examples, not one case of a prediction made by creationists and then later confirmed; instead you present an irrelevant list of past scientists.
As far as is known, the scientists of the past listed below believed in a literal Genesis unless indicated with an asterisk. The ones who did not are nevertheless included in the list below because of their general belief in the creator God of the Bible and opposition to evolution. Ah, clairvoyant scientists! (You realise most of the people in that list died before The Origin of Species was published?)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I think I have done a fairly good job at trying to express how it is that creation science is a scientific study of the evidence just as evolution is The thing is, you haven't done that at all! To do that you owuld have to outline the theory, the evidence that supports it and the predictions it makes. We have nothing like that from you. How does creationism not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Odd - your list seems to get a little thin after evolution was proposed, why is that?
By the way, did you know that Newton didn't accept the Einsteinian ideas about physics as well? I guess we should chuck Einstein out. Anyway. Evolution predicts: 1. That some people will have hair.2. That somebody will discover evolution 3. That planet earth will exist. 4. That cats meow. 5. That Australia will be discovered, and that one of its cities will be named after a British Monarch and another after a British Prime Minister. 6. That in March 2009CE, Kelly will participate at the EvCForum. All of these predictions have come true. Now - so far we have the following predictions made by Creation Science that are 'failed': Failed predictions 1. no transitional sequences (except within each created type) will ever be found {by virtue of there being no way to validate this prediction is true since we don't know how to tell what a 'type' is}. 2. there should be a conservational and disintegrative principle operating in nature {by virtue of there being no logical pathway from "Life was Created" to "Therefore there is a conservational and disintegrative principle operating in nature."} 3. The fossil record does not show a total record of all life forever.{If there is a 'disintegrative principle' in operation, we wouldn't expect there to be.} Any other ideas Kelly? PS: AiG are a religiously orientated group. The clue is in the title. See their statement of faith for further details of their 'scientific and not religious' position. Ahem. Oh and AiG also says that "No new species have been produced." is an argument that Creationists should NOT use. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Kelly writes: Taking the time to really get into it has proven to be a huge waste of time on a forum like this one where your messages are quickly lost under a barrage of posting or responded to with ad hominem posts. Arrogance and insults tend to attract a lot of attention.
Consider my message Message 92 which basically went unanswered. I already called attention to that post, and both I and Lyx2no have provided summaries of your descriptions of creation science. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2127 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
I think I have done a fairly good job at trying to express how it is that creation science is a scientific study of the evidence just as evolution is The thing is, you haven't done that at all! To do that you owuld have to outline the theory, the evidence that supports it and the predictions it makes. We have nothing like that from you.
As described above, it is: no theory, no evidence, and no predictions (and no scientific methodology either). Creation "science" is just a lot of claims that stem from a literal reading of the bible and that can't be disproved by scientific evidence--because religious belief trumps any evidence. Its the exact opposite of science. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Kelly writes: Specifically, the second law of thermodynamics is the mechanism that makes macroevolution impossible. Since macroevolution is just the sum of lots of microevolution, if microevolution is possible, which you've already conceded, then so is macroevolution. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kelly Member (Idle past 5517 days) Posts: 217 Joined: |
Just After Darwin...
Richard Owen (1804—1892) Zoology; Paleontology (old-earth compromiser*)Matthew Maury (1806—1873) Oceanography, Hydrography (probably believed in an old-earth*) Louis Agassiz (1807—1873) Glaciology, Ichthyology (old-earth compromiser, polygenist*) Henry Rogers (1808—1866) Geology James Glaisher (1809—1903) Meteorology Philip H. Gosse (1810—1888) Ornithologist; Zoology Sir Henry Rawlinson (1810—1895) Archeologist James Simpson (1811—1870) Gynecology, Anesthesiology James Dana (1813—1895) Geology (old-earth compromiser*) Sir Joseph Henry Gilbert (1817—1901) Agricultural Chemist James Joule (1818—1889) Thermodynamics Thomas Anderson (1819—1874) Chemist Charles Piazzi Smyth (1819—1900) Astronomy George Stokes (1819—1903) Fluid Mechanics John William Dawson (1820—1899) Geology (probably believed in an old-earth*) Rudolph Virchow (1821—1902) Pathology Gregor Mendel (1822—1884) (WOH) Genetics Louis Pasteur (1822—1895) (WOH) Bacteriology, Biochemistry; Sterilization; Immunization Henri Fabre (1823—1915) Entomology of living insects William Thompson, Lord Kelvin (1824—1907) Energetics; Absolute temperatures; Atlantic cable (believed in an older earth than the Bible indicates, but far younger than the evolutionists wanted*) William Huggins (1824—1910) Astral spectrometry Bernhard Riemann (1826—1866) Non-Euclidean geometries Joseph Lister (1827—1912) Antiseptic surgery Balfour Stewart (1828—1887) Ionospheric electricity James Clerk Maxwell (1831—1879) (WOH) Electrodynamics; Statistical thermodynamics P.G. Tait (1831—1901) Vector analysis John Bell Pettigrew (1834—1908) Anatomist; Physiologist John Strutt, Lord Rayleigh (1842—1919) Similitude; Model Analysis; Inert Gases Sir William Abney (1843—1920) Astronomy Alexander MacAlister (1844—1919) Anatomy A.H. Sayce (1845—1933) Archeologist John Ambrose Fleming (1849—1945) Electronics; Electron tube; Thermionic valve Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation.... Dr. William Arion, Biochemistry, ChemistryDr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist Dr. Bob Compton, DVM Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research Dr. Andr Eggen, Geneticist Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry Dr. Robin Greer, Chemist, History Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry Dr. George F. Howe, Botany Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy George T. Javor, Biochemistry Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology Dr. Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology Dr. Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology Dr. John Leslie, Biochemist Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist Dr. Alan Love, Chemist Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist: Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist Dr. Ronald C. Marks, Associate Professor of Chemistry Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist Dr. John McEwan, Chemist Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics Dr. David Menton, Anatomist Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive Physiologist Colin W. Mitchell, Geography Dr. Tommy Mitchell, Physician Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist Dr. Henry M. Morris (1918—2006), founder of the Institute for Creation Research. Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist Dr. Terry Mortenson, History of Geology Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher Dr. David Oderberg, Philosopher Prof. John Oller, Linguistics Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology Dr. John Osgood, Medical Practitioner Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology) Dr. David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon Prof. Richard Porter Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics Dr. John Rankin, Cosmologist Dr. A.S. Reece, M.D. Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology Dr. Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist: Dr. Ian Scott, Educator Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science Dr. Mikhail Shulgin, Physics Dr. Roger Simpson, Engineer Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915—1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry Dr. Charles Taylor, Linguistics Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist: Dr. Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892—1979) Surgeon Dr. Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology) Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997) Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology And I disagree about your statement that any of those predictions from the creation model have failed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kelly Member (Idle past 5517 days) Posts: 217 Joined: |
And Creation Science does a very good job at proving why it is impossible. It boils down to the universal laws of conservation and decay.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kelly Member (Idle past 5517 days) Posts: 217 Joined: |
And that is that there are many of you here in this forum who just do not know what creation science really is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
olivortex Member (Idle past 4799 days) Posts: 70 From: versailles, france Joined: |
You're right, being old is not disqualifying.
I think is hould have said un-scientific texts. Kelly, Darwin is the background and did not use allegories to tell any truth or predictions in the sense that you mean it, unlike the Bible is said to do. He just opened a door, a perspective. Unlike many other people, he fought his inner self because of what he has observed and concluded. He was a christian; a believer. He could have become a pastor. By the way as many scientists say, you have the right to believe in a creator and still keep on looking for explanations through observation. Darwin ignored some things, in a time when there was no genetics, not the fossil record we have today, etc. His theory has been completed by different kinds of evidence that all tend to confirm it. The Bible does not ask us to confirm anything, but just to believe in what it tells us.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2972 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
The more you ignore this the more you make yourself look evassive.
It boils down to the universal laws of conservation and decay. How does creation NOT violate the same law? And what do you mean by decay, what is decaying? And how does the law of conservation apply to an open system that continuously receives energy from an outside source? The laws of conservation only apply to closed systems... "I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks "I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2972 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
And that is that there are many of you here in this forum who just do not know what creation science really is. Yes, mainly, you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation.... That's still a very short list - I can give you over a thousand modern scientists all named Steve or derivatives thereof that accept evolution. What does this demonstrate exactly?
And I disagree about your statement that any of those predictions from the creation model have failed. Feel free to defend them rather than just gainsaying me - I've even given you hints and tips on how to do it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
shalamabobbi Member (Idle past 2870 days) Posts: 397 Joined: |
Hi Kelly,
Creationists only reject the idea of macroevolution
Yes, they only reject that which is in conflict with their preconceived notions about what is 'true'.My first exposure to this 'science' was some ideas as to why radiometric dating was apparently flawed. At first the arguments presented seemed plausible so I began to look into radiometric dating further. I came across the isochron method and read up on that. That seemed to put the nail in the coffin on the creationist argument but I went back to the creationist side and asked about their rebuttal to this technique of dating to which their previous objections did not apply or hold any weight. Since this group existed I figured they must have some valid reasons behind their viewpoint, so I expected that they'd open my mind to the reasons why the isochron method was flawed. Well they had no counter argument against it. They simply shrugged and said all rocks display isochrons as though it was some inherent property of rocks in general and insignificant. It was at this point that I saw that their 'science' was nothing more than a willful dismissal of facts that were/are in disagreement with what they think is fact and trumps reality.In another thread I mentioned ERV patterns that are identical in humans and chimps. Have you even looked at that evidence? How do you rationalize that away? How do you suppose that patterns that arise randomly in nature match one another exactly in two different species? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI Edited by shalamabobbi, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024