Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   People Don't Know What Creation Science Is
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 271 of 336 (501531)
03-06-2009 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by Dman
03-06-2009 3:20 PM


Topic
Dman the topic here is not God or anything about religion. Please do not further that discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Dman, posted 03-06-2009 3:20 PM Dman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Dman, posted 03-06-2009 3:38 PM AdminNosy has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 272 of 336 (501534)
03-06-2009 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by Kelly
03-06-2009 3:07 PM


Re: I have plenty more
I have plenty more
Great. So do I.
But to spend the time only to watch you totally disregard it and act as though your disgreement proves that what I am saying is not derived by scientific study is just so false that I can hardly bare to spend any time at it at all.
Allow me to correct your misapprehension - I am not totally disregarding your position. I am asking you questions about it, and telling you facts about mine. I won't be convinced that Creation Science is science unless certain criteria can be met.
I can appreciate that if Creation Science isn't science but pseudoscience, my high standards would present a problem. However, evolution manages to pass exceed my standards as does a whole lot of other things.
When you have the time, I'd really appreciate you telling me all these things, enlightening me and so on. Until then I'll remain in the position I was in before you arrived I'm afraid to say: Creation Science is pseudoscience. It looks scientific at first blush.
Why not simply consider taking a look at the book I recommended
I have considered it, but there are lots of Creation related books that I have been lead to believe are much higher quality than the one you recommended and my reading list is already full. It'll take something pretty amazing to squeeze onto it, but if you convince me there are some quality ideas that I haven't already been exposed to in it, I may well take a look.
I think everything I have posted so far would become more clear to you. I just can't keep up with this board. So sorry : (
I'm sure it would become clear, but I doubt it would change my view that Creation Science skips out the science part. I'm happy to be wrong and await a Creationist who is willing and has the time to explain how.
No need to apologize. You're not the first Creationist who has not had the time or the ability (or both) to elucidate their position beyond what you have already done. I understand. Enjoy spending time with the family and if you feel like shedding more light for me, then I'm all ears.

Does your edition of What is Creation Science contain this quote?
quote:
By comparing lysozyme and lactalbumin, Dickerson was hoping to 'pin down with great precision' where human beings branched off the mammal line. The results are surprising. In this test, it turned out that humans are more closely related to the CHICKEN than to any living mammal tested!
on or around approximately page 58?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Kelly, posted 03-06-2009 3:07 PM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by Kelly, posted 03-06-2009 5:23 PM Modulous has replied

Dman
Member (Idle past 5017 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 02-26-2009


Message 273 of 336 (501537)
03-06-2009 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by AdminNosy
03-06-2009 3:23 PM


Re: Topic
quote:
Dman the topic here is not God or anything about religion. Please do not further that discussion.
Sorry, that was not my intention. I was merely defending myself.
With that out of the way I will simply re ask my unanswered questions regarding CS.
  • Can you show me an instance where certain information was not known at the time, but was predicted by CS, and proven true?
  • How does CS explain the reptilian features of the Archaeopteryx that you claim is only a bird?
  • Also, Ambulocetus, how does CS categorize this?

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 271 by AdminNosy, posted 03-06-2009 3:23 PM AdminNosy has not replied

    JonF
    Member (Idle past 168 days)
    Posts: 6174
    Joined: 06-23-2003


    Message 274 of 336 (501542)
    03-06-2009 4:06 PM
    Reply to: Message 266 by Kelly
    03-06-2009 3:09 PM


    But hey, evolution certainly is valuable to you and must strengthen your faith in nothing. Yes?
    No. I have no fiath in nothing.
    God wrote the rocks.
    Man wrote the bible.
    Where the two disagree, I go with what God wrote.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 266 by Kelly, posted 03-06-2009 3:09 PM Kelly has not replied

    olivortex
    Member (Idle past 4778 days)
    Posts: 70
    From: versailles, france
    Joined: 01-28-2009


    Message 275 of 336 (501546)
    03-06-2009 4:32 PM


    creation science may explain why
    There is a thing i have never had the opportunity to hear or read. I wonder how creation science could explain the disappearance of some species, that actually disappeared. I'm not talking about dinosaurs here, cause i've been fed strange numerous things about them.
    Of course, obviously endangered species are not receivable exemples to start talking about this, because ID supporters/creationnist inevitably and "legitimately "answer: "this specie has not disappeared. How do you know it will?"
    So i've been looking for some exemples; the one i focused on and that i had been discussing with other ID supporters/creationists is the Thylacine, aka the tasmanian wolf, or tasmanian tiger, according to wikipedia. It has officially disappeared. Rumours of sighting are heard. But rumours of dinosaurs sightings also stem from africa, and from the Loch Ness region.
    Here is a link for an introduction to the thylacine:
    The Thylacine Museum - A Natural History of the Tasmanian Tiger
    quote:
    Cohort: Marsupialia () - (Illiger, 1811) M.c. Mckenna & S.k. Bell, 1997 - Marsupials
    Magnorder: Australidelphia () - (Szalay, in Archer, Ed., 1982) M.c. Mckenna & S.k. Bell, 1997
    Superorder: Eometatheria () - (Simpson, 1970) M.c. Mckenna & S.k. Bell, 1997
    Grandorder: Dasyuromorphia () - (Gill, 1872) M.c. Mckenna & S.k. Bell, 1997
    Order: Notoryctemorphia () - (Gill, 1872) Aplin & Archer, in Archer, Ed., 1987
    Family: Thylacinidae ()
    Genus: Thylacinus () - Temminck, 1824
    Specific name: Thylacinus - (Harris, 1808)
    Scientific name: - Thylacinus cynocephalus (Harris, 1808)
    "Exctinct species" implies that we agree on what is a specie. And this in itself is a topic that can generate multiple threads here. Taxonomy is one field where ID supporters/creationists like to make things blurry. But it seems that an agreement has been found on the taxonomy of the Thylacine. (if i'm wrong, i will accept a correction).
    So maybe creation science has an answer for this kind of interrogation: how and why species can disappear if they're immutable? If one disappears, why wouldn't all the others?
    Has creation science made scientific research in that sense?

    Replies to this message:
     Message 281 by Kelly, posted 03-06-2009 5:21 PM olivortex has replied

    Granny Magda
    Member
    Posts: 2462
    From: UK
    Joined: 11-12-2007
    Member Rating: 4.0


    Message 276 of 336 (501547)
    03-06-2009 4:52 PM
    Reply to: Message 251 by Kelly
    03-06-2009 2:39 PM


    Re: This is silly
    quote:
    AIG can do and say and believe what it wants to. So can I and so can you. This still has nothing to do with what the actual study in creation science is about. It is a study of the evidence, not of God. The fact that creation points to a creator is actually besides the point.
    Exactly how dishonest do you intend to get? You claim that CS has nothing to do with religion, yet, when you are shown that one of the best known CS organisations has religion as its number one priority, you say it is irrelevant.
    If CS studies the evidence and not God, why does AiG say that science is secondary to the Gospels?
    Mutate and Survive

    "The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 251 by Kelly, posted 03-06-2009 2:39 PM Kelly has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 278 by Kelly, posted 03-06-2009 5:06 PM Granny Magda has replied

    Kelly
    Member (Idle past 5495 days)
    Posts: 217
    Joined: 03-01-2009


    Message 277 of 336 (501548)
    03-06-2009 5:03 PM
    Reply to: Message 268 by New Cat's Eye
    03-06-2009 3:12 PM


    That is simply not true..
    You are parroting a common claim that has no truth to. If you were really familiar with the book, you would know this and you would know what creation science really is too.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 268 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-06-2009 3:12 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

    Kelly
    Member (Idle past 5495 days)
    Posts: 217
    Joined: 03-01-2009


    Message 278 of 336 (501549)
    03-06-2009 5:06 PM
    Reply to: Message 276 by Granny Magda
    03-06-2009 4:52 PM


    Re: This is silly
    AIG is not a Creation Science study..it is a biblical creation organization that can point to creation science to support itself.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 276 by Granny Magda, posted 03-06-2009 4:52 PM Granny Magda has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 279 by Granny Magda, posted 03-06-2009 5:13 PM Kelly has replied

    Granny Magda
    Member
    Posts: 2462
    From: UK
    Joined: 11-12-2007
    Member Rating: 4.0


    Message 279 of 336 (501550)
    03-06-2009 5:13 PM
    Reply to: Message 278 by Kelly
    03-06-2009 5:06 PM


    Re: This is silly
    So I take it you won't be quoting any more AiG sources to back up CS?
    Instead, how about you provide us with that creationist scientific study that I've been asking for.
    Mutate and Survive
    Added by Edit; You do realise don't you, that Gary Parker, co-author of the Morris/Parker book that you've been plugging was
    with Answers in Genesis as senior lecturer since AiG’s first year (1994, and remained full-time until 1999).
    Source
    Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

    "The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 278 by Kelly, posted 03-06-2009 5:06 PM Kelly has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 280 by Kelly, posted 03-06-2009 5:20 PM Granny Magda has replied

    Kelly
    Member (Idle past 5495 days)
    Posts: 217
    Joined: 03-01-2009


    Message 280 of 336 (501551)
    03-06-2009 5:20 PM
    Reply to: Message 279 by Granny Magda
    03-06-2009 5:13 PM


    Why not?
    When it comes to the scientific aspect, there is no reason not to.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 279 by Granny Magda, posted 03-06-2009 5:13 PM Granny Magda has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 284 by Granny Magda, posted 03-06-2009 5:29 PM Kelly has not replied

    Kelly
    Member (Idle past 5495 days)
    Posts: 217
    Joined: 03-01-2009


    Message 281 of 336 (501552)
    03-06-2009 5:21 PM
    Reply to: Message 275 by olivortex
    03-06-2009 4:32 PM


    I am not sure what you are asking
    Are you saying that extinction would not be in keeping with the creation model?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 275 by olivortex, posted 03-06-2009 4:32 PM olivortex has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 304 by olivortex, posted 03-07-2009 4:24 AM Kelly has replied

    Kelly
    Member (Idle past 5495 days)
    Posts: 217
    Joined: 03-01-2009


    Message 282 of 336 (501553)
    03-06-2009 5:23 PM
    Reply to: Message 272 by Modulous
    03-06-2009 3:24 PM


    While it definately boils down to time
    it has nothing to do with an inability to respond to most of what is said here. Creationists likely recognize the futility of it in a place where they are outnumbered by a herd of people totally indoctrinated deep down to the core of their very being.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 272 by Modulous, posted 03-06-2009 3:24 PM Modulous has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 283 by Rahvin, posted 03-06-2009 5:27 PM Kelly has not replied
     Message 285 by onifre, posted 03-06-2009 5:31 PM Kelly has replied
     Message 288 by Modulous, posted 03-06-2009 6:18 PM Kelly has replied
     Message 298 by Coyote, posted 03-06-2009 7:21 PM Kelly has not replied

    Rahvin
    Member
    Posts: 4032
    Joined: 07-01-2005
    Member Rating: 9.2


    Message 283 of 336 (501556)
    03-06-2009 5:27 PM
    Reply to: Message 282 by Kelly
    03-06-2009 5:23 PM


    Re: While it definately boils down to time
    people totally indoctrinated deep down to the core of their very being.
    Projection is fun, isn't it?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 282 by Kelly, posted 03-06-2009 5:23 PM Kelly has not replied

    Granny Magda
    Member
    Posts: 2462
    From: UK
    Joined: 11-12-2007
    Member Rating: 4.0


    Message 284 of 336 (501557)
    03-06-2009 5:29 PM
    Reply to: Message 280 by Kelly
    03-06-2009 5:20 PM


    Re: Why not?
    Because an organisation that has openly admitted that it places the Gospels before science is not a credible scientific source?
    Because an organisation that has openly admitted that it places the Gospels before science whilst espousing CS somewhat undermines your claim that the two are unrelated?
    You have just said that AiG is not a scientific organisation, yet you cite What Is Creation Science as a good source for info on CS. Its co-author is a former senior lecturer with AiG and held that position when he wrote the book.
    Are you sure they're unconnected? If so, why are there so many references to creation science at AiG?
    Mutate and Survive

    "The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 280 by Kelly, posted 03-06-2009 5:20 PM Kelly has not replied

    onifre
    Member (Idle past 2950 days)
    Posts: 4854
    From: Dark Side of the Moon
    Joined: 02-20-2008


    Message 285 of 336 (501558)
    03-06-2009 5:31 PM
    Reply to: Message 282 by Kelly
    03-06-2009 5:23 PM


    Creationists likely recognize the futility of it in a place where they are outnumbered by a herd of people totally indoctrinated deep down to the core of their very being.
    If by place you mean Earth then, yes, you are out numbered against the people who accept evolution.
    If by place you mean science then, yes, you are out numbered.
    If by place you mean colleges and universities then, yes, you are out numbered.
    If by place you mean this forum then, yes, you are out numbered.
    Do you know of any other places where evolution is either studied or discussed where you are NOT out numbered...?

    "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

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 282 by Kelly, posted 03-06-2009 5:23 PM Kelly has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 286 by Kelly, posted 03-06-2009 6:09 PM onifre has replied
     Message 294 by olivortex, posted 03-06-2009 6:53 PM onifre has not replied

    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024