Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   People Don't Know What Creation Science Is
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 301 of 336 (501598)
03-06-2009 10:22 PM


No Time to Say Hello, Goodbye
With apologies to Buzsaw fo bad spelling and grammar, but i just got in, read the post and now must go, with out tiem to correct mistakes.
I'm soory kelly if you feel beat up. There are a number of creationaist here that for reasond onknowmn have not come forward. maybe next time they show some faith.
I totor almost every calss i have in school. One of the things i see very ofteen is kids holding beliefs based on half a dozen points. to them this is a massive amount of information. They don't seem to realize the opposing view, mine, is based on hundreds, even thousands of pieces of information. There is a story about a tribe somewhere that counted " one, two, many". After many, all numbers were the same. theese kids seem do the same thing. after they get past the firs dozen, there number is as big as mine. I thing you are suffering from the same affliction.
Modulus, Cyote, percy, grany, rahvin and otheers are runnig with tens of thousands of bits of infoo against your, so far, dozen bit of stuff. You have to be a bit more humble in youyr approch if you expect to gain anything, including our convertions, out of thei experiance.
Stick around, please.

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

Replies to this message:
 Message 310 by Kelly, posted 03-07-2009 7:23 AM lyx2no has replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 302 of 336 (501607)
03-07-2009 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 300 by Taq
03-06-2009 10:02 PM


Re: Starting fresh
IOW, if Kelly really wants to show us that "creation science" really is science, then she must actually show us that "creation science" really does science. Otherwise, she'll just waste an entire 300-message topic. No, wait, she just did that.
Yet again, I do not doubt her sincerity, but rather I attribute it to her only having only been fed "creation science" nonsense. All she knows is what Morris had written.

So, Kelly, why haven't you presented any evidence for your "creation model"? Or even presented the details of that "creation model"? I attribute it to the fact that there are no such details nor evidence.
To extend what Tag was describing, you need to demonstrate that your "creation model" really is a scientific model. A scientific model is built to describe something. Please note that a scientific model is built. Model-building involves that process of hypothesis formation, testing, and refinement that you should have learned in science class. You observe something, form a hypothesis to attempt to explain it, test that hypothesis and see where and how it fails, then correct or replace the hypothesis and repeat the process. It is an iterative process.
There are two products of this model-building process: a detailed description and evidence. Since the goal is to explain a phenomenon or process and describe how it works, then naturally the building of the model will produce a detailed description. If there is no detailed description, then that indicates that no model had ever been built. And all the data gathered during observation and testing creates a body of evidence for the model. If there is no evidence, then that indicates that none of that data had been gathered and furthermore that no observation nor testing had taken place.
We have yet to see any creationist present a detailed description of their "creation model", nor any evidence for it. What does that say about the "creation model" and creationist claims that it is a scientific model?
As we've already demonstrated to you with ample evidence, the "creation model" is nothing but a superficial rewording of a narrow sectarian interpretation of Genesis, reworded in order to sneak it past the courts into the public schools. I gave you a link to Judge Overton's decision in the Arkansas "balanced-treatment" case. Section II describes the history of the bill and the actions of the local religious community in getting it introduced and passed, including how the professional creationists counselled the locals on how to hide the religious purpose of the law and pretend that it was scientific.
Here from a creationist source, Henry Morris' own Institute for Creation Research (ICR), is a table that they published for the purpose of showing that the "Scientific Creation Model" is totally different from the "Biblical Creation Model". Instead, their lawyer, Wendell Bird, only succeeded in demonstrating that they are identical and that the "scientific" "model" was taken from the biblical one (my apologies for blank space being caused by the table HTML; I do not know how to eliminate it):
THE TWO CREATION MODELS OF WENDELL R. BIRDAs Taken From the December 1978 Issue of Acts & Facts
Scientific Creation Model: Biblical Creation Model:
I. Special creation of the universe and earth (by a Creator), on the basis of scientific evidence. Divine creation of the heaven, stars, and earth by God, on the basis of Genesis.
II. Application of the entropy law to produce deterioration in the earth and life, on the basis of scientific evidence. Application of the curse, pronounced by God after Adam's fall, to produce deterioration in the earth and life, on the basis of Genesis.
III. Special creation of life (by a Creator), on the basis of scientific evidence. Divine creation of plant and animal life, Adam the first man, and Eve from Adam's side by God, on the basis of Genesis.
IV. Fixity of original plant and animal kinds, on the basis of scientific evidence. Fixity of original plant and animal kinds, determined by God, on the basis of Genesis.
V. Distinct ancestry of man and apes, on the basis of scientific evidence. Distinct ancestry of Adam and apes, on the basis of Genesis.
VI. Explanation of much of the earth's geology by a worldwide deluge, on the basis of scientific evidence. Explanation of the earth's geology by a world-wide flood in which only Noah, his family, and animal pairs were preserved in an ark, on the basis of Genesis.
VII. Relatively recent origin of the earth and living kinds (in comparison with several billion years), on the basis of scientific evidence. Approximately six thousand year time span since creation of the earth, life, and Adam, on the basis of Genesis.
Kelly, if you do go back to a creationist forum, I would like to suggest an interesting exercise. Well, more than an exercise. Ask your fellow creationists to do what we have repeatedly asked you to do, to present the "scientific creation model" and the evidence for it. Keep pushing for it (that's what will make it more than an exercise, the persistence). See what you get.
In the meantime, you need to test everything. The Talk.Origins Archive at TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy is a good source of information. Wikipedia too, as a starting point.
Also, there's a site in Canada whose goal was to promote religious tolerance. On one page, they describe their effort to communicate with creationists about an obviously incorrect claim. Back in the late 1970's, a creationist, most likely Walter Brown, heard about leap seconds, which are added about every 18 months to correct accumulating errors in the clock from the slowing of the earth's rotation. Because Brown misunderstood what leap seconds did, he created his claim that that rate of slowing was by one second every 18 months, which in reality is several thousands of times too rapid -- the US Naval Observatory and an observatory in Paris, who jointly maintain our time standards, also directly measure the rate of the earth's rotation and its slowing. Brown's claim was refuted in the early 1980's and yet creationists continue to use that demonstrably false claim to the present day, though I do not see any evidence that Brown continues using it, even though he continues to use his false and refuted rattlesnake-protein claim.
On that page, "A FAILED ATTEMPT TO DIALOG WITH "YOUNG EARTH" CREATION SCIENTISTS" at Unsuccessful dialog with young-earth creationists about an error, they tell of having contacted the web masters of fifteen creationist web sites that carried that claim. They had hoped that once the creationists saw that the claim was wrong, they would do the honest thing and remove it. None of the sites did the honest thing. The conclusion:
quote:
The author honestly expected that some level of sincere dialog would occur. He hoped that this project would be successful, and that a number of webmasters would delete their earth-slowing "proof" from their web sites. If that had happened, then his intention was to attempt continue the process by trying to convince creation science webmasters to remove other false "proofs" of a young earth. Among the most popular are indicators based on:
- The decay of the Earth's magnetic field.
- The recession of the Moon from the Earth.
- The age of trees.
- Population growth.
- The temperature of the earth's core.
- The second law of thermodynamics.
The experiment has convinced the author that meaningful dialog is probably impossible. Supporters of creation science -- at least the 15 contacted -- seem to be totally resistant to change. Attempts to correct these websites are probably not worth pursuing.
Edited by dwise1, : probably a failed attempt to remove that empty space before the table
Edited by Admin, : Remove extraneous white space before table.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by Taq, posted 03-06-2009 10:02 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by Kelly, posted 03-07-2009 7:10 AM dwise1 has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 303 of 336 (501609)
03-07-2009 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 300 by Taq
03-06-2009 10:02 PM


Re: Starting fresh
Hello Taq, welcome to EvC.
Taq writes:
For example, if your hypothesis is that all swans are white then the null hypothesis is a black swan. Find a black swan and you have supported the null hypothesis, and falsified the hypothesis.
Or a pink swan, or a green swan, or a yellow swan...
Yes, I know, those don't exist. But that's not the point. The point is, the null hypothesis doesn't have to exist for it to make the theory valid. Hope that helped.
Good question by the way, but I doubt you'll get an answer, I tried several times myself and didn't get an answer to my questions about how creation science works.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by Taq, posted 03-06-2009 10:02 PM Taq has not replied

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


Message 304 of 336 (501617)
03-07-2009 4:24 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by Kelly
03-06-2009 5:21 PM


Re: I am not sure what you are asking
Are you saying that extinction would not be in keeping with the creation model?
Yes, at least that's what i have been told several times by creationists/ID supporters.
The logic goes like this: since species can disappear, and since they're immutable (according to the creationist view), i figure the earth will wind up empty of all animal form one day.
On other occasions i could find an agreement with an ID supporter on the fact that yes, species can disappear, and do. But i failed to obtain a satisfying answer to my interrogation. Has a creator designed the earth to be without animals, including humans?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Kelly, posted 03-06-2009 5:21 PM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by Kelly, posted 03-07-2009 7:02 AM olivortex has not replied

Kelly
Member (Idle past 5496 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 305 of 336 (501629)
03-07-2009 7:02 AM
Reply to: Message 304 by olivortex
03-07-2009 4:24 AM


I never heard this before
From what I can tell, extinction is something that the creation model would predict. In fact, creation science says that the dinosaurs likely went extinct due to natural reasons such as a climate change--but also think that due to the way they were fossilized they may have been victim to a flood catastrophe first and that if there were any survivors after that--they simply died off eventually anyway. The idea is that water dinosaurs and the flying reptiles could have initially survived a catastrophe like the fossil record suggests had occured.
Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.
Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by olivortex, posted 03-07-2009 4:24 AM olivortex has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 318 by Taq, posted 03-07-2009 1:00 PM Kelly has not replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 306 of 336 (501631)
03-07-2009 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by Kelly
03-06-2009 2:52 PM


Re: Actually, that is so wrong..
I find it amusing that someone who claims 'creation science' has nothing to do with religion quotes religion and faith so much in the pushing of it.
Why do you think all the people who push it are very conservative religious wise and are obsessed about their faith if it has nothing to do with religion?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Kelly, posted 03-06-2009 2:52 PM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 328 by Kelly, posted 03-07-2009 2:22 PM ramoss has not replied

Kelly
Member (Idle past 5496 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 307 of 336 (501632)
03-07-2009 7:10 AM
Reply to: Message 302 by dwise1
03-07-2009 12:14 AM


I have no creationist forum to go back to
I never never frequented a creation forum. I don't need to ask for creation model or examples of what the science is about. I already know the answers and have tried to supply some here. I have recommended a good book which would go into more detail than I can.
By-the-way, it isn't my fault that everyone jumped all over this thread and it is the reason I am unable to keep up. But I can see that there is alot of closedmindedness here, so I can't waste this kind of time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by dwise1, posted 03-07-2009 12:14 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by Huntard, posted 03-07-2009 7:20 AM Kelly has replied
 Message 309 by AdminModulous, posted 03-07-2009 7:20 AM Kelly has not replied
 Message 311 by dwise1, posted 03-07-2009 8:49 AM Kelly has not replied
 Message 316 by Capt Stormfield, posted 03-07-2009 11:31 AM Kelly has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 308 of 336 (501634)
03-07-2009 7:20 AM
Reply to: Message 307 by Kelly
03-07-2009 7:10 AM


Re: I have no creationist forum to go back to
Kelly writes:
I never never frequented a creation forum. I don't need to ask for creation model or examples of what the science is about. I already know the answers and have tried to supply some here. I have recommended a good book which would go into more detail than I can.
But I don't care about the argument the book makes, tell me what it is in your own words. Then we can have a discussion. Telling people "it's all in the book". Doesn't get us anywhere.
By-the-way, it isn't my fault that everyone jumped all over this thread and it is the reason I am unable to keep up. But I can see that there is alot of closedmindedness here, so I can't waste this kind of time.p
I'm not close minded, but you failed to present your argument.
If you want to put this all to rest it is very simple. Tell us, in your own words, what creation science is, what methods it uses to study the world around them, what the data is that was gathered, what conclusions were drawn from it, and what tests were done to ensure these conclusions were accurate.
That might be a bit much to do all at once, so just start with the first thing. Tell us, in your own words, what creation science is.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by Kelly, posted 03-07-2009 7:10 AM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 326 by Kelly, posted 03-07-2009 2:06 PM Huntard has not replied

AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 309 of 336 (501635)
03-07-2009 7:20 AM
Reply to: Message 307 by Kelly
03-07-2009 7:10 AM


Closure of thread warning
Kelly, our threads normally close around 300 posts. This one doesn't seem to moving forwards anymore so someone, myself or another Admin will be closing it soon enough. If anybody wants to post a conclusion they should do so now. People should not be replying to other people's conclusions, and replies may be hidden.
Meanwhile, if you want to give us a review of "What is Creation Science?", would you be surprised to learn we have a forum for that? Heh, its The Book Nook.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by Kelly, posted 03-07-2009 7:10 AM Kelly has not replied

Kelly
Member (Idle past 5496 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 310 of 336 (501636)
03-07-2009 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 301 by lyx2no
03-06-2009 10:22 PM


not expecting conversion
lyx2no,
I only wanted to get people to stop claiming that creation science is religion or a study of God or the Bible. My intention this far has not been to debate creationist's findings verses evolutions--but to start by getting on the same page as to what is creation science?
But it seems that although everyone here denies it is a science, they want to argue the findings anyway. That ought to tell them something. Obviously I have at least done the job of showing how it might actually be a debatable science--even if they disagree with the findings.
Creationists believe in sudden creation. I wonder what the dinosaur evolved from? We have their fossilized bones which appear suddenly in the fossil record with no apparent linking backwards. What say you? Are there any proposed dinosaur missing links?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by lyx2no, posted 03-06-2009 10:22 PM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by lyx2no, posted 03-07-2009 9:38 AM Kelly has not replied
 Message 314 by NosyNed, posted 03-07-2009 10:34 AM Kelly has not replied
 Message 319 by Taq, posted 03-07-2009 1:04 PM Kelly has not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 311 of 336 (501641)
03-07-2009 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 307 by Kelly
03-07-2009 7:10 AM


Re: I have no creationist forum to go back to
Sorry, Kelly, but you have amply demonstrated over and over again that you do not know what "creation science" is.
Sorry, Kelly, but that book you love so much (Morris' and Parker's book) is scientific crap and as theology it's not much better. So are the rest of the ICR's books. We know that because we've read them.
I suggested that exercise on a creationist forum because somebody there might be able to point you to the answers that you have been consistently unable to produce: a detailed scientific description of your "creation model" and any evidence for that model. You see, I would allow for there actually being some honest scientists who are creationists and who have been trying to do a real scientific study of creation. IOW, it is possible that there could be an actually scientific form of creationism out there. We can't find it. You most certainly have not found it. Maybe somebody else has. If you refuse to try to find it, then how are you ever going to?
If you were to go back over this topic, you would find that most of those messages that were "jumping all over this thread" were repeating the same request, that you demonstrate that "creation science" really is scientific, that you produce the description of "creation model" and evidence for it. You have persistently avoided doing that, so we have had to continue to repeat those extremely reasonable and pertinent questions. If you had bothered to try to answer those questions, then that "jumping" would not have happened. Now, true, you had no real answers, but shouldn't you have at least admitted it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by Kelly, posted 03-07-2009 7:10 AM Kelly has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 312 of 336 (501645)
03-07-2009 9:26 AM


My Closing Arguments
Kelly's right, creation science is not religion.
In reality, creation science represents the efforts of the fundamentalist community to dress up Genesis as science by removing all religious references. Their goal is to make Genesis concepts like a young Earth, unchangeable species, and a relatively recent global flood, acceptable in public school science classrooms where they can be taught alongside modern scientific understandings of cosmology, geology and biology.
But despite the "creation science" name, there is no science in it. As Kelly has confirmed for us here, it consists primarily of criticisms of evolution and of long-ago refuted claims of miraculous events like global floods.
Some advice for Kelly: people keep giving you good advice and you've managed to follow none of it. You're going to end up unhappy and frustrated if you keep up as you are. Take a step back and reflect on your experience here in this thread. Relax and take your time. Do a little reading outside your favorite book. Oh, and one more thing. The next time you feel like calling people close-minded or other names, look in the mirror.
--Percy

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 313 of 336 (501649)
03-07-2009 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 310 by Kelly
03-07-2009 7:23 AM


Phogna-Bologna
I only wanted to get people to stop claiming that creation science is religion or a study of God or the Bible.
We all know that CS is not, per se, the study of God, the Bible or religion anymore than evolution is the study of Darwin, On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or science; consequently, no one is claiming it is. If that is all you wanted to say we'd be sitting here, at post two, saying ' True, true."
But you said more. Still are; i.e.,
Obviously I have at least done the job of showing how it might actually be a debatable science--even if they disagree with the findings.
CS is not any kind of science, and you have not shown otherwise.
If your evidence that CS is a science is:
But it seems that although everyone here denies it is a science, they want to argue the findings anyway.
I must ask: if I ask you if the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real and you venture to answer the question is that alone is evidence of His noodly existence?
That ought to tell them something.
Yeah. It tells us you're kind of daft.
I wonder what the dinosaur evolved from? We have their fossilized bones which appear suddenly in the fossil record with no apparent linking backwards. What say you? Are there any proposed dinosaur missing links?
Lord love a duck! You wonder what dinosaurs evolved from, and you think you're competent to make an argument of what science is or isn't ? That's like saying you don't know what "hood latch" is but arguing with your mechanic as to why your car won't start (but worse, actually).
Skim through On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, forgetting that it's about phogna-bologna evolution, but pay close attention to Darwin's presentation. That is how a science is presented. The way has been pointed out to you, Kelly, for you to begin to do what it is you claim can be done. You've taken not a single step along that path.
Edited by lyx2no, : Add "venture to". It sounds cool.
Edited by lyx2no, : "is" for first "that".

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by Kelly, posted 03-07-2009 7:23 AM Kelly has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 314 of 336 (501658)
03-07-2009 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 310 by Kelly
03-07-2009 7:23 AM


Using facts
We have their fossilized bones which appear suddenly in the fossil record with no apparent linking backwards.
You make your judgments on a number of things you think are facts but which are not.
Your statement above is not true. There is lots of linking backwards.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by Kelly, posted 03-07-2009 7:23 AM Kelly has not replied

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


Message 315 of 336 (501662)
03-07-2009 11:04 AM


No Answers, No Science
I have been trying to get answers to these questions;
  • Who might be a good example of a creation scientist?
  • Can you show us a high quality scientific paper by a creation scientist?
  • What have creation scientists discovered?
  • Which predictions of creation science have been borne out by observation?
  • What practical benefits has creation science provided?
Let's take a look at the answers I got.
Who might be a good example of a creation scientist?
Now Kelly did post a list of scientists, that's true. Unfortunately, it was a list provided by AiG, an explicitely religious organisation (as well as a very dishonest one), which makes me doubt its value somewhat. Many of those on the list have been dead for a very long time. Lists like this are just silly. We can't evaluate the scientific credentials of every person on such a list, its just another form of the Gish Gallop. Besides, creation science can't win the numbers game. The overwhelming majority of scientists accept evolution.
Can you show us a high quality scientific paper by a creation scientist?
Apparently not. Kelly has made no attempt to provide us with a CS paper. Why not? Is she just too lazy or does she realise that CS output is not up to scratch?
What have creation scientists discovered?
Nothing it seems. Kelly has made no attempt to answer this question.
Which predictions of creation science have been borne out by observation?
Kelly has tried to answer this, albeit not directly. These are examples of the kind of answer she has provided.
Kelly writes:
The creation model postulates that all the basic types of plants and animals were directly created and did not evolve from other types at all.
That is not a prediction.
Consequently the creationist predicts that no transitional sequences (except within each created type) will ever be found, either in the present array of organisms or in the fossil record.
Now that is a prediction, but it was falsified before any of us were even born. I would say that the answer to my question is that CS tries its best to avoid making predictions, for fear of embarrassing itself even further than usual.
What practical benefits has creation science provided?
None. Nada. Zilch. It's a shame.
Two questions answered poorly and three ignored. If creation science were actually science, these questions should be easy to answer, but instead all we get is sloganeering and preaching.
In short, there is no such thing as creation science. There is only a big lie, perpetrated by religious fundamentalists, in order to sneak their holy books into the schools. It's shabby and dishonest and anyone with a conscience ought to have nothing to do with it.
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

Replies to this message:
 Message 317 by ICANT, posted 03-07-2009 12:49 PM Granny Magda has replied
 Message 327 by Kelly, posted 03-07-2009 2:13 PM Granny Magda 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