|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Creation science II | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
quote: I think what everyone would like to see, Kelly, is a specific creation science study. I'm talking about a paper, written by creation scientists, using the methodology of creation science. I can cite scientific papers written by evolutionary biologists. You are being asked to cite a paper for the CS side. Please give it a go. I can't overemphasise how much more seriously you would be taken if you could produce a quality creation science paper. Mutate and Survive Edited by Granny Magda, : Rephrased it a bit. "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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kelly Member (Idle past 5524 days) Posts: 217 Joined: |
Please be more specific.
We always agree on what is observable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 763 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
I have more than once used that term in conjunction with "species." There are many different types of cats, for example. But a cat is a cat is a cat. Oooh! The start of an answer! Is a bobcat a cat? An ocelot? A lion or tiger? A fossa? And is Yersinia pestis, one of the Germy Type, part of the same type as Yersinia enterocolica? Part of the same type as their fellow Enterobacteria Escherichia coli? Are all Proteobacteria one type, or a couple of thousands of types? How do Creation Microbiologists decide? "The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4744 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
But regardless of what a person's religion is, creation science is a study of the evidence or data left behind from the origins moment--whatever that is, whether creation or slow evolution in the vertical sense.
What Study?Before Darwin, most scientists were creationists studying their particular field of interest. Today, just because evolutionary theory has grippied us by the throat doesn't mean that scientists can't still look for the created order and design of our world as opposed to looking for evidence of long slow evolutionary processes. AbE: Sorry, knee jerk.It is ridiculous to try and limit this discussion You've given no list of studies. A study would look something like this:
to just one half of the equation. As long as the overall topic is creation, we ought to be allowed to say the buzz word, evolution. I don't know what you mean by asking what are these studies?--since I gave you quite the long list of what these studies are. The difference between a creationist and an evolutionist is not in the actual studies of the evidence itself, but it comes in the interpretations. The methods of science are the same. The difference is in the models and the interpretation of the results of these studies. Biskit and Gravy (1982). "On why my poop doesn't stink". Science 2024: 15825—14530.
Did you do that? Where are the studies? The blue is off topic, so ya' know. Edited by lyx2no, : No reason given. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 763 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Please be more specific. We always agree on what is observable. So you agree that the age derived for moon rocks by measurement of five different decay chains, all following the known and observed laws of nuclear physics, is over 4,200,000,000 years? You agree with mainstream biologists that we humans having remnants of two centromeres and four telomeres on our chromosome 2 is a real fact? "The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13040 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Hi Kelly,
In the interests of protecting you from yourself, I've enabled a message rate limit for you. You may only post every 15 minutes. This constraint should make apparent to you the advantages of choosing which messages you want to reply to, and of consolidating replies to messages about the same thing into a single message. Edited by Admin, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
I have given many examples of how creationists interpret the evidence differently and why You've offered a few sketchy claims about different interpretations of a few facts, but far from sufficient detail and not a single attempt at why or how the explanation addresses all the data as well or better than the mainstream explanation. Ya see, it's all an interconnected web. One thing leads to another. I know you want to look at individual facts in isolation 'cause the big picture is death for your claims, but that ain't science. Do you interpret the geological column as showing that the Earth is young? Then you need an explanation for why the many wildly different and independent methods of dating the Earth and rocks agree that the Earth is old and exactly how old it is.1 And if you want to claim that those dating methods are wrong, you need an explanation for why they agree essentially all of the time, and why the most fundamental principles of physics and chemistry (which predict unambiguously that the dates are correct) don't apply in this case. And if the most fundamental principles of physics and chemistry don't apply in this case, the why do they apply so well to all the other cases we have investigated? And then you need to explain, in detail, how the geological column came to be in such a short time. Not "da fludde did it". In detail. That gets you into paleosols and aeolian deposits and metamorphosis and pretty soon back into basic and physics and chemnistry. It just goes on and on and on and on ... everything connects to everything ... if the Earth is young, your computer cannot possibly work. The best and brightest of the YEC "scientists" have labored hard, and brought forth ... "It's a miracle!" (paraphrased). Of course, when the only explanation if a miracle, that ain't science. ---------------------- 1Examples of a few2 problematic dates, sepecially those obtained by "creation scientists" by outright and acknowledged fraus, don't count. Examples on request. 2In the context of hundreds of thousands if not millions of concordant dates, a few hundred or a few thousand is "few".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
shalamabobbi Member (Idle past 2877 days) Posts: 397 Joined: |
Hi Kelly,
I don't know whether you'll return after your spanking but if so perhaps the following video will help you understand why your approach to science is flawed. Sometimes perspective or vantage point make all the difference.
But regardless of what a person's religion is.. hexagonal patterns prove the creation by Allah! Disproving Evolution in Minuteshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th7wr9KMu-I&feature=related
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
I have more than once used that term in conjunction with "species." There are many different types of cats, for example. But a cat is a cat is a cat. What others are trying to tell you is that isn't good enough for science. In science we use operational definitions. Briefly, an operational definition allows anyone to determine objectively whether something fits in a particular category or not. So an operational definition of "type" would be a sequence of explicit steps, possibly including data gathering (but you must specify exactly what data). Anyone could then take two arbitrarily chosen organisms and determine if they are the same type or not by following those steps. They wouldn't have to ask you, they wouldn't have to go look anything else up, all they need (aside from a reasonable familiarity with general scientific procedures) would be in the operational definition. "Cats are all cats" is not a relevant definition. The beginning of an operational definition of "cat" might go like this:
quote: But this could be greatly improved. But it's a start. For example, if we find an animal with a jaw that can move vertically and horizontally, we can tell immediately it's not a cat (see the last paragraph of the definition). The higgledy-piggledy vague and undefined way you've seen creationists talk doesn't cut the mustard in real science. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarawak Member (Idle past 5506 days) Posts: 47 Joined: |
Creation Science stems back in time from when many fields were co-opting the name "science" to lend an air of more bona fides to their studies. So we have Political Science, Behavioral Science, Social Science, Computer Science, etc. They all have some areas where they can generate the rigor of the "hard" sciences (Biology, Chemistry, Physics), but a lot of spots where this gets "iffy". Hell, even Mortuary Science has some rigor () in it. But Creation Science has got no area where real science rigor can fit.
But they want you to believe since they use the word "science", it is science. Phooey.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 865 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
I don't know what else I can say to make you see that creationists are studying the same evidence and using the same scientific methods and data as any evolutionist is. We don't oppose any science and in fact agree with everything that is observable. Jaw dropping FSTDT fodder. Please show where you or your 'infallible' sources have the remotest idea of what constitutes science, the scientific method, what constitutes data, what mathematical analysis of data means, or for that matter anything that supports such a nonsense statement in any thread, in any way, mean, or form, concerning anything subject to scientific scrutiny. A simple statement that 'creation science' is equal to or better than the method used in all the discoveries in natural science since Newton does not refute all science, or even the enlightenment. Provide one example, just one, where 'creation science' did anything to predict a future occurrence or improve the human condition. That is all I ask. Name just one. Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
quote: I think this is approximately the eleventy-seventh time she's been asked this question. The only thing she's come up with is the usual ad hoc, jury-rigged retrodictions you can find on any cdesign proponentist website. Don't hold your breath waiting for more. For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Lithodid-Man Member (Idle past 2959 days) Posts: 504 From: Juneau, Alaska, USA Joined: |
I am very eagerly awaiting my copy of "What is Creation Science" from Amazon. I couldn't wait so used Amazon's 'search within this volume' and I see that he dedicated some time to symbiosis and specifically cleaner behavior. I did my Master's work on the reproductive biology of cleaner shrimp, so not specifically on cleaner behavior. However, I was expected to know a great deal about cleaner shrimp and other 'cleaner' species like the fishes. So I have all of that literature in hard copy, including many papers on the evolution of such behavior. I cannot wait to see how he ties this to a creation science worldview, when there is 40+ year old literature on how it evolved. This includes "part time" cleaners as well as obligate cleaners. Fun times ahead!
Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?" Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true" Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?" Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
rueh Member (Idle past 3689 days) Posts: 382 From: universal city tx Joined: |
ROTFLMFAO!! I just love how he states that the hexagonal patterns of water is proof of god's works, than proceeds to point to triangular and pentagon shaped objects inorder to prove it. Somebody forgot how to count.
'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat' The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ The industrial revolution, flipped a bitch on evolution.-NOFX
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I am very eagerly awaiting my copy of "What is Creation Science" from Amazon. I couldn't wait so used Amazon's 'search within this volume' and I see that he dedicated some time to symbiosis and specifically cleaner behavior. I did my Master's work on the reproductive biology of cleaner shrimp, so not specifically on cleaner behavior. However, I was expected to know a great deal about cleaner shrimp and other 'cleaner' species like the fishes. So I have all of that literature in hard copy, including many papers on the evolution of such behavior. I cannot wait to see how he ties this to a creation science worldview, when there is 40+ year old literature on how it evolved. This includes "part time" cleaners as well as obligate cleaners. Fun times ahead! *puts on his Creationist lab coat* But how did the first cleaner fish come about? Did it just happen to have a mutation that happened to give it the idea to go into a sharks mouth and did it just happen that that shark had a mutation that gave it the idea to not eat the fish that swam into its mouth? What massive improbability! Since I cannot think of a way for such a system to evolve, both the cleaner and the cleaned animal must have been created by an non-specific non-natural process, at some non-specific time. *takes of lab coat* I've not read the book, but I think I might presumptuously lay a virtual bet that this is pretty close to the reasoning employed. If I am right - I guess I do know Creation Science after all - I just did some all on my own! If I am wrong - then I don't know Creation Science and I need to go back to Creation School. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024