Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation science II
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 16 of 207 (501759)
03-07-2009 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Kelly
03-07-2009 4:02 PM


Re: It is ridiculous to try and limit this discussion
quote:
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.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Kelly, posted 03-07-2009 4:02 PM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 10:29 AM Granny Magda has not replied

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


Message 17 of 207 (501761)
03-07-2009 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Coragyps
03-07-2009 4:16 PM


What planet are you talking about?
Please be more specific.
We always agree on what is observable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Coragyps, posted 03-07-2009 4:16 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Coragyps, posted 03-07-2009 4:31 PM Kelly has not replied
 Message 21 by Admin, posted 03-07-2009 5:23 PM Kelly has replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 18 of 207 (501764)
03-07-2009 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Kelly
03-07-2009 4:14 PM


Re: Oh please..
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Kelly, posted 03-07-2009 4:14 PM Kelly has not replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4717 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 19 of 207 (501768)
03-07-2009 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Kelly
03-07-2009 3:55 PM


No, Your Not , Are You
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.
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.
What Study?
AbE: Sorry, knee jerk.
It is ridiculous to try and limit this discussion
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.
You've given no list of studies. A study would look something like this:
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Kelly, posted 03-07-2009 3:55 PM Kelly has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 20 of 207 (501770)
03-07-2009 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Kelly
03-07-2009 4:24 PM


Re: What planet are you talking about?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Kelly, posted 03-07-2009 4:24 PM Kelly has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 21 of 207 (501780)
03-07-2009 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Kelly
03-07-2009 4:24 PM


Re: What planet are you talking about?
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.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Kelly, posted 03-07-2009 4:24 PM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Kelly, posted 03-08-2009 3:21 PM Admin has replied

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


Message 22 of 207 (501802)
03-07-2009 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Kelly
03-07-2009 4:11 PM


Re: This is false
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".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Kelly, posted 03-07-2009 4:11 PM Kelly has not replied

shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2849 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 23 of 207 (501804)
03-07-2009 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Kelly
03-07-2009 3:55 PM


Re: still not getting it...
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 Minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th7wr9KMu-I&feature=related

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Kelly, posted 03-07-2009 3:55 PM Kelly has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by rueh, posted 03-08-2009 11:29 AM shalamabobbi has not replied

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


Message 24 of 207 (501806)
03-07-2009 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Kelly
03-07-2009 4:14 PM


Re: Oh please..
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:
Felids are purely carnivorous animals, subsisting almost entirely on other vertebrates. Aside from the Lion, they are solitary. They are generally secretive animals, are often nocturnal, and live in relatively inaccessible habitats. Around three-quarters of cat species live in forested terrain, and they are generally agile climbers. However, felids may be found in almost any environment, with some species being native to mountainous terrain or deserts.
Wild felids are native to every continent except Australia and Antarctica.
Physical appearance
The various species of felid vary greatly in size. One of the smallest is the Black-footed Cat at between 35-40 cm in length, while the largest is the Siberian Tiger. Compared with many other mammals, they have relatively short faces, and good binocular vision.
The fur of felids takes many different forms, being much thicker in those species that live in cold environments, such as the Snow Leopard. The colour of felids is also highly variable - although brown to golden fur is common in most species - often marked with distinctive spots, stripes, or rosettes. Many felid species also have a "tear stripe," a black stripe running from the corner of each eye down the side of the muzzle.
The tongue of felids is covered with horny papillae, which help to rasp meat from their prey. Almost all felids have fully retractable claws (one exception is the Cheetah). Cats have five toes on their forefeet and four on their hindfeet, reflecting their reliance on gripping and holding down their prey with their claws.
Senses
Felids have relatively large eyes, situated to provide binocular vision. Their night vision is especially good, due to the presence of a tapetum lucidum, which reflects light back inside the eyeball, and gives felid eyes their distinctive shine.
The ears of felids are also large, and especially sensitive to high-frequency sounds in the smaller cats. Felids also have a highly developed sense of smell, although not to the degree seen in canids; this is further supplemented by the presence of a vomeronasal organ in the roof of the mouth, allowing the animal to "taste" the air. The use of this organ is associated with the Flehmen response, in which the upper lip is curled upwards.
Felids possess highly sensitive vibrissa (whiskers) set deep within the skin, and provide the cat with sensory information about the slightest air movement around it. For this reason, whiskers are very helpful to nocturnal hunters. Most felids are able to land on their feet after a fall, an ability which relies on vision and the sense of balance acting together.
Dentition
With a few exceptions such as the lynx, felids have the dental formula:
3.1.3.1
3.1.2.1
The canine teeth are large, reaching exceptional size in the extinct saber-tooth species. The upper third premolar and lower molar are adapted as carnassial teeth, suited to tearing and cutting flesh.
The jaws of felids can only move vertically. This prevents them from being able to chew, but makes it easier for their powerful masseter jaw muscles to hold struggling prey.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Kelly, posted 03-07-2009 4:14 PM Kelly has not replied

Sarawak
Member (Idle past 5478 days)
Posts: 47
Joined: 03-07-2009


Message 25 of 207 (501819)
03-07-2009 10:21 PM


Smoke and Mirrors
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 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 26 of 207 (501824)
03-08-2009 1:16 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Kelly
03-07-2009 4:07 PM


Re: This is so exhausting
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Kelly, posted 03-07-2009 4:07 PM Kelly has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by subbie, posted 03-08-2009 1:29 AM anglagard has not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 27 of 207 (501827)
03-08-2009 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by anglagard
03-08-2009 1:16 AM


Re: This is so exhausting
quote:
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.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by anglagard, posted 03-08-2009 1:16 AM anglagard has not replied

Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 2931 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 28 of 207 (501832)
03-08-2009 3:33 AM


Morris and Creation Science
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"

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Modulous, posted 03-08-2009 11:38 AM Lithodid-Man has not replied

rueh
Member (Idle past 3661 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


Message 29 of 207 (501871)
03-08-2009 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by shalamabobbi
03-07-2009 7:53 PM


Re: still not getting it...
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-07-2009 7:53 PM shalamabobbi has not replied

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


Message 30 of 207 (501875)
03-08-2009 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Lithodid-Man
03-08-2009 3:33 AM


Taken them to the cleaners
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Lithodid-Man, posted 03-08-2009 3:33 AM Lithodid-Man 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