Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation science II
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 46 of 312 (501969)
03-09-2009 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Kelly
03-08-2009 8:37 PM


Re: I think it makes sense
Hello, Kelly.
I can't remember if we've communicated directly or not yet. If not, welcome to EvC!
I realize you've got a lot of people after you right now, and I don't really want to increase your work load, but I'd like the chance to comment, after reading most of the threads you've participated in so far.
Kelly writes:
I am trying to show that creationists use the same scientific methods and study the same data in the same way as evolutionists do. Creationists are involved in every aspect of science as scientists.
You've no doubt noticed the high quantity of outrage that this statement has caused from your debate rivals, so I won't add any of my own ridicule to the mix. Just know that I disagree with you. I’ll spare you my personal feelings on the matter.
Instead, I would like to touch a bit on the reasons why your message isn’t getting through. The basic reason is that creation science typically only defines things on a superficial basis. But, science simply cannot make any progress without defining in detail, and, often, splitting hairs in the layman’s eyes.
For example, I’d like to pull a quote from the previous thread:
Kelly, post #21, writes:
Creation suggests that everything in the world was created at one point in time through processes that are no longer continuing today.
Was this created? is not a scientific question. Did this evolve? is also not a scientific question. This is because science is not structured to answer questions like these. Science is not a simple factoid-generator. You can walk outside and gather all the factoids you want without resorting to science: Do cows eat corn? All you need is to see a cow eat corn, and you’ve got your factoid. And, no science need be involved.
Science is used for something more than that: it’s used to explain factoids, not produce them. Was this created?, Did this evolve? and Do cows eat corn? are boring and trivial questions: once they are answered, the very next question is, So what? What does it mean in the grand scheme of things? And that is the type of question that science is structured to answer.
Within the scientific community, the term science is exclusively used to describe efforts to dissect natural processes and recreate them in the form of theories, models or equations. Superficial explanations and trivia about the natural world simply are not science.
So, instead of asking, was X created?, creation scientists (if they truly were scientists) would be asking, How was X created?
That's why evolutionists want to know whether you're espousing a biblical explanation, or something else: because, without an explanation or a mechanism, you can't claim that you're doing science. Creationists insist that they don't have to answer the question. But, curiously enough, that is the only question that would make creationism into science.

-Bluejay/Mantis/Thylacosmilus
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Kelly, posted 03-08-2009 8:37 PM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 9:13 AM Blue Jay has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 47 of 312 (501973)
03-09-2009 4:29 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Kelly
03-08-2009 8:37 PM


Re: I think it makes sense
I am trying to show that creationists use the same scientific methods and study the same data in the same way as evolutionists do.
But this is untrue.
Anyone with a even the remotest familiarity with "creation science" knows that it is based on stuff that creationists have made up.
This is why it has earned such thorough contempt from real scientists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Kelly, posted 03-08-2009 8:37 PM Kelly has not replied

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


Message 48 of 312 (501992)
03-09-2009 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Blue Jay
03-09-2009 2:15 AM


Creatioists are not trying to prove or even figure out
...the "how" of creation anymore than evolutionists are trying to prove or figure out the "how" of evolution in the vertical sense. I am talking origins, that is.
Neither the evolutionist or creationist can go back in time to that moment or recreate it in a lab. In this respect, the scientific method is impossible and I really think that the origins question is more of a philosophy on life.
But this doesn't mean that we can't each test the evidence or data left from that origins moment to see if we can figure out what might have happened. In this respect, creationists' are using the same evidence and scientific methods to test their hypothesis or model of what they think may have happened and what is happening presently.
Evolutionists claim they aren't addressing origins, yet their theory in the Darwinian sense(macroevolution) does raise the how question and also insinuates an answer by its very nature. This is no different from the creationist model which will also raise the but "how?" question.
How could something be created? How can something create itself? Those would be the two opposing questions.
The two opposing models simply state that either theuniverse itself is self-contained and that the origin and development of all its complex systems (the universe, living organisms, man, etc) can be explained solely by time, chance, and continuing natural processes, innate in the very structure of matter and energy....or...that the universe is not self-contained, but that it must have been created by processes which are not continuing as natural processes in the present.
Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.
Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Blue Jay, posted 03-09-2009 2:15 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Percy, posted 03-09-2009 10:02 AM Kelly has not replied
 Message 53 by bluescat48, posted 03-09-2009 10:11 AM Kelly has not replied
 Message 100 by Blue Jay, posted 03-10-2009 1:36 AM Kelly has replied

ichatfilipina 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5497 days)
Posts: 4
Joined: 03-09-2009


Message 49 of 312 (501997)
03-09-2009 9:52 AM


science is science. creationist deals with science, biology, and many more. This thread is not related to creation of the universe.
Edited by ichatfilipina, : No reason given.
Edited by Admin, : No reason given.

iChatFilipina

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


Message 50 of 312 (502000)
03-09-2009 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Coyote
03-08-2009 4:51 PM


Do you think that evolutionists are any different?
You say:
"Science follows the scientific method. That means it works from evidence to theory (explanation). It doesn't start with a conclusion (biblical inerrancy) and force the data to conform to that conclusion. As an example, science doesn't calibrate the radiocarbon curve by use of the "global flood" to force radiocarbon dates to support a young earth. Creation "science" does, and I have seen this on several creationist websites."
In the case of macroevolution--which cannot be observed and is an extrapolation--this is a theory based on starting with a conclusion first and then trying to force the evidence to agree. You can deny this all you want, but it would be a waste of your time.
Also, radiocarbon dating is shown to be unreliable.
I could as easily point out that evolutionists need an old age theory to be true because without the necessary eons of time required for evolutionary processes to occur, the theory collapses. Again , I am speaking about macroevolution and not the easily observed microevolution that creationists and evolutionists agree about.
Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Coyote, posted 03-08-2009 4:51 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Percy, posted 03-09-2009 10:10 AM Kelly has not replied
 Message 56 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-09-2009 10:38 AM Kelly has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 51 of 312 (502003)
03-09-2009 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Kelly
03-09-2009 9:13 AM


Re: Creatioists are not trying to prove or even figure out
Hi Kelly,
Just providing some corrections..
Neither the evolutionist or creationist can go back in time to that moment or recreate it in a lab. In this respect, the scientific method is impossible...
The scientific method does not require going back in time, so it is untrue that "in this respect, the scientific method is impossible."
I really think that the origins question is more of a philosophy on life.
The origin of life is an active area of scientific investigation.
But this doesn't mean that we can't each test the evidence or data left from that origins moment...
Yes, precisely. Scientists study the evidence left behind, there are reams of papers produced by scientists studying the origins of life.
People here have been asking you for information about creation scientists' studies of "that origins moment". Where are they? Could you find for us a reference to even just a single paper by a creation scientist who is studying the scientific origin of life?
To put a finer point on it, you go on to say:
In this respect, creationists' are using the same evidence and scientific methods to test their hypothesis or model of what they think may have happened and what is happening presently.
Please show us even just one scientific paper where "creationists' are using the same evidence and scientific methods to test their hypothesis or model of what they think may have happened and what is happening presently."
Evolutionists claim they aren't addressing origins...
No one's ever said that. There's no one studying life's origins who isn't also an evolutionist, i.e., someone who accepts the synthetic theory of evolution (where "synthetic" refers to the synthesis between Darwinian theory and modern genetics). What you're thinking of is that evolution and abiogenesis are two different but closely related areas of study. Abiogenesis is about the origins of life. Evolution is about what happened to life after it appeared.
The two opposing models...
There are not two opposing models. Evolution is a scientific theory that explains the changing diversity of life on this planet. Creation science is religious apologetics. If you think otherwise, then just produce a scientific paper from a creation scientist.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 9:13 AM Kelly has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 52 of 312 (502006)
03-09-2009 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Kelly
03-09-2009 9:57 AM


Re: Do you think that evolutionists are any different?
Kelly, this thread is not about scientific views on evolution, it's about creation science. The [forum=-5] forum has over 800 threads where evolution has been and is being discussed. Please go there if you would like to criticize evolution.
Of if you'd like to discuss the reliability of radiocarbon dating then please go to the [forum=-3] forum.
The issue that Coyote brought up concerning radiocarbon dating is that creation scientists force radiocarbon dates into a young earth scenario, and that would be on-topic in this thread. Why don't you ask Coyote if he could be specific about this, and then you could point out the scientific merits of the creation science claims.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 9:57 AM Kelly has not replied

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 53 of 312 (502008)
03-09-2009 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Kelly
03-09-2009 9:13 AM


Re: Creatioists are not trying to prove or even figure out
Neither the evolutionist or creationist can go back in time to that moment or recreate it in a lab. In this respect, the scientific method is impossible and I really think that the origins question is more of a philosophy on life.
Maybe not directly, but indirectly one can get enough information to substantiate or debunk a hypothesis. It is similar to modern day forensics. One does not have to see a crime committed to gain information from trace evidence and the method is the same as determining what a fossil is, when the creature lived and what it is related to.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 9:13 AM Kelly has not replied

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


Message 54 of 312 (502013)
03-09-2009 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Granny Magda
03-07-2009 4:23 PM


In spite of the discrimination against creation scientists
Although there is strong discrimination against high-profile creationist scientists, most creationist scientists publish non-creationist scientific articles frequently. Moreover, many of them have published data with important creationist implicationsbut without explicit creationist conclusions, which would point out the significance of the data to the average non-creationist scientist.
That’s why creationists have had to develop their own peer-reviewed journals, such as the Creation Research Society Quarterly and the Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal. Some creationist scientists are world leaders in their field, like geophysicist Dr John Baumgardner of Los Alamos Laboratories, in the field of plate tectonics [see interview Creation 19(3):40—43, 1997].
For a more detailed answer see "Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals?"
Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals? | Answers in Genesis
For details on some creationist scientists and their publication records, check out the Biographies section of the website.
Bios | Answers in Genesis
Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Granny Magda, posted 03-07-2009 4:23 PM Granny Magda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Percy, posted 03-09-2009 10:32 AM Kelly has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 55 of 312 (502016)
03-09-2009 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Kelly
03-09-2009 10:29 AM


Re: In spite of the discrimination against creation scientists
Kelly, the idea is to express your arguments and evidence in your own words, not send people to fetch your arguments and evidence for you. If you've found creationist papers studying the origins of life, then produce the references for them right here in a message to this thread so that we may discuss them.
This is from the Forum Guidelines:
  1. Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.
  2. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 10:29 AM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 10:50 AM Percy has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 56 of 312 (502018)
03-09-2009 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Kelly
03-09-2009 9:57 AM


Re: Do you think that evolutionists are any different?
I could as easily point out that evolutionists need an old age theory to be true because without the necessary eons of time required for evolutionary processes to occur, the theory collapses.
This is why evolution is science. It makes a prediction: scientific methods of dating will show that the Earth is old. And they do. If they didn't, evolution would be abandoned as false. This is science.
Now, in principle, Young-Earth Creationism also makes a prediction: scientific methods of dating will not show the Earth is old. And this prediction was wrong. At which point, instead of abandoning their falsified hypothesis, they start whining and lying about the scientific methods of dating, because not a crumb of a particle of the mountain of facts proving the Earth to be old is permitted to touch their precious religious beliefs. This is not science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 9:57 AM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 11:39 AM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 57 of 312 (502021)
03-09-2009 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Percy
03-09-2009 10:32 AM


I am interested only in first showing
that creation science is a science. Whether you agree with the scientific findings and conclusions of creationists on any particular study is not the point.
I am not interested in debating the findings until you first concede that we are discussing "different" scientific findings and not whether or not one group's studies can be considered scientific.
Disproving the findings of an opposing viewpoint does not prove that the scientific method was not followed or that theirs' is not a science. Two evolutionary scientists can come to different conclusions based on their studies yet one would never tell the other that he wasn't practicing science, would he?
Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.
Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Percy, posted 03-09-2009 10:32 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-09-2009 11:07 AM Kelly has not replied
 Message 59 by dwise1, posted 03-09-2009 11:13 AM Kelly has replied
 Message 60 by Percy, posted 03-09-2009 11:20 AM Kelly has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 58 of 312 (502024)
03-09-2009 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Kelly
03-09-2009 10:50 AM


Re: I am interested only in first showing
that creation science is a science.
Go for it.
What are its principles, and what predictions can be logically derived from them?
And are these predictions supported or disproved by observation?
I am not interested in debating the findings until you first concede that we are discussing "different" scientific findings and not whether or not one group's studies can be considered scientific.
Disproving the findings of an opposing viewpoint does not prove that the scientific method was not followed or that theirs' is not a science. Two evolutionary scientists can come to different conclusions based on their studies yet one would never tell the other that he wasn't practicing science, would he?
That would depend on whether he was, in fact, practicing science. If, for example, he was making stuff up, like creationists do, then yes, he would be told that he was not practicing science.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 10:50 AM Kelly has not replied

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


Message 59 of 312 (502026)
03-09-2009 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Kelly
03-09-2009 10:50 AM


Re: I am interested only in first showing
that creation science is a science.
Then why, in 155 posts, do you persistently refuse to do so? Despite our repeated requests for you to do so? So do it already!
It's like the old dirty joke in which a woman who had been married three times but was still a virgin. I forget the reason in the first two marriages, but the third time she was married to a salesman. He kept telling her how wonderful it was going to be, but was nothing but talk. That's what you're doing here: you keep telling us this wonderful thing you're going to do, but you never ever deliver.
In the meantime, we ironically know far more than you do about what "creation science" is (and have repeatedly demonstrated that fact) and what its history is.
Is there evidence for creation? Yes or no. If not, then at least have the basic honesty to admit it. If yes, then why do you refuse to present it?
Disproving the findings of an opposing viewpoint does not prove that the scientific method was not followed or that theirs' is not a science. Two evolutionary scientists can come to different conclusions based on their studies yet one would never tell the other that he wasn't practicing science, would he?
It's not about the conclusions reached, but rather about the methodology. It is in the methodology that the "creation science" fails to qualify as science: if you don't do science, then you cannot claim that you're doing science.
However, does your statement here mean that you do finally realize how false "creation science's" "Two Model Approach" (TMA) is? Again, please, yes or no.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 10:50 AM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 12:00 PM dwise1 has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 60 of 312 (502028)
03-09-2009 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Kelly
03-09-2009 10:50 AM


Re: I am interested only in first showing
Now you're not even making any sense. First you say:
Kelly writes:
I am interested only in first showing that creation science is a science.
Then you say:
I am not interested in debating the findings until you first concede that we are discussing "different" scientific findings and not whether or not one group's studies can be considered scientific.
How are you going to show creation scientists employ legitimate scientific methods if you're not going to present any of their research?
Your position is that creation scientists practice legitimate science. Our position is the opposite, that they do not.
So you're insisting that we first concede your position before you'll discuss the evidence for it.
You can't continue wasting thread bandwidth like this for very much longer.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 10:50 AM Kelly 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