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: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation science II
Kelly
Member (Idle past 5495 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 61 of 312 (502031)
03-09-2009 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Dr Adequate
03-09-2009 10:38 AM


Radiocarbon dating
You say:
"This is why evolution is science. It makes a prediction: scientific methods of dating will show that the Earth is old. And they do."
"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."
In truth, Dr. Adequate..each group has made their prediction and has used scientific methods of dating to determine if their theory is correct. No matter which group is right, it doesn't mean the other group did not follow proper scientific protocol. It merely means that there is disagreement in the findings. Even if creationists were to be proven wrong, which they have not been, wouldn't mean that they were not practicing science.
My argument thus far is not about any one particulr study or findings for or against creation or evolution. It is just to show that creationists are indeed practicing real science.
When it comes to dating, creationists have concluded that, for example, radiocarbon dating is unreliable. Different methods yield different ages on the same specimen and there are also variations even when the same method is used.
How can scientists know for sure the age of any rock or the age of the earth with this in mind? Steven Austin, PhD geology, had a rock from the newly formed 1986 lava dome from Mount St. Helens dated. Using Potassium-Argon dating, the newly formed rocks gave ages between 0.5 and 2.8 million years.
Mount Ngauruhoe is located on the North Island of New Zealand and is one of the country’s most active volcanoes. Eleven samples were taken from solidified lava and dated. These rocks are known to have formed from eruptions in 1949, 1954, and 1975. The rock samples were sent to a respected commercial laboratory (Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Massachusetts). The ages of the rocks ranged from 0.27 to 3.5 million years old.
When radioisotope dating fails to give us an accurate date on rocks of known age, why would we trust these methods to date rocks of unknown age?
Recent studies have provided evidence that radioactive decay supports a young earth. One of their studies involved the amount of helium found in granite rocks, for example. Gathered evidence has suggested that at some time in history nuclear decay was greatly accelerated. But again, not to argue the data or study itself (I am not really qualified) but just want to show that creationists are performing scientific studies even if you don't like what the obvious implications might be.
Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.
Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-09-2009 10:38 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-09-2009 11:51 AM Kelly has not replied
 Message 63 by Dman, posted 03-09-2009 12:00 PM Kelly has not replied
 Message 65 by Percy, posted 03-09-2009 12:08 PM Kelly has not replied
 Message 86 by bluescat48, posted 03-09-2009 4:08 PM Kelly has not replied
 Message 87 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-09-2009 4:11 PM Kelly has not replied

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


Message 62 of 312 (502034)
03-09-2009 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Kelly
03-09-2009 11:39 AM


Re: Radiocarbon dating
AIt is as I said: "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."
However, this is not the right thread to do it in.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 11:39 AM Kelly has not replied

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


Message 63 of 312 (502036)
03-09-2009 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Kelly
03-09-2009 11:39 AM


Re: Radiocarbon dating
quote:
How can scientists know for sure the age of any rock or the age of the earth with this in mind? Steven Austin, PhD geology, had a rock from the newly formed 1986 lava dome from Mount St. Helens dated. Using Potassium-Argon dating, the newly formed rocks gave ages between 0.5 and 2.8 million years.
Well this is some more deceptive information you are reading here Kelly.
From talkorigins here:
quote:
Austin sent his samples to a laboratory that clearly states that their equipment cannot accurately measure samples less than two million years old. All of the measured ages but one fall well under the stated limit of accuracy, so the method applied to them is obviously inapplicable. Since Austin misused the measurement technique, he should expect inaccurate results, but the fault is his, not the technique's. Experimental error is a possible explanation for the older date.
Sure you can say they went about it scientifically. But they were very deceptive in nature about the conclusions.
Why are you just believing anything these "scientists" tell you. Their intentions are quite obvious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 11:39 AM Kelly has not replied

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


Message 64 of 312 (502038)
03-09-2009 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by dwise1
03-09-2009 11:13 AM


Re: I am interested only in first showing
It's not about the conclusions reached, but rather about the methodology
Thank you for recapitulating my point!
That is exactly right. Creation Scientists utilize the very same methods, technics, data/evidence etc.. to perform their studies. What is different is their hypothesis or model that they start with and set out to confirm.
Maybe you don't think the model or hypothesis is scientific, but then I would argue that the evolution model is no more scientific in this regard. Each group is looking to prove or confirm something about life's origins without being able to actually test origins itself. We can only test our model by studying the evidence left behind as a result of origins. In this respect, we are on equal footing, even if you disagree.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by dwise1, posted 03-09-2009 11:13 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-09-2009 12:13 PM Kelly has not replied
 Message 67 by Huntard, posted 03-09-2009 12:28 PM Kelly has replied
 Message 68 by dwise1, posted 03-09-2009 12:48 PM Kelly has not replied
 Message 72 by Rahvin, posted 03-09-2009 1:07 PM Kelly has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 65 of 312 (502042)
03-09-2009 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Kelly
03-09-2009 11:39 AM


Re: Radiocarbon dating
Hi Kelly,
I think you've almost given us something we can work with.
The creation science position on radiocarbon dating is that it is unreliable. So what you need to find is the creation science research demonstrating this unreliability.
You cited Steven Austin's findings about Mount St. Helens using potassium/argon dating, but your message is about radiocarbon dating, so let's keep the focus on that. You also cited Mount Ngauruhaoe data, but that, too, is not radiocarbon dating.
So your message contains no references to creationist research concerning the unreliability of radiocarbon dating, and that's what you need to find.
When we're finished with radiocarbon dating then we can discuss the other types of radiometric dating.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 11:39 AM Kelly has not replied

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


Message 66 of 312 (502044)
03-09-2009 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Kelly
03-09-2009 12:00 PM


Re: I am interested only in first showing
Creation Scientists utilize the very same methods, technics, data/evidence etc.. to perform their studies.
This is not true. This is obviously untrue. If, for example, they both used the same techniques to find the age of a rock, they would get the same age, and the Young-Earthers would have to abandon their Young-Earth beliefs as stupid.
What is different is their hypothesis or model that they start with and set out to confirm.
You apparently have no idea how science works.
Again, take the dating of rocks. The method doesn't care what you think. It'll return the same age whether you think the rock is young or old. At which point, if you're a creationist, you go into a state of terrified denial and start talking gibberish. This is why creationism is not science.
Scientists --- real ones --- do not "set out to confirm" a hypothesis, they set out to test it.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 12:00 PM Kelly has not replied

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


Message 67 of 312 (502046)
03-09-2009 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Kelly
03-09-2009 12:00 PM


Re: I am interested only in first showing
Kelly writes:
What is different is their hypothesis or model that they start with and set out to confirm.
That's not how science works though. You don't come up with something you'd like to test and then go see if it's true. First you gather data, then, with that data, you make a hypothesis, then you make a prediction with that hypothesis, then you test that prediction, and if it's correct, you make another prediction, or, if it's false, you adjust or discard your hypothesis.
So you see, you don't start with something you want to prove, you start with data.
So, by your own admission, it's not science, thanks for clearing that up.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 12:00 PM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 12:58 PM Huntard has replied

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


Message 68 of 312 (502050)
03-09-2009 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Kelly
03-09-2009 12:00 PM


Re: I am interested only in first showing
But that's just the point: "creation science" has a long history of not using the methology of science. They are not doing science. If you truly believe that they are doing science and you want to convince us of it, then show us! Don't just make one empty claim after another (even though that is the "creation science" way), but rather show us that they do indeed use the methodology of science. That is what we have repeatedly requested of you and must continue to request since you keep ignoring our requests. Support your claims and show us.
The "creation science" methodology that we have witnessed with great consistency for 40 years is that they don't do any original research (with very few exceptions), but rather they scour through the scientific literature for anything that they can use. Mostly that literature is more of the popular science variety. When they find something, they lift it out of context and craft their claim around it. That is called quote-mining. With it, they can misrepresent a source, make a false claim and make the further false claim that it's based on a scientific source. In many cases, the surest way to refute a "creation science" claim is to go back and read what their "source" really said.
For example, my first brush with "creation science" was with two claims I heard fresh out of high school in 1970: that a NASA computer had found "Joshua's Lost Day" and that a living mollusk was carbon-dated to be thousands of years old. The first one was obviously bogus, since it tried to invest computers with abilities they simply do not have (this one has generally lost favor, though it still persists on a grass-roots level). The second one is still used. Much later I found the article (I hadn't looked at "creation science" again for about a decade, at which time I was surprise it was still around, assumed that there must be something to it after all so I started to study it, and very quickly found it to be a complete fraud) in either Science or Nature (better than Discovery, but still not of the caliber of a peer-reviewed journal). Turns out that those fresh-water clams were in a stream fed by an underground source in limestone. Carbon-dating depends on the organic material having gotten its carbon from the atmosphere, whereas the clams were instead getting their carbon from the "old carbon" in the dissolved limestone -- well there was some controversy, since some scientists thought that the old carbon could have come from the soil. The article pointed this out, discussed the problem of old carbon, and cited this as illustrating a potential problem for carbon-dating that needs to be watched-out for. None of the creationists using this claim ever mention what the article actually says, but rather just make their claim, maybe give a bibliographic reference to the article, and then announce their conclusions which are contrary to their source. That is a typical example of "creation science" research.
The following came up in another forum discussion and I was developing it into a web page. These are the fundamental differences between scientists and creationists (I hope the HTML works right this time -- sorry, Mod, how can I fix that?):
quote:
There is a public view of science that it is impartial and unbiased. That is an idealized misconception that creation science seeks to turn to its advantage by depicting scientists as being dogmatic, thus eroding public confidence in science. Then when their critics point out that creationists are also biased, the usual response is something like, "Yes we are, but at least we are honest about it."
Now, it is quite true that science is a flawed and fallible human endeavor which has made many mistakes. And it is also quite true that scientists are fallible humans and that they have their biases as do all humans. And it is also true that not all scientists are honest and that some have perpetrated hoaxes. And the same is also quite true about creation science. But that does not put scientists and creationists, nor science and "creation science", on an equal footing.
Although both camps share many of the same human foibles that plague us all and everything that we do, there are still certain fundamental differences between science and creation science and between scientists and creationists on the whole. Fundamental differences that make all the difference in how those two human endeavors approach their research and scholarship, their mistakes, and their hoaxes.














































Science / Scientists ...Creation Science / Creationists ...
What they are trying to do:

1a. The scientist is either trying to make a new discovery or to test or find corroborating evidence for a previous discovery, hypothesis, or theory.

1b. A creationist is normally not trying to make a new discovery, nor to test or find corroborating evidence for a previous claim. As rustyb puts so succintly in his signature, "I already know the Truth." There's little use in trying to discover something new about the "Truth" that you already know a priori, nor is there any use in testing it (which would probably be sacrilegious anyway), nor to try to add to its Completeness. Rather, what a creationist is normally trying to do is to come up with convincing claims and arguments against anything that appears to contradict "the Truth" that they already know.
How they measure success:

2a. The success of the scientist's efforts depends directly on the quality of his research and on the validity of the studies that he bases his research on. Therefore, a scientist is motivated to verify his sources and to maintain high standards of scholarship.

2b. It doesn't matter whether that creationist had done a proper job of researching the claim, or had even researched it at all (though it does help to make it more convincing if there's something in the bibliography, even if that source had never actually been looked at -- remember that NASA document?). It doesn't matter if the claim or argument is valid, just that it sounds convincing; after all, the creationist already "knows" that it must be true.
Scholarship

3a. Since scientists depend so much on the validity and quality of the work of other scientists, the scientific community is motivated to police itself against shoddy or falacious research.

3b. When you research some other creationist's claim, you're not depending on that claim being true or valid; you're only depending on that claim sounding convincing.
How they handle dishonesty:

4a. Thus, a scientist who is discovered to be performing substandard or dishonest work loses his credibility and his standing in the scientific community.

4b. And if a claim is discovered to be false or a creationist is discovered to practice questionable methods, none of that matters, just so long as they still sound convincing. A creationist is far more likely to face censure for theological lapses than for shoddy or questionable scholarship.
ditto

5a.

5b. Of course, if a claim starts drawing too much negative publicity, then it is no longer convincing and must be dropped, as quietly as possible, until everybody has forgotten about it, whereupon it can be resurrected and received as a "new" claim.
How they handle mistakes:

6a. Mistakes and hoaxes will still happen in science, but the near-constant scrutiny and testing will uncover them.

6b. Mistakes and hoaxes will also happen in creation science, but in this case there is no mechanism in place to uncover them; indeed, there is much resistence to uncovering creationist mistakes and hoaxes.

. . .
Let us consider what these "convincing" claims and arguments are used for. Creationists can have many different motivations and their claims can serve a variety of purposes; this is actually a far more complex situation than most on either side would think. From the experience and observations of myself and those reported by others, I would say that the primary purposes of these claims are (of course, there are others, but these are the main ones):
  1. to combat the influence of scientific ideas that appear to contradict certain theological ideas.
  2. to protect and strengthen one's own faith and the faith of others from the pernicious influence of scientific depravity, secularism, philosophical materialism, and any assortment of people, groups, and ideas that they perceive to be attacking Christianity.
  3. to proselytize by showing doubters that the evidence really supports Genesis and not science (regardless of whether it actually does or not).
  4. to claim to have scientific reasons to oppose the teaching of evolution and thus circumvent legal barriers against doing so solely for religious reasons and purposes.
  5. to sway public opinion enough in their favor.
  6. to learn how the physical evidence actually does support the literal truth of Genesis.

Now, I included that last one because it does exist and, I believe, that most creationists start out with that as their primary purpose. While the exceptional ones, like Dr. Kurt Wise, are able to keep it as a principal, if not primary, purpose, most creationists get lured away by the other purposes and their rhetorics. Even then, many have not completely lost sight of that purpose and would still claim to follow it. However, their actions rarely follow their avowed purpose.
And very early on, you gave us yet another reason:
Kelly (Topic:Best approaches to deal w/ fundamentalism;Msg 32) writes:
If macroevolution were true, I would have to abandon my faith in the God of the Bible. The way I see it, if God can't be accurate in what he has revealed historically or scientifically, I would have no reason to trust what he has said spiritually speaking either. I mean, if God doesn't know that the earth is not flat or that he did not create life instantly, then he doesn't know much of anything, right? How could I put my faith in His promise to raise me from the dead as He did Jesus Christ when the source of this truth is so filled with error?
For people who put more faith in their theology than in God, it becomes important to protect that theology. Especially when that theology requires them to believe things about the physical world that are contrary-to-fact.
BTW, that theology is also wrong about you needing to abandon your faith in God when your Man-made theology is wrong in its claims about what God had created.
Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 12:00 PM Kelly has not replied

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


Message 69 of 312 (502053)
03-09-2009 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Huntard
03-09-2009 12:28 PM


I am sorry
But there is no difference between evolutionists and creationists with respect to how they came up with their model or hypothesis. Neither group has concrete evidence that their theory about how life might have originated is true for sure. We each come up with our hypothesis based on what we *think* the evidence will reveal. No one has concluded that macroevolution is true because they can see it happening. It is an extrapolation, something that some *believe* is what microevolution must necessarily lead to. It is an assumption no different than that of the creationist who believes that microevolution reveals design and that the second law precludes anything but creation.
Everyone keeps asking me to show you evidence that creationists are doing science with acceptable scientific methods. Well I have offered you a book choc-ful-of-examples and facts about it. I cannot find much online available for me to direct you to. Most things are copyrighted and unless I am going to sit and type you a book, there is not much more I can offer. As I have stated, I am not looking to debate the science, just to show you that creation science is indeed every bit as much a scientific endeavor as is evolution.
Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Huntard, posted 03-09-2009 12:28 PM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Modulous, posted 03-09-2009 1:06 PM Kelly has replied
 Message 73 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-09-2009 1:19 PM Kelly has not replied
 Message 74 by Percy, posted 03-09-2009 1:30 PM Kelly has replied
 Message 76 by Huntard, posted 03-09-2009 1:34 PM Kelly has not replied

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


Message 70 of 312 (502057)
03-09-2009 1:02 PM


extinct species
As for me, the way "creation science" explains the extinction of species, especially in regards of the truth Darwin himself had the greatest difficulty to get rid of (species are immutable) is still unknown.
It is said that the thylacine, among other animals, was the only specie of its genus. I had chosen this exemple earlier for Kelly or whoever wished to answer, because it was a quite recent case, but she went on the dinosaurs.
If this kind of question is treated seriously by "creation science", then we may have a little hope for its legitimacy, among other little signs of real inquiry.
If we all agree on taxonomy, then it's a real question to be asked to creationists/ID supporters.

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


Message 71 of 312 (502059)
03-09-2009 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Kelly
03-09-2009 12:58 PM


A plague on both your houses!
But there is no difference between evolutionists and creationists with respect to how they came up with their model or hypothesis. Neither group has concrete evidence that their theory about how life might have originated is true for sure. We each come up with our hypothesis based on what we *think* the evidence will reveal. No one has concluded that macroevolution is true because they can see it happening. It is an extrapolation, something that some *believe* is what microevolution must necessarily lead to. It is an assumption no different than that of the creationist who believes that microevolution reveals design and that the second law precludes anything but creation.
If this were true, I would argue that neither Creation Science nor evolutionary biology were science.
As far as this topic is concerned, we can wrap things up nicely with the conclusion that Creation Science is not science.
If you'd care to join us in an evolution based thread we can explore whether evolutionary biology is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 12:58 PM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 1:33 PM Modulous has replied

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


Message 72 of 312 (502061)
03-09-2009 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Kelly
03-09-2009 12:00 PM


Re: I am interested only in first showing
That is exactly right. Creation Scientists utilize the very same methods, technics, data/evidence etc.. to perform their studies.
False.
Creation Scientists begin with the conclusion, and seek to "interpret" the evidence to fit their preconceived comclusion. This is called "apologetics," and it occupies the vast majority of Creationism. It is religious in nature, and does not follow the scientific method - it only appears to do so at first, particularly to laypersons. In a very real way, apologetics are intended to trick those who are uneducated in science into believing that the preconceived conclusion has some sort of scientific validity.
For example, Creation Science typically asserts that "creation is evidence of a creator." This requires as an axiom that everything that exists must have been "created." In this way, the conclusion (a Creator exists) is contained in the initial axioms (all things must have been created), and is circular reasoning. The fact is, we don't know if "all things" need to be "created." Modern physics and cosmology seem to imply the opposite; in fact, the mere notion of creation ex nihilo violates thermodynamics: matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
Creation Science also attempts to "interpret" fossil evidence to support special creation despite a very well-established chain of organisms demonstrating a clear and gradual formation of new features with increasing variety over time. This "interpretation" typically involved purposefully ignoring evidence to the contrary of the preconceived conclusion, and insisting that any evidence found supports that conclusion without demonstrating how or even looking further than "look, a fossil that doesn't exist previously int he fossil record! It must have been Created!"
Real science begins with observation, not conclusion. Real science does not "interpret" evidence, it "follows" the evidence wherever it leads. When evidence contradicts established models, the evidence is not "reinterpreted" to fit - rather, the existing model is modified or discarded to better fit the new evidence.
Real science alters the conclusion to match the evidence. Creation Science "reinterprets" the evidence to fit their preconceived conclusion.
Real science also utilizes the peer review process - and not only amongst scientists who all already agree. The purpose of peer review is to have your conclusions ripped apart by your colleagues - only by vigorous debate and independent examination can bias be removed from the scientific method. Only those papers that survive the peer review process are published in scientific journals. Creation Science has never, not once, ever, managed to have a paper published in a scientific journal. This is not because "evolutionists" disagree with Creation Science, but rather because flaws in their methodologies are easy to point out, and flawed methodologies are poor science.
The highest honors in science are given for disproving or meaningfully changing existing theories. Newton's Theory of Gravity was supplanted by Einstein's Theory of Relativity, which did a better job of explaining the observed evidence (though Newtonian mechanics still work just fine at the appropriate scale). Creation Science has failed to do so not because of a deeply entrenched belief system that supports evolution, but because the evidence so strongly shows that the theory of Evolution is incredibly accurate, and Creation Science "models" (when they've been presented at all) have failed to match or exceed that level of accuracy.
What is different is their hypothesis or model that they start with and set out to confirm.
This is the crux of the issue, Kelly - the scientific method does not seek to confirm hypotheses. It seeks to disprove them. Each time a hypothesis fails to be disproved, it gains additional credibility as potentially accurate - but science does not confirm or prove anything. It tests the accuracy of predictions, but all conclusions are held tentatively. "Proof" is the realm of pure mathematics.
Creation Science, however, as you say does seek to prove their preconceived conclusion. Do you see the disconnect? Real scientists establish a model that seems to fit the evidence, and then they try to disprove the model, and gauge the model by whether it can be disproved. Creation Scientists establish a conclusion, and then seek evidence to support that conclusion - it's the scientific method turned backwards.
Maybe you don't think the model or hypothesis is scientific,
Any "model or hypothesis" can be scientific. The methodology is unscientific, because it fails to adhere to the scientific method - the very definition of what is or is not scientific.
but then I would argue that the evolution model is no more scientific in this regard. Each group is looking to prove or confirm something about life's origins without being able to actually test origins itself. We can only test our model by studying the evidence left behind as a result of origins. In this respect, we are on equal footing, even if you disagree.
And yet you are incorrect, Kelly. Scientists are seeking the most accurate model possible to explain the origin of the variety of life on Earth. They will follow the evidence wherever it leads, even if the evidence eventually falsifies long-held and well-established concepts - just as Relativity has replaced the Newtonian Theory of Gravity. Creation scientists are seeking to confirm what they already believe that they "know."
It's a matter of completely different methodologies, Kelly, and because it does not in any way follow the Scientific Method, Creation Science is not science at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 12:00 PM Kelly has not replied

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


Message 73 of 312 (502063)
03-09-2009 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Kelly
03-09-2009 12:58 PM


Re: I am sorry
But there is no difference between evolutionists and creationists with respect to how they came up with their model or hypothesis. Neither group has concrete evidence that their theory about how life might have originated is true for sure.
Please learn what the theory of evolution is.
We each come up with our hypothesis based on what we *think* the evidence will reveal.
Please learn what science is.
No one has concluded that macroevolution is true because they can see it happening. It is an extrapolation, something that some *believe* is what microevolution must necessarily lead to. It is an assumption no different than that of the creationist who believes that microevolution reveals design and that the second law precludes anything but creation.
This is not true.
The theory that evolution accounts for the diversity of life leads to predictions that can be tested against observation and are invariably found to be correct. This is why evolution is science.
The absurd creationist lies about "the second law" lead to physicists laughing at you, and that's all. This is why reciting creationist lies is not science.
Everyone keeps asking me to show you evidence that creationists are doing science with acceptable scientific methods. Well I have offered you a book choc-ful-of-examples and facts about it. I cannot find much online available for me to direct you to. Most things are copyrighted and unless I am going to sit and type you a book, there is not much more I can offer. As I have stated, I am not looking to debate the science, just to show you that creation science is indeed every bit as much a scientific endeavor as is evolution.
This is not true. Making stuff up is not a "scientific endeavor". It's a desperate and pathetic attempt to avoid reality.
We are familiar with creationist rubbish. We've probably seen more of it than you have, and we certainly know more about it than you do. Reciting the same old dreary creationist tosh at us will not convince us.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 12:58 PM Kelly has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 74 of 312 (502065)
03-09-2009 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Kelly
03-09-2009 12:58 PM


Re: I am sorry
Kelly writes:
I cannot find much online available for me to direct you to.
Yeah, I know, ain't Google a bitch? It can't find nothing!
Since you're apparently incapable of doing your own research, here's a paper for you: Radiocarbon in "Ancient" Fossil Wood by Andrew A. Snelling, a member of ICR.
Seek your evidence of the scientific approach of creation scientists in this paper.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 12:58 PM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 2:00 PM Percy has replied

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


Message 75 of 312 (502067)
03-09-2009 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Modulous
03-09-2009 1:06 PM


Very good Modulous
I completely agree with this:
If this were true, I would argue that neither Creation Science nor evolutionary biology were science.
That is pretty much what I have been trying to say. Neither model can pass the litmus test for being truly scientific.
Science is based on observation of facts and is directed at finding patterns of order in observed data. The essence of the scientific method is measurement, observation, repeatability. The great philosopher of science, Karl Popper stresses that "falsifiability" is the necessary criterion of genuine science. A hypothesis must-at least in principle-be testable and capable of being refuted, if it is truly scientific.
Clearly neither model of origins--creation or evolution (Darwinian)--is scientific in this sense. Neither one can be tested for the simple reason that we cannot repeat history. The origin of life, the origin of man, the origin of the universe and all such events took place in the past and cannot now be studied in the laboratory. They are beyond the reach of the scientific method in the proper sense.
That does not mean, however, that their results cannot be observed and tested. This is, we can define two models of origins and then make comparative predictions as to what we should find if creation is true, and conversely, what we should find if evolution is true. The model that enables us to do the best job of predicting things that we then find to be true upon observation is the model most likely to be true, even though we cannot prove it to be true by actual scientific repetition. See "What is Creation Science?" Morris/Parker
You may wish that you can wrap things up nicely and simply determine that creationists are not practicing science, but then you would have to come to the same conclusion about evolution in the vertical sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Modulous, posted 03-09-2009 1:06 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-09-2009 1:45 PM Kelly has not replied
 Message 79 by Modulous, posted 03-09-2009 2:25 PM Kelly has replied
 Message 94 by Taq, posted 03-09-2009 9:08 PM 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