|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,488 Year: 3,745/9,624 Month: 616/974 Week: 229/276 Day: 5/64 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Creation science II | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kelly Member (Idle past 5518 days) Posts: 217 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 307 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dman Member (Idle past 5040 days) Posts: 38 Joined: |
quote: Well this is some more deceptive information you are reading here Kelly. From talkorigins here:
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kelly Member (Idle past 5518 days) Posts: 217 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 307 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2317 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Kelly writes:
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. What is different is their hypothesis or model that they start with and set out to confirm. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
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: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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kelly Member (Idle past 5518 days) Posts: 217 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
olivortex Member (Idle past 4800 days) Posts: 70 From: versailles, france Joined: |
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: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4040 Joined: Member Rating: 8.1 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 307 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kelly Member (Idle past 5518 days) Posts: 217 Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024