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: 0/0


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 91 of 312 (502120)
03-09-2009 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Percy
03-09-2009 3:09 PM


No, actually it is based on discrimination
Many have chosen to shun creationist's writings simply because they wrongly believe that it is religion in disguise. This situation exhibits a huge degree of closedmindedness which is quite alien to the spirit of true scientific inquiry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Percy, posted 03-09-2009 3:09 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-09-2009 7:03 PM Kelly has not replied
 Message 93 by Percy, posted 03-09-2009 8:31 PM Kelly has replied
 Message 101 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-10-2009 5:34 AM Kelly has not replied

shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2848 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 92 of 312 (502126)
03-09-2009 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Kelly
03-09-2009 6:35 PM


Re: No, actually it is based on discrimination
Many have chosen to shun creationist's writings simply because they wrongly believe that it is religion in disguise. This situation exhibits a huge degree of closedmindedness which is quite alien to the spirit of true scientific inquiry.
I think you are projecting here.
The writings are not shunned. Many have come from your background and through evaluation, thought, and mental struggle have arrived at the conclusion that creationism is incorrect.
Many here who now are atheists did not begin as such. They acknowledge that they would gladly welcome the evidence for your viewpoint if any existed.
They simply have a longer history than you upon the subject matter and correctly conclude that the book you have referenced presents nothing fundamentally different to the argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 6:35 PM Kelly has not replied

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


Message 93 of 312 (502132)
03-09-2009 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Kelly
03-09-2009 6:35 PM


Re: No, actually it is based on discrimination
Kelly, you've been asked over and over to support your assertions with evidence, but you haven't.
I tried to help you by seeking out a creationist paper that evolutionists will have a lot of trouble with, but you're ignoring it.
Please take a look at rule 4 from the Forum Guidelines again:
  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.
People like you who repeat assertions with no supporting evidence or argument and without ever moving the discussion forward is why rule 4 was written. You can't continue in this way for very long.
Read the paper and use it as evidence to support your position:
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 6:35 PM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Kelly, posted 03-10-2009 10:34 AM Percy has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 94 of 312 (502137)
03-09-2009 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Kelly
03-09-2009 1:33 PM


Re: Very good Modulous
Kelly:
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.
Then let's see it. How is creation science testable and falsifiable?
What evidence, if found, would falsify creationism?
Let's make this specific. If, as you claim, humans and chimps are separately created "kinds" then what characteristics must a fossil have in order to falsify this claim? What genetic markers should we not see between chimps and humans if they were created separately?
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
Perfect. I like this test. What pattern of homology should we see if creationism is true? What pattern of homology should we not see if creationism is true? What characteristics should we not see in fossils if creationism is true? Should we or should we not see animals with feathers and three middle ear bones, either living or in the fossil record, if creationism is true? Should we or should we not see animals with mammary glands and feathers if creationism is true? Should we or should we not see animals with three lower jaw bones and cusped teeth if creationism is true?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 1:33 PM Kelly has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by dwise1, posted 03-09-2009 9:20 PM Taq has replied

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


Message 95 of 312 (502139)
03-09-2009 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Kelly
03-09-2009 5:35 PM


Re: misrepresentation
That is a total misrepresentation of what I actually said.
As I recall, you had done it to him first, so he was just applying some tit-for-tat. If you don't like it being done to you, then you should have been applying the Golden Rule from the beginning:
quote:
Do not to others that which is displeasing to yourself. That is the whole of the Law [ie, of the Torah]. The rest is just explanation.
(Pharisee Rabbi Hillel, 20 BCE, as quoted in the Pirke Avoth, AKA "Sayings of the Fathers". Also cited in the Star Trek:TOS early first season episode, "Dagger of the Mind", albeit scrubbed of overt religious references)
I also pointed out that the evolutionary model in the vertical sense is also not a scientific model.
Mostly it is not, since that "model" is a "creation science" fabrication which undoubtedly misrepresents evolutionary theory greatly. IOW, it looks like it's nothing but a strawman for you to make a big show of kicking around and defeating, all without having to go anywhere near your avowed enemy, evolution itself. The smell of straw is made even stronger with your unique phrasing; I've never before seen anyone else using that "in the vertical sense" qualifier. One of these days you should explain what you mean by it.
There is nothing about true science that says we cannot study created objects and order.
I first encountered that particular buzzwording back in 1970, when the creationist follower was not at all shy about translating it to clear English: true science means those things that agree 100% with the literal interpretation of the Bible. We have ears to hear and eyes to see.
If you want to talk about improbability, Modulous, you should consider the odds that life could somehow just spontaneously generate itself up out of nothing and then proceeded to leap from the most simplest of forms to some of the most complex forms that we see today-- ...
Creationists love to invoke wild improbability arguments in which everything has to fall right into just the right place in one single immediate event. Of course that is extremely improbably, virtually impossible, but it has absolutely nothing to do with evolution and extremely little to do with abiogenesis. OTOH, it does describe creation ex nihilo extremely well. So why are you trying to pin the probability of creation occurring onto evolution?
For example, if we want to generate the alphabet in alphabetical order, the probability of randomly drawing letters and having that work in one single attempt is extremely small, about 1.624410-37. I had estimated that if you programmed a computer to perform a million attempts per second, then it would have to run for about 20 billion years before you'd have a million-in-one chance of success.
OTOH, having a computer attempt it using evolutionary methods succeeded consistently within several seconds (much faster now than it did back 20 years ago). The probability of success using evolutionary methods (cumulative selection in particular) rapidly approached 99.999%, near dead certainty.
You should read Richard Dawkins' book, The Blind Watchmaker, particularly Chapter 3 which deals with these probability issues. Until you have read that chapter, you really cannot talk about probability.
... --especially considering the second law.
And you really should stop slinging that Second Law around until you've taken the time to actually learn something about it.
The next time you are tempted to abuse that law yet again, consider this. Evolution is what happens when populations propagate. It's the natural consequences to a population of its members reproducing. It's not something special being done to the population, but rather it's a description of the net effects on the population's gene pool.
Kelly, if evolution truly violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, then so does life itself! Therefore, Kelly, by claiming that evolution is impossible because of the Second Law, then you are also claiming that life is also impossible.
Consider that next time.
If we were to throw heaps of electronic peices and parts into the air enough times, we stand a better chance of seeing those parts organize themselves into a computer.
Yes, that tired old false analogy of "a tornado in a junkyard spontaneously assembling a 747". Bolshoi! Did you also get that one from Morris and Parker?
First, it's a false analogy; has nothing whatsoever to do with how evolution works nor how abiogenesis would work.
Second, it's comparing oranges with road apples. Assemble the pieces of a complex piece of machinery, say a carborator (if you can sneak one out of a museum). Put them into a suitably sized metal can, close the top, and start shaking. You'll get deaf from the exercise, but nothing more. Now, gather some chemicals together and pour them into the same container. Chances are that you won't even need to shake or stir them, because they will react with each other immediately.
Do you see the fundamental problem with your false analogy? A complex mechanism will not naturally assemble itself when shaken, whereas chemicals will naturally assemble themselves when they come in contact with each other. Chemicals would be involved in most abiogenesis scenarios. Amino acids will naturally form under many different conditions. Heat those amino acids and they will naturally form into protein-like chains (refer to Sydney Fox' experiments with thermal proteins and microspheres). You need to know just what reactions are taking place in order to assign any kind of probability models to them.
Oh dear! There's that "M"-word again, "model".
Remember, read Chapter 3 of Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker!
PS
Talk about probabilities! I think that what Tag (or Taq; I can't quite tell with that link underline) is trying to point you to is the ERV evidence for human/chimp common ancestry. ERVs are viri that embed themselves into our DNA and tend to destroy individual genes in the process. When they do that to a body cell, it could or could not cause problems, but only for that individual. But if they do it in a germ cell, one that produces eggs or sperm, then that change has a chance to be inherited -- BTW, the only mutations that are of any interest to evolution are those in germ cells and hence are genetic changes; think about that some time.
Someone had pointed us to a YouTube vid examining ERVs. Comparing human DNA with chimp DNA, we find many different ERVs that are the exact same sequence in the exact same place in both genomes. The film starts with one and assigns a probability to that happening just by chance. Then the second one also happening by chance is even more improbable, and so on with the several (I think just under 20) ERVs that are common to both humans and chimps. If "creation science" is right and we are not related and all those identical ERVs just happened to embed themselves in exactly the same places in both our unrelated genomes, then that is even more improbable than the worst probability they can assign to abiogenesis. But if science is right and humans and chimps share a common ancestor, then it would make perfect sense for both of us to have inherited the ERVs in that common ancestor's genome.
Why don't you give Tag/Taq an answer?
Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 5:35 PM Kelly has not replied

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


Message 96 of 312 (502141)
03-09-2009 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Kelly
03-09-2009 5:35 PM


Re: misrepresentation
That is a total misrepresentation of what I actually said. I never said that creation science isn't science without elaborating that I am talking about the model.
Indeed - but that's the important bit right? And that bit wasn't derived in any scientific fashion, it is just plucked from wherever as an idea.
The practice of studying the evidence is indeed scientific.
Exactly, but when we are studying the evidence we aren't doing 'Creation Science' we're just doing 'science'. Even if we're studying the evidence to test the hypothesis that all life was created, we are doing science.
That is a simplified account. Simply studying the evidence isn't science of course, science is a specific methodology for reaching conclusions given the totality of relevant evidence available.
I also pointed out that the evolutionary model in the vertical sense is also not a scientific model. I explained why.
I'm fairly sure that the evolutionary model that you think that I accept is indeed a load of nonsense and is as far from science as the Creation Science model. If you want to discuss the actual claimed science behind the evolution that scientists and many posters here tentatively accept and why, you are free to join a discussion about that.
If you want to talk about improbability, Modulous, you should consider the odds that life could somehow just spontaneously generate itself up out of nothing and then proceeded to leap from the most simplest of forms to some of the most complex forms that we see today--especially considering the second law.
I have. Funnily enough, you aren't the first person to suggest that life somehow 'spontaneously generated itself up out of nothing' and then 'leaping from simple forms to complex forms' is highly improbable. Indeed I have a book (several actually) by Richard Dawkins here which says pretty much the exact same thing, only in more depth.
Neither Richard Dawkins nor I believe any of that gibberish. It's far too silly. If you want to discuss the actual science behind actual evolution, please feel free to...oh wait I've done that already.
If we were to throw heaps of electronic peices and parts into the air enough times, we stand a better chance of seeing those parts organize themselves into a computer.
Maybe so. Or what about a tornado in a junk yard producing a Boeing 747, don't forget that one. If you haven't heard it, add it to the playbook its a vital part of any good creationist (and you even get to say that a proper scientist invented it too!)
OK.
So you don't want to tell me whether my Cleaner Fish prediction was wrong or right. You don't want to get into an actual in depth look at the evidence to determine whether on the whole it really does support creation science, and though you seem to be happy to accept you probably aren't in a qualified position to do this, you do believe that the evidence supports creation better than evolution.
We have both agreed that both Creation and Kelverlution (ie., Kelly's version of evolution) are not scientific and that the science is all about studying the evidence, creating tests, comparing the results of those tests with the predicted outcomes from a hypothesis, reformulating the hypothesis, created new tests, etc etc.
Given all of that - exactly what did want to gain from your experience with discussing these topics with people that hold contrary views to yourself?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 5:35 PM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Kelly, posted 03-10-2009 8:52 AM Modulous has replied

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


Message 97 of 312 (502143)
03-09-2009 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Taq
03-09-2009 9:08 PM


Re: Very good Modulous
Well, here's a corollary short set of questions for Kelly:
Are humans and apes separately created kinds or are we of the same created kind? Yes or no?
Anticipating the answer to be "no", the next question would be:
What were hominids, ape or man?
While evolution would view hominids as transitional, we repeatedly observe creationists claiming that hominids are either 100% ape or 100% human. The next question would be:
By creationist reasoning, shouldn't the gap between ape and man be obvious? Therefore, viewing the hominid fossil evidence, shouldn't it be clear for a creationist which hominid is "100% ape" and which is "100% man"?
I would think that this would be a test of how well "creation science" works with the same evidence that scientists work with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Taq, posted 03-09-2009 9:08 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Taq, posted 03-09-2009 9:29 PM dwise1 has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 98 of 312 (502146)
03-09-2009 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by dwise1
03-09-2009 9:20 PM


Re: Very good Modulous
By creationist reasoning, shouldn't the gap between ape and man be obvious?
Let's not even go there yet. Let's not even look at the fossils themselves yet. First, I want to know what criteria creation scientists use to determine if a fossil fills or does not fill the gap between humans and a hypothetical common ancestor with chimps.
Kelly has already stated in the previous thread that creation science hypothesizes that no fossil link two "kinds" together. I want to see how this hypothesis is falsifiable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by dwise1, posted 03-09-2009 9:20 PM dwise1 has not replied

Sarawak
Member (Idle past 5477 days)
Posts: 47
Joined: 03-07-2009


Message 99 of 312 (502152)
03-10-2009 12:35 AM


As a practicing scientist who has performed thousands of experiments, I know what it is like to design a "tight" experiment, one that you know will give you correct information. Sure I might have an idea that the results should be 42 +/- 5, but if the results come out to be 200 +/- 10, then I have to revise my ideas. Data are data and not subject to revision from a "tight" experiment.
But a Creation Scientist is put into an uncomfortable spot. Say he sends off a sample that he thinks should be 4500 years ago at the time of Noah, and the result comes back 85,000,000 years ago. What does he do? He cannot change his idea that the Earth is only 6000 years old. He is stuck there by faith. So does he send the sample off to another place for dating? And the answer is again 85,000,000. Now he is in big trouble. He either has to throw out the data or attack the method. But if the experiment is "tight" (and its design is his and subject to scrutiny by scientists), the method will hold up. So he throws it out, saying, in effect, that his experimental design was no good.
But, more typically, the Creation Scientist never allows an experiment that could contradict his preconceived idea. He just never does any science. I think deep down inside all Creation Scientists know the data will never support their ideas, so they are put into a position of never doing any experiments. Instead they try to chew holes in other's work.
They look bad, silly and petty and never address the problems they think are so important. There's a lot of smoke and hand waving, but nothing ever comes out of the Creation Scientist's "experiments".

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 100 of 312 (502155)
03-10-2009 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Kelly
03-09-2009 9:13 AM


"A process was involved!"
Hi, Kelly.
Kelly writes:
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'm confused by this statement. As an evolutionary biologist, I spend a large portion of my time trying to figure out the "how" of evolution in the vertical sense. I particularly study the way spiders develop dietary specializations to improve their metabolic efficiency and minimize competitive interactions between species, which ultimately drives the entire spider community toward higher diversity and productivity.
At any rate, my point was precisely what you just said: creationists are not trying to figure out the "how" of creation, but my colleagues and I in the field of evolutionary biology are.
Since the term science is used by the scientific community to refer to any effort to figure out the how of natural processes, by your own admission, creation science does not fit the scientific definition of science. What creation scientists are doing is not, in any meaningful way, comparable to what I am doing, in terms of methodology, approach, rigor or logic.
-----
Imagine a scientist announcing his big research findings to the public in a press release (these are really big findings). In his press release, he says, I found that a process is involved in the conduction of electrons down a copper wire.
Wouldn’t you naturally want to ask him, What process is that?
What if he refused to specify the process?
Wouldn’t you conclude that he has nothing noteworthy to say, and wouldn’t you feel just a little bit annoyed by this idiot?
But, look what you wrote about creation science:
Kelly writes:
the universe is not self-contained, but it must have been created by processes which are not continuing as natural processes in the present.
My next question for you is, What processes are you referring to?
What if you refuse to specify the processes?
Wouldn’t I be well within my rights to conclude that you have nothing noteworthy to say, and wouldn’t I be justified in feeling just a little bit annoyed by you?
In fact, isn’t this pretty much exactly how everybody you’ve communicated with here has responded to you so far?
Although I typically prefer to avoid stinging, pointed arguments, I can’t help but feel that these people are justified in their exasperation. To them, you just sound like some idiot saying, A process was involved.
Why should they listen to your unspecified idea?
And why should they let you publish, A process was involved in a scientific journal?
Edited by Bluejay, : Plural.

-Bluejay/Mantis/Thylacosmilus
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 9:13 AM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Kelly, posted 03-10-2009 9:38 AM Blue Jay has replied

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


Message 101 of 312 (502163)
03-10-2009 5:34 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Kelly
03-09-2009 6:35 PM


Re: No, actually it is based on discrimination
Many have chosen to shun creationist's writings simply because they wrongly believe that it is religion in disguise.
Many have chosen to read a lot more creationist gibberish than you have, and have rightly discovered that it is religion in disguise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 6:35 PM Kelly has not replied

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


Message 102 of 312 (502165)
03-10-2009 5:41 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Kelly
03-09-2009 5:35 PM


Re: misrepresentation
That is a total misrepresentation of what I actually said. I never said that creation science isn't science without elaborating that I am talking about the model. The practice of studying the evidence is indeed scientific. I also pointed out that the evolutionary model in the vertical sense is also not a scientific model. I explained why.
And you are wrong.
You don't get to decide what is and isn't science.
There is nothing about true science that says we cannot study created objects and order.
Of course there is not. But there is something about true science that says that you can't pretend that uncreated objects are created by talking gibberish and making stuff up.
If you want to talk about improbability, Modulous, you should consider the odds that life could somehow just spontaneously generate itself up out of nothing and then proceeded to leap from the most simplest of forms to some of the most complex forms that we see today
No-one claims that that has happened.
Read a biology textbook.
You are clearly familiar neither with creationism nor with biology.
This leaves you in no position to judge between them, does it?
--especially considering the second law.
Read a textbook of thermodynamics.
Really, don't you think it's wrong --- morally wrong --- to go around talking rubbish about a subject which you know nothing about, and have never tried to find out about?
If we were to throw heaps of electronic peices and parts into the air enough times, we stand a better chance of seeing those parts organize themselves into a computer
You remember how I explained to you that your words don't have magical powers to change reality?
If just saying crap like this was sufficient, you guys would be on to a good thing. But it isn't.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 5:35 PM Kelly has not replied

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


Message 103 of 312 (502176)
03-10-2009 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Modulous
03-09-2009 9:14 PM


I just wanted to correct the misconception
that creation scientists aren't performing scientific experiments or studies using real scientific methods, etc. I am so tired of people actually thinking they are saying something true when they claim that creation science is about religion or theology or whatever other false claim they love to fall back on when challenged by creationists. That's all. Whether you agree with their findings or not is besides the point. Whether creationists are right about the unreliability of radiocarbon dating or not is also besides the point. My point is that they arrived at their conclusions based on the scientific data, experiments and results. The fact that these things confirm Scripture is just icing on the cake for those who believe that God has given us His Word and that it is a reliable source for understanding and living life to its fullest.
Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Modulous, posted 03-09-2009 9:14 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Dr Jack, posted 03-10-2009 9:03 AM Kelly has not replied
 Message 105 by Modulous, posted 03-10-2009 9:14 AM Kelly has not replied
 Message 108 by Larni, posted 03-10-2009 9:40 AM Kelly has not replied
 Message 132 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-10-2009 3:48 PM Kelly has not replied
 Message 138 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-11-2009 4:09 AM Kelly has not replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 104 of 312 (502180)
03-10-2009 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Kelly
03-10-2009 8:52 AM


To be a misconception it has to be wrong
The trouble, Kelly, is that Creationists have shown no sign of actually doing that. They're not doing experiments, formulating detailed hypothesises, making predictions.
If you think they are, you need to show us some examples of when they've actually done that; we're not going to just take your word for it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Kelly, posted 03-10-2009 8:52 AM Kelly has not replied

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


Message 105 of 312 (502182)
03-10-2009 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Kelly
03-10-2009 8:52 AM


Science is more than pointing at evidence and saying "See?"
I just wanted to correct the misconception that creation scientists aren't performing scientific experiments or studies using real scientific methods, etc.
Oh, well it depends what you mean. I think we are all aware that scientists that happen to believe in Creation perform science all the time. If you think that Creation Scientists do science with regards to Creation...then you can clear up that misconception by showing us the scientific experiments etc that they are employing.
So either it wasn't a misconception, or you haven't yet done what is necessary (we lovers of science don't just take people's words on these kinds of claims, we need evidence )
I am so tired of people actually thinking they are saying something true when they claim that creation science is about religion or theology or whatever other false claim they love to fall back on when challenged by creationists.
Yes, I imagine it is frustrating. Imagine how the ID people felt at Dover when their side kept rabitting on about God and religion and stuff?
We have explained to you why it is associated with religion. If you want to correct us on this issue, show us the non-religious based science that is related to Creation.
Whether you agree with their findings or not is besides the point. Whether creationists are right about the unreliability of radiocarbon dating or not is also besides the point. My point is that they arrived at their conclusions based on the scientific data, experiments and results.
The unreliability of radiocarbon dating, even if it were truly the case, does not support the Creation Model. All it means is that we cannot use radiocarbon dating to date things. It doesn't say "this indicates that X number of types were created within a short time period by a non-natural process".
The Earth could be 1,000 billion years old, having formed slowly, with life VERY gradually arising over 800 billion years and every single dating method could be wrong.
That dating methods might be unreliable is not supportive that things were created. It is therefore unrelated to Creation and therefore is nothing to do with Creation Science.
Further, arriving at conclusions based on evidence is not necessarily science.
The fact that these things confirm Scripture is just icing on the cake for those who believe that God has given us His Word and that it is a reliable source for understanding and living life to its fullest.
Sssh, you'll give the game away. You don't want people thinking that you have fallen prey to confirmation bias do you?
The fact that study X just happens to support dowsing, astral projection, telepathy, tarot reading, homeopathy etc etc, is just the icing on the cake as far as us woomeisters are concerned. It doesn't matter that that the study happens to be significantly flawed* according to almost 99% of scientists, even many of those that are themselves woomeisters.
*I don't mean 'whoops made a mistake there', I mean the methodology for collecting the data, the logic based on that data, the assumptions going into it etc etc are all fundamentally the wrong way of doing a scientific study.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Kelly, posted 03-10-2009 8:52 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