Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation science II
Son
Member (Idle past 3830 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 151 of 312 (502364)
03-11-2009 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by Kelly
03-11-2009 10:17 AM


Re: Creation Science
What do you mean by truly new types? Do you mean species? Something else? You should use already existing terms or define the new terms you use.
Edited by Son, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Kelly, posted 03-11-2009 10:17 AM Kelly has not replied

Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 152 of 312 (502366)
03-11-2009 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by Kelly
03-11-2009 9:49 AM


Comparing the two Models
Kelly writes:
The farther into the past the event being studied, the longer the chain of inferences involved, the more guesswork, and the more room there is for non scientific factors to influence the conclusions--this is true for both the creationist and the evolutionist scientists. So what may be regarded as "science" regarding the past may not be much more than the scientist's personal world view.
Kelly, you are correct here.
In fact, you could even say "--this is true for everyone."
However, there is a difference between Science and Creation Science.
Science acknowledges and specifically identifies all the "non-scientific factors" that can influence the conclusions. And they then specifically avoid making conclusions based on these non-scientific factors. That's why they're called "non-scientific," because they aren't included when doing Science.
Creation Science acknowledges these non-scientific factors and embraces them. They then specifically make use of them in order to influence their methods so they can reach their desired conclusions. The use of these non-scientific factors is what makes Creation Science not Science.
Science is, even when dealing with the past, only based on those facts and observations that can be verifiably confirmed. Those observations that cannot be verifiably confirmed exist (for everyone) but they are not acknowledge by science since they cannot be relied upon and they could be wrong. That means they cannot be influnced by their "world view." It's impossible, the fact that all the observations used can be verfiably confirmed by anyone (even you, if you're willing to do the work required), guarantees the Science is immune to being influenced by anyone's world view.
Creation Science, by embracing their world view and allowing all those non-scientific factors to influence their conclusions... are not doing Science.
You can say that Science allows a world view to influence it's conclusions all you want. But the fact that Science can show you to be wrong is all any honestly curious person requires.
Your mere words about Science are worthless when compared to the actions from Science that prove you wrong.
Like everyone keeps telling you, you need to show how what you say is true. Since just saying it is obviously false as shown by the actions that anyone can see.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Kelly, posted 03-11-2009 9:49 AM Kelly has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 153 of 312 (502368)
03-11-2009 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by Kelly
03-11-2009 10:17 AM


Creastion Science -- details
.is a study of the evidence left behind, looking to test the creation model hypothesis which says that life was created suddenly and all things were completed at that time. There are no longer any processes occuring today. Life is what it is and besides the (micro) evolution of all created types--there is nothing truly new. There is nothing about true science that says we cannot test origins results for signs of created/designed law and order. I have, by-the-way, offered plenty of description of what creation science is and what it does. I have to go...
So CS says life was created suddenly in a number of distinct forms? Yes?
Does it say if this happened at one period of time or at several different times?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Kelly, posted 03-11-2009 10:17 AM Kelly has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by ICANT, posted 03-11-2009 10:46 AM NosyNed has not replied

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


Message 154 of 312 (502370)
03-11-2009 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by Son
03-11-2009 10:11 AM


Is it Science?
Proving that Creation Science is "right" is not the same thing as proving that Creation Scienc is a science. There will never be the possibility of proving either position (Creation or Evolution) because of the fact that origins happened in the past and cannot be revisited in any real concrete fashion. It will forever remain in the past and be something we can only hypothesize about.
But this doesn't mean that we can't at least get past the notion that somehow what evolutionists have concluded is a scientific conclusion whereas the creationist's conclusions are not. This is nonsense. We are all on equal-footing in this respect. There is no denying that what creationists do is scientific in regard to experiments, testing and studying the evidence. In this way, we are no different from evolutionists who also test the physical evidence of the present.
I am not looking to prove creationists are right. I am just looking to put to rest the "fallacy" that Creation Science isn't science while Evolution is.
Also, by types I am refering to species..e.g., human beings, dogs, cats, etc.
Also so, sorry to post and run, but i really have to go...
Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Son, posted 03-11-2009 10:11 AM Son has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Coragyps, posted 03-11-2009 10:58 AM Kelly has not replied
 Message 158 by Stile, posted 03-11-2009 10:58 AM Kelly has replied
 Message 165 by Jester4kicks, posted 03-11-2009 12:20 PM Kelly has replied

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


Message 155 of 312 (502372)
03-11-2009 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by Kelly
03-11-2009 10:17 AM


Re: Creation Science
Thank you Kelly.
So, for now we'll go with this defintion:
Kelly writes:
Creation Science is a study of the evidence left behind, looking to test the creation model hypothesis which says that life was created suddenly and all things were completed at that time. There are no longer any processes occuring today. Life is what it is and besides the (micro) evolution of all created types--there is nothing truly new.
Now for question number two.
"Again in your own words, what are the methods used by creation science to test if the evidence confirms their model?"
Note that "The same methods as regular science" is NOT the answer here, as using the same methods on the smae evidence can only ever give the same results.
For example.
I have a piece bone (not fossilized). One hypothesis says that the bone is 100 years old, the other says it's 10.000 years old. It is agreed that the best way to test it is to use carbon dating. The piece of bone is carbon dated by the first scientist, and the age the test gives is 7,500 years old. The test is repeated by the other scientist, and again it's 7,500 years old. Both hypothesis were wrong, but the test will give the same result, no matter what, since their methods were the same.
So, in short, if creation science is using the same methods on the same evidence that regular science is using the exact same methods on, then they can NEVER get any other results from eachother.
Oh, and take your time in asnwering, there's no time limit.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Kelly, posted 03-11-2009 10:17 AM Kelly has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 156 of 312 (502374)
03-11-2009 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by NosyNed
03-11-2009 10:32 AM


Re: Creastion Science -- details
Hi Ned,
NoseyNed writes:
So CS says life was created suddenly in a number of distinct forms? Yes?
I don't know what CS says but the Bible teaches me that there was more than one time.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by NosyNed, posted 03-11-2009 10:32 AM NosyNed has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 157 of 312 (502376)
03-11-2009 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by Kelly
03-11-2009 10:36 AM


Re: Is it Science?
Kelly, again you say, more plainly this time, that a "type" is a species. Does this mean that you agree that there are a couple of hundred thousand "types" of beetle? A thousand or so "types" of mice and rats? Are you sure that's what you and the Creation Scientist in your pocket want to claim?

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Kelly, posted 03-11-2009 10:36 AM Kelly has not replied

Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 158 of 312 (502378)
03-11-2009 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by Kelly
03-11-2009 10:36 AM


Re: Is it Science?
Kelly writes:
We are all on equal-footing in this respect. There is no denying that what creationists do is scientific in regard to experiments, testing and studying the evidence.
But that's just it. We are all on equal-footing to start with.
And, yes, creationists do experiments, testing and studying.
But that's where the similarities end.
Creationists then add in the additional information from their world view to skew their findings into a particular conclusion.
Science doesn't do that.
When we have evidence, and we do a test... there is only one answer.
If there are multiple answers then it wasn't science, the test was not refined enough and must be thrown out and repeated to be science.
That's what "science" means... that everyone comes to the same answer. World views do not enter into the picture. They aren't allowed to, they're specifically tested for and removed by making sure that everyone comes to the same answer.
Therefore we are most definitly not on equal-footing to end with since science accounts for world-views and makes sure they don't influence conclusions where creation science embraces world-view skewing influences.
Therefore it is very misleading to say the two are "on equal footing." Because they're not. They're very different, one is science and the other is not.
You may wonder why creation scientists do not come to the same conclusions that all other scientists (across the entire world) come to. And the answer is very simple... creation scientists are not doing science, they are allowing their world-view to corrupt their conclusions. It is similar to a child doing math for the first time. They don't get the same answer as everyone else because, simply put, they're doing it wrong. Whatever the child is doing, it isn't math. Whatever creation scientists are doing, it isn't science.
It's not only atheist scientists that show creation science to be wrong. If that were so, you may have a point. But it's not true:
Christian scientists show that creation science is not science.
Hindu scientists show that creation science is not science.
Australian scientists show that creation science is not science.
Nazi scientists show that creation science is not science.
Jewish scientists show that creation science is not science.
Southern Baptist scientists show that creation science is not science.
Catholic scientists show that creation science is not science.
Any and all scientists (those who do not allow their world-view to corrupt their conclusions) all agree with the exact same answer -> Evolution. They all agree that creation science is not science. They all agree that creation science is not science because it allows its world view to corrupt its conclusions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Kelly, posted 03-11-2009 10:36 AM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by ICANT, posted 03-11-2009 11:46 AM Stile has replied
 Message 162 by Kelly, posted 03-11-2009 12:08 PM Stile has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 159 of 312 (502381)
03-11-2009 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by Stile
03-11-2009 10:58 AM


Re: Is it Science?
Hi Stile,
Stile writes:
Any and all scientists (those who do not allow their world-view to corrupt their conclusions) all agree with the exact same answer -> Evolution. They all agree that creation science is not science. They all agree that creation science is not science because it allows its world view to corrupt its conclusions.
Upon what do you base this assertion?
I want to analyze this statement and you can correct me if I am misunderstanding you.
All scientist agree with the same exact answer -> Evolution.
If a scientist don't agree with this group they are not a scientist as they are letting their world view corrupt their conclusions.
Is this what you are saying?
Could it possibly be that they look at the same information and come to different conclusions?
Stile writes:
But that's just it. We are all on equal-footing to start with.
And, yes, creationists do experiments, testing and studying.
But that's where the similarities end.
Creationists then add in the additional information from their world view to skew their findings into a particular conclusion.
So you are saying these scientist who believe in creation do scientific experiments studying and testing. Just like the real scientist.
But since they don't reach the same conclusion their conclusion is tainted by their world view.
But on the other hand the scientist that does not believe in creation is immune to his/her world view affecting his/her conclusions.
Is that what you are saying?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Stile, posted 03-11-2009 10:58 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Stile, posted 03-11-2009 12:09 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 164 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-11-2009 12:11 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 170 by dwise1, posted 03-11-2009 12:39 PM ICANT has not replied

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


Message 160 of 312 (502384)
03-11-2009 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by Kelly
03-11-2009 10:17 AM


Re: Creation Science
Creation Science ..is a study of the evidence left behind, looking to test the creation model hypothesis which says that life was created suddenly and all things were completed at that time. There are no longer any processes occuring today.
So if I look at the evidence, in an attempt to test that hypothesis (which I have) and if I find that that hypothesis is a load of rubbish (which I have) ... is that, then, creation science?
There is nothing about true science that says we cannot test origins results for signs of created/designed law and order.
No indeed. True science has tested creationist nonsense. That's why scientists have rejected it as rubbish.
The self-styled "creation scientists" are simply the loons who are refusing to accept the results of an investigation which has been done, and done very thoroughly.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Kelly, posted 03-11-2009 10:17 AM Kelly has not replied

Dman
Member (Idle past 5018 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 02-26-2009


Message 161 of 312 (502387)
03-11-2009 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Kelly
03-11-2009 10:17 AM


Re: Creation Science
quote:
..is a study of the evidence left behind, looking to test the creation model hypothesis which says that life was created suddenly and all things were completed at that time.
So for this to be science, the evidence left behind should have given the notion of "creation" to create such a hypothesis. Where are the tests to support this prediction? You will not find any, because "creation science" presupposes creation before finding evidence for it. How scientific...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Kelly, posted 03-11-2009 10:17 AM Kelly has not replied

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


Message 162 of 312 (502390)
03-11-2009 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Stile
03-11-2009 10:58 AM


Re: Is it Science?
But that's just it. We are all on equal-footing to start with.
And, yes, creationists do experiments, testing and studying.
Thank you for that much
Creationists then add in the additional information from their world view to skew their findings into a particular conclusion.
Evolutionists do the same thing. It is the nature of the beast, really, since none of us were there in the begining.
Science doesn't do that.
I am not sure who you mean by this? Evolution scientists? They certainly do. The nature of operational science is the only kind of science where we do not need to use any kind of guesswork.
When we have evidence, and we do a test... there is only one answer.
If there are multiple answers then it wasn't science, the test was not refined enough and must be thrown out and repeated to be science.
Let me give you an example. I'll go back to the fossil record. If evolutionists and creationists are honest, we all know that the whole record is sparse at best and that transitional fossils do not exist. Creationists acknowledge this and are happy to conclude that this agrees with their model. Evolutionists also agree that there are missing links, but instead of dealing with the fossil record, they have had to basically abandon their dependence upon it. They now say, in order to override the painful truth about missing links, that evolution occurs in quick sudden bursts and therefore there shouldn't be transitional fossils at all. Now...whose allowing their worldview to get in the way of the obvious results of their findings?
Also, radiometric dating does not always reveal the same exact results--even when testing the same evidence with the same method. It is unreliable. When we can see that the tests can't even acuratelly determine the age of things that we actually do know the age of, like rocks formed at Mt. St. Helen, why would we trust these same tests on rocks we don't know the age of?
That's what "science" means... that everyone comes to the same answer. World views do not enter into the picture.
Ideally, yes, that would be great. However, in historical or origins science, we really can't help it. Guesswork is a criteria.
Therefore it is very misleading to say the two are "on equal footing." Because they're not. They're very different, one is science and the other is not.
I do not believe that you have shown me how evolution is different from creation in the study of origins. Both sciences are based on their particular worldviews of what might have occured in the begining.
You may wonder why creation scientists do not come to the same conclusions that all other scientists (across the entire world) come to. And the answer is very simple... creation scientists are not doing science, they are allowing their world-view to corrupt their conclusions.
Actually, creation scientists study in all different scientific fields and when it comes to things observable, there is little disagreement. The argument will usually stem not from what is observed, but what it means--the interpretation?
It is similar to a child doing math for the first time. They don't get the same answer as everyone else because, simply put, they're doing it wrong. Whatever the child is doing, it isn't math.
I think that this example would better fall under the operational sciences.
As for the rest of your post, it is all speculative.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Stile, posted 03-11-2009 10:58 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-11-2009 12:21 PM Kelly has not replied
 Message 168 by Stile, posted 03-11-2009 12:28 PM Kelly has replied
 Message 172 by Coyote, posted 03-11-2009 1:08 PM Kelly has replied
 Message 173 by Taq, posted 03-11-2009 1:13 PM Kelly has not replied
 Message 186 by dwise1, posted 03-11-2009 2:41 PM Kelly has not replied
 Message 188 by dwise1, posted 03-11-2009 4:06 PM Kelly has not replied

Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 163 of 312 (502392)
03-11-2009 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by ICANT
03-11-2009 11:46 AM


Re: Is it Science?
ICANT writes:
Could it possibly be that they look at the same information and come to different conclusions?
That's quite possibly true. But one conclusion will be right, and the other will be wrong.
2+2=4
Two people can start with the same information (2+2) and end up with differing conclusions (4 or say... 5). But one of them is wrong.
This is what science does. Science sets up it's questions in the form of 2+2 such that there is only one answer and that answer must be true from the starting information.
That's what a scientific experiment is, it's an experiment where the starting information and method is carefully controlled to make sure that regardless of who does the experiment... there's only one answer.
If the experiment can be done to give varying answers, then it's not a scientific experiment. The whole idea of science is to provide questions that will lead to correct answers. If the answers are unidentifiable, then the questions are useless and not scientific.
So you are saying these scientist who believe in creation do scientific experiments studying and testing. Just like the real scientist.
You really got this from what I said? That's pretty much the opposite of what I said.
I said that creation scientists do experiments, studying and testing. However, they do not do any scientific experiments, scientific studying or scientific testing because they allow their world-view to get involved and shape the conclusions.
But since they don't reach the same conclusion their conclusion is tainted by their world view.
Not necessarily for all people. But in the case of the creation scientists this thread is talking about... most certainly yes.
But on the other hand the scientist that does not believe in creation is immune to his/her world view affecting his/her conclusions.
Where do you get this stuff?
That's not what I said.
I said that "doing science" is when you control and ensure that your world view does not affect your conclusions.
One can very easily not believe in creation and still let their world view (whatever else that is... say... magical Matrix simulations) affect their conclusions. This, because the world view affects the conclusions, is not science.
Is that what you are saying?
No. I'm not saying the opposite of what I'm saying, you really had to ask that? I'm saying what I said:
Stile writes:
But that's just it. We are all on equal-footing to start with.
And, yes, creationists do experiments, testing and studying.
But that's where the similarities end.
Creationists then add in the additional information from their world view to skew their findings into a particular conclusion.
-Not all experiments are controlled to ensure that world views do not affect the conclusions.
-Controlling to ensure that world views do not affect conclusions is scientific.
Therefore, not all experiments are scientific.
Hope that helps to clear it up.
Maybe you are feeling upset that I seem to be singling out creation scientists? I assure you that I am not. Anyone is capable of allowing their world view to affect the conclusion of an experiment. If they do, then they're not doing science. I'm only talking about creation scientists here because, well... that's the topic of this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by ICANT, posted 03-11-2009 11:46 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by ICANT, posted 03-11-2009 4:35 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 164 of 312 (502394)
03-11-2009 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by ICANT
03-11-2009 11:46 AM


Re: Is it Science?
Could it possibly be that they look at the same information and come to different conclusions?
No.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by ICANT, posted 03-11-2009 11:46 AM ICANT has not replied

Jester4kicks
Junior Member (Idle past 5496 days)
Posts: 33
Joined: 06-17-2008


Message 165 of 312 (502396)
03-11-2009 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Kelly
03-11-2009 10:36 AM


Re: Is it Science?
Kinda late in the game here... but I've seen this argument come up a lot recently, and it's incredibly odd to me.
There will never be the possibility of proving either position (Creation or Evolution) because of the fact that origins happened in the past and cannot be revisited in any real concrete fashion. It will forever remain in the past and be something we can only hypothesize about.
How far back do you apply that alleged inability to understand the past?
If you happen upon a tree in the forest, uprooted and laying on the ground, do you assert that we can never know what happened to that tree? Do you assume the tree just appeared on the earth in the exact position it is currently in? What if further analysis determined the tree had been dead for a while, and damage to the roots indicated some kind of insect infestation that weakened its base?
What if all the evidence pointed to a particular conclusion? Would you dismiss that conclusion simply because whatever happened must have happened in the past?
If so... how far back do you draw the line of our inability to understand the past, and what criteria do you use to make that determination?
Here's another example... let's say the area currently known as Yellowstone National Park had never been discovered. 50 years from now, we finally find it and see the areas that had previously been destroyed by forest fires, and some that had since regrown.
Are you saying that we are unable to apply our current understanding of forest fires and biology to those areas to explain why there is this otherwise-unexplained burned section of forest?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Kelly, posted 03-11-2009 10:36 AM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Kelly, posted 03-11-2009 12:27 PM Jester4kicks has replied
 Message 216 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-12-2009 10:56 AM Jester4kicks 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