Creation science II

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. 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. 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. 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.

Kelly, I very much hate to break it to you, but Percy was setting you up.Not entirely of course - his actual intention was to nudge you towards supporting your assertions with something more than "Kelly says so." He gave you a Creationist paper to support your assertion that Creation Science follows the scientific method.Unfortunately, Creation Science does not follow the scientific method. It appears to for laypersons, because it engages in seeking evidence and testing and uses the same words that science uses. But the methodology is flawed from the outset - Creation Science is not about following the evidence wherever it leads; it's about supporting a conclusion arrived at before the evidence is even examined. The evidence is then "interpreted" to fit the conclusion. The scientific method would require that we alter the conclusion to fit the evidence - ergo, Creation Science is not following the scientific method.I'll demonstrate using your paper: It sure sounds like science, doesn't it? They speak of specific methodology for carrying out their experiment, and use all teh right terminology. This is a real experiment - I don't doubt that they actually carbon-dated this wood.However, botht he experiment and the methodology are critically flawed.First, as others have mentioned, radiocarbon dating cannot be used on samples more than around 25,000 years old - after that point the results are useless. This experiment was set up as a "blind" test, where the lab didn't know how old the sample was supposed to be - they were simply told to date it with C14. This means that for any sample older than 25,000 years, the test is doomed to give meaningless results from the start.Radiological dating can use many other isotopes, and the correct isotope to use is dependent on the age of the sample. In this case, carbon dating is like using a microscope to read - you're zoomed in too far to see the letters. The blind nature of the test ensures that the lab wouldn't be able to point this out.The paper tries to assert that, if the sample were millions of years old, all of the original carbon would have disappeared from the sample - but this doesn't address the fact that you cannot use C14 to date samples older than around 25,000 years. Period.The larger flaws in the paper come later, however, and are rooted in a flawed methodology that does not follow the scientific method: As an aside, observe the direct contradiction in the bolded sections. Is this a "legitimate" age or not?But mroe to the point, this conclusion depends on the assertions that:1) a global Flood actually occurred
2) the sample was buried catastrophically in sand in that Flood
3) a stronger magnetic field existed, altering the radiocarbon results
4) Because the Flood "buried a lot of carbon," the C14 results were further thrown offThis is a clear example of "interpreting" the evidence to support a preconceived conclusion.In this experiment, the correct conclusion would have been to confirm the C14 dating through other, independent means: examining the geological strata it was extracted from, and using other radioisotopes for other radiological dating methods that overlap the age determined by the lab to confirm that the results were accurate. The unsupported assumptions I listed above should never have been made.This paper used a dating method that any scientist or even layperson familiar with the limitations of radiocarbon dating can see is completely flowed. Further, in the "conclusion," the paper explains away the fact that the C14 dating did not match with even a Flood date by making unsupported claims that the C14 content of the sample would have been altered by that Flood - without providing the mechanism by which this would happen, or even supporting the idea that the Flood happened.Their conclusion is only valid if you assume that the Young Earth/Creation/Flood model is correct, AND you ignore the sloppy methodology of teh experiment.This is not science, Kelly. This is apologetics - the practice of trying to support a pre-existing belief. It looks like science, but then, it's supposed to: it's a con game, intended to sucker in laypersons who don't have the scientific background to realize they've been had.Like you, Kelly.That's the reason this "paper" isn't published in the mainstream scientific literature: it's not science, and would never survive an honest peer review.

Ooooh, a Devil's Advocate! While I thank you for pointing out my error, the actual date of teh sample according to Kelly's paper (I believe they called it the "evolutionary" age, which made me chuckle) is orders of magnitude greater. 25,000 years vs 60,000 years is inconsequential when the actual age is in the millions of years. The point remains that the sample is too old to be accurately measured using C14 dating, and the "researchers" knew or should have known that basic fact when setting up this experiment. It was a sham.I'd strongly suggest that you read the remainder of the C14 article on Wikipedia, particularly the sections discussing Calibration and Measurement and Scales. Apparently Wikipedia also knows more about C14 dating than Kelly's Creation Scientists.Further, you've continued to make the assertion that the Earth is only about 6000 years old without supporting that assertion.More importantly and related to the topic, you've still failed to address the fact that the methodology used in the paper was one of apologetics, that of attempting to support a preconceived conclusion, and not an application fo the scientific method. The conclusions of the paper dismissed even their own results while attempting to handwave the discrepancy away with unsupported assertions of Floods and a young Earth and without and explanation of a mechanism that would account for such discrepancies even were the assertions factual. The conclusion did not follow from the evidence - the experiment was purposefully rigged to give an inaccurate reading by using the wrong tool, and then this "evidence" was "interpreted" to validate the conclusion that existed before the experiment was even conceived. Creation Science remains not science.

Since we're now in Free For All, I'm comfortable sinking to Kelly's level: Nuh uh!QED.On a more serious (though perhaps less satisfying) note, Kelly has failed utterly to support even in the slightest that Creation Science follows the Scientific Method, and has in fact been shown repeatedly by multiple people exactly how Creation Science methodologies are different from the Scientific Method.Creation Science is Christian apologetics. Nothing more. It is a lame attempt at justifying irrational beliefs in the face of objective evidence contradicting those beliefs by wrapping them in sciency-sounding terms and experiments. It is, in all honesty, the result of massive cognitive dissonance on the part of the true believers, and an unfortunately effective con job for the rest.Most people, people like Kelly, do not have the knowledge of actual science, nor the critical thinking skills (and willingness to apply those skills to one's own position) required to differentiate between science and apologetics. Because Creation Science engages in experiments like Percy's carbon dating example, the average individual assumes that these people are actual scientists and that their conclusions are valid. They trust the Creation Scientists because they, too, want scientific validation for their faith-based beliefs.Unfortunately, being able to con the irrational masses has no bearing on objective reality. Evolution still happens. The Theory of Evolution remains one of the most successful and accurate models in all of science, with more supporting evidence backing it than the Theory of Gravity, Germ Theory, Cell Theory, or a slew of others. Human beings remain an ape, related to other extant apes through an ancient common ancestor. Transitional fossils abound, and are accepted by the vast majority of scientists, having passed through rigorous testing and the peer review process; through this process, frauds and sloppy conclusions are brought to light and discarded, while strong evidence supporting logically sound conclusions are vindicated.Kelly remains woefully ignorant of not only evolution and the processes and evidence it entails, but of science as a whole and even of basic logic. She seems incapable or unwilling to participate in debate and rationally examine her own claims or even participate in a two-sided conversation, preferring instead to talk at everyone else and parrot the same, tires PRATTs over and over and over again.Kelly, you're wrong. You're too ignorant of the subject matter to even compose an argument entirely in your own words, preferring instead to cut-and-paste from other sources when you think a relevant point is addressed. You literally lack sufficient competency in the fields of science and logic to be able to comprehend why your conclusions and even your very approach are wrong.You're debating with a group of people comprised not only of laypersons who debate these subjects as a hobby like myself (and have done so for far longer than you have), but also of college professors, biologists, physicists, and other honest-to-goodness scientists who know and comprehend this subject matter better than you ever will because they have devoted their profession lives to the study of objective evidence and the pursuit of ever-increasing accuracy through the scientific method. For you to support your barely-coherent assertions with only a few sentences and a total disregard for those who do know betteris shameful. Learn a little humility, Kelly. Concede that your position may in fact be incorrect, stop repeating already-refuted points, and you may actually be able to learn something here.

quote:

---

I'm wondering if this is sort of a double-edged sword for them. That in order to prevent people from freely debunking their mis-use of facts they now have to fully admit that such things are merely creative ideas, and therefore do not necessarily have any basis in fact at all.

​

In the end, it really doesn't matter. If they are going to invoke copyright laws then they must also agree to Fair Use policies which allows small portions of the copyrighted material to be directly copied with appropriate citation. What is not allowed is wholesale copying of the material.

---

That was my understanding as well - the copyright statement that was copied to this thread mentioned that there was "no fair use waiver" or some such, but that's not the way the law works. No waiver is required for fair use - just as you're allowed to whistle a copyrighted song on the street regardless of what the intellectual property holder wants, you're allowed to quote passages of a creative work to discuss that work regardless of the author's desire.

quote:

---

Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as use for scholarship or review.

---

quote:

---

It's copyrighted, so it can't be fair use. On the contrary, fair use applies only to copyrighted works, describing conditions under which copyrighted material may be used without permission. If a work is not copyrighted, fair use does not come into play, since public-domain works can legally be used for any purpose.

---

And most importantly:

quote:

---

You can deny fair use by including a disclaimer. Fair use is a right granted to the public on all copyrighted work. Fair use rights take precedence over the author's interest. Thus the copyright holder cannot use a non-binding disclaimer, or notification, to revoke the right of fair use on works. However, binding agreements such as contracts or license agreements may take precedence over fair use rights.

---

The author of the work does not get any say in whether fair use applies or not. It always applies to copyrighted works, and you cannot disclaim fair use, unless a binding contract is used.Whether the quotations from Creationist websites used earlier constitute fair use, well, I don't know. Fair use is decided on a case by case basis (much like the "reasonable person" standard used in things like sexual harassment cases).For that, I would say that this is the most relevant bit:

quote:

---

The first factor is about whether the use in question helps fulfill the intention of copyright law to stimulate creativity for the enrichment of the general public, or whether it aims to only "supersede the objects" of the original for reasons of personal profit. To justify the use as fair, one must demonstrate how it either advances knowledge or the progress of the arts through the addition of something new.

---

Debate over a given "scientific" paper as is done on this forum certainly qualifies as stimulating creativity for the enrichment of the general public, and as this forum doesn't have any advertising and makes no profit, copied sections clearly isn't being used for personal profit.I think we're safe, regardless of whether Creationist webhosts tell us not to ever quote their drivel for discussion.But then, I'm not a lawyer, and those quotes were all from the Wikipedia "Fair Use" article. Take with a grain of salt, as always.