Creation science II

It is "science" as long as experiments can be carried out under the same conditions as the original events took place.In your forest example...yes there are still some forests left to check for similar situations. But you had better carry out your forest testing soon. After a while, it'll all be just whimsical scientific theory and historical speculation.....like Darwin's ideas.

"That is simply UNTRUE! Creationists nearly always DISAGREE that, for example, the literal and figurative mountains of evidence for a planet that's several thousands of millions of years old is even evidence at all!"You are failing to provide evidence of disagreement there.I suppose you disagree. Point made. Even that fact, we don't agree on.Actually, rocks have no dates stamped on them. When they were formed is speculation based on observable processes. The conditions they formed under is speculation as well as the date. Since "mass" effects "time" then "time" may have been distorted as well during the rocks formation. Says Eisenstein anyway.

I was thinking that the point was that Creationists disagree among each other. I guess that wasn't the point. Creationists don't have strong disagreements about what Geologists turn up in their data. Usually about the conclusions reached.You are welcome to theorize on my drool, but that's a bit off topic for me. Love the name calling, by the way. Shows who I'm investing my time reading.

"The dates are stamped inside (igneous) rocks as ratios of several different isotopes."No they aren't. Just ratios and theories about the ratios. We can only date things accurately to the beginning of written documentation. And even that's assuming what was written is accurate. The rest is historical speculation based on processes that may or may not be duplicated accurately. As far as I know, no lava flows have produced accurate "creation" dates of the rock formed.

"But then, the rocks have never left the earth's gravitational field and we are within the same field so time has passed at the same rate for both us and the rocks. So your attempt at a claim is moot."Don't bother doing the math unless you've been watching those rocks and documenting the conditions yourself. Because I won't accept your assumptions that you are so sure of. It's history, after all.History is known to be written more by the writer than by the facts. I'm sure you would use that logic against MY sources of information.

"I ask myself the same thing. I think we are too aggressive in our dealings with new creationist members, and pile on in too great a numbers. I'm not sure what the board can do about this really?"I find the desire to pounce...very revealing as to the security of ones belief system. I don't recall using such tactics.I think I'll use that observation.

Last Tuesday is a Christian punk band hailing from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Not my style. But keep tossing those labels. Maybe one will stick Dude.

"You are not just mistaken, but spectacularly mistaken."Yawn...read it all before. I OBSERVE that even written documentation based on LAB experiments can be adjusted to result in what the researcher wants to see for a result. Don't think you've been involved, first hand, in more involved in scientific research than me, cause it's not likely.

"Welcome to EVC Sky-Writing, you may be glad to know there are other Last-tuesdayists who frequent this board. I am sure you will feel at home."Holy-Cow! (As a Muslim/Christian might say) Your reference to "Last-Tuesday" was from Gods mind to yours. It actually WAS last Tuesday when my boss came up to me and implored my to use a different tool because I was getting the results he wanted to see. Never mind that the tool I use had been producing spectacular results up until that morning. He wanted to use a much more complicated tool that I didn't choose to use due to lack of process feedback.On that particular day, one of the wires had shorted out on a static controller and the results were all over the place from minute to minute. He blamed my "poor choice" of tools, where as it was ACTUALLY the conditions that had changed.I DID begin using HIS tool of choice.
He's the boss and one must pick ones battles.How exactly like a geologist might feel....especially if there is reduced financial gain unless "the boss/your peers/the media" likes your pet theories. I do so love when Science "proves" the Creationist model to better fit the facts. Though they don't come right out and say that. Ya have to understand the implications of Quick Creation and the stories in the New Testament flesh that out a bit.

---

- Sky-

The marble experiment is showing results in real time.The Creationist says somebody engineered the marbles to be round to .01 thousands of an inch and placed the color accent stripe in the middle. The "Realist" says it all happened by chance.

"This is very strange. Are you accusing all scientists of tinkering with test results?"First, we are mostly talking about historical speculation. We could cal it "Scientific Historical Speculation" if you like.If we are talking about...actual, current, live test results, then choose your topic
drug safety
global temperatures
diets that work
drug effectiveness
I dunno....you choose a current scientific topic, I'll show you massive tinkering, bias, and discovered fraud.How do we find Oil? Just what IS oil, by the way? How did so much organic matter build up in one place anyway? Millions of tiny thin layers of leaves over millions of years? When we dig in the bottom of lakes or oceans we don't find much buildup. It gets eaten and digested.I don't have "unquestionable authority in scientific research". I have 2 decades of firsthand experience in scientific research. Seen with eyes, felt with hands, burn marks, watched people die kind of experience. I know what goes on in R&D. Whatever the boss wants or/and the customer is paying for.So you still trust anything that claims to be "Science". But I've seen behind the curtain.

---

- Sky-

"Then why don't creationists go to the same rock formations and measure the isotope ratios of the same samples?"Let's not argue based on your lack-of-knowledge about said activities.

---

- Sky-

The real argument here should be "Why aren't 99.5 percent of all fossils clearly transitional?"Being that "Evolution" is supposed to be the nature of everything that we see around us...the question should be why did Darwin have to search for 20 years to find enough to back his wacky idea?The answer is that ANY theory so foundational to the development of life should have BILLIONS of trees and fossil series. Horse Series, Fish series, whale series, shark series, turtle series,,,etc, etc.Skip those last two. Even Science admits that sharks and turtles east Darwin theories for breakfast.

"No, the realist suggests marbles are imperfect replicators and that there is a selective advantage to rounder marbles. You're not really very good at this analogy thing, are you?"But there isn't a selective advantage. Nature prefers diversity for survival. Thanks for the put-down. Do you Evo's all get the same put-down training? Odd that it's always the same format.Edited by -Sky-, : Don't have the hang of the Quote thing yet.

---

- Sky-

"Except for the whole part about how fossils form. Because the conditions required for the formation of fossils are quite specific, the types of fossils we find are quite skewed to mostly just the hard parts of marine organisms. So, because we understand the process of fossilization, we can predict that fossils are going to be hard to come by, but of course, not impossible."That's blatantly ridiculous. My point being that the entire body, bone, soft, all structure of every type, both fossilized and current, living structure should be wildly diverse and in a state of flux from one form to another....and your response being that only bones show in the fossil record. Besides being a lie, it avoids the issue.Physical laws of nature exist on the electron level, show at the planetary level, and extrapolate to the formation of spiral galaxies in the universe.Any evidence that electrons mutate & evolve? Or that ANYTHING else in the known Cosmos Mutates and Evolves?You're making excuses that the Evo-Theory isn't blatantly clear because soft tissue decays too quick to preserve fossils. Hardly accurate. And AAaaack!