"Creation Science" experiments.

Since creation derives its tenets from design and other observable and testable evidences, using valid rules of evidence, your wrong as usualDawn Bertot

And, again as usual, you fail to tell us what those are.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

The result of an experiment is always a new event, and never a repeat of an old event.Science does experiments to test procedures and methods, not to repeat events. We test our explanation of past events by testing whether the processes and actions that our explanations assert do indeed have the kind of outcomes that we see in the evidence of those past events.

There are many ways. Here's a possible experiment for Young Earth Creationists.YEC hypothesis: There was a world wide flood 4,300 years ago.Observation: The oldest known living non-clonal tree is 4,800 years old (counted by tree rings, and it's a Bristlecone Pine, which doesn't produce double rings).Experiment to answer the question: Can a Bristlecone pine survive a year completely immersed in water?The YECs would need to construct a tank around one or more B. Pines that are several hundred years old, and then fill the tanks with dark, briny water, covering the tree (this is perfectly feasible - the trees aren't large). The greater the depth of covering the better.Then they wait for a year, perhaps diving to examine the state of the trees at intervals.Then they would find (we know from real floods covering trees for a long time), that the trees would be dead.They would have then falsified their hypothesis to a reasonably high level of confidence.

Bravo. I agree 100%. Just getting a feel for how OCD people are here. When I say prove, I merely mean in the sense that something is overwhelmingly supported while not in the least refuted. But I will be more careful when choosing my words from here on out. Isn't this just a rewording of what I said? here's a recap:

Again that's just another way of saying exactly what I said Nij. Boy talk about OCD. People around here are wound tighter than Adrian Monk at a booger picking contest. LOL. Well don't you think that since we are talking about an origins event and both of those paradigms suppose an intelligent source as the origin of the universe and life, then all it would take to falsify this would be any experiment to try and form a living biological organism through strictly natural processes? Therefore the famous Miller experiment (though unsuccessful) would qualify as an ID science experiment because it was an attempt at proving that life could form by natural processes and falsifying ID. Or is it a requirement that the experimenter be a proponent of the theory he is attempting to falsify? Interesting. I pose a question to everyone here. Is the above comment the general sentiments of everyone, or mostly just Nij? I ask because I would like to know why it is funny when people hold a different point of view than you, and fail? It seems like a part of the human condition is to think out of the box and try things a little differently from time to time. When I see someone fail, I don't kick them, I help them up and we both learn from the experience. But that might just be me.

Yes, essentially. Except that your emphasis has an implicit "this is all we can do", where-as this is actually (part of) the scientific method and is how *all* science is conducted. And with sufficient supporting evidence, your "lends credibility" becomes our "exceptionally well-supported".So you answered your own question, yes?

No, you are just talking to professionals and real scientists (possibly for the first time) and we are not (or try not to be) sloppy in the language we use as it inevitably leads to confusion and false ideas...

What evidence? Where are the tests that have been done to verify your hypothesis? Where do I find the peer reviewed papers that show what has been done to verify the hypothesis?The only thing I see is responses to the Bible or Goddidit, neither are evidence.Edited by bluescat48, : [/qs] goof

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

My reason for this topic, as noted in my OP, is due to the vast majority of creationist attack on "secular science" in that they appeared to have an alternative method to study the world around us. This thread was for them to provide that other method and show us how to perform simple experiments using the "creation/ID method" to study the world around us.So far, all we have is a personal attack. In this thread, I did not goad a single poster and made an honest attempt to provide an avenue for the resident creationists to teach us their way.

---

Your god believes in Unicorns

You're right and make a valid point. However, I said that in response to (I'm paraphrasing here because I'm too tired and lazy to search for the direct content) "go observe something and see how well it works. That proves it's designed". So, if we have the same designer designing all of life, all life should live harmoniously, yes? Then I threw in the invasive species to throw a stick in that cog.Perhaps I am thinking a little too simplistically, though. But then again, we are dealing with creationists......

---

Your god believes in Unicorns

This particular thread is not a request to provide tests for creation itself, but for their particular methodology. You will note in the OP, I provided a link to various simple home experiments that anyone can do at home, but using the "secular" scientific method. All I am asking is for a workable "creation/ID" scientific method, since so many creationists as of late seem to have a problem with the already accepted scientific method.

---

Your god believes in Unicorns

Do you need to add a question mark?

Hi, Dawn. No, it's not. It's pretty goofy, you're right: but, it's not the stupidest or the most moronic thing you've ever witnessed.Besides, it was a question, not a statement.If a statement comes from ignorance, ridiculing it is understandable and perhaps excusable.But, if a question comes from ignorance, ridiculing it is never understandable or excusable.The first principle of science is to ask a question when you don't know the answer to it.Science is moved forward by ignorant people asking questions in order to cure their ignorance.
Science is held back by arrogant morons who ridicule ignorant people who ask questions in order to cure their ignorance.Now, I sympathize with---and perhaps even agree with---your opinion that the reason for Hooah's question was not actually something so innocuous as a cure for his ignorance, but such palpable ignorance as you feel Hooah is showing (whether deliberate or not) should be relatively straightforward to cure with simple logic and science. And, even if Hooah is resistant to the cure, surely some lurker or other onlooker will benefit from your attempting to cure his ignorance.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Hooah. It is a well-known principle that challenges and competition can select for the best, the most productive, and the most efficient designs.Creationists accept this principle to: in fact, creationism is often strongly married with the political form of this principle (the free-market principle).Obviously, if things were designed, why wouldn't they also be designed to compete and to be challenged for their successes?Furthermore, if things were designed, why wouldn't they also be designed to feed off one another and thereby generate a system that can be sustainable without further input from the designer?

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.