"Creation Science" experiments.

Based on this assumption, what types of experiments would you do in order to test for God's actions in the past or present?Let's use a "secular" science example. We know from observing retroviruses that they randomly insert into millions of insertion sites. We also observe that the human genome contains thousands of retroviral insertions.This offers us a way to test for a common ancestor between humans and chimps. Because retroviruses are observed to insert randomly we can conclude that two independent insertion events will produce two insertions at two different spots in the genome. Therefore, the only explanation for two organisms to have the same insertion at the same spot in their genome is if a single insertion was passed down through common ancestry. We then compare ERV's between humans and chimps to see if these ERV's occur at the same spot in each genome.So what would the "creation" science experiment look like using the additional assumption that God exists and acted in the past?

Can you give us an example as it relates to geology and a world wide flood? How does the assumption that God exists change the processes by which flood sediments are deposited? What observations are we ignoring? For example, where in the ice cores should we be looking for the signal from the world wide flood? Where do we find a flood signal in lake varves?You also seem to indicate that creation science does construct hypotheses. This necessarily includes the null hypothesis, the conditions under which the hypothesis is falsified. So what type of geologic formation, if found, would falsify a recent global flood?

Uniformitarianism refers to the production of geologic formations. It simply states that the processes creating geologic formations in the present were the same as those in the past. When we see a calm lake depositing fine grained sediments and also find the same deposits in older sediments we can infer that a calm lake environment also deposited these older sediments. The present is the key to the past.Using this same principle we can look at how catastrophes deposit sediments in the present and then look for those same sediments in the past in order to infer past catastrophes. So if I started with the axiom that there was a recent global flood what evidence could this axiom not accomodate?

That is quite telling, is it not? They preach creationism, and yet they can't practice it.The whole point of this thread is to get beyond what someone believes. What we want is for someone to DEMONSTRATE through experimentation that creationism is a viable scientific pursuit. If creationism is a valid scientific pursuit then the people in your list would be publishing papers in scientific journals which contain experiments which test the creationism model.

So what experiments did he run to test this hypothesis? What observations, if made, would falsify this hypothesis? But we are not asking for peoples' beliefs. We are asking for experiments that test hypotheses derived from creationism. Those are two very different things. Unless they have published original research that tests creation science hypotheses then it really isn't relevant.

Haven't you read it? Surely you can point to where the global flood was tested, can't you? So how does he go from a moving water to a global flood? That's just it. The walls of the Grand Canyon are loaded with these very sediments. The Coconino sandstones are a perfect example. They are wind deposited sand dunes like those found in the more famous deserts across the world. Other areas are loaded with fossil bearing limestone, evidence of long periods of calm water. There are also extensive burrows from air breathing animals within these sediments.To this day I have never seen a single creation scientist that honestly and specifically described a hypothetical geologic structure that they would accept as falsifying a young earth or a global flood. None. This highlights the problem with creation "science". Potential falsifying evidence is ignored or handwaved by referring to completely ludicrous or magical mechanisms. In creation science there is no null hypothesis. There is only a conclusion that must be assumed and not questioned. When you can no longer put the conclusion in doubt you are no longer doing science.

What geologic formation, if found, would contradict the model? What experiments do we run to test this model?

So which one of these predictions spells out the type of geologic formation that would falsify a young earth or a recent global flood? A 25 million dollar creation museum says otherwise. The difference being that you can run experiments to test the theory of evolution. Also, the theory of evolution predicts what one should find if the theory is WRONG. The oft cited examples are a rabbit in the cambrian or a bird with teats. So what evidence, if found, would falsify a young earth or a recent global flood? Any? What experiments can we run to test these claims? So show us an unbiased experiment that can test the claim of a young earth or a recent global flood.

So what kind of deposits can this supposed global flood not produce? I have asked it several times in this thread. You have yet to answer it.The only creationist geologist that I know of that was at least honest about it is Glenn Morton. He started pointing to problems with the creationist model at a creationist convention, and he was scorned. He wasn't scorned because his criticisms were off the mark, but because he dared to question creationism. It was after this fiasco that Morton started moving away from the creationist movement, and rightly so. You can read more about it here

quote:

---

By 1986, the growing doubts about the ability of the widely accepted creationist viewpoints to explain the geologic data led to a nearly 10 year withdrawal from publication. My last young-earth paper was entitled Geologic Challenges to a Young-earth, which I presented as the first paper in the First International Conference on Creationism. It was not well received. Young-earth creationists don't like being told they are wrong. The reaction to the pictures, seismic data, the logic disgusted me. They were more interested in what I sounded like than in the data!

---

Creationism is not about the data or evidence. It is about what you sound like. It is about protecting a belief from challenge, which is why you can't tell me what type of deposit would be inconsistent with a global flood.

While I agree with your assessment, what I am really after is what slevesque would accept as being a falsification of the flood model. If he is incapable of even describing a single potential falsification then I think we can conclude that there is no science in creationism.

Then use an objective dating method that is not flawed and find sediments that are around 4,000 years old. What are the dating methods that creation science uses to measure the age of rocks, and where can we find these sediments?

We could start with Adam Sedgwick. Upon retiring as chair of the Geologic Society of London (the most prestigious geologic society of its time) Mr. Sedgwick had this to say:

quote:

---

Bearing upon this difficult question, there is, I think, one great negative conclusion now incontestably established -- that the vast masses of diluvial gravel, scattered almost over the surface of the earth, do not belong to one violent and transitory period. It was indeed a most unwarranted conclusion, when we assumed the contemporaneity of all the superficial gravel on the earth. We saw the clearest traces of diluvial action, and we had, in our sacred histories, the record of a general deluge. On this double testimony it was, that we gave a unity to a vast succession of phenomena, not one of which we perfectly comprehended, and under the name diluvium, classed them all together.

​

To seek the light of physical truth by reasoning of this kind, is, in the language of Bacon, to seek the living among the dead, and will ever end in erroneous induction. Our errors were, however, natural, and of the same kind which lead many excellent observers of a former century to refer all the secondary formations of geology to the Noachian deluge. Having been myself a believer, and, to the best of my power, a propagator of what I now regard as a philosophic heresy, and having more than once been quoted for opinions I do not now maintain, I think it right, as one of my last acts before I quit this Chair, thus publicly to read my recantation.
The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: April 2002

---

This was in 1831. Let me repeat. In 1831 the evidence was so obviously against a global flood that even its most fervent supporters (of whom Sedgwick was one) were forced to recant. 180 years ago the evidence was against you, and still is. Can you please cite some evidence for this? The creation museum was 25 million. Surely finding some actual scientific evidence for a young earth or a global flood would be worth 10 times more that some fancy diorama based on fantasy.

All theories start out as an untested hypothesis which is very different than a myth. A hypothesis is, by definition, testable. It has very real consequences which we can then test for. A hypothesis states what we should see AND what we should NOT see if the hypothesis is correct. If creationism is science then they should be able to point to these hypotheses.What are they, and how do we test them? Which experimental results would point towards creation? Can you describe an experiment for us, and then tell us what the results would look like if creation were true and what the results would look like if creation were false? If not, then you are not talking about evidence pointing anywhere. You are talking about dogmatic beliefs.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Nope. It goes beyond that. You sound a bit like Behe at this point who classified Astrology as a science because it attempted to explain natural phenomena. There is a difference between an explanation and a scientific explanation. The difference is the ability to run experiments to test the validity of the explanation which is the case for a scientific explanation, or hypothesis.

That is exactly what we are asking IDers/creationists to do. Show us how "creation science" can be used to make testable hypotheses that can then be tested through experimentation. That is what real scientific research is. Go read a peer reviewed scientific paper to get a full understanding of how this is done. There are literally thousands published every month.More than anything, science is something that you do. It is an activity. So what do creation scientists actually do with their time? Do they spend their time in the lab? Do they spend their time thinking up experiments that they can do, and then writing grants to see if they can get financial support for doing those experiments? What lab supplies do creation scientists buy? If I walk into a creation scientist's place of work will I find microscopes, pipettes, cell culture hoods, chemical cabinets, liquid nitrogen dewers, or anything else related to a biological research lab?