Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-26-2019 2:24 PM
29 online now:
edge, JonF, Lammy, PaulK, ringo, Tangle, Taq, Theodoric (8 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,830 Year: 9,866/19,786 Month: 2,288/2,119 Week: 324/724 Day: 49/114 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   "Creation Science" experiments.
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2813 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 31 of 396 (579452)
09-04-2010 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by hooah212002
09-04-2010 3:22 PM


Re: What's a creation experiment exactly?
I don't have the impression anyone really understood what you meant in the OP, judging by the comments.

This post seems to be a bit more clear of what you meant to discuss. So I'll just give my take here.

''creation science'' is an expression I rarely if ever use, so I can't really speak for the people that used it and sparked this thread into being.

However, here's how I understand it. It's not about using a different, ''creationist'', scientific method, as you are saying. It is more about a different set of assumptions behind what could be called ''secular science'' and ''creation science''.

For example: secular science assumes naturalism, that only nature exists (matter and energy, to put it simply without going too deep into the physics of it).. This assumption leads to another corrollary; God has never intervened into nature in the past.

''creation science'' will assume something different, God exists and has in fact acted in the creation of this universe. (through different ways, depending if you're christian or something else).

So none of the linked experiments from your OP could be deemed to be strictly ''secular''.

My example could probably use some refining, I hope you'll try to get the big picture and won't stop on the details.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by hooah212002, posted 09-04-2010 3:22 PM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by jar, posted 09-04-2010 6:26 PM slevesque has not yet responded
 Message 33 by hooah212002, posted 09-04-2010 10:58 PM slevesque has not yet responded
 Message 46 by Vacate, posted 09-10-2010 5:05 AM slevesque has responded
 Message 47 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-10-2010 7:56 AM slevesque has responded
 Message 57 by Taq, posted 09-10-2010 3:10 PM slevesque has not yet responded

slevesque
Member (Idle past 2813 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 59 of 396 (580683)
09-10-2010 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Vacate
09-10-2010 5:05 AM


Re: What's a creation experiment exactly?
Hi Vacate,

In my first post, I was giving a general idea of what the difference between ''creation science'' and ''secular science'' at it's most fundamental basis. The difference is the set of starting assumptions. Now, I gave one example of a ''creation science'' assumption, and I chose it particularly because it is maybe the most general one that can fit with just about any form of ''creationism'', from the literal YEC position all the way to the simple ''God sparked the Big Bang''. Passing along the way progressive creationism, theistic evolutionism, etc.

With this in mind I can adress your specific example:

Secular - If there was a world wide flood, what evidence would be left behind?

Creation - If God made the world flood, what evidence would be left behind?

Is that fair? Why, if the science is the same but the assumptions differ, would we get any different answer?

I see where you are going with this, and you are quite correct. The evidence doesn't change depending on what assumptions you have. A world wide flood is a world wide flood and leaves the traces of a world wide flood either it be initially caused by God or by a natural phenomenon.

But, and this is where assumptions come into play, you will interpret the data and evidence differently depending on what assumptions you make. You won't look at the same places, you won't look for the same things, you will construct different hypotheses depending on what you assume to be true from the outset.

It's a bit like in mathematics, you start with axioms and build from the bottom up. The more your mathematical constructions are coherent with themselves through logic, the more confidence you can have that your starting axioms are true.

Likewise, the more your hypotheses and theories based on your assumptions seem to fit the data and predict the data, the more you can have confidence that your assumptions are true.

And this is why you can get any diferent answer. In fact, think about it, coming up with a different answer for the same set of data sometimes seems to be the norm rather than the exception in science. In fact, even two ''secular scientists'' (as I said in the other post, I don't use this expression usually but for the purpose of discussion here I will use it) with the same set of assumptions can come with two different hypotheses for the same data. This is because they each their own 'intuition', which can lead to different mental pathways.

I hope it's all clear.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Vacate, posted 09-10-2010 5:05 AM Vacate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Taq, posted 09-10-2010 4:50 PM slevesque has not yet responded
 Message 72 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-11-2010 1:21 AM slevesque has not yet responded

slevesque
Member (Idle past 2813 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 61 of 396 (580687)
09-10-2010 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Dr Adequate
09-10-2010 7:56 AM


Re: What's a creation experiment exactly?
But none of this is really true.

On the one hand, lots of what you would call "secular scientists" and what I would call scientists manage to believe in God and miracles and still do science perfectly well.

As mentioned in the previous post, I just mentioned this one general assumption because it englobed all of which could be refered to as 'creationism' in its general sense. ie God created, all the way from 'God created every single thing' up to 'God sparked the BB'.

So it's normal that it includes the theistic evolutionnist scientists, for example.

Creationists, on the other hand, do not merely think that God exists, they believe that he has done certain specific things, and will advance any hypothesis, no matter how unevidenced, that will protect that belief.

This is why there is no general creationist method for doing science. If there was it would look like this:

Scientist : The boiling point of water at sea level is 100°C.

Creationist : God says that it is 80°C, so you are wrong.

Scientist : But I did the experiment. Here's the data.

Creationist : God says that it is 80°C, so you are lying about the data. You evil atheist liar.

Scientist : Come and look. Look here. Boiling water. Thermometer. See?

Creationist : Clearly the devil or God or some form of magic pixie is tampering with your thermometer.

Scientist : But look, I can calibrate it against objects of known temperature, so I know it works.

Creationist : Well, that rests on your materialist atheistic assumption that calibration works and that God never does miracles to confute your secular materialistic calibration.

Scientist : I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into hell. On the third day he rose again. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again to judge the living and the dead.

Creationist : ATHEIST! ATHEIST! ATHEIST! I don't have to listen to what you say about the measurements you've made because you assume naturalism! This is secular science! You have the wrong assumptions!

You put way too much time into that strawman if you ask me.

Not only that, but your are conflating historical science and operational science. Particularly, you make it seem as though because they reject one particular scientific theory, they therefore reject science in it's entirety. (fallacy of composition)

The only reason that this particular scenario has never played out is that creationists are only obliged to be wrong about some things, not everything.

OR maybe creationists aren't nearly as retarded as you make them out to be, and this is why such a profoundly stupid scenario was never actually witnessed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-10-2010 7:56 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-10-2010 8:00 PM slevesque has not yet responded

slevesque
Member (Idle past 2813 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 62 of 396 (580688)
09-10-2010 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Coyote
09-10-2010 3:40 PM


Re: Assumptions
Assumption does not automatically mean wrong or suspect, as creationists would have us believe.

Maybe some layman creationists pejoratively use the term assumption when discussing science and scientific theories, but this is never found in creationist litterature that I know of.

You may find disapproval of a specific assumption, but not of the whole concept of 'assumptions in science'.

Assumptions in scientific theories and techniques are not guesses, nor are they random and arbitrary. They follow the evidence.

Example: it is assumed that the radioactive decay rate is constant because all the evidence points in that direction. Radiocarbon dating, even though based on this assumption, is considered reliable as this assumption is supported by the evidence.

In some scientific modeling the assumptions may be arbitrary, random, or unsupported by evidence as this is one method of obtaining feedback on those assumptions (in this they act as variables). These models should not be confused with scientific theories, which are supported by immense amounts of data and are not contradicted by any significant data.

I agree that some assumptions are based on evidence. Another exampel would be Einstein's assumption of the speed of light being constant in all reference frames. This was based on previous observations that seemed to indicate this.

But saying that therefore all assumptions have such foundations would be fallacious. Some assumptions are purely intuitive guesses. For example, Lyell's assumption of uniformitarianism was an arbitrary starting point for his interpretation of the fossil record. No evidence required it, and maybe ironically, it's catastrophist counterpart was actually the evidenced assumptions, since it relied on the then perceived discontinuity of the fossil record.

Note that even in such a case, such an assumption is neither wrong nor even suspect. Technically, anyone can start with any assumption he wants and construct on it, just as in mathematics I could start wuth any axioms I wanted. However, if it is wrong at some point it won't be able to accomodate the evidence (or continue to be self consistent in maths). At that point you can reach what Khun called a ''paradigm shift''.

This shows that creationists' argument that they are just interpreting the evidence in light of a different set of assumptions is a flawed method, and is not science. The assumptions creationists propose are not supported by immense amounts of evidence but are the result of a need to try to force the data to support their desired conclusions. These assumptions are frequently contradicted by huge amounts of evidence (e.g., young earth and global flood ca. 4,350 years ago).

Well obviously, this is your personnal impression of the situation. Being a YEC, I obviously think the contrary that the YEC position is the most consistent with the data.

This flawed method is commonly found in creation "science," and has led to the "teach both theories" slogan. Ignored is the fact that science generates theories based on the evidence, while creation "science" is designed to support religious dogma and belief and to sneak that religious dogma and belief back into the schools. There is no theory in creation "science" -- only beliefs which must be supported no matter what the evidence shows.

Lots of begging the question epithet which only reflects your personnal taste on the issue.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Coyote, posted 09-10-2010 3:40 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Taq, posted 09-10-2010 5:45 PM slevesque has not yet responded
 Message 66 by Coyote, posted 09-10-2010 6:09 PM slevesque has not yet responded

slevesque
Member (Idle past 2813 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 92 of 396 (581439)
09-15-2010 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by hooah212002
09-15-2010 12:55 PM


Re: Creation/ID "Science" and Discovery
I agree with JBR in the sense that the original claim by straggler in that quote was that a creationist cannot do science, but it now seems to be ''science derived from his creatonist beliefs''. This is a bit of changing the goalpost.

Plenty of creationist scientists out there who don't invest time in the evo/creo issue and just do their normal science in a university lab.

Of course, JBR isn't right to equivocate creationist and theist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by hooah212002, posted 09-15-2010 12:55 PM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by hooah212002, posted 09-15-2010 3:45 PM slevesque has responded

slevesque
Member (Idle past 2813 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 94 of 396 (581443)
09-15-2010 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by hooah212002
09-15-2010 3:45 PM


Re: Creation/ID "Science" and Discovery
Certainly

Note: Individuals on this list must possess a doctorate in a science-related field.

Dr Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
Dr James Allan, Geneticist
Dr John Ashton, Chemist, Food technology
Dr Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr Thomas Barnes, Physicist
Dr Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
Dr Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
Dr Donald Baumann, Solid State Physics, Professor of Biology and Chemistry, Cedarville University
Dr John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
Dr Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
Dr Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
Dr Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
Dr David Boylan, Chemical Engineer
Prof. Stuart Burgess, Engineering and Biomimetics, Professor of Design & Nature, Head of Department, Mechanical Engineering, University of Bristol (UK)
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Dr Robert W. Carter, PhD Marine Biology
Dr David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)
Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
Dr Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
Dr Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
Dr Xidong Chen, Solid State Physics, Assistant Professor of Physics, Cedarville University
Dr Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
Dr Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
Dr Bob Compton, DVM
Dr Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
Dr William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
Dr Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
Dr Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
Dr Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
Dr Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
Dr Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
Dr Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
Dr David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
Dr Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
Dr Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr Ted Driggers, Operations research
Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
Dr André Eggen, Geneticist
Dr Leroy Eimers, Atmospheric Science, Professor of Physics and Mathematics, Cedarville University
Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
Dr Dennis Flentge, Physical Chemistry, Professor of Chemistry and Chair of the Department of Science and Mathematics, Cedarville University
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
Dr Paul Giem, Medical Research
Dr Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
Dr Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
Dr Steven Gollmer, Atmospheric Science, Professor of Physics, Cedarville University
Dr D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
Dr Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist
Dr Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist
Dr Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
Dr Barry Harker, Philosopher
Dr Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
Dr John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist
Dr Mark Harwood, Satellite Communications
Dr Joe Havel, Botanist, Silviculturist, Ecophysiologist
Dr George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
Dr Steven Hayes, Nuclear Scientist
Dr Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
Dr Larry Helmick, Organic Chemistry, Professor of Chemistry, Cedarville University
Dr Harold R. Henry, Engineer
Dr Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
Dr Joseph Henson, Entomologist
Dr Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
Dr Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
Dr Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
Dr Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
Dr Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
Dr George F. Howe, Botany
Dr Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
Dr Russell Humphreys, Physicist
Dr James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
Dr G. Charles Jackson, Science Education
Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
George T. Javor, Biochemistry
Dr Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist
Dr Arthur Jones, Biology
Dr Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
Dr Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
Dr Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
Dr Dean Kenyon, Biologist
Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
Dr John W. Klotz, Biologist
Dr Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
Dr Felix Konotey-Ahulu, Physician, leading expert on sickle-cell anemia
Dr Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
Dr John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
Dr Johan Kruger, Zoology
Dr Wolfgang Kuhn, biologist and lecturer
Dr Heather Kuruvilla, Plant Physiology, Senior Professor of Biology, Cedarville University
Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
Dr John Leslie, Biochemist
Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biologist, Genetics
Dr Jean Lightner, Agriculture, Veterinary science
Dr Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
Raúl E López, meteorologist
Dr Alan Love, Chemist
Dr Heinz Lycklama, Nuclear physics and Information Technology
Dr Ian Macreadie, Molecular Biologist and Microbiologist
Dr John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
Dr George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
Dr Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemistry
Dr Mark McClain, Inorganic Chemistry, Associate Professor of Chemistry, Cedarville University
Dr John McEwan, Organic Chemistry
Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
Dr David Menton, Anatomist
Dr Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr John Meyer, Physiologist
Dr Victor Meyer, Entomology, environmental science
Dr Douglas Miller, Professor of Chemistry, Cedarville University
Dr Albert Mills, Reproductive Physiologist, Embryologist
Robert T. Mitchell, specialist in Internal Medicine and active speaker on creation
Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
Dr John N. Moore, Science Educator
Dr John W. Moreland, Mechanical Engineer and Dentist
Dr Henry M. Morris, Hydrologist
Dr John D. Morris, Geologist
Dr Len Morris, Physiologist
Dr Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
Dr Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
Dr David Oderberg, Philosopher
Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
Dr John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
Dr Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
Dr Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
Dr David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
Dr Mathew Piercy, anaesthetist
Dr Terry Phipps, Professor of Biology, Cedarville University
Dr Jules H. Poirier, Aeronautics, Electronics
Dr Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
Dr John Rankin, Cosmologist
Dr A.S. Reece, M.D.
Dr Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
Dr David Rosevear, Chemist
Dr Ariel A. Roth, Biology
Dr Ronald G. Samec, Astronomy
Dr John Sanford, Plant science / genetics
Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
Dr Alicia (Lisa) Schaffner, Associate Professor of Biology, Cedarville University
Dr Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist
Dr Ian Scott, Educator
Dr Saami Shaibani, Forensic Physicist
Dr Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
Dr Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
Dr Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist
Dr Roger Simpson, Engineer
Dr Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
Dr E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
Dr Andrew Snelling, Geologist
Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
Dr Timothy G. Standish, Biology
Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
Dr Esther Su, Biochemistry
Dr Dennis Sullivan, Biology, surgery, chemistry, Professor of Biology, Cedarville University
Dr Charles Taylor, Linguistics
Dr Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
Dr Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
Dr Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
Dr Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
Dr S.H. ‘Wally’ Tow (Tow Siang Hwa), retired chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Singapore
Dr Royal Truman, Organic Chemist
Dr Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
Dr Joachim Vetter, Biologist
Dr Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
Dr Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
Dr Keith Wanser, Physicist
Dr Noel Weeks, Ancient History (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
Dr A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
Dr John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
Dr Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and Archaeologist
Dr Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
Dr Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist
Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
Dr Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
Dr Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
Dr Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
Dr Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
Dr Daiqing Yuan, Theoretical Physics
Dr Henry Zuill, Biology

Lot's of example to pick from. Also, CMI publishes an interview with a creationist scientist who more often then not is not involved in the creation/evolution debate issue (although he makes his position clear in the interview obviously) in every creation magazine. For example:

http://creation.com/manipulating-life-dr-eirich-interview

Finally, the majority of creationist involved in the debate have also/still publish in peer-rviewed litterature. Just not on origin-related subjects. For exampel Dr. Jonathan Sarfati was co-publishing in Nature at the age of 22.

AbE: The list is found here: http://creation.com/...cept-the-biblical-account-of-creation.

And you can add to that list Elizabeth Beauschene PhD, a friend of mine who just completed her Doctorate in Medical Biology (Neuroscience)

Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by hooah212002, posted 09-15-2010 3:45 PM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Taq, posted 09-15-2010 5:23 PM slevesque has not yet responded
 Message 96 by Theodoric, posted 09-15-2010 5:53 PM slevesque has not yet responded
 Message 98 by Straggler, posted 09-15-2010 6:31 PM slevesque has not yet responded
 Message 167 by cavediver, posted 09-18-2010 5:27 AM slevesque has not yet responded
 Message 168 by cavediver, posted 09-18-2010 6:21 AM slevesque has not yet responded

slevesque
Member (Idle past 2813 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 99 of 396 (581506)
09-15-2010 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Theodoric
09-15-2010 5:53 PM


Re: Creation/ID "Science" and Discovery
I'm responding to Theodoric, but the other two responses my post got will pretty much be answered here

I think you are missing the point. The point is this. Why are none of these scientists doing any science in creationism or ID. You can tout their credentials and research all day long, but at the end of the day none of them are doing any creation or ID science.

Don't forget thet post I was replying to. I was replying to hooah who said:

quote:
Certainly you have an example? Or are you referring to "scientists" who are also creationists? I'd be hard pressed to see an actual scientist who is a creationist who also does not push a creationist agenda.

No one is questioning that they have strong religious beliefs. No one is questioning whether they are performing science in their fields. (though I think a questioning of the validity of some of their research may be in order.e.g. Dr Clifford Wilson, Dr Kurt Wise, John Whitmore and Bryant Wood to mention a few).They are just not doing any research into creationism and ID. Why is that? I would have to question the strength of some of their beliefs if they are not willing to try to find evidence for their beliefs.

Look at the list again. It also includes scientists who work for CMI and are doing research into creationist hypotheses. For example, Dr. Austin published

Austin, S.A., A.A. Snelling and K.P. Wise, Canyon-length mass kill of orothocone nautiloids, Redwall Limestone (Mississippian) Grand Canyon, Arizona, Abstracts with Programs, Geological Society of America Annual Meeting, Denver, Colorado, p. A-421, 1999.

Of course, his opinion is that this nautiloid graveyard was deposited during the biblical flood. Of course this would never pass peer-review, so he simply pushed a watery mega-castrophy as an explanation as far as the peer-review would allow.

The people from the RATE research are there also.

Seems to be bullshit. A lot of these people are very obscure and I can find no peer reviewed articles by them, in any subject matter.

Well let's just take a few examples then:

Dr. John Baumgardner:

quote:
According to Web of Science, he has published 20 peer-reviewed papers, including

Bunge HP, Richards MA, Baumgardner JR. "Effect of depth-dependent viscosity on the planform of mantle convection" Nature 379 (6564): 436-438 (Feb 1 1996) cited 89 times

Baumgardner JR "3-Dimensional Treatment of Convective Flow in the Earth's Mantle." Journal of Statistical Physics 39(5-6) 501- (1985), cited 75 times.

Bunge HP, Richards MA, Baumgardner JR "A sensitivity study of three-dimensional spherical mantle convection at 10(8) Rayleigh number: Effects of depth-dependent viscosity, heating mode, and an endothermic phase change." Journal of Geophysical Research-Solid Earth, 102 (B6): 11991-12007 Jun 10 1997 cited 65 times.


(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Baumgardner)

Dr. Don Batten. 13 papers

http://creation.com/dr-don-batten-cv

Dr. John Hartnett:

http://creation.com/dr-john-hartnett-cv

Russell Humphreys

http://creation.com/d-russell-humphreys-cv

Jonathan Sarfati

http://creation.com/dr-jonathan-d-sarfati

I just got a few recognisable names out, who are all full-time into creationist organizations now (except for hartnett).

Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Theodoric, posted 09-15-2010 5:53 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Theodoric, posted 09-15-2010 10:13 PM slevesque has not yet responded

slevesque
Member (Idle past 2813 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 101 of 396 (581519)
09-15-2010 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Theodoric
09-15-2010 10:13 PM


Re: Creation/ID "Science" and Discovery
So no real creation science then.

Define creation science then. His hypotheses of a massive watery catastrophe making the nautiloid graveyard stems directly from his belief that the earth was once covered by waters of the biblical flood.

What a crock that was. They threw out all the evidence and enacted some sort of magic effect from their god. Do we have to rehash the RATE thread again?

Let me guess, you never actually read their actual research right ?

You have shown far less than majority. Even just looking at the ones on your list. I have already found that many that are so obscure that hardly anyone knows who they are. You should be very careful on using words like "majority".

It's just because you forgot to bold an important part in the quote

Finally, the majority of creationist involved in the debate have also/still publish in peer-rviewed litterature.

That initial list I gave aren't those scientists involved in the debate. It's just scientists who believe in the biblical account of creation.

And the little list of 5-6 names I gave was a 5 minute search of a couple of well known names in the creationist movement. Pretty much all had published, even if they were working full-time for a creationist organisation now. I could probably do this exercise for a lot of them, but I think you get the point that youy didn't actually search very hard before claiming you couldn't find anyone who published.

And don't worry that they at least all published in order to get their PhD

Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Theodoric, posted 09-15-2010 10:13 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Straggler, posted 09-16-2010 5:31 AM slevesque has responded
 Message 110 by Taq, posted 09-16-2010 12:45 PM slevesque has not yet responded
 Message 117 by Theodoric, posted 09-16-2010 2:43 PM slevesque has responded
 Message 119 by Theodoric, posted 09-16-2010 4:12 PM slevesque has responded

slevesque
Member (Idle past 2813 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 111 of 396 (581584)
09-16-2010 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Taq
09-16-2010 12:45 PM


Re: Creation/ID "Science" and Discovery
Ok People, before replying please try to follow the conversation, especially the claims which I am responding to

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.

I was answering to Hooah's claim:

quote:
Certainly you have an example? Or are you referring to "scientists" who are also creationists? I'd be hard pressed to see an actual scientist who is a creationist who also does not push a creationist agenda.

Unless they have published original research that tests creation science hypotheses then it really isn't relevant.

It is relevant to what I was answering to, namely this:

quote:
Certainly you have an example? Or are you referring to "scientists" who are also creationists? I'd be hard pressed to see an actual scientist who is a creationist who also does not push a creationist agenda.

So what experiments did he run to test this hypothesis? What observations, if made, would falsify this hypothesis?

I guess you should read the paper I guess. I actually watched a video some years ago about his find but I can't find it anymore. He had analysed the positioning of the nautiloids, and it fitted how their bodies would have been placed if the layer had been deposited in moving water. Judging by the extent of the earea which it covers, it involves an enourmous water catastrophy. (If I remember all this correctly)

I'm no geologist, so I can't tell you much more then that in regards to what would falsify this. I guess if he observed a characteristics that would be impossible to happen in moving water this would falsify the hypothesis, although I can't tell you what that could be.

Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Taq, posted 09-16-2010 12:45 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Taq, posted 09-16-2010 2:33 PM slevesque has responded

slevesque
Member (Idle past 2813 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 112 of 396 (581585)
09-16-2010 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Straggler
09-16-2010 5:31 AM


Re: Creation/ID "Science" and Discovery
Why do you think listing names has any bearing on the validity of creation "science" as an endeavour?

Easy question, I didn't say that, because I did this little exercise to answer to one of Hooah's claim:

quote:
Certainly you have an example? Or are you referring to "scientists" who are also creationists? I'd be hard pressed to see an actual scientist who is a creationist who also does not push a creationist agenda.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Straggler, posted 09-16-2010 5:31 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Straggler, posted 09-16-2010 1:02 PM slevesque has responded

slevesque
Member (Idle past 2813 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 121 of 396 (581635)
09-16-2010 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by jar
09-16-2010 1:51 PM


Re: Creation/ID "Science" and Discovery
Hi,

the significant points are as follows. First, I will be referencing Exploring the Grand Canyon, from the bottom up.

the Red Wall Limestone is one of the upper layers in the Grand Canyon, but still relatively old.
if the flood is invoked as the mechanism that supposedly swept all the shells into an area where they could later be compacted and turned into limestone, then the Flood is not available to explain any of the other formations or for cutting the Grand Canyon itself.
the layer is limited and bounded.
the layer is NOT continuous world wide.

This is because you probably do not know the current creationist model of the worldwide flood, I see no contradiction.

This is another example of the standard tactic of implicitly making up a strawman of the flood.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by jar, posted 09-16-2010 1:51 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by jar, posted 09-16-2010 5:05 PM slevesque has not yet responded
 Message 127 by Taq, posted 09-16-2010 9:08 PM slevesque has not yet responded

slevesque
Member (Idle past 2813 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 122 of 396 (581637)
09-16-2010 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Taq
09-16-2010 2:33 PM


Re: Creation/ID "Science" and Discovery
So how does he go from a moving water to a global flood?

It is highly consistent with a global flood, considering the range of the layer. And of course, his hypothesis is more than just ''moving water''.

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.

Dont start gish galloping away. Let's discuss the redwall limestone before going to a thousand other layers at a time and mixing it all up.

(BTW, water can deposit sand dunes just as effectively as wind. )

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.

And how many creationist geologist have you actually asked this question for a null hypothesis ? I mean actually asked the question and got no answer.

I would maybe recommend to formulate this question in a detailed manner and send it to CMI. You should get an answer eventually from one of their geologists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Taq, posted 09-16-2010 2:33 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Taq, posted 09-16-2010 9:21 PM slevesque has responded
 Message 131 by Coragyps, posted 09-16-2010 9:53 PM slevesque has responded

slevesque
Member (Idle past 2813 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 124 of 396 (581641)
09-16-2010 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Theodoric
09-16-2010 2:43 PM


Re: Creation/ID "Science" and Discovery
I have read papers by the RATE people and criticism's. Are you claiming that they do not invoke a magic effect from their god in order for it all to work?

I hop you don't think the article you quote is a paper. Have you read actual papers published in the creationist peer-reviewed litterature, or the 2 RATE volumes of their published results ?

This is from Larry Vardiman. They make sure to highlight his Ph.D. You know what his Ph.D. is in? Atmospheric Science, he is a meteorologist. A highly educated weatherman and he is their point person on nuclear decay?

First off, it is mind boggling that you call a phd in atmospheric science a ''highly educated weatherman''. Secondly, a short article on the ICR website does not make him their point person on nuclear decay. That would probably be Humphreys who worked in nuclear physics all his career.

So explain how they are not invoking godidit.

Don't forget that for a creationist, God superintends everything. He superintends the natural laws so that they stay constant also, for example. This does not mean they are saying godidit

This should seem evident when Humphreys proposes a physical mechanism for removing the excess heat. If they were really godiditing it, why bother with such a mechanism ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Theodoric, posted 09-16-2010 2:43 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Theodoric, posted 09-16-2010 10:00 PM slevesque has not yet responded

slevesque
Member (Idle past 2813 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 125 of 396 (581642)
09-16-2010 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Theodoric
09-16-2010 4:12 PM


Re: Creation/ID "Science" and Discovery
Now maybe you misunderstood me. I am not saying I could not find any peer reviewed articles by any of them. I am saying that a lot of the people on the list are very obscure and for those people I could find nothing.

I really think you have no excuse. I linked the cmi page where most of the names link to a biography or a university page where they teach. I just took three random names out of the bunch:

http://creation.com/kelly-hollowell

http://creation.com/bob-hosken-biochemistry-in-six-days (50 papers)

http://creation.com/dr-geoff-barnard (also 50 papers)

99% of scientists are obscure to layman like you and me. Doesn't mean they don't publish, it just means they didn't win a Nobel prize, or, in our case, aren't active in the area of evolution or Big Bang cosmology.

Then again maybe this is your out "the majority of creationists involved in the debate".

I can this be a cope-out when it is explicitly stated in my own original quote ?

Are you saying the only a minor portion of the people on the "list" are "involved" in the debate. If so that is true, you are correct, but the list is just a disingenuous gish gallop.

Yes, this is exactly what I am saying, and this list isn't a gish gallop BECAUSE IT SPECIFICALLY ANSWERS THE POINT BY HOOAH THAT I WAS RESPONDING TO:

Certainly you have an example? Or are you referring to "scientists" who are also creationists? I'd be hard pressed to see an actual scientist who is a creationist who also does not push a creationist agenda.

When I have to repeat the same thing five time o nsuch a trivial notion as reading comprehension and understanding a conversation I start to think their is either a severe lack of intelligence, or bad faith.

Are you going with the idea that to back up you comment every thesis is published and peer reviewed? I mean yeah I guess technically, but that really really sets an incredibly low bar doesn't it. Then again that doesn't really matter because your original comment was this(pay attention to the bold)

A PhD thesis is definately peer-reviewed. Not only that, but my friend just finished her phd in medical biology and published 2 papers in addition to her thesis. I would guess that this is the norm throughout the majority of universities worldwide.

Then again finally. Show the research on creation science. That is the premise of the thread, The premise not that there are not any scientists that believe in creationism and ID. No one has stated that. You have misread something that makes you think that was said, but by continuing down this vein you are just blowing smoke to deflect from the real point that there is no creation or ID science.

When you will actually do an effort to try and understand what I am saying, instead of jumping on the reply button and start typing a response, maybe we'll be able to get over that initial hump and actually discuss the subject of this thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Theodoric, posted 09-16-2010 4:12 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

slevesque
Member (Idle past 2813 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 126 of 396 (581667)
09-16-2010 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Straggler
09-16-2010 1:02 PM


Re: Creation/ID "Science" and Discovery
Sorry, I skipped over your message straggler

There is no science that supports creationism. No verifiable predicted results that have been achieved as a direct result of creationist theories or interpretations. No discoveries. Nothing new. Zip. Nada. Zilch. How can you call an activity that has never discovered anything "science"?

I disagree. Their have been predictions and research done. However, there is very few principally because research costs a boatload of money, and creationist have limited ressources in that regard.

All you guys do, all you ever do, is re-interpret genuine scientific discoveries in terms of your own pre-defined beliefs. That is not science. It is confirmation bias of the very worst kind.

Because creationism is a different view of what happened in the past, it serves as an interpretive framework. Just as the theory of evolution also serves as an interpretive framework. Therefore, the creationist pov proposes to be able to adequatly explain the body of evidence of what happened in the past.

Confirmation bias happens because science isn't a self-serving mechanism that happens on it's own. The sad truth is that it is scientists who do science, not an automated robot. Scientists always come with a boatload of beliefs into their labs which influences how they interpret data. Confirmation bias happens all the time, unfortunately.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Straggler, posted 09-16-2010 1:02 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Taq, posted 09-16-2010 9:12 PM slevesque has not yet responded
 Message 134 by Nij, posted 09-16-2010 10:11 PM slevesque has responded
 Message 143 by Straggler, posted 09-17-2010 8:04 AM slevesque has not yet responded

1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019