|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: "Creation Science" experiments. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4671 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4671 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4671 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
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 100C. Creationist : God says that it is 80C, so you are wrong. Scientist : But I did the experiment. Here's the data. Creationist : God says that it is 80C, 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4671 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4671 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4671 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
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 Andr 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 Jerlstrm, 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 Ral E Lpez, 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: Manipulating life? Dr Eirich interview - creation.com 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: Scientists who accept the biblical account of creation - creation.com. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4671 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
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: 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: (John Baumgardner - Wikipedia) Dr. Don Batten. 13 papers Dr Don Batten cv - creation.com Dr. John Hartnett: Dr John Hartnett cv - creation.com Russell Humphreys D Russell Humphreys cv - creation.com Jonathan Sarfati Dr Jonathan D Sarfati - creation.com 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4671 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4671 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4671 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
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:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4671 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4671 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4671 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
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 ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4671 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
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: Kelly Hollowell - creation.com Bob Hosken, biochemistry (In Six Days) - creation.com (50 papers) Dr Geoff Barnard - creation.com (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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4671 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024