|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: "Creation Science" experiments. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trae Member (Idle past 4333 days) Posts: 442 From: Fremont, CA, USA Joined: |
-----------------------------------
Please ignore, Message in wrong thread. ----------------------------------- I didn’t notice this link in this thread (sorry if I missed it), but here’s a link to the IRC’s response.
Censorship in Texas: Fighting Academic and Religious Discrimination | The Institute for Creation Research Edited by Trae, : Incorrect thread. AKA Missposted
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Yet another Creation Science Project.
There are two current conventional models for making sand. one based on geological origin for the basic materials and the second one based on biological origin for the basic material. In the former, highlands, mountains, volcanoes, uplifts and ridges are formed. Over time those geological formations are weathered and eroded and the material is then transported by wind, water and gravity to lower locations. The process is relatively slow since you first need to create the solid, uplift it, weather it and then transport the product to lower levels refining it as it travels. In the latter process living critters gather minerals, usually calcium to build biological structures; shells, coral, bones, etc. Once they die the hard material is then weathered, eroded, broken into smaller pieces and then transported to some other location. So a home experiment might be... get a rock and place it outside where it can weather. Mark off an area around the rock. Observe the process and record the results. Grade and follow each piece that breaks off the rock noting changes in shape (from rough with sharp edges to rounded and smooth over time). How long does it take to create sand equal to 1/100th of the original volume or mass of the rock? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trae Member (Idle past 4333 days) Posts: 442 From: Fremont, CA, USA Joined: |
Thank you, bit by too many open windows again!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
How long does it take to create sand equal to 1/100th of the original volume or mass of the rock? That would be the control experiment. The real question is what happens if you try the same thing in the presence of Magic Water.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
JBR writes: Straggler writes: Name me one discovery made directly as a result of creationist or IDist theories and I will eat my pants. This statement is quite different from the previous one. In this one you leave out the notion that creationists and IDists don't ever make any scientific contribution at all. Oh for heavens sake!!! Newton was an alchemist as well as a theist. Does Newtons work on gravity give credence to notions of alchemy purely because he believed in both? We are talking about the viability of creation/ID "science" here. What has creation/ID science ever discovered? And if the answer to that question is "nothing" how can you even call it "science"?
JBR writes: What is required to demonstrate evidence in support of the opposite view (in the second case), requires evidence that can only be explained within one system and which has no logical explanation within the other. You can apply post hoc interpretations to anything. And this is exactly what creationists/IDist do to the verified predictions and discoveries of genuine science. What I am asking you to do is demonstrate that creation/ID "science" is capable of making verifiable predictions and discoveries. What I am asking you to demonstrate is that creation/ID "science" can meet the same standards as genuine science as opposed to making the fallacious claim that all interpretations are equally valid. What has creation/ID science ever discovered? And if the answer to that question is "nothing" how can you even call it "science"?
JBR writes: Straggler writes: Why don't you instead describe how creationism/ID can be demonstrated through prediction and discovery? Why don't you explain why in these terms it has been such an epic fail? I dare you to try. Straggler, for me to attempt to try such a feat would be an exercise in futility if you do not first ascribe to that belief system. That says it all. Start with a belief system and then look for evidence to confirm what you think you already know.The absolute antithesis of genuine science. Until you realise why your above statement is so entirely damning of your whole position here you will never comprehend what science actually is or why creation/ID "science" is no such thing and never can be.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3963 days) Posts: 369 Joined: |
Me: Straggler, for me to attempt to try such a feat would be an exercise in futility if you do not first ascribe to that belief system. You: Until you realise why your above statement is so entirely damning of your whole position here you will never comprehend what science actually is or why creation/ID "science" is no such thing and never can be. Until you realiZe the naivety of your response you will never even be able to truly see beyond the end of your own nose. You pretend that only creationists are guilty of this type of thinking, but in truth just about everyone including most atheists are as well. If you don't believe me ask yourself this, "What atheistic evolutionist approaches science and says that he will accept whatever the evidence points to, even if it is a supernatural cause?" We both know that their attitude towards science is that "a natural cause is responsible... period... end of discussion." The very exclusion of the possibility of a supernatural source, from the beginning, demonstrates my point exactly. Of course there is no denying that most creationists are the same way. They have their minds made up that the Bible is true "period" end of discussion. But the fact of the matter is that just because either group displays such arrogant bias towards something, does not make it untrue by default. Anyone with a real hunger for truth should recognize this fact. But alas it is impossible to know the truth without first loving the truth, and few are willing to be that dedicated to it.
We are talking about the viability of creation/ID "science" here. What has creation/ID science ever discovered? And if the answer to that question is "nothing" how can you even call it "science"? I know exactly what we are talking about here. The problem is most others do not. The claim that no one who believes in a divine creator ever made any valid scientific contributions is false. I am trying to point out that the statement misrepresents and obscures the fact that there are real scientists of faith. If you are going to say it, then phrase it correctly. What you mean to say is that you don't think any creationists have ever conducted any science that supported creationism. Unless you phrase it correctly you will trip over the words. And to that kind of statement, I again say that you would not recognize the science as achieving that goal if you do not first ascribe to that as even being a possibility. Edited by Just being real, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2504 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Just being real writes: "What atheistic evolutionist approaches science and says that he will accept whatever the evidence points to, even if it is a supernatural cause?" Me. See the the bluegenes Challenge (bluegenes and RAZD only)Great Debate[/bgcolor] the bluegenes Challenge thread. When I treat the supernatural as possible, and offer up a theory about supernatural beliefs which is described as falsifiable (something that assumes the possibility of the real existence of supernatural beings) it is theists, not atheists, who object. For me, there is no reason for the a priori exclusion of the supernatural from science. The reason we do not study the anatomy of unicorns is not because of such an exclusion, but because we have no evidence to support their existence, and no place to start. Scientists and philosophers are divided on this point, but many, both atheistic and theistic, agree with my stance. Richard Dawkins, for example, regards a creator god as being a scientific hypothesis. Alvin Plantigna is a Christian philosopher who also thinks his god should be considered in science.
Just being real writes: We both know that their attitude towards science is that "a natural cause is responsible... period... end of discussion." As I've demonstrated, you do not know this. A view that natural causes are far more likely than supernatural is one that both atheists and theists take in real life, and is born of experience and observation. Do you seriously start from the point that the gremlins might be responsible when your car breaks down, or do you assume that a material, mechanical fault is by far the most likely explanation? (If you wish to comment on my "Great Debate" theory of the supernatural, there's a Peanut Gallery Message 393 on it, and I'll certainly reply to any questions you might have).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 829 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
I know exactly what we are talking about here. I don't think you do.
Straggler writes: We are talking about the viability of creation/ID "science" here. What has creation/ID science ever discovered? And if the answer to that question is "nothing" how can you even call it "science"?
JBR writes: ......The claim that no one who believes in a divine creator ever made any valid scientific contributions is false...... That is not at all what Straggler, or anyone else, has claimed. There is a HUGE difference between scientists who also believe in a deity and creationists/IDists.
If you are going to say it, then phrase it correctly. He did. Creation/ID "science" has never made any valid discoveries. This says nothing about scientists who also believe in a deity. Yet, you still don't even address the crux of the thread: what are some experiments that we could do using the "creation/ID "science"" method? If you are going to act as a shill for ID/creation science, address the topic. "What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Just being real writes:
I would guess most scientists will accept whatever evidence.If you don't believe me ask yourself this, "What atheistic evolutionist approaches science and says that he will accept whatever the evidence points to, even if it is a supernatural cause?" Once the scientist finds good evidence, he will then say that the evidence is natural. You seem to hold the view that there is a fixed division in the natural and the supernatural. But history does not support that view. Rather, there is a division in the natural and the supernatural, but the division is not fixed. As science grows, more and more moves into what is considered the natural realm, and the supernatural realm continues to shrink. The folly of supernaturalist religion, is that it sets itself up to fail. It will never find any evidence, for once evidence is found that evidence will be considered part of the natural realm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
If you don't believe me ask yourself this, "What atheistic evolutionist approaches science and says that he will accept whatever the evidence points to, even if it is a supernatural cause?" Every atheist I have ever met has said they would even accept the existence of God if sufficient evidence was presented to support that position. The problem is that by definition, once the evidence is available the object is no longer supernatural. Edited by jar, : fix subtitle Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3963 days) Posts: 369 Joined: |
The reason we do not study the anatomy of unicorns is not because of such an exclusion, but because we have no evidence to support their existence, and no place to start. Note my choice of wording again my friend. I specifically said: "whatever the evidence points to, even if it is a supernatural cause." This would indicate that had the evidence led towards the possibility of the existence of "unicorns" then that possibility should not be excluded. Instead, the anti-unicorn investigator starts out with a preconceived notion that there absolutely can not be such a thing as a unicorn no matter what, and therefore when he follows the "horse" tracks to the foot of a high cliff and they suddenly end, rather than include even the possibility that the animal took flight, he concludes that the creature "spontaneously dematerialized." (Just running with your analogy here of course, I am not indicating I believe in unicorns.) I totally agree with you that a natural explanation is always rather to be the preferred one, but when logic and reason take us beyond natural possibilities... as Sherlock Holmes said, "after excluding all other possibilities my dear Watson, the one remaining regardless of how unlikely, must be the truth." Consider this, if we would have landed on Mars and found that the "face" that made such a stink a while back was in fact formed with some sort of carving tools rather than normal erosion processes, we would have concluded that some intelligent life had to have once, at least visited if not, lived there. Likewise if we hypothetically could prove (note I said hypothetically) that life here on earth could not have been formed by natural causes, this would require us to conclude that some intelligent source was the cause. And if it could also be demonstrated (hypothetically) that our solar system and the very laws of physics of the universe could not have formed by natural causes, but rather had to have been fine tuned and calibrated, then this also would require an intelligent source. Now from their the logical implication for an intelligence with the capability of creating a universe, a solar system, and life requires a supernatural cause. Again I reiterate that I am just talking hypothetically. My point is that you can see how, if such evidence did exist, a supernatural cause would be the only one left. Therefore I think that if the evidence led us down the trail of a possible unicorn, it should be considered as possible before we start inventing materializing and dematerialize horse matter. But maybe that's just me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3963 days) Posts: 369 Joined: |
Straggler: We are talking about the viability of creation/ID "science" here. What has creation/ID science ever discovered? And if the answer to that question is "nothing" how can you even call it "science"? JBR:......The claim that no one who believes in a divine creator ever made any valid scientific contributions is false...... Hooah: That is not at all what Straggler, or anyone else, has claimed. There is a HUGE difference between scientists who also believe in a deity and creationists/IDists. I don't think you researched our conversation back far enough because he did in fact make the claim even though it probably was not what he meant (see the very first sentence in post #50). My above statement was taken out of context in my attempt to make people see that they have to clearly distinguish between the two and say exactly what they mean. This is because it gives the impression that those who believe in a divine creator are nothing but a bunch of imbeciles who do nothing to contribute to science. But in truth, most of the science we enjoy today is to the thanks of men and women who did have personal beliefs in God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3963 days) Posts: 369 Joined: |
The problem is that by definition, once the evidence is available the object is no longer supernatural. I think you make a good point. Possibly not the one you intended, but who's to say that a divine creator of the universe is not perfectly natural?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2504 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Just being real writes: Note my choice of wording again my friend. And note mine. It isn't necessary for science to consider unicorns, intelligent designers, or elves and fairies who help tend the flowers in the forests as being impossible. These were your words:
Just being real writes: "What atheistic evolutionist approaches science and says that he will accept whatever the evidence points to, even if it is a supernatural cause?" We both know that their attitude towards science is that "a natural cause is responsible... period... end of discussion." And I pointed out that, if we have an unknown, then the attitude of many of us isn't what you describe. It is that a naturalistic explanation is far more likely than anything else, because whenever we do explain things with a high degree of confidence, those explanations have always turned out to be natural. And you seem to agree with this point. There's never any need for finality; no need for "period... end of discussion", as you put it.
Just being real writes: Likewise if we hypothetically could prove (note I said hypothetically) that life here on earth could not have been formed by natural causes, this would require us to conclude that some intelligent source was the cause. And if it could also be demonstrated (hypothetically) that our solar system and the very laws of physics of the universe could not have formed by natural causes, but rather had to have been fine tuned and calibrated, then this also would require an intelligent source. As you emphasise, you are describing a hypothetical situation. It would seem to arise only at the (hypothetical) point when we have reached the "end of naturalistic science", and no further understanding of nature could be had. That's of no concern to us, and won't be to our grandchildren. You'd probably be able to tell if and when we're nearing that point. The amount of scientific research going on would decline rapidly, and any new discoveries would be getting few and far between. Presently, it's the opposite, and the rate of discovery continues to increase.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024