Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "Creation Science" experiments.
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 91 of 396 (581406)
09-15-2010 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Just being real
09-15-2010 11:46 AM


Re: Creation/ID "Science" and Discovery
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).
(bolding mine)
Message 50
Straggler writes:
Creationists and IDists don't do anything that can be meaningfully called science.
I'm beginning to wonder if you think "creationist" means anyone who believes in god......
I have yet to run into ANY member of this forum who confuse creationists with run-of-the-mill theists. When any of us use the word creationist.....we mean creationist. Likewise for IDist. If there is confusion, it is your own.
Now, care to pony up with some experiments?

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Just being real, posted 09-15-2010 11:46 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by slevesque, posted 09-15-2010 3:41 PM hooah212002 has replied
 Message 105 by Just being real, posted 09-16-2010 7:02 AM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 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 replied

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

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 93 of 396 (581442)
09-15-2010 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by slevesque
09-15-2010 3:41 PM


Re: Creation/ID "Science" and Discovery
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.
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.

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by slevesque, posted 09-15-2010 3:41 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by slevesque, posted 09-15-2010 4:34 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 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 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by hooah212002, posted 09-15-2010 3:45 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

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

Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 95 of 396 (581456)
09-15-2010 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by slevesque
09-15-2010 4:34 PM


Re: Creation/ID "Science" and Discovery
Finally, the majority of creationist involved in the debate have also/still publish in peer-rviewed litterature. Just not on origin-related subjects.
That is quite telling, is it not? They preach creationism, and yet they can't practice it.
The whole point of this thread is to get beyond what someone believes. What we want is for someone to DEMONSTRATE through experimentation that creationism is a viable scientific pursuit. If creationism is a valid scientific pursuit then the people in your list would be publishing papers in scientific journals which contain experiments which test the creationism model.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by slevesque, posted 09-15-2010 4:34 PM slevesque has not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 96 of 396 (581458)
09-15-2010 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by slevesque
09-15-2010 4:34 PM


Re: Creation/ID "Science" and Discovery
Finally, the majority of creationist involved in the debate have also/still publish in peer-rviewed litterature. Just not on origin-related subjects.
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.
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.
Also,
Finally, the majority of creationist involved in the debate have also/still publish in peer-rviewed litterature.
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.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by slevesque, posted 09-15-2010 4:34 PM slevesque has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by slevesque, posted 09-15-2010 9:46 PM Theodoric has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 97 of 396 (581467)
09-15-2010 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Just being real
09-15-2010 3:09 AM


Re: Creation/ID "Science" and Discovery
You continue to miss the point.
Evolutionary theory, Big Bang cosmology and all the other scientific theories that you have a problem with have been verified by means of prediction and verification. The most objective, the most exacting, the most indicative test of accuracy we can apply to any theory or interpretation mankind has ever formulated. And thus a key component of the scientific method.
As a result of these methodologies evolution etc. has made predictions that have resulted in both the uncovering of new evidence and demonstrable progress in our understanding of nature and it's workings. Namely discoveries.
What has creation/ID "science" ever discovered? And if the answer to that question is "nothing" how can you even call it "science"? This is, always has been, and remains the question you cannot and never will be able to answer as an advocate of creationist/ID "science". That is your eternal failing.
Until creationist or ID "science" is able to make discoveries based on the logical consequences of it's theories it is incomparable to anything that can genuinely be called science.
JBS writes:
The claim that no one who believes in a divine creator ever made any valid scientific contributions is false.
But the claim that no-one has ever made a discovery on the basis of the hypothesis that there is a divine creator remains stubbornly true.
JBR writes:
What you mean to say is that you don't think any creationists have ever conducted any science that supported creationism.
No. What I mean is that there is no science that supports creationism. No verifiable predicted results that have been achieved as a direct result of creationist theories or interpretations.
All you 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.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Just being real, posted 09-15-2010 3:09 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Just being real, posted 09-16-2010 7:40 AM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 98 of 396 (581468)
09-15-2010 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by slevesque
09-15-2010 4:34 PM


Re: Creation/ID "Science" and Discovery
Does that fact that Newton was an advocate of alchemy mean that his scientific credential give any weight to his alchemistic beliefs?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by slevesque, posted 09-15-2010 4:34 PM slevesque has not replied

slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 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.
(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.

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

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

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 100 of 396 (581512)
09-15-2010 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by slevesque
09-15-2010 9:46 PM


Re: Creation/ID "Science" and Discovery
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.
So no real creation science then.
The people from the RATE research are there also.
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?
me writes:
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:
Lets look at you original assertion.
Message 94
Finally, the majority of creationist involved in the debate have also/still publish in peer-rviewed litterature.
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".
But the point still stands. Where is the "creation science"?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by slevesque, posted 09-15-2010 9:46 PM slevesque has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by slevesque, posted 09-15-2010 10:40 PM Theodoric has replied

slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 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 replied

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

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 102 of 396 (581522)
09-15-2010 10:47 PM


Creationists doing science
These discussions of creationists doing science are useless. It doesn't matter how many people with scientific credentials actually do science! That's what they are supposed to do.
Here's the key:
Anyone who follows the scientific method is doing science. Those without credentials sometimes do it badly, but if they follow the scientific method they are doing science. (Sometimes those with credentials do it badly also.)
Those who follow and promote creationists' methods are doing creationism, no matter what their credentials are. If they are advocating a young earth or a global flood about 4,350 years ago they are ignoring scientific methods and evidence and promoting a religious belief. They are doing religious apologetics, not science--no matter what their credentials are.
The famous scientists from the past who happened to be creationists? Are they famous for being creationists or for doing science?
The long lists we see of credentialed scientists who are creationists? So? Are they doing science or creationism? And if creationism, odds are long their publications are not in a scientific journal unless they pulled some sort of sneaky to get there.
And if there are so many credentialed scientists on these lists, where are the creation "science" experiments? They surely could come up with some experiments to bolster their case, eh?
Face it, creation "science" is religious apologetics and everyone knows it.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 103 of 396 (581530)
09-16-2010 5:31 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by slevesque
09-15-2010 10:40 PM


Re: Creation/ID "Science" and Discovery
Why do you think listing names has any bearing on the validity of creation "science" as an endeavour? If I cite you a list of Muslim scientists does that mean that Islam is scientifically superior to Christianiity? What about scientists who practise Scientology? Are all religions with "scientists" interpreting data in accordance with their particular predefined beliefs doing "science" or is it just the Christian ones?
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"?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by slevesque, posted 09-15-2010 10:40 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by slevesque, posted 09-16-2010 12:57 PM Straggler has replied

Just being real
Member (Idle past 3935 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 104 of 396 (581534)
09-16-2010 6:44 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by bluegenes
09-15-2010 12:50 PM


Re: Atheists for supernatural science!
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.
You just proved my point. Even though I went through great links to describe a completely hypothetical situation you still could not bring yourself to suggest that under those conditions an intelligent designer could be a possibility. On the one hand you assured me that most atheistic evolutionists would not approach science this way, and then on the other hand you demonstrated that is exactly the attitude commonly found.
And this is the point I have been trying to get across here. Atheistic evolutionists (AEs) love to gloat that ID proponents do not do science, do not publish in peer reviews, and have no testable theories, and yet you refuse to even see that this is because you don't even allow for the possibility. It is not even in your vocabulary. Your attitude is reflected in the way you compare the idea to gremlins and fairies and unicorns, and yes even flying spaghetti monsters.
In order to be able to see the evidence you have to at least be willing to allow for the possibility. Again I say that any attempt to put forth science for ID in the wake of such blatant bias, is an exercise in futility.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by bluegenes, posted 09-15-2010 12:50 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by bluegenes, posted 09-16-2010 7:56 AM Just being real has replied

Just being real
Member (Idle past 3935 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 105 of 396 (581535)
09-16-2010 7:02 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by hooah212002
09-15-2010 12:55 PM


Re: Creation/ID "Science" and Discovery
I'm beginning to wonder if you think "creationist" means anyone who believes in god...... I have yet to run into ANY member of this forum who confuse creationists with run-of-the-mill theists. When any of us use the word creationist.....we mean creationist.
Actually I think a creationist is exactly what the common definition defines one as: Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in some form by a supernatural being or beings. Of course the most common form of creationism thought of in this debate is Biblical creationism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by hooah212002, posted 09-15-2010 12:55 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024