"Creation Science" experiments.

Contrary to missing the point my friend, I am very aware of it. More so than you know. I have been saving this "can of worms" till I thought the discussion had matured to this level, and I think maybe it has, so here goes. As shocking as this may sound to you, everything you mentioned above regarding prediction, verification, and inductive testing, is affirmed by creationists and ID scientists regarding the theory of intelligent design.The problem is not in the existence of the data that supports ID, the problem is in "the eye of the beholder." You see, AEs can not see the evidence for God for the same reason a burglar can not find a cop.

Can you name a single discovery made on the basis of (i.e. as a direct logical consequence of) creationist/ID theories? Or not?If the answer to this question remains "no" you have no argument to speak of.Conversely I am sure many here will be delighted to explain to you how numerous discoveries have been made as a direct consequence of those theories which you assert are nothing more than naturalistic interpretations.Any blathering idiot can make a theory fit the facts. But only a superior theory can be used to predict and thus lead to the discovery of new facts.So - in short - unless you can cite some creation "science" discoveries - You lose.

No. Supernatural explanations do not need to be regarded as impossible. What I'm pointing out is that our current level of ignorance does not, at present, validate supernatural explanations for any known phenomena as being any more than theoretically possible. But if, in the future, after having pushed our knowledge forward to its apparent limits, then that situation could change, and supernatural explanations could be promoted beyond just being theoretically possible.However, if you're talking about a hypothetical situation where we find positive evidence that supports the view that there is supernatural intelligent design in nature, that's something different. You would be wrong if you assume that, for example, if a group of atheistic scientists were doing field work, and they came across a group of angels doing some genetic modification on some creature, that they would ignore them, and continue as usual. That, for me, would radically transform my view of how new species came about, and Intelligent Design would certainly become mainstream science immediately.It may be that we're talking at cross purposes, and that may be because you consider there is valid reason at present to consider supernatural design of things around us as more than theoretically possible.But I know of no scientific evidence to support that. And I keep saying that I have no problems with the possibilities of intelligent designers, unicorns, or anything else supernatural you care to mention. And I say that people like me have no philosophical bias against unicorns, but we see no positive evidence to support their existence at this point in time.The problems for I.D. advocates are not that the world is biased against them. On the contrary, most people in the world are brought up as children to believe that an intelligent designer is responsible for life, and therefore start off with a pro-I.D. bias before they even start doing science.The real problem for I.D.ists is that they do not actually have any positive evidence to support their view. There's also the considerable problem that there isn't actually an I.D. theory of biology (something many of I.D.'s leading advocates agree with).Gaps in human knowledge, I must emphasise, do not mean evidence for intelligent design in nature.I, for one, am very much in favour of I.D. advocates conducting research, and publishing their results for scrutiny wherever they can, peer reviewed or not. I'd love to know which (if any) of the differences on the genomes of ourselves and the chimps were designed, and which ones (if any) occurred naturally, for example.But I know enough about biology to be reasonably sure that I.D. advocates will never be able to agree with each other on that, and will never be able to tell me. Edited by bluegenes, : typos

People, regardless of their theology or lack thereof, doing science in some discipline is not the issue here. The issue is creationists doing science in those fields related to the creation myths of Genesis.Creationists here are telling us that the only difference between creation science and mainstream science is that creation science is willing to entertain the presence and actions of their god in their interpretation of the results.The most famous (infamous) example of creation science is the RATE Group study. The other examples of creation science given throughout this thread all follow the same pattern. They are reviews, not original research, of the present known science on a subject (flood geology, star light, radiometric dating, genetic information, genome structure, etc.) followed by a creation science conclusion.And those conclusions all take the same form as well. Creation science interpretations of the original science invoke violations of known physical law to achieve the predetermined religiously-inspired conclusion they seek even though this interpretation is unevidenced in the original data and is unsubstantiated in the logic stemming from the original data.This is not science. This is religion.The creationists here have been asked to show where/how creation science can be shown in some original work where their conclusions of their god or some previously unknown forces logically and convincingly follow from their original data. There has been none.The conclusion drawn from this is that creation science is religion and holds no legitimate claim to being science in any form whatsoever.Given the history of creationism in its various invocations and the stated social goals of its proponents, we can further conclude that creation science, in whatever form it may be presented or in whatever name it may be dressed, is a subterfuge knowingly perpetrated upon secular society in an attempt to gain control over this society in violation of morality and law.

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

Ok People, before replying please try to follow the conversation, especially the claims which I am responding toI 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.

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

OK. So which part of this do you disagree with?Straggler previoulsy writes:

quote:

---

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.

---

Here is the "paper". I can only seem to find what appears to be an abstract from some conference: REGIONALLY EXTENSIVE MASS KILL OF LARGE ORTHOCONE NAUTILOIDS, REDWALL LIMESTONE (LOWER MISSISSIPPIAN), GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK, ARIZONAnoanswersingenesis.com addresses this topic about halfway down the page. I'm no geologist either, but someone here is and can read the article and decipher it.

---

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

The significance of that paper seems to be that it again totally refutes the possibility of a Biblical Flood.Note that it is a poster session, not a major address.BUT...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.

The thread Exploring the Grand Canyon, from the bottom up. is important because in nearly 300 posts we still did not succeed in working our way from the lowest exposed layers (the Vishnu Schist) even up to the Red Wall Limestone.This is another example of the Creation Science tactic of withholding data that refutes their position.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

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

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?From the ICR

quote:

---

This month I will complete a three-part review of the RATE project (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth). In October I presented the background considerations leading up to the project. In November I discussed the interpretation of Genesis as history, which was an important biblical basis for the scientific studies. The RATE project found that:

​

* A large amount of radioactive decay has occurred in earth history.
* Nuclear decay processes were accelerated during episodes in earth history.
* Conventional radioisotopic dates are therefore incorrect by large factors.

​

These findings led to the major conclusion that the earth is thousands—not billions—of years old. However, RATE left three unresolved problems concerning theology, heat, and radiation.

​

The Theological Problem

​

The use of the term accelerated decay for nuclear processes during the Creation Week seems to create an apparent conflict for some people with the statement given by God in Genesis 1:31: And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. The RATE project was able to show that accelerated decay occurred during the Genesis Flood, but this was not sufficient to explain all the observed daughter products in rocks, such as lead. The production of lead by accelerated decay during the first three days of the Creation Week could explain this, but that would introduce the concept of decay during this period that was stated by God to be very good. This issue probably merits further study, but could easily be resolved if the term decay were understood as process. The RATE group suggested that the apparent conflict may only be due to semantics.

​

The Heat Problem

​

Of greater concern to both supporters and skeptics of the RATE project is the issue of how to dispose of the tremendous quantities of heat generated

​

by accelerated decay during the Genesis Flood. The amount of heat produced by a decay rate of a million times faster than normal during the year of the Flood could potentially vaporize the earth’s oceans, melt the crust, and obliterate the surface of the earth. The RATE group is confident that the accelerated decay they discovered was not only caused by God, but that the necessary removal of heat was also superintended by Him as well. Dr. Russell Humphreys, a member of the RATE group, has suggested one possible mechanism that may explain this dilemma. He has found evidence, both scientific and scriptural, that cooling of the earth by the expansion of the cosmos may have occurred simultaneously with the heat produced by accelerated decay.

​

The Radiation Problem

​

Another consideration is how Noah and his family could have survived the massive dose of radiation unleashed during the Flood. It is likely that the humans aboard the Ark would have been protected from most of the radiation occurring on the surface of the earth by the water covering the planet. It is common knowledge that water absorbs radiation, and an average of 8,000 feet of water covering the earth would have made a very effective shield. However, some have expressed concern that a radioactive element like potassium-40 that is present in the human body may have produced radiation within Noah’s body itself.

---

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?The authors themselves admit they have to invoke godidit. Here is a review.

quote:

---

Two Unsolved Problems: Heat and Radiation
The authors report that faced with this evidence, a young-earth advocate must address at least two key scientific problems resulting from a one-year period of accelerated decay rates during the Flood. The first is the heat problem. Thermal energy from radioactive processes is a major source of heat in the earth. If those processes were accelerated by many orders of magnitude, the earth would have quickly evaporated from the heat had there not been an extraordinary mechanism of cooling. The authors state:
The removal of heat was so rapid that it likely involved a process other than conduction, convection, or radiation We believe it may be possible to discover how [God] did it (p. 763).

​

Future research is suggested along the lines of Russell Humphreys’ idea of volumetric cooling based on relativistic principles even though this known phenomenon, the basis for red-shifting of starlight, does not apply to bound particles such as the earth. It is acknowledged that this approach, even if it were valid, has the difficulty of being uniform rather than selective as would be needed to cool only radioactive material and not, for example, the oceans. In other words, the authors acknowledge that accelerated decay requires a most unusual heat removal mechanism that is outside the known laws of thermodynamics. The second unresolved problem cited in the book is the radiation problem. How did Noah and his passengers survive a year in which radioactivity was one million times greater than it is today? No known solution exists, they state. Nevertheless, The RATE group is confident that these issues will be solved /

---

So explain how they are not invoking godidit.

---

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

So does it even count as peer reviewed literature? I couldn't find an actual article under the same name. Every citation refers to the conference as if it is an article in a journal. I am not sure how conferences such as those are conducted, so I may be way off here and maybe this conference is like Apollo and the geologists get on stage and present their material and their peers in the audience boo them off if it doesn't cut the mustard.

---

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

Did I say I didn't find anyone that was not published. Lets look at the actual text of what was said. Message 94
Message 96
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. Then again maybe this is your out "the majority of creationists involved in the debate".
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.Now the second comment. 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) In other words something other than their thesis. So I stand by my comment that your majority statement is bullshit that you cannot even confirm.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.

---

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

No, poster sessions are more than that and in some ways, less as well.Poster Sessions are usually part of a professional conference and can be open sessions or fairly tightly controlled. It is a way for folk who believe they have something of value to present or who are looking for funding for an idea to promote it, market it, to a wide spectrum of the profession.The basic name came from the way they market themselves; usually a large poster or backdrop designed to quickly attract attention and hopefully get folk to stop and ask questions.Th sessions can be in a room nearby the main auditorium, in the hallways or lobby, just about anyplace that allows traffic. Here are some pictures of typical poster sessions. Nudder exampleThe material may or may not be peer reviewed, my experience is that generally an abstract was wanted and decisions made based on that.The poster sessions subject matter is usually related to the theme of the conference but considered either insufficient or not important enough to be included as a major presentation.The secret to a successful poster session?Bring your own rug and some really high grade padding to go under it. Nothing, no subject no matter how important or well presented can compete with a chance to stand on something softer than the typical convention floor.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!