"Creation Science" experiments.

Hi, 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.

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''. 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. ) 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.

LOLI have the Biblical record that explains the flood, and it has been totally refuted.But that is beside the point.I am amazed that you cannot see the contradiction, but here is your chance to help me understand.What exactly is the current creationist model for making limestone?Once I understand that we can move on to the other layers.AbE: Please take the time to read Exploring the Grand Canyon, from the bottom up.I assure you that it totally demolishes any idea that there is a young earth or a Biblical flood.Edited by jar, : added link again

---

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

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 ? 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. 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 godiditThis 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 ?

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

Sorry, I skipped over your message straggler 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. 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.

What geologic formation, if found, would contradict the model? What experiments do we run to test this model?

So which one of these predictions spells out the type of geologic formation that would falsify a young earth or a recent global flood? A 25 million dollar creation museum says otherwise. The difference being that you can run experiments to test the theory of evolution. Also, the theory of evolution predicts what one should find if the theory is WRONG. The oft cited examples are a rabbit in the cambrian or a bird with teats. So what evidence, if found, would falsify a young earth or a recent global flood? Any? What experiments can we run to test these claims? So show us an unbiased experiment that can test the claim of a young earth or a recent global flood.

So what kind of deposits can this supposed global flood not produce? I have asked it several times in this thread. You have yet to answer it.The only creationist geologist that I know of that was at least honest about it is Glenn Morton. He started pointing to problems with the creationist model at a creationist convention, and he was scorned. He wasn't scorned because his criticisms were off the mark, but because he dared to question creationism. It was after this fiasco that Morton started moving away from the creationist movement, and rightly so. You can read more about it here

quote:

---

By 1986, the growing doubts about the ability of the widely accepted creationist viewpoints to explain the geologic data led to a nearly 10 year withdrawal from publication. My last young-earth paper was entitled Geologic Challenges to a Young-earth, which I presented as the first paper in the First International Conference on Creationism. It was not well received. Young-earth creationists don't like being told they are wrong. The reaction to the pictures, seismic data, the logic disgusted me. They were more interested in what I sounded like than in the data!

---

Creationism is not about the data or evidence. It is about what you sound like. It is about protecting a belief from challenge, which is why you can't tell me what type of deposit would be inconsistent with a global flood.

Here's an experiment that anyone can run to determine if the flood story is true, that is, a global flood about 4,350 years ago.All you have to do is do a little archaeology or geochronology and find a soil deposit somewhere that spans that time period. There are a lot of time stratigraphic markers that can be used, but it is often easier to find an archaeological site and work with that.If you can find an archaeological site anywhere in the world that spans the 4,350 year date and which has no evidence of a flood (either erosional or depositional) then the global flood scenario about 4,350 years ago is in trouble. If you can find a lot of such sites it is falsified. Simple, eh?And fortunately that time period is easy to find and study. There were peoples living almost everywhere in the world at the time, and their sites are generally easy to find and test. I've tested maybe a hundred such sites in my career as an archaeologist.And not a one had evidence of a flood at that time period.So here's the experiment: creationists only have to find archaeological sites or soil deposits that they can date to that time period and which have evidence of a massive flood. If they can start building up a record of such sites around the world then they may have evidence that means something.OK creationists, there's your experiment. Have at it!

---

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

File that statement along with a note to look up "angle of repose" until we get to the Coconino Sandstone.Or do your own experiment with making sand piles with 25-degree sides under water.

Being a condescending asshole does not become you. I have not read the original articles because I am not proficient in the science. I have read scientific criticisms and writings of members of the RATE tema. It is not necessary for me to read something I wont understand. It is actually conterproductive. The person I quoted read the original and these are his issues with the RATE study. They posit godidit. Not real good science there. The point is that he himself sees problems with their findings. Yes? There is no mechanism. They have faith one will come up because godidit.

---

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

While I agree with your assessment, what I am really after is what slevesque would accept as being a falsification of the flood model. If he is incapable of even describing a single potential falsification then I think we can conclude that there is no science in creationism.

And when you have tens of thousands of different scientists from hundreds of different cultures and religions all finding the same data and coming to the same conclusions, why do you think this is confirmation bias rather than just confirmation?Need I point out that the first people to invalidate the global flood myth were in fact those who went looking specifically to demonstrate that it was true?
That was 200 years ago, by the way. Since then archaeologists and historians and geologists (and indirectly, physicists and chemists) have found sites and evidence that further dismantles the myth's possible reality. You can't get much better than someone who wants to show something, and instead finds and acknowledges evidence that they were exactly wrong. Except evolution isn't just an interpretative framework. It's a predictive framework too: it makes predictions that can only be valid if evolution is a fact. And these predictions turn out to be right (see the dozens of papers linked to in all of the various threads here for examples).Creationism can only ever be an interpretative framework, because it does not make predictions. It fails to be science on that alone. Then again, it doesn't actually explain how or why anything. All it does is say what happened. "Flood this" and "God did that" are not explanations. They're excuses not to provide one. Name one prediction that was made by the creationist model and turned out to be correct. By prediction I mean "something that could have falisified the concept should it turn out any other way". By "correct" I don't mean "gerrymandered into fitting the a priori assumptions of the Bible being perfect".
Name one creationist research paper that actually provided evidence and reasoning that didn't rely on "the Bible says.." or "God did.." or "we will later find evidence that says.." i.e. where they actually did science instead of apologetics.

ICR and AIG collect thousands each year from donations.

Idiots like Michael Behe and Ken Ham earn hundreds of thousands each year from their book sales.

Kent Hovind owned 10 properties which were seized after he was convicted of owing US$600000 in taxes from a 3 year period; that's 200K a year, which means he and/or his company earned at least a million dollars each year through book and merchandise sales. That is, in fact, what was reported as quoted here. His theme park was earning that much on its own.

​

Saying that creationists don't have money is plain bullshit, and you should know better.

Hi Taq, You do realize that asking me a thousand times won't answer the question I had just asked you (which you quoted):

quote:

---

And how many creationist geologist have you actually asked this question for a null hypothesis ?

---

Yeah I'm a creationist, but I'm not a geologist. I study math and physics. I do the best to answer the questions I can, but I don't have all the answers. As I said, formulate your question adequately and submit it to CMI here: The page you requested was not found on our site - creation.com.If you really want to have a complete answer. If you don't do it, don't come around and complain again creationists have no answer for it.