Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "Creation Science" experiments.
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 136 of 396 (581693)
09-16-2010 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by slevesque
09-16-2010 11:16 PM


Experiment
Any comments on the experiment I proposed to determine the presence/absence of the global flood ca. 4,350 years ago?
Does that sound like a reasonable way to approach this question?
Edited by Coyote, : grammar
Edited by Coyote, : grammar again!

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by slevesque, posted 09-16-2010 11:16 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by slevesque, posted 09-17-2010 12:07 AM Coyote has replied

slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 137 of 396 (581694)
09-16-2010 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Coragyps
09-16-2010 9:53 PM


Re: Creation/ID "Science" and Discovery
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.
Is the angle really 25-degree in the coconino sandstone ? Because googling ''angle of repose sand dunes'' gives an overall angle of repose of sand dunes of 34 degrees.
I'm having a bit more trouble finding the angle of repose for underwater sand waves, the closest I have been to finding anything relevant is this page: http://www.civl.port.ac.uk/...0Docs/Angle%20of%20repose.html
Which gives an angle of 25-degree for wet sand.
So at first glance, considering a desert would have produced angles of 34-35 degrees, and that water conditions would have that numbered lowered (25 degrees would not seem unreasonable at first glance) it seems as though this all is evidence for the 'water deposition' hypothesis versus 'dry desert formation'.
And at second glance, this could be a partial answer to Taq's question. A flood would not produce a sandstone with a 34-35 degree angle of repose.
AbE It seems at least one secular geologist proposes that the coconino sandstone was deposited by water and seems to be usign the angle of repose as evidence for this:
Visher, G.S., 1990. Exploration Stratigraphy, 2nd edition, Penn Well Publishing Co., Tulsa, Oklahoma, pp. 211—213.
Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Coragyps, posted 09-16-2010 9:53 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Coragyps, posted 09-17-2010 10:41 AM slevesque has not replied

slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 138 of 396 (581699)
09-16-2010 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Nij
09-16-2010 10:11 PM


Re: Creation/ID "Science" and Discovery
Hi Nij,
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?
I was just stating a natural aspect of science. Unless you wish to suggest scientists come to the lab with no beliefs and expectations on what they should find today ?
Besides, your statement is a gross misrepresentation of the situation. It isn't 99% of the scientific community all agreeing upon the same conclusion and a handful of creationists on the sideline.
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?
Well, I guess you do need to name these persons.
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".
Baumgardner's Catastrophic plate tectonics model, which he modeled in the 80's predicted that the tectonic plates subducted at great speed into the earth's mantle. In other words, with such a quick subductions so recent in the past, we should be able to detect this 'cold plates' at the base of the mantle.
This was in fact observed 10 years later, when the required technology was developped, the cold material was found as predicted. (S.P. Grand, Mantle shear structure beneath the Americas and surrounding oceans, Journal of Geophysical Research 99:11591—11621, 1994; J.E. Vidale, A snapshot of whole mantle flow, Nature 370:16—17, 1994.)
This is in fact contrary to the uniformitarian view of plate tectonics, since at today's slow rate, the plates would simply melt inch by inch as they slowly went into the mantle.
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.
Thousands of donations isn't much when you consider the amount of employees they have, and all the rest, don't you think ? When you consider that research projects can go in the millions (as was the case with the RATE) it is expected that they research a lot less then publicly funded researchers.
Behe is not a creationist.
And Hovind is an idiot.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Nij, posted 09-16-2010 10:11 PM Nij has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-17-2010 7:47 AM slevesque has not replied
 Message 144 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-17-2010 8:34 AM slevesque has not replied
 Message 145 by Theodoric, posted 09-17-2010 10:03 AM slevesque has not replied
 Message 147 by AZPaul3, posted 09-17-2010 11:02 AM slevesque has not replied
 Message 152 by Taq, posted 09-17-2010 12:14 PM slevesque has not replied
 Message 165 by Nij, posted 09-18-2010 1:30 AM slevesque has not replied

slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 139 of 396 (581701)
09-17-2010 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Coyote
09-16-2010 11:24 PM


Re: Experiment
We both know how this will turn out. I'll ask
''how do we know this is 4,5k year old dirt ?''
''well we just have to date it with dating methods''
''but I think the dating methdos are flawed''
''Blind assertion. Prove it''
''Well the RATE research has produced multiple lines of evidence suggesting this''
ANd this point I'm unassure of the approach you'll take. It'll be either
''The RATE research is just religious apologetics disguised as science. It's BS''
or
''The RATE research tried to do science, but ended up saying godidit to explain away their own data. So it's BS''
And then I'll say
''I disagree. You are misrepresenting what they said,. stupid strawman is stupid''
....
This is usually where it ends when we end up discussing this with one another.
SO yeah, I just saved us a page of discussion. (I guess if I either had the time, or you had an extreme load of patience, we could start a 'great debate' about the RATE research. But I don't have a lot of time)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Coyote, posted 09-16-2010 11:24 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Coyote, posted 09-17-2010 12:25 AM slevesque has not replied
 Message 141 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-17-2010 6:26 AM slevesque has not replied
 Message 150 by Taq, posted 09-17-2010 12:04 PM slevesque has not replied
 Message 382 by nator, posted 10-20-2010 8:55 AM slevesque has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 140 of 396 (581703)
09-17-2010 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by slevesque
09-17-2010 12:07 AM


Re: Experiment
We don't need to deal with the RATE project.
We just need to establish that deposits of 4,350 years of age can be dated.
That's pretty easy to do. The are a bunch of ways to date those deposits.
What you have to do though is show that all of these recent deposits has evidence of a global flood. If there was such a flood, the evidence would be everywhere. It is not.
The dating issue is a red herring. It doesn't matter whether those dates are off by a thousand years, or even two thousand or three thousand. There is still no evidence of a massive flood during historic times. You might feel better because you can raise an objection to the evidence, but that doesn't make the evidence go away. You would have to show that the dating -- all of it -- is massively wrong, and that has not been done. Not even close. Your disbelief does not constitute evidence.
Now if you look in southeastern Washington you can find flood evidence at the end of the last ice age, and those floods were pretty substantial. Water was backed up behind ice dams around the Idaho panhandle, and it backed up all the way into central Montana. Eventually each of these ice dams let go, producing a whopper of a flood. But we can determine the dates and extent of those floods. They are easy to see! Just google "channeled scablands." I've flown over the area in a small plane and been on the ground in field trips during grad school. Those floods are obvious!
Creationists need to come to grips with the fact that nobody has been able to document a flood that had to be more recent, and had to be vastly larger in scope. And that would certainly have wiped out evidence of those earlier floods.
That is the purpose of the experiment I proposed.
Quibbles about dating don't get creationists off the hook. There is either evidence for a flood worldwide in historic times, or there is not. There is either evidence of this flood everywhere in recent deposits -- including in your back yard -- or there is not.
All creationists have to do is go out and find that evidence.
(Hint: the early creationist geologists gave up about 200 years ago.)

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by slevesque, posted 09-17-2010 12:07 AM slevesque has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 141 of 396 (581714)
09-17-2010 6:26 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by slevesque
09-17-2010 12:07 AM


Re: Experiment
''The RATE research tried to do science, but ended up saying godidit to explain away their own data. So it's BS''
And then I'll say
''I disagree. You are misrepresenting what they said,. stupid strawman is stupid''
At which point I'll point out that I quoted what they said. At length. With extensive links and references. And that the members of the RATE project whom I quoted are real people who are not at all made out of straw.
Your move.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by slevesque, posted 09-17-2010 12:07 AM slevesque has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 142 of 396 (581723)
09-17-2010 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by slevesque
09-16-2010 11:59 PM


Re: Creation/ID "Science" and Discovery
Baumgardner's Catastrophic plate tectonics model, which he modeled in the 80's predicted that the tectonic plates subducted at great speed into the earth's mantle. In other words, with such a quick subductions so recent in the past, we should be able to detect this 'cold plates' at the base of the mantle.
This was in fact observed 10 years later, when the required technology was developped, the cold material was found as predicted. (S.P. Grand, Mantle shear structure beneath the Americas and surrounding oceans, Journal of Geophysical Research 99:11591—11621, 1994; J.E. Vidale, A snapshot of whole mantle flow, Nature 370:16—17, 1994.)
I have been unable to read the second of your citations. Nor, of course, have you --- couldn't AnswersInGenesis have quoted one single word from it?
However, the first citation seems flatly contrary to it:
The high-velocity lower mantle anomalies seem to be associated with subduction during the last 150 Ma. Comparing the location of past subduction with the location of lower mantle anomalies, the identification of lower mantle anomalies with old subducted slabs suggests slow sinking of slabs in the lower mantle (about 1 to 2 cm/yr).
Could it be that some unfortunate creationist has not understood what "high velocity anomalies" means? It does not mean that they are moving quickly, but rather that P and S waves move through them quickly.
This is in fact contrary to the uniformitarian view of plate tectonics, since at today's slow rate, the plates would simply melt inch by inch as they slowly went into the mantle.
The word "bollocks" comes to mind.
No. They wouldn't.
Let us for now leave alone the time it takes for heat to flow through 100 km of rock, and concentrate your mind on the fact that most of the lithosphere is not crust but mantle.
Do please tell us all about the "uniformitarian view" that peridotite would melt if submerged in non-molten peridotite.
Real, not-made-up "uniformitarianism" does not involve an inexplicable violation of the laws of nature. That would be more the kind of thing that you guys advocate.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by slevesque, posted 09-16-2010 11:59 PM slevesque has not replied

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


Message 143 of 396 (581725)
09-17-2010 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by slevesque
09-16-2010 8:42 PM


Re: Creation/ID "Science" and Discovery
Slev writes:
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.
Do you agree that an ability to to derive verifiable predictions from the logical consequences of a theory, predictions which directly lead to the discovery of new evidence and new facts, is indicative of a superior theory?
Is not the ability to predict and discover rather key to determining which competing theory or interpretation is the most accurate?
Surely this is inarguable?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by slevesque, posted 09-16-2010 8:42 PM slevesque has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 144 of 396 (581732)
09-17-2010 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by slevesque
09-16-2010 11:59 PM


Re: Creation/ID "Science" and Discovery
Thousands of donations isn't much when you consider the amount of employees they have ...
Now, think about this.
Yes, I'm sure that creationists have lots of employees whom they are not paying to do science in any way.
That doesn't really excuse them from the charge of not using their ample financial resources to do science, does it?
It kind of ... proves it ... doesn't it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by slevesque, posted 09-16-2010 11:59 PM slevesque has not replied

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


Message 145 of 396 (581742)
09-17-2010 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by slevesque
09-16-2010 11:59 PM


Re: Creation/ID "Science" and Discovery
Thousands of donations isn't much when you consider the amount of employees they have, and all the rest, don't you think ?
Don't you think they would be spending their money on research instead of PR people if they actually had anything to go on? Your comment just proves the point that they have nothing. What do all those employees do? The do PR and raise money to keep the PR machine going. They have nothing to research. One piece of science that gave them evidence for their beliefs would do more to raise funds then all the PR in the world. They know they have nothing scientific. If they did they would be making sure it made the front page of every paper and every news website and every science journal in the world. There would be Nobel's all around. Because anything they came up with that supported their views would completely change the paradigm of science. It would be earth shattering. It would be like Pig's flying or being able to turn lead into gold.
But there is nothing is there. There is manipulation and misrepresentation of data that will not stand up to peer-review. Also, I do not think you can accurately call creationists rags peer-reviewed. Please show us the peer-review process for creationist journals.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by slevesque, posted 09-16-2010 11:59 PM slevesque has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 146 of 396 (581747)
09-17-2010 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by slevesque
09-16-2010 11:32 PM


Re: Creation/ID "Science" and Discovery
In my experiments with play sand, a glass pie pan, and a protractor, I found angles of repose of less than 5 degrees under water and around 30 degrees for dry sand. Moist sand, as sand-castle builders all know, is fine with angles of repose of 90 degrees or more: it just can't repose there very long after it dries, and goes to to very low angles IMMEDIATELY on being submerged.
Crossbeds like those in the Coconino aren't going to form underwater. Get your own protractor and publish your experimental results right here!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by slevesque, posted 09-16-2010 11:32 PM slevesque has not replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 147 of 396 (581752)
09-17-2010 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by slevesque
09-16-2010 11:59 PM


Re: Creation/ID "Science" and Discovery
Besides, your statement is a gross misrepresentation of the situation. It isn't 99% of the scientific community all agreeing upon the same conclusion and a handful of creationists on the sideline.
You do know about the "Steve" Project ... yes?
So far about 1150 Steve's have signed. And "Steve" represents barely 1% of the population. Now extrapolate the John's, David's, Betty's, etc. and you are most correct.
It is not 99% of the scientific community all agreeing upon the same conclusion. It is more like 99.99% of the scientific community vs a handful of creationists.
quote:
Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.
The fact of evolution and the efficacy of the Theory of Evolution is so strong that 99.99% of the scientific community agree.
Creation science must take the same data, the same facts, and twist them with the majik of some flavor of a god to force their religious conclusion unevidenced by the data. This is not just "confirmation bias." It is outright lying ... right in the face of their god.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by slevesque, posted 09-16-2010 11:59 PM slevesque has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Straggler, posted 09-17-2010 12:06 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 148 of 396 (581753)
09-17-2010 11:15 AM


Back to the OP
hooah212002 in the OP writes:
I propose they provide us with some experiments that would be in accordance with said "ID/creation science".
I take it we aren't going to get any experiments that any of us can perform using ID/creation science?
Are laypersons not able to perform experiments using the ID/creation science method?
Are there even any that COULD be performed?
Is it safe to say that the "secular" scientific method is sufficient and all of you creationists accept that method? IF that IS the case, it is very dishonest to only accept it when the results are to your liking.
IF that is NOT the case, let's see some experiments.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by menes777, posted 09-17-2010 2:38 PM hooah212002 has replied

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


Message 149 of 396 (581754)
09-17-2010 11:20 AM


On Part 2 of the OP
hooah212002 in the OP writes:
Here is a site that is full of simple experiments that anyone can do: science is FUN DAMMIT!
My main goal for this is to get the anti-science crowd to appreciate what science is and for them to stop thinking that it is something out to get them.
These are the types of things the "secular" scientific method can teach us about facts of nature. What can the ID/creation scientific method teach us about facts of nature?

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

Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 150 of 396 (581761)
09-17-2010 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by slevesque
09-17-2010 12:07 AM


Re: Experiment
We both know how this will turn out. I'll ask
''how do we know this is 4,5k year old dirt ?''
''well we just have to date it with dating methods''
''but I think the dating methdos are flawed''
Then use an objective dating method that is not flawed and find sediments that are around 4,000 years old. What are the dating methods that creation science uses to measure the age of rocks, and where can we find these sediments?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by slevesque, posted 09-17-2010 12:07 AM slevesque has 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