"Creation Science" experiments.

Your avatar and Slevesque's avatar are too damn similar.I read your post thinking it was Slev's latest response and for a second thought that Slev had come over to the dark side.Doh!!

We could start with Adam Sedgwick. Upon retiring as chair of the Geologic Society of London (the most prestigious geologic society of its time) Mr. Sedgwick had this to say:

quote:

---

Bearing upon this difficult question, there is, I think, one great negative conclusion now incontestably established -- that the vast masses of diluvial gravel, scattered almost over the surface of the earth, do not belong to one violent and transitory period. It was indeed a most unwarranted conclusion, when we assumed the contemporaneity of all the superficial gravel on the earth. We saw the clearest traces of diluvial action, and we had, in our sacred histories, the record of a general deluge. On this double testimony it was, that we gave a unity to a vast succession of phenomena, not one of which we perfectly comprehended, and under the name diluvium, classed them all together.

​

To seek the light of physical truth by reasoning of this kind, is, in the language of Bacon, to seek the living among the dead, and will ever end in erroneous induction. Our errors were, however, natural, and of the same kind which lead many excellent observers of a former century to refer all the secondary formations of geology to the Noachian deluge. Having been myself a believer, and, to the best of my power, a propagator of what I now regard as a philosophic heresy, and having more than once been quoted for opinions I do not now maintain, I think it right, as one of my last acts before I quit this Chair, thus publicly to read my recantation.
The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: April 2002

---

This was in 1831. Let me repeat. In 1831 the evidence was so obviously against a global flood that even its most fervent supporters (of whom Sedgwick was one) were forced to recant. 180 years ago the evidence was against you, and still is. Can you please cite some evidence for this? The creation museum was 25 million. Surely finding some actual scientific evidence for a young earth or a global flood would be worth 10 times more that some fancy diorama based on fantasy.

A fundamental difference between science and creation science is that science advances knowledge, where creation science advances itself.Creation science will never have an independent set of experiments because that's not the pursuit of creation science. Creation science is about affirmation and not discovery. Mainly affirmation for the Xians that want to believe already. The creatiom museum wasn't made to pull in non-believers and convert them. It was made to milk, err I mean attract Xians who already want to believe in what they are being presented. They just need an Animatronic dinosaur and whatever else to comfort them in what they believe to be true. Note: The most obvious experiment related to that is to visit a dinosaur bone site and test for the presence of hominid bones among the dinosaur ones. Of course creation science doesn't want you to do that because you won't find any. You only hear more of what Coyote calls the Xian "What if's?" on why human bones don't appear with dinosaur ones.You must also keep in mind that religion itself doesn't encourage questioning of any kind. In fact some believe that questioning Jesus as the Messiah even once is instant condemnation to hell for eternity. Experimentation is one of the ultimate forms of questioning and creation science also doesn't encourage that. They don't want the average joe to discover things and advance their knowledge, they want them to believe what they say without question. Most of the time since what they teach is to fellow Xians they don't get much push back anyway. Experimentation is the scientists way of saying "Show me the money" errr I mean "Show me the data". Creation science is about convincing others (and often times themselves) about what they want (and sometimes desperately need) to believe. Not about what the observed data really shows.Experimentation is almost entirely useless when used against almost any creationist hypothesis. The reason for this, is because almost every experiment that can be done relating to creation science can use the phrase "God must have intervened" to fix any problems that do not provide the correct results. Any experiment that runs into a problem can immediately apply the "Goddidit!" step and fix the results to whatever they want them to be. Sort of like having a giant cosmic easy button they can push anytime they need an explanation that doesn't fit the facts. Of course this completely nulls out the whole point of the experiment and creation scientists know it. Can you imagine how unenforceable certain laws would be if that were allowed as evidence? Well you as can plainly see the devil put the fingerprints on the murder weapon and placed the defendants DNA all over the crime scene. Of course that would be laughed out of court the same as it should be laughed out of anywhere near calling itself science.Just MO

I know this, you know this, every non-creationist on this site knows this. However, the creationists certainly seem to honestly believe they are performing either real science, or their brand of it. I'm just trying to get at least one of them to pony up with something fruitful or admit they have no place in the science fora. Of course, the latter will likely never happen, so we are left with their admission by omission.As many creationists that are regulars on this site, surely one of them has something to offer........

---

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

Actually yes I can. I can name a few as a matter of fact. But why would I bother? The thought of jogging in place or pedaling one of those stationary bikes for hours and hours upon end, boars me to tears before I even start. I like to see some ground covered for my efforts. Again... it would be an exercise in futility without you even acknowledging ID as a viable possibility next to AE.I say that because you and I know how the conversation would go. I would present scientist "A" who did ID research #1, #2, and #3, and published his results in peer review literature a, b, and c. Then you would come along and attack scientist A's credentials, thereby claiming to have discredited all of his research, and then the icing on the cake will be when you call all of the peer review journals and literature "nothing but pseudo-science, not recognized by the REAL scientists." And the same will go on for my presentation of Scientist B, C, D, E, F, G........and so on.So before we even start such a conversation we would need to both agree on what constitutes "real" science, what constitutes a real scientist, what counts as real research, and finally what counts as peer review publications. If you can't define all of those terms without in someway excluding or disqualifying the concept of Intelligent Design before we even start, then the point I've made all along has just been validated.

I am glad to see you using "current level of ignorance" (i.e. current observation and knowledge base) as an anchor to reality. I say this because I would point out that according to our "current level of ignorance" regarding laws of physics and the finite universe, its origin requires a cause which, when traced back logically, would require something infinite and self sustaining to exist (in order for anything now to exist) which is also capable of causing at least one observable universe.Unless you want to argue that the current laws of cause and effect go out the window prior to the universes existence, and anything goes prior to that? But if you make that your argument, then you can not now use "current levels of ignorance" as an anchor to reality. Because then elves or unicorns or anything could be true and just as valid if you toss aside current levels of knowledge and observation. However if we stick with current levels of knowledge and understanding then there would be a valid scientific reason to suspect something very unique (supernatural) had to have had a hand in our existence.

In truth all theories start as a sort of a "myth," which makes some claims in reality and as the evidence is compiled, that myth becomes more and more believable until we no longer regard it as a myth. So creation started as a myth which made claims about the origin of the universe, the solar system, Earth, and life... So what? The question then becomes, "Is there any evidence to suggest that this myth is real?" But if you start with the attitude that no matter what the evidence seems to suggest, it has to mean something else...well then you will never see anything. I understand the apprehension. I mean if you allow the evidence to point to an intelligent designer, then that means creation is true, and if creation is true that means the Bible is the word of God, and then that means we are culpable for what we do. OOOOOps!!!! We're all in a load of deep doo doo.But what if God knew we were gonna screw it up and so He already planned a way to fix it for us? But I know now I'm sounding preachy so I'll stop. I would need an example of "invoking a violation of known physical laws" in order to respond. Currently I know of no such violations.

Actually 'design' as well as 'intelligent design' should be rejected even before we start until someone can show that there is any knowledge value or merit in either topic.The fact is, even if there was design or even an intelligent designer (or even what seems more likely; an inept, incompetent, irrational, ill-informed, inefficient, incapable, inadept. inexpert, inexperienced, ineffectual, inadequate designer) it is Irrelevant to understanding how things work.It does not matter who designed the first radio to understand how radios workIt is not necessary to know who designed a car to know how cars work.It is not necessary to know if life is designed to understand how life evolves.'Design' and 'ID' (regardless of what the I is short for) is simply not necessary to understand evolution.What value would knowing that something is designed add?What value is there in knowing who the Designer was beyond a historical footnote, patent rights and product liability suits?

---

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

Then why be so reticent? Let's hear them? No. We just need to agree that a discovery made as a direct logical consequence of creationist/ID theories involves the unearthing of new facts or new physical evidence as a direct result of predictions and subsequent investigation made purely on the basis of creationist/IDist theories.In other words the demonstrable ability to predict and discover new evidence rather than merely interpret existing evidence. In other words the same exacting standards of demonstrable reliability that we expect of ALL genuine scientific theories. Theories such as the theory of evolution, big bang cosmology etc. etc. I have never denied the possibility of such things. I simply question the validity of such interpretations because they have never demonstrated themselves as reliable in terms of prediction and discovery.But you apparently are about to change all that for me. So let's hear it?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Actually yes I can. I can name a few as a matter of fact. But why would I bother? The thought of jogging in place or pedaling one of those stationary bikes for hours and hours upon end, boars me to tears before I even start. I like to see some ground covered for my efforts. Again... it would be an exercise in futility without you even acknowledging ID as a viable possibility next to AE.

​

I say that because you and I know how the conversation would go. I would present scientist "A" who did ID research #1, #2, and #3, and published his results in peer review literature a, b, and c. Then you would come along and attack scientist A's credentials, thereby claiming to have discredited all of his research, and then the icing on the cake will be when you call all of the peer review journals and literature "nothing but pseudo-science, not recognized by the REAL scientists." And the same will go on for my presentation of Scientist B, C, D, E, F, G........and so on.

​

So before we even start such a conversation we would need to both agree on what constitutes "real" science, what constitutes a real scientist, what counts as real research, and finally what counts as peer review publications. If you can't define all of those terms without in someway excluding or disqualifying the concept of Intelligent Design before we even start, then the point I've made all along has just been validated.

---

You are missing the OP's point, he wasn't asking for you to show him proof of creation/ID from someone else's work. He was asking for an experiment (so to speak) that we all can do that will show us proof that creationism or ID is scientific.It also sounds more like "Sure god could let you win the lottery, but you would waste all the money anyway and be miserable and probably ending hurting everyone you love. So in other words he loves you so much that he won't let you win it". Essentially a big rationalized cop out that seems moar, I mean more like you got nothing than something.

Prior? If you like playing at metaphysics, here's one for you.We observe that time is a property of the universe. We observe cause and effect within spacetime. If we go back to the beginning of the universe, time = 0. If cause and effect apply at this point, then they must be simultaneous. Therefore, the universe must be self created, and cannot be caused or preceded by anything. You'd better write to Stephen Hawking and inform him of this, then. I'm not a cosmologist.We're wandering off topic for this thread, unless you regard your metaphysics as creation science, which I hope you don't, as there's no reason that the uncaused cause you're suggesting should be a god of any kind, let alone the god of Jewish mythology.

Hey, Straggler, this is AZ not Slev. You boys just cannot help but twist the reality right from the gitgo can you. Legitimate hypothesis is not even close to myth. I do not expect you to agree, regardless of the reality. It does not fit your argument. The answer is a resounding, "No" So strong is the evidence against it, not just in the aggregate but in the detail, with literally millions of facts, observations and tests, that only the most willingly blind can continue to hold such beliefs. Might as well continue believing in a flat e ... ??Umm ... er ... You do know the earth is round, right? You Got It! So why do creationists continue to do this? Why, when the evidence, all the evidence, from every discipline, over centuries of analysis, by thousands of the most intelligent of our species, points invariably to the one conclusion, why does a small cult of creationists insist on quite the opposite?Because evidence be damned, you have your pre-determined conclusions already dictated to you by some 3500 year old desert nomads, and that's good enough for you. "Creation science" indeed. Hey, Theist, guess what? We are already culpable for what we do. But we are answerable to each other and to ourselves. A concept of self-discipline totally foreign to you I'm sure.But, hey, if it takes the idea of a big three-headed Sky Daddy with a stick and a lake of fire to keep you from torturing, burning, raping, stoning innocent people and keep you atleast semi-sane in society then have at it. Cept history has shown this hasn't worked either, has it. The most glaring, most famous, most telling example of "creation science" ever produced. You have heard of the RATE Project, yes? You have read their conclusions, yes?

quote:

---

All of these events were supernatural, if not in kind, at least in terms of energetics and speed. So, it seems possible to us that some, even most, of the daughter products we observe could have been formed during the early Creation week, and the process was not viewed by God as bad at all. Some who still have a problem with the term nuclear decay being bad could alternatively interpret the considerable quantity of the daughter products we observe today simply to be the result of God’s supernatural creative work with no reference to any specific process.

---

quote:

---

The RATE group believes from these arguments that

​

a large amount of nuclear decay occurred during the Genesis Flood and during the early part of Creation week as well;

​

a large pulse of heat was also generated by this accelerated decay;

​

and

​

some mechanism removed this heat as it was being produced.

​

The removal of heat was so rapid that it likely involved a process other than conduction, convection, or radiation. For example, the cooling of granite plutons would have taken thousands of years by conventional thermal diffusion. Of course, God was directly involved in all of these events, so it is possible that He employed some supernatural process which does not occur today or cannot be detected.

---

quote:

---

The conclusion that a large amount of decay has occurred had been denied or ignored previously by many creationists. However, the evidence is overwhelming. The magnitude of the nuclear decay indicates that, independent of initial conditions, the equivalent of billions of years worth of nuclear decay has occurred during earth history.

​

How then should a young-earth advocate proceed? The only remaining avenue available appeared to be to question the assumption that nuclear decay rates have been constant.

---

Three violations of known physical processes together with the added majik of "Goddidit" or better yet, in keeping with the total lack of data to support the conclusion, "Godmustadoneit somehow."Yes, "creation science."Have your conclusions ready.
Collect the data and the studies.
When the data does not fit the conclusion invoke the majik of god's supernatural powers to overcome the data then claim the conclusion as proof of a literal Genesis.Do you have an example, even a small one, where "creation science" does not follow this pattern? Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

All theories start out as an untested hypothesis which is very different than a myth. A hypothesis is, by definition, testable. It has very real consequences which we can then test for. A hypothesis states what we should see AND what we should NOT see if the hypothesis is correct. If creationism is science then they should be able to point to these hypotheses.What are they, and how do we test them? Which experimental results would point towards creation? Can you describe an experiment for us, and then tell us what the results would look like if creation were true and what the results would look like if creation were false? If not, then you are not talking about evidence pointing anywhere. You are talking about dogmatic beliefs.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

... then you might be an imaginary strawman living in the mind of a creationist with a depressingly low level of self-awareness. Golly, what a mess.(1) As presumably you knew full well when you wrote this disingenuous nonsense, creationism is rejected by plenty of theists, and your ill-spirited attempt at amateur psychoanalysis could not of course apply to them.Their reason for rejecting creationism is obviously because although it would provide a gratifying support for their religious beliefs, they can't manage to believe something which on honest investigation turns out to be a load of rubbish.(2) No, the existence of an intelligent designer does not, in fact, imply that the Bible is the word of God any more than a talking rabbit would imply that Alice In Wonderland was the word of God. Your fallacy is technically known as "affirming the consequent".(3) If the Bible is true, that means that I'm not culpable because Jesus took responsibility for my sins, and all I have to do is believe that (salvation comes from faith not works, y'know) and all my sins are automagically forgiven me and when I die I will not in fact die but rather live in a state of indescribable bliss for ever.Oh, and I could get one of these rather snazzy T-shirts: Why would anyone not want a belief the main tenet of which is that you get absolution of sins and eternal perfect happiness just as a consequence of believing that belief?If you were a Muslim then there might be some excuse for your rhetoric, but it is the height of hypocrisy for you to come out with this stuff when the one really distinctive feature of your religion is the belief on the part of its devotees that they have successfully evaded having to take moral responsibility for their actions.

No.
I was saying that despite almost every one of those scientists bringing beliefs and expectations, many of which are not ever the same, they stil manage to agree on evolution being a fact. So, why can all of these diverse starting points reach the same answer no matter what?Unless you wish to suggest scientists come to the lab with conpiracies in the forefront of their minds? You call my statement "misrepresentative"? I couldn't think of something that was further from the truth.
Well over 99.9% of scientists in the relevant fields acknowledge the reality of evolution. Creationists are a tiny minority, and for all intents and pruposes they are truly relegated to the sideline, only watching and wishing they could get in to play. But they can't and won't, because creationism is not science. Had I been able to reply sooner, I would have had two, one of which has been provided already:

Adam Sedgwick (see message 152 by Taq).

William Buckland (Bridgewater Treatise, 1836. Also see any remotely complete biography about the man).
I did have a third, but can't remember the name or a reference.

​

Baumgardner's Catastrophic plate tectonics model..

has already been hacked apart by Dr Adequate; I imagine he's used to it by now, all prepped with a generic "[insert list of problems] [insert quoted claims of Goddidit] [insert actual evidence that demonstrates the opposite claim to be correct] [provide sources] [insert caustic remark about creo intelligence] [insert argument conclusion showing that creo is wrong]".
Onwards!

​

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.

But the point is that they don't produce any real research at all. They just advertise and promote.
25 million dollars on a museum that features no actual evidence, when you could have spent it on actually getting the evidence? The projects might cost millions, but you be able to do at least a handful of them; maybe an expedition to the Red Sea, a few diggings around the world to find flood deposits in the same geological layer, maybe an improved version of the RATE Project... fuck, it's not a hard decision to make if they actually wanted to do it. But they don't, because they know they're wrong, and as long as they never do it themselves they can always say it's a conspiracy against Christianity -- once again, ignoring the fact that a lot of scientists are Christians -- and continue their propaganda.

​

Behe is not a creationist.

Ah, the old 'No True Scotsman' game! Gee, you guys really love it, don't you. Next you'll be saying that Buckland wasn't one because he was only a "pretend creationist" because he was old-earther.
Yeh-no, he promotes intelligent design. He's a creationist.

​

And Hovind is an idiot

An idiot, yes. But also a creationist who made millions of dollars a year.