"Creation Science" experiments.

How many dentists do you think had to write a thesis? I never thought to look at how many of these Dr.'s are not Ph.D's.

---

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

Read it. Nothing there. So we are safe to assume you got nothing? Just lots of hot air?

---

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

Now you're just wasting everyone's time. You don't know what you are talking about, so please quit trying to give everyone else a lesson in your own ignorance.

That's doctrine, or preaching, or wishful thinking. Or unsupported assertion. When my physical body wears out, I expect it to be consumed by bacteria, unless I decide to have it cremated and have my phosphate-rich ashes contribute to soil fertility in Taos Canyon."Incorruptible" applies to the Chicago police department better than to dead meat.

I have to wonder if you have ever even read the Bible. It certainly doesn't sound like it. Frankly, there is NOTHING in the Bible that even implies that things were not designed to wear out.BUT...that still has nothing to do with the topic.how about a suggestion of a "Creation Science" experiment?Here is a suggestion, why not tell us the "Creation Science" model for the Vishnu Schist?Or maybe the "Creation Science" model to make sand?Maybe you can present the "Creation Science" model for salt domes and beds?

---

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

Hi JBR, If you meant to communicate the concept of a hypothesis, why didn't you just write "hypothesis"?As it stands, your use of the word "myth", when you meant "hypothesis" makes it look as though you are trying to equivocate between the two meanings; to suggest an equivalence that does not exist.The creation myths in Genesis are not hypotheses. The were never intended as such. We can say this with confidence because the concept of a hypothesis simply did not exist in the time they were composed. The modern concept of a scientific hypothesis is, well... modern. A truly scientific hypothesis exists to be put to the test. Creation myths are not intended in this way.Of course, we could easily treat the creation myths as if they were scientific hypotheses. We can examine their claims and compare them to observed evidence. When we do this though, they fall apart. So, in summary, creation myths are not hypotheses and even if regarded as such, they are, at best, failed hypotheses.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

how about a suggestion of a "Creation Science" experiment?i know of one and we know god can do it cause it says so in the bible when 2 altars where placed one for some other god an one for the god of the bible where the other god could not light his own offering on fire and the god of the bible burned the whole altarsame 2 altars the atheists use science (anything from rubbing 2 sticks together to a laser that runs on nuclear power) and the theists pray to god the one who gets their altar to light up first wins and the theists get a head start of one hour

I'm not sure that really would show creation or explain anything of value.I keep trying to get just a few of the basics, things that are not really miracles.That is why I keep asking for the "Creation Science" model to make sand, salt beds, mica, schist, even easy stuff like the millions of alternating light and dark layered varves found in the Green River formation.

---

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

Nope. There are no examples of verified prediction leading to the discovery of new evidence in the third paragraph of your post Message 155.So let me just ask a basic question of you - 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?For the record I don't really care whether the people who did the research are wearing white coats or leotards and I don't care whether or not the findings were published in Playboy or the 'Very Prestigious Journal of Real Science'.I am simply asking you to name a single discovery (as opposed to re-interpretation of existing evidence) made as a direct result of the theories you are advocating.

Nope. It goes beyond that. You sound a bit like Behe at this point who classified Astrology as a science because it attempted to explain natural phenomena. There is a difference between an explanation and a scientific explanation. The difference is the ability to run experiments to test the validity of the explanation which is the case for a scientific explanation, or hypothesis.

If that be true, does it not concern you in the least that these precious experiences of consciousness you now enjoy, is but a single flash of a fire flies tail on a warm summers night? That the joys of holding your first baby in your arms, or the passion of seeing your young beautiful bride a glow next to the flickering fireplace, will all one day soon vanish from all existence? Does not your heart ache for the gentle mothers kiss which once was, and now is forever laid to rest in yonder grave?If this be all, then truly a sick joke mother nature has played upon us. To give us only a glimmer of joy and to so quickly steal it away. What is the point? Why not just leave us in that state of "phosphate ash" from whence we came? Why not leave us to be dumb animals of the forest who are unaware of these things? Dumb animals who have no needs beyond an empty belly?But seeing that we are so feeble and yet so rare a creature in all the constellations, and death so swift and final an adversary, knocking at each one of our doors, should we not give more than just a wink at the claims of a man who claimed to offer us eternal life? More than just a snicker at this man they said could heal the sick and raise the dead, walk on water, and who is said by many to have risen from the tomb? I mean if death be so sure and lasting a fate awaiting us each and every one, then what harm there be in examining with a little more care the claims of an ancient carpenters son?

why not live this moment insted of worrying about a un plausible afterlife

I created this topic with genuine interest in the subject. I really thought you guys (creationist/IDists) had something remotely close to what I was asking for. I was gravely mistaken. You lot have created an entire movement on.....what, exactly? You claim science and empiricism and wish for (what I see as) the eradication of secular science. You cannot do that without a valid model to test and explain the world around us. You have made it blatently obvious that all you have to offer is preaching. You have made it clear that creation science really isn't science, but religion trying to call itself science in order to shoehorn it's way into school (everyone else knew this already, I'm just pointing it out to the creationists that won't admit it). However, it's not just religion. It's your particular brand of religion.I understand you are the only creationist participant in this thread, but come on man. We've gotten more ideas for experiments using your model from the "evolutionist" side of the camp.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

---

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

Being hungry does not prove that we have bread.---Now, back to the topic?

What about slevesque?