Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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.
Capt Stormfield
Member (Idle past 455 days)
Posts: 428
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


(1)
Message 196 of 396 (582473)
09-21-2010 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Just being real
09-21-2010 5:24 AM


Been There, Done That
...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 the risk of belaboring the obvious and oft repeated: Most of us have. I arrived at a Christian college as a devout believer and left as an atheist. This change did not happen because of any lack of time spent considering possibilities. The theology I took showed me that my religious views were parochial and unsubstantiated even in a theistic context. The science I studied showed me that those views were at odds with reality. My general life experience taught me that the universe might not behave in accord with my hopes.
Please understand that most of the people with whom you argue have considered the subject in wearying depth, and require no further exhortations to use "more care" in that vein. Rather the converse, more likely.
Capt.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Just being real, posted 09-21-2010 5:24 AM Just being real has not replied

Nij
Member (Idle past 4889 days)
Posts: 239
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-20-2010


Message 197 of 396 (582557)
09-22-2010 3:59 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Just being real
09-21-2010 5:24 AM


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?
No, not particularly. I'll die someday, just like everybody else, so I'll enjoy it while I have it. I won't have anything to worry about once I'm gone; I've got more important things to worry about until then.
If this be all, then truly a sick joke mother nature has played upon us.
Meh. If you don't see the difference between having no life and having some life, no matter how small the amount, then why do you bother to keep going?
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?
How about this: why should we bother?
I could do all of the things a theist does -- probably better and more reliably too, all things being equal -- to help make the world better. And if I don't cock around praying or worshipping, I have far more time to work and play and help.
So, why should we give up valuable helping time to pray to some apparently imaginary friend?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Just being real, posted 09-21-2010 5:24 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Just being real, posted 09-23-2010 11:40 AM Nij has replied

Just being real
Member (Idle past 3935 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 198 of 396 (582754)
09-23-2010 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Nij
09-22-2010 3:59 AM


I'll die someday, just like everybody else, so I'll enjoy it while I have it. I won't have anything to worry about once I'm gone; I've got more important things to worry about until then.
I'm getting the picture in my head of a man on a plane in which hijackers have taken over. They are in the pitch darkness of night, and being told that in a little while they will eventually all be tossed feet first out the door into the unknown darkness. Some passengers are telling the man that he'll be alright because the plane is low and over water. They assure him that he will probably just skip on top of the water a little and that will be it. But others insistently warn him that they are flying very high and over land so he better put on a parachute. The man looks those passengers in the eyes and replies, "That's OK... I'll worry about it after I get tossed out. Right now I've got more important things to worry about."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Nij, posted 09-22-2010 3:59 AM Nij has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Son, posted 09-23-2010 11:47 AM Just being real has not replied
 Message 200 by Straggler, posted 09-23-2010 11:53 AM Just being real has replied
 Message 202 by Nij, posted 09-24-2010 5:02 AM Just being real has not replied

Son
Member (Idle past 3829 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 199 of 396 (582756)
09-23-2010 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by Just being real
09-23-2010 11:40 AM


Aren't we going incrasingly off topic? Maybe you could give us the expiriment that is the subject of this thread instead of preaching? Unless you agree with us that creationism has nothing to do with science and is only for preaching of course.
Edited by Son, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Just being real, posted 09-23-2010 11:40 AM Just being real has not replied

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


Message 200 of 396 (582758)
09-23-2010 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by Just being real
09-23-2010 11:40 AM


Still No Discoeveries
Nope. There are no examples of verified prediction leading to the discovery of new evidence in your latest post either. You said you could cite some. Where are they?
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Just being real, posted 09-23-2010 11:40 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Just being real, posted 09-24-2010 3:17 AM Straggler has replied

Just being real
Member (Idle past 3935 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 201 of 396 (582978)
09-24-2010 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by Straggler
09-23-2010 11:53 AM


Re: Still No Discoeveries
Nope. There are no examples of verified prediction leading to the discovery of new evidence in your latest post either. You said you could cite some. Where are they?
Actually in post #155 I pointed out (to you) that in order for such examples to be presented we would have to agree on some basic definitions. Here again is exactly what I said,
(((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 had expected an attempt on your part to put together some definitions for those terms in a way that does not automatically exclude the concept of ID, but thus far no such definitions have been put forth (and that's been over a week ago).
Also I suppose that you are not talking about any scientific discovery made by a scientist who also happens to personally hold a creation world view, but rather something directly relating to evidence for ID or creation origins. If that is correct then please affirm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Straggler, posted 09-23-2010 11:53 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Straggler, posted 09-24-2010 6:48 AM Just being real has replied
 Message 204 by jar, posted 09-24-2010 10:15 AM Just being real has not replied
 Message 205 by Taq, posted 09-24-2010 11:17 AM Just being real has not replied

Nij
Member (Idle past 4889 days)
Posts: 239
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-20-2010


Message 202 of 396 (582988)
09-24-2010 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by Just being real
09-23-2010 11:40 AM


That's a terrible analogy.
What is each part supposed to represent? Is death the point of jumping out or is it the point of landing? Is the parachute supposed to be your deity or the faith?
But discussing personal beliefs is not relevant to any experiment unless you're doing psychology. Back on topic, mate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Just being real, posted 09-23-2010 11:40 AM Just being real has not replied

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


Message 203 of 396 (582995)
09-24-2010 6:48 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by Just being real
09-24-2010 3:17 AM


Re: Still No Discoeveries
JBR writes:
I had expected an attempt on your part to put together some definitions for those terms in a way that does not automatically exclude the concept of ID, but thus far no such definitions have been put forth (and that's been over a week ago).
I am not automatically excluding ID or anything else.
I am asking you for a single example of of verified prediction derived from the logical consequences of creationism/ID theory which has directly led to the discovery of new evidence. A discovery.
Is not the ability to predict and discover rather key to determining which competing theory or interpretation is the most accurate?
JBR writes:
Also I suppose that you are not talking about any scientific discovery made by a scientist who also happens to personally hold a creation world view, but rather something directly relating to evidence for ID or creation origins. If that is correct then please affirm.
Of course.
If someone who discovers a wholly naturalistic and conventionally scientific cure for cancer also happens to believe in the existence of ghosts does his cure for cancer have any bearing on the evidential validity of belief in ghosts?
Of course not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Just being real, posted 09-24-2010 3:17 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Just being real, posted 09-25-2010 4:47 AM Straggler has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 204 of 396 (583013)
09-24-2010 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by Just being real
09-24-2010 3:17 AM


Re: Still No Discoeveries
(((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. )))
And that points towards the actual topic of this thread.
Science says "No position or Belief can be held sacred, rather should sufficient evidence be presented to overturn even a very strongly held belief then that belief must be discarded. Further, no position should be included until there is actual evidence in support of it."
This thread is asking folk to provide even a simple "Creation Science" experiment.
Peer review included other professionals in the same area of general study, for example Biology. But science goes even further. The person proposing the hypothesis must disclose all evidence and procedures publicly, and then the broader scientific community tries to replicate the findings. It is that further step, testing and replication that most often confirms or refutes a position.
Intelligent Design is a non-starter until Intelligent Design can create a large body of experiments that explain what is seen better than the current explanations.
Granted, that is a very difficult task, but there are no shortcuts.
For Intelligent Design to even be considered it must explain things BETTER than the conventional theories.
So far, as this thread shows, it seems no one from the Creation/Intelligent Design camp have even one suggested experiment.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Just being real, posted 09-24-2010 3:17 AM Just being real has not replied

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


Message 205 of 396 (583033)
09-24-2010 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by Just being real
09-24-2010 3:17 AM


Re: Still No Discoeveries
Actually in post #155 I pointed out (to you) that in order for such examples to be presented we would have to agree on some basic definitions. Here again is exactly what I said,
(((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. )))
That is exactly what we are asking IDers/creationists to do. Show us how "creation science" can be used to make testable hypotheses that can then be tested through experimentation. That is what real scientific research is. Go read a peer reviewed scientific paper to get a full understanding of how this is done. There are literally thousands published every month.
More than anything, science is something that you do. It is an activity. So what do creation scientists actually do with their time? Do they spend their time in the lab? Do they spend their time thinking up experiments that they can do, and then writing grants to see if they can get financial support for doing those experiments? What lab supplies do creation scientists buy? If I walk into a creation scientist's place of work will I find microscopes, pipettes, cell culture hoods, chemical cabinets, liquid nitrogen dewers, or anything else related to a biological research lab?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Just being real, posted 09-24-2010 3:17 AM Just being real has not replied

Just being real
Member (Idle past 3935 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 206 of 396 (583155)
09-25-2010 4:47 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by Straggler
09-24-2010 6:48 AM


Re: Still No Discoeveries
If someone who discovers a wholly naturalistic and conventionally scientific cure for cancer also happens to believe in the existence of ghosts does his cure for cancer have any bearing on the evidential validity of belief in ghosts? Of course not.
But yet in the same post you said: "I am asking you for a single example of of verified prediction derived from the logical consequences of creationism/ID theory which has directly led to the discovery of new evidence. A discovery." Therefore I am going to assume that what you really want is not just "A" discovery, but rather you are looking specifically for scientific discoveries that support the theory of creation or intelligent design?
That being the case I again am reiterating that I can not and will not even begin such a discussion until the ground rules have been laid for what we will and will not accept as science. If for example the scientific evidence I presented seems to strongly support a designing agent having been involved with the formation of life, but the implications of such evidence means this would require a supernatural entity (but your definition rejects the supernatural as a scientific hypothesis), then there is nothing further to discuss because by your definition this would not be "scientific" evidence.
Kind of like the murder of a small town sheriff's wife, in which all the officers who investigated the crime started with the preconception that anyone could be a suspect with the exception of the sheriff.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Straggler, posted 09-24-2010 6:48 AM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Son, posted 09-25-2010 5:22 AM Just being real has replied
 Message 210 by hooah212002, posted 09-25-2010 9:31 AM Just being real has replied
 Message 212 by AZPaul3, posted 09-26-2010 2:17 AM Just being real has replied

Son
Member (Idle past 3829 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 207 of 396 (583156)
09-25-2010 5:22 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Just being real
09-25-2010 4:47 AM


Re: Still No Discoeveries
What we want from you is showing an experiment showing that if true would be explained by ID but not by Evolution. As others have pointed out, there are lots of scientific papers you can read to see how such experiment works and how scientists design those. We assumed that you thought ID was a science like any other, meaning that the rules are the same for ID than any other science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Just being real, posted 09-25-2010 4:47 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Just being real, posted 09-25-2010 8:53 AM Son has replied

Just being real
Member (Idle past 3935 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 208 of 396 (583179)
09-25-2010 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by Son
09-25-2010 5:22 AM


Re: Still No Discoeveries
We assumed that you thought ID was a science like any other, meaning that the rules are the same for ID than any other science.
Well then "we" assumed wrong. I've been around enough to know that when the nitty gritty of the arguments start to flow, the goal posts change and the scientists I present along with their research gets accused to be only pseudo science. Instead of "we" continuing to try and goad me into doing something I have stated very clearly will not transpire until certain criteria is met, why don't "WE" just define the damn terms so "WE" can get this show on the road?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Son, posted 09-25-2010 5:22 AM Son has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Son, posted 09-25-2010 9:13 AM Just being real has replied
 Message 211 by Nij, posted 09-25-2010 9:43 PM Just being real has replied

Son
Member (Idle past 3829 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 209 of 396 (583181)
09-25-2010 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by Just being real
09-25-2010 8:53 AM


Re: Still No Discoeveries
Well, if ID is not science like we do now, why don't the ID guys make their own version of science. If their paradigm is superior to the actual science in regards to results, then you will easily overtake the current science the way science replaced the old methods. Otherwise, just present your experiment and we will be able to argue whether it's real science or not. Don't forget that in order for it to be a real experiment, the results must be able to differentiate between ID being wrong and ID being right. Meaning, you need which results from the experiment would invalidate ID, which would confirm it. You should have also noticed that scientists on this board presented their experiments and evidences multiple times even though they were feeling that creationnists either misrepresented the experiments, moved the goalposts or anything else. That's because the evidence you show is not for the sole benefit of the participants but is mainly directed toward the onlookers to convince them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Just being real, posted 09-25-2010 8:53 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Just being real, posted 09-26-2010 11:37 AM Son has not replied

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


Message 210 of 396 (583186)
09-25-2010 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Just being real
09-25-2010 4:47 AM


A few guidelines
but the implications of such evidence means this would require a supernatural entity
Can you replicate the results perfectly each and every time? Can anyone attempting the experiment replicate the results each and every time? Do you have evidence for this supernatural entity? Can the experiment be performed the same without the invocation of ghosts and goblins and ghouls (or whatever supernatural entity you are talking about). Does your experiment make a prediction, then successfully make the prediction come true each and every time?
If the answer to all of those is no, you aren't doing science.
If you are having trouble with the topic, please go back to Message 1
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Just being real, posted 09-25-2010 4:47 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Just being real, posted 09-26-2010 11:37 AM hooah212002 has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024