|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: "Creation Science" experiments. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nij Member (Idle past 4910 days) Posts: 239 From: New Zealand Joined:
|
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.
The goalposts didn't get moved. Creationists simply can't aim. They really were not doing science as everybody else understands it. The RATE group, for example. They followed the protocols, ran the lab work, tallied the data, calculated and did everything exactly as I would have done (had I been a professional physicist). And after that, any actual scientist would have concluded "okay, I thought the earth was young, but there's clearly no way to get rid of that heat quickly enough, so either the earth is millions of years old or I screwed up somewhere". They would then go and doubelcheck their working or find evidence to show they were wrong in the first place. And if that didn't work, theyd accept the fact that our planet is old.But when their results showed there had been millions of years worth of radioactive decay and after explicitly noting that the heat generated would have melted the planet, the RATE guys just turned around and said "Goddidit! We'll find out how later on!". Their final choice was that even though the evidence showed something else, and despite there being a perfectly rational explanation, they would still stick to their original idea without any evidence to back that decision, even after being given a ton of other experiments and findings that validate the earth being old (see RAZD's Age Correlations thread for an excellent example). That is the best example of any creationist group doing science I've ever heard. And they still managed to fuck it up on the finish line because they couldn't bear acknowledging their initial idea was wrong. Somebody already mentioned this, but: preconceived ideas cannot be allowed to interfere with science. Something must be tested and demonstrated to a reasonable degree of accuracy, to work in any and all conditions which might be relevant, before it can be used as a given for the next experiment. There is a method that gets followed when you do science. Strangely enough, it's called the scientific method. It boils down to not invoking fairies and angels when you don't get the answer you want, but accepting the results or showing why they must be wrong. On the flipside, it means other people can do your work and not need to see the same fairies as you, and if you're right (without using fairies) there is absolutely no reason why they should not accept that fact. Because it would take ages to explain everything and debate what something means, just read this or this. I can almost guarantee nobody will argue too much with you if that's what you call science. If it isn't, then you need to explain what you would.Which is what everybody has been saying so far...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8527 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
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. You want to set the ground rules of what is and is not acceptable to science? Look, fool, ID is trying to get into the schoolroom door through the SCIENCE curriculum. You want to do SCIENCE? The ground rules have already been laid! You want to play in our classroom you play by OUR rules, not your own! Is ID science or not? Put up or shut up. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3956 days) Posts: 369 Joined: |
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. That's a real good question Son. Why don't you go ask someone claiming that ID is not a scientific theory like "we" do? And preferably on a thread designed for that topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3956 days) Posts: 369 Joined: |
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? The ID proponents doing the research would say yes to all of the above. And even though I said the "implications" would require a supernatural entity, the researchers make no such conclusions. In fact the theory of ID ends after pointing out that an intelligent source is the more likely of all conclusions. They do not suggest ghosts, ghouls, or goblins. They leave the speculations as to what that intelligent source is, to the theologians. It is the Biblical creationists who take it beyond this point. But my point is that if you do not even allow for the possibility of an intelligent source then you will opt for only natural conclusions no matter how ridiculous or unlikely they are. But this wraps back around to my original point. You will never see evidence for ID, no matter how clearly it is presented, if you refuse to allow for it. And that is all I have been trying to say all along.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3956 days) Posts: 369 Joined: |
The goalposts didn't get moved. Creationists simply can't aim. They really were not doing science as everybody else understands it. Thank you for making my point for me. To you it is not science when the conclusions allow for an intelligent source for life and the universe. As far as your claim that "creationists can not aim," that's an easy assertion made by someone who refuses to clearly define the "out of bounds" line. It kind of reminds me of one of those so called "friendly" games of volley ball on the beach. The other school jocks will goad you into playing, but all of their hits are in while all of yours seem to keep being "out." But none of them seems willing to just take a second to make lines in the sand. It's almost like they are afraid of the outcome, when the rules are fair. But again (for the umpteenth time), I refuse to play until such lines have been drawn.
the RATE guys just turned around and said "Goddidit! We'll find out how later on! I don't think that is what they said at all. They made a good case to suggest that the evidence for an old earth is not so cut dry "etched in stone" (pardon my pun). They suggest that if several of the "world clocks" suggest a young earth and several suggest an old one, it is not being very responsible to only "cherry pick" the one's that best suits your world view. Of course the RATE team are Biblical creationists and therefor their world view allows for a "Goddidit" as a possible explanation. That doesn't mean they quit the investigation at all. Just that they are not so narrow in their search. But just so you are clear, I refuse to comment on any of their particular findings until those boundary lines are established. So don't try it
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3956 days) Posts: 369 Joined: |
You want to set the ground rules of what is and is not acceptable to science? Look, fool, ID is trying to get into the schoolroom door through the SCIENCE curriculum. You want to do SCIENCE? The ground rules have already been laid! You want to play in our classroom you play by OUR rules, not your own! Your sentiments are charming, but they don't address my point, or the topic of this thread.
Is ID science or not? Put up or shut up. Again, that depends on how you are going to define science. If you define it in a way that excludes ID as an explanation from the beginning... well then I guess according to you... not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8527 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Your sentiments are charming, but they don't address my point, or the topic of this thread. Glad you like my sentiments. Yes, they do address your points and are indeed smack on the topic of this thread. Your attempt at deflection will not work. "Science" is well defined and has a basic set of ground rules borne of experience, necessity, utility and efficacy. ID purports to be "science," though the reasoning for this presumption is a sinister attempt to undermine the Constitution. If ID is going to hold itself as "science" it must show itself to the standards of "science." The DI Wedge attempt to redefine "science" in its own image so that the theology of ID can have equal access to public school rooms will not succeed. Your attempt to further that cause here in this forum will also not succeed. If you want to continue to insist that ID is "science" then show us that it fits the ground rules established. Otherwise, concede that ID is theology with no more scientific efficacy than astrology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 188 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
the RATE guys just turned around and said "Goddidit! We'll find out how later on!
I don't think that is what they said at all. That's exactly what they did say.
Helium Diffusion Age of 6,000 Years Supports Accelerated Nuclear Decay :
quote: (No progress has been reported in the last ten years. They've given the sheeple some scientifikaly-sounding pablum and achieved their goals. There's no more for them to do.)
John Baumgardner:
quote: A Tale of Two Hourglasses:
quote: RATE in Review: Unresolved Problems:
quote: They made a good case to suggest that the evidence for an old earth is not so cut dry "etched in stone" (pardon my pun). In the real world, they blundered in so many ways it's impossible to describe in one message. See RATE (Radioactivity and the Age of The Earth): Analysis and Evaluation of Radiometric Dating, Assessing the RATE Project (both put together by evangelical christians) and Creation Science Exposed: Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (a Progressive Creationist Christian website). From the second link, reviewing the second RATE book:
quote:{emphasis added}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Member (Idle past 3850 days) Posts: 346 From: France,Paris Joined: |
The scientific method has already been defined. If there are experiences that confirm ID, show them. If you believe the current science unfairly excludes ID, then we're back at the last message I posted for you. The thing is it depends on what you think. If you think ID is science, post experiments, otherwise, say that it isn't science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 822 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
You ask for some ground rules to identify what would be considered science.
I lay them out for you. Yet, you STILL duck, dodge and refuse to lay out some experiments? Is it safe to say you cannot identify for us a single experiment using the ID/creation scientific method? Are all of your posts going to be more crying about how "you secularists wouldn't accept the results anyways". You seem to be the only person in this thread who has no clue what science is or how it works.
Message 1 has some examples of secular science if you are still having trouble.
The ID proponents doing the research... In this thread, you ARE the ID proponent. If the ID/creation method cannot provide experiments that a layperson can replicate, it is not a replacement for science.
It is the Biblical creationists who take it beyond this point. I would absolutely LOVE for you to start a thread detailing how IDists are not creationists in sheep's clothing. "What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nij Member (Idle past 4910 days) Posts: 239 From: New Zealand Joined: |
Thank you for making my point for me
Thank you for showing that once again creationists prefer quotemining to actually arguing the point. Read the rest of the post: I laid out clearly why that specific example was not science, and that reasoning holds for any general creationist "experiment" or "paper". Do not presume to think you know what I would and would not consider science. Unless you're going to read the links, in which case anything that fits the description is what I would consider science.But you obviously didn't read the links, because you continued to complain that nobody has drawn those lines in the sand. They've been there for decades, moron, and every so often we give them a fresh dig to make sure they're visible to everybody. Creationists are the ones pretending they don't exist, not us. Once again, read the links and if you have questions after that we could actually make a useful discussion out of this. But just so you are clear, I refuse to comment on any of their particular findings until those boundary lines are established.
Then what the hell is this if not commenting on their findings:
I don't think that is what they said at all. They made a good case to suggest that the evidence for an old earth is not so cut dry "etched in stone" (pardon my pun). They suggest that if several of the "world clocks" suggest a young earth and several suggest an old one, it is not being very responsible to only "cherry pick" the one's that best suits your world view. Of course the RATE team are Biblical creationists and therefor their world view allows for a "Goddidit" as a possible explanation. That doesn't mean they quit the investigation at all. Just that they are not so narrow in their search.
JonF has already pointed this out, but just for closure, I'll repeat it: that is exactly what they said. Read the conclusion and analyses he provided in message 218. If you know something about that paper that was not released to everybody else in the world, now is a very good time to share it.They found no evidence whatsoever that a young earth was possible; they acknowledged that all of their work demonstrated an older earth than they wanted to believe. They found exactly what they've been told by scientists for years. Our planet is millions of years old. Despite it being the entire point of their experiments, they could not present a single fact to contradict this. No evidence to say a young earth. "Goddidit!" to defy the evidence of an old earth. Yep, creationists not doing science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
They suggest that if several of the "world clocks" suggest a young earth and several suggest an old one, it is not being very responsible to only "cherry pick" the one's that best suits your world view. Which is purest hypocrisy, because just what they are doing. Having got conflicting results, they propose that the results they don't like were faked up by God using a series of miracles. Which is stepping outside the boundaries of science, because it makes all observations irrelevant. Someone who can do that can also believe that God made pigs with wings but that he also deludes everyone into not being able to see them ("God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie", 2 Thessalonians 2:11). Everything then becomes a matter of opinion -- or faith, if you will. And of course it would be no less (or more) legitimate for a believer in an old Earth to do the same thing in reverse. Whenever a YEC claimed to have evidence for a young Earth, they could say: "Ah, well, God did that by a miracle for reasons that we mere mortals cannot understand, it has nothing to do with the natural processes by which we measure the real age of the Earth". But they do not do so, do they? Because they don't need to. Instead, they look at the question scientifically and find out where the YECs went wrong in the production of their "evidence" --- something that is not usually at all hard to do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3956 days) Posts: 369 Joined: |
"Science" is well defined and has a basic set of ground rules If it was as well defined as you think, then there would not be people like me claiming that creation and ID are scientific theories (and yes even Richard Dawkins the atheist admits it), and then people like "Jar" (in post #15) clearly saying they are not. This is why I insist on having the person I am discussing "science" with, define exactly what they view as science. I will not waste a single second chasing all of their crazy passes, only to have them called "out of bounds" when I catch them. I'm sorry if you can not appreciate this, but you know what the "kitty said when the milk ran dry."
ID purports to be "science," though the reasoning for this presumption is a sinister attempt to undermine the Constitution. I agree that some had ill intents in the ID community. But to throw the baby out with the bath water is not a fair reaction. You and I both know that some in the "Evolution camp" have not all been on the up and up. That of itself would not be a fair reason to invalidate the theory of evolution. That would be like refusing to ever ride in Joseph Cugnot's 1769 invention of the automobile, simply because some used the thing for sinister purposes. Likewise you can not use peoples sinister motives for using ID, as a reason to disqualify it as a scientific theory.
If you want to continue to insist that ID is "science" then show us that it fits the ground rules established. Again I will be glad to do so just as soon as you define what you mean by "science" and I see that it does not exclude ID as a possibility even before we get started.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3956 days) Posts: 369 Joined: |
You ask for some ground rules to identify what would be considered science. I lay them out for you. Yet, you STILL duck, dodge and refuse to lay out some experiments? No you didn't. What you laid out were examples of scientific experiments. But you did not define what qualifies as science in your eyes. And this is what I seem to not be able to convey to you people. Your beginning post of this thread lays out the question like the old childhood school bully who asks, "Does your Daddy know your so dumb?" The very question postulates itself in such a way that a plain yes or no answer sets up the person to fail either way. To answer no means that the kid is admitting he is dumb but just that his daddy doesn't know it. You are doing the same thing in your request for "creation/ID science experiments." On the one hand you are asking for the experiments, but on the other you define science in such a way as to exclude ID or creation as even being a possibility. If that is not true then you would have no problem just defining science in a way that does not exclude ID or creation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 857 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
Just Being Real writes: You are doing the same thing in your request for "creation/ID science experiments." On the one hand you are asking for the experiments, but on the other you define science in such a way as to exclude ID or creation as even being a possibility. If that is not true then you would have no problem just defining science in a way that does not exclude ID or creation. One ultimate test of the validity of any idea is through the American-originated philosophy of pragmatism. One question I have repeatedly asked of all ID/creationist proponents that they seem unable to answer is the simple "what has this stance done for me" or indeed done for anyone and everyone? Norman Borlaug, the world's most unsung hero, saved between 1 and 2 billion lives, how many has AIG saved? John Snow, by using statistics, identified the cause of cholera, which used to kill by the millions as being fecal contaminated water, how many disease vectors have the Discovery Institute identified? Benjamin Franklin (deist) founded the first public library in the USA, what has Hovind (jailbird) done to educate the populace? ID is a disease, a parasite that feeds on ignorance. Indeed it even promotes disease and ignorance. So the question remains, what has ID done for me? The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes. Salman Rushdie This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024