"Creation Science" experiments.

I don't think you do. That is not at all what Straggler, or anyone else, has claimed. There is a HUGE difference between scientists who also believe in a deity and creationists/IDists. He did. Creation/ID "science" has never made any valid discoveries. This says nothing about scientists who also believe in a deity.Yet, you still don't even address the crux of the thread: what are some experiments that we could do using the "creation/ID "science"" method? If you are going to act as a shill for ID/creation science, address the topic.

---

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

(bolding mine) Message 50
I'm beginning to wonder if you think "creationist" means anyone who believes in god......I have yet to run into ANY member of this forum who confuse creationists with run-of-the-mill theists. When any of us use the word creationist.....we mean creationist. Likewise for IDist. If there is confusion, it is your own.Now, care to pony up with some experiments?

---

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

Certainly you have an example? Or are you referring to "scientists" who are also creationists? I'd be hard pressed to see an actual scientist who is a creationist who also does not push a creationist agenda.

---

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

Here is the "paper". I can only seem to find what appears to be an abstract from some conference: REGIONALLY EXTENSIVE MASS KILL OF LARGE ORTHOCONE NAUTILOIDS, REDWALL LIMESTONE (LOWER MISSISSIPPIAN), GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK, ARIZONAnoanswersingenesis.com addresses this topic about halfway down the page. I'm no geologist either, but someone here is and can read the article and decipher it.

---

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

So does it even count as peer reviewed literature? I couldn't find an actual article under the same name. Every citation refers to the conference as if it is an article in a journal. I am not sure how conferences such as those are conducted, so I may be way off here and maybe this conference is like Apollo and the geologists get on stage and present their material and their peers in the audience boo them off if it doesn't cut the mustard.

---

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 1Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

---

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

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. 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. 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.

I have shown nothing but genuine interest in the topic of this thread. You have cried foul and NO ONE has even said a word to you. Science does not get defined by hooah212002. Other posters have already provided the actual definition, and that should be sufficient. However, it seems like you are a prime candidate for this thread. You see, science isn't something you should fear. Science isn't some...thing. Science is a method to view the world around us that has been through the trials and tribulations of time. It just works. If you think ID/creation science is even remotely close to actual science, it should also stand up to the rigors that actual science has been through and goes through on a daily basis. You could start by showing us at least ONE experiment using that method.If anyone is convoluting what science is, it's you. I don't think anyone here has made the scientific method into something it isn't, except you. Aww, the poor creationist is getting bullied by facts. Stop making excuses and show us an experiment! If you want me to be rude and treat you as you claim we treat you, I can. I can be a rude and rotten S.O.B..{abe} Perhaps because ID/creation science isn't actually science? I haven't changed the definition of science. No one on this thread (or any thread on this forum) has changed the definition of science. Any real field of science or actual science experiment would have no problem following the guidelines or definition laid out. Maybe you could prove us all wrong by showing us an experiment using the ID/creation science method?Edited by hooah212002, : added extra quote

---

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

Yea, I saw that thread a few days ago (I noticed it when it was promoted, but it fell into oblivion) and thought it could have served the same purpose as this one. However, by that time, this thread was already 100+ posts deep.

---

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

The difference is, though, that scientists know how molecules act/react in certain environments. The molecules themselves can be tested and the process can be seen. When an invisible designer is thrown into the equation, how do you test for it? How do you know how the designer acts/reacts in a given environment? We have witnessed stars being born. What we have not witnessed, however, is a human or any other object created ex-nihilo, which is what IDists/creationists claim this designer can do.

---

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

You're putting words in my mouth, I believe. I didn't claim as such. I said exactly the same thing you did, just differently.

---

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