"Creation Science" experiments.

Then in keeping with what I see hooah asking for, let's see an experiment where the possibility of a supernatural effect could be evidenced.If creationists are using the same scientific method then they are doing science. If science for the creationist includes the possibility of the supernatural then certainly they can show us the experimental design and control protocols where such would become evident.The problem as I see it would come in the reproducibility and peer review of the logic of the conclusions. Creationists may have a bit of a problem assuming their specific brand of majik in the conclusion where none was evidenced in the data.So if creationists are doing science let's see the design and the controls and where the majik is evidenced in the data not just poofed up in the conclusion. Edited by AZPaul3, : wording.Edited by AZPaul3, : syntax

Since the creationists here have not taken the experiments offered in this thread to heart I thought maybe some experiments more in tune with their usual thought process may be more attractive to them.1. Prayer Healing. From the list of cardiac patients at a local hospital select three patients at random. Assign each to separate prayer groups who will pray for the safe recovery of the patient daily for as long as the patent stays in the cardiac ward. When a patient leaves the ward, either on a gurney or in a wheelchair, assign another patient to that group. After 10 years, if the number of fully recovered patients is greater than 2 then this would be startling new evidence that the prayer intercession was effective.2. The Flud. At the top of high hill overlooking a small town erect a 5,000,000 cubic meter water tank. Release the water all at once. When the town has washed away inspect the side of the hill. If deep gullies were formed then this is startling new evidence that the Grand Canyon was formed during the great flud of noah.3. Age of Earth. Put together a team of creation scientists to study the literature and perform experiments on radioisotopes in relation to the age of the Earth. When the results match perfectly to an Earth of billions of years in age then conclude that the rate of radiometric decay had to have been millions of time greater during the creation and that god majiked away all the excess heat without making the oceans boil or destroying the entire planet and that this is startling new evidence that the Earth is in fact quite young.4. Evolution. Completely disassemble a Boeing 747. Put all the pieces into a covered shoe box. Have student volunteers from Oral Roberts shake the box up and down 100 time per minute non-stop for 10 years. At the end of this time open the box. If a fully assembled and operational 747 has not resulted then this is startling new evidence that evolution is false.Wait one!I seem to recall that #3 has already been done. Skip that one.

People, regardless of their theology or lack thereof, doing science in some discipline is not the issue here. The issue is creationists doing science in those fields related to the creation myths of Genesis.Creationists here are telling us that the only difference between creation science and mainstream science is that creation science is willing to entertain the presence and actions of their god in their interpretation of the results.The most famous (infamous) example of creation science is the RATE Group study. The other examples of creation science given throughout this thread all follow the same pattern. They are reviews, not original research, of the present known science on a subject (flood geology, star light, radiometric dating, genetic information, genome structure, etc.) followed by a creation science conclusion.And those conclusions all take the same form as well. Creation science interpretations of the original science invoke violations of known physical law to achieve the predetermined religiously-inspired conclusion they seek even though this interpretation is unevidenced in the original data and is unsubstantiated in the logic stemming from the original data.This is not science. This is religion.The creationists here have been asked to show where/how creation science can be shown in some original work where their conclusions of their god or some previously unknown forces logically and convincingly follow from their original data. There has been none.The conclusion drawn from this is that creation science is religion and holds no legitimate claim to being science in any form whatsoever.Given the history of creationism in its various invocations and the stated social goals of its proponents, we can further conclude that creation science, in whatever form it may be presented or in whatever name it may be dressed, is a subterfuge knowingly perpetrated upon secular society in an attempt to gain control over this society in violation of morality and law.

You do know about the "Steve" Project ... yes?So far about 1150 Steve's have signed. And "Steve" represents barely 1% of the population. Now extrapolate the John's, David's, Betty's, etc. and you are most correct.It is not 99% of the scientific community all agreeing upon the same conclusion. It is more like 99.99% of the scientific community vs a handful of creationists.

quote:

---

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.

---

The fact of evolution and the efficacy of the Theory of Evolution is so strong that 99.99% of the scientific community agree.Creation science must take the same data, the same facts, and twist them with the majik of some flavor of a god to force their religious conclusion unevidenced by the data. This is not just "confirmation bias." It is outright lying ... right in the face of their god.

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

Wiggle, wiggle, squirm, squirm.Hiding behind a cloud of semantical BS."Science," "research," "peer review," have quite well accepted definitions in scientific disciplines. Your "creationism" cannot play the game because you insist on violating all the rules. You want special dispensation because you have nothing to offer to society.One of the planks of Discover Institute's "Wedge" document is to change the definition of "science" so their majikal musings are included, along with astrology, alchemy, phrenology, homeopathy, perpetual motion.You are on that crusade, aren't you. You're a shill for DI.You have nothing to offer society. You just want to control it.

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.

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.

Because you creationists manufacture a controversy for your own nefarious purposes you think the rest of humanity should accept this? Do you think there is a controversy about the inferiority of blacks because some people in the KKK claim so? You mean the dishonestly edited interview from that propaganda piece Expelled? Are you really this stupid? I think it was something like:"I have nothing so I might as well dance!"I could be wrong here. Except evolution, unlike ID, was not made up as a subterfuge to hoodwink society from the creationist goal of creating a Taliban-like theocracy. There is no comparison. Besides, the baby was stillborn so throwing it out means nothing. Well, you were right about something. Congratulations.As you have so ably demonstrated for us, ID, despite its sinister motives, has disqualified itself by being unable to do science within the established protocols of science. No, sorry. It is not that "some had ill intents" but rather ID, in total has ill intents. That is why it was created.You are not only engaging in "science" revisionism, you are engaging in historic revisionism as well. And, again, the protocols are already set. "Science" has been defined. If ID was really science then it should have no problems acting and producing within the science framework established.This is your admission that ID cannot do science, isn't it?

This is exactly what the RATE Group did. They started by doing the "science." The hypothesis, gathering the data, the testing and analysis.And their science effort showed, and they admitted it showed, what mainstream science had already shown: an old earth.Where they fell down, and where you and all ID fall down, is when the "science" part of their effort yielded results contrary to their pre-conceived conclusion, they invented the majik of their god in their conclusion to negate the data they had found in the science.Part of "science" is drawing conclusions that are supported by the data generated. That is why peer-review is so important to the scientific method. If some majik is not clearly and convincingly shown by the data then concluding that this majik happened anyway destroys the science.And you cannot just say the data supports the conclusion because you want to interpret it so. The conclusion has to be clearly seen in the data and must be of such veracity that there is no other possible explanation. And if in peer-review some other reasonable explanation is found to logically flow from the data then your conclusions are questionable and more testing needs to be done. This is what science does and all science is held to this standard.Creationism cannot do this because creationism starts with the conclusion of majik regardless of what the evidence eventually will show.Creationism cannot do science. And dressing it up in a lab coat, false mustache and calling it ID cannot alter this reality.Re-defining "science" to allow unsupported conclusions is not an option so stop trying.Go ahead, do your thing. Form your hypotheses, gather your data, make your predictions, test the results and draw your conclusions. If your conclusions do not logically and exclusively follow from the data then you fail.Edited by AZPaul3, : Forgot Moose's nice subtitle.

Typical creationist. Get your teeth kicked in then declare victory anyway.Yes, the case is closed. You and your creationist brethren have shown us all that you have no idea what science is or how it works. Your "examples" were all failures, as has been abundantly shown.Enjoy your hollow victory.

An entire thread, all these messages, to conclude the very thing everyone, scientist and creationist alike, already knew.No matter how you may dress it up, give it a fancy new name, color its hair and slap a mustache on it, creationism/creation science/intelligent design is not and never was science.Only two things were accomplished here.- Give the creationists another opportunity (failed, as it turns out) to try to redefine "science" in a more woo-friendly manner thus justifying their entry into the Science Curriculum of your local school.- Give the creos another venue to try and capture the gullible who are already lost to the reality of this world anyway.Nearly 400 messages, almost 40 participants, hundreds of lurkers over a 2 month period for neither side to have accomplished anything.And the sad part, more than 10⁴² hundred gazillion billion electrons died in the effort. I could have watched all of last Sunday's football games with that.