Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 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.
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 58 of 396 (580678)
09-10-2010 3:40 PM


Assumptions
Assumption does not automatically mean wrong or suspect, as creationists would have us believe.
Assumptions in scientific theories and techniques are not guesses, nor are they random and arbitrary. They follow the evidence.
Example: it is assumed that the radioactive decay rate is constant because all the evidence points in that direction. Radiocarbon dating, even though based on this assumption, is considered reliable as this assumption is supported by the evidence.
In some scientific modeling the assumptions may be arbitrary, random, or unsupported by evidence as this is one method of obtaining feedback on those assumptions (in this they act as variables). These models should not be confused with scientific theories, which are supported by immense amounts of data and are not contradicted by any significant data.
This shows that creationists' argument that they are just interpreting the evidence in light of a different set of assumptions is a flawed method, and is not science. The assumptions creationists propose are not supported by immense amounts of evidence but are the result of a need to try to force the data to support their desired conclusions. These assumptions are frequently contradicted by huge amounts of evidence (e.g., young earth and global flood ca. 4,350 years ago).
This flawed method is commonly found in creation "science," and has led to the "teach both theories" slogan. Ignored is the fact that science generates theories based on the evidence, while creation "science" is designed to support religious dogma and belief and to sneak that religious dogma and belief back into the schools. There is no theory in creation "science" -- only beliefs which must be supported no matter what the evidence shows.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by slevesque, posted 09-10-2010 5:18 PM Coyote has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 66 of 396 (580696)
09-10-2010 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by slevesque
09-10-2010 5:18 PM


Re: Assumptions
This shows that creationists' argument that they are just interpreting the evidence in light of a different set of assumptions is a flawed method, and is not science. The assumptions creationists propose are not supported by immense amounts of evidence but are the result of a need to try to force the data to support their desired conclusions. These assumptions are frequently contradicted by huge amounts of evidence (e.g., young earth and global flood ca. 4,350 years ago).
Well obviously, this is your personnal impression of the situation. Being a YEC, I obviously think the contrary that the YEC position is the most consistent with the data.
This gets down to the crux of the issue.
The facts and theories, and the assumptions underlying those theories, are consistent and overwhelming in their assessment of the age of the earth--and it is old, not young. This determination involves multiple techniques for age estimation spanning any number of scientific fields, and ranges from counting various annular phenomena to geology and hydrology and nuclear chemistry.
The specific details would be beyond the scope of this thread. What is pertinent to this thread is that there are a lot of scientific experiments that can be proposed to shed light on the age of the earth. Can you detail any creation "science" experiments that can do so?
(The RATE boys tried, but they ended up doing real science and had to disavow their own results when they didn't support their a priori beliefs, but supported science instead.)
So it is your task to provide an experiment that creation "scientists" can perform to document their opinion that the data is most consistent with a young earth belief.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by slevesque, posted 09-10-2010 5:18 PM slevesque has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 102 of 396 (581522)
09-15-2010 10:47 PM


Creationists doing science
These discussions of creationists doing science are useless. It doesn't matter how many people with scientific credentials actually do science! That's what they are supposed to do.
Here's the key:
Anyone who follows the scientific method is doing science. Those without credentials sometimes do it badly, but if they follow the scientific method they are doing science. (Sometimes those with credentials do it badly also.)
Those who follow and promote creationists' methods are doing creationism, no matter what their credentials are. If they are advocating a young earth or a global flood about 4,350 years ago they are ignoring scientific methods and evidence and promoting a religious belief. They are doing religious apologetics, not science--no matter what their credentials are.
The famous scientists from the past who happened to be creationists? Are they famous for being creationists or for doing science?
The long lists we see of credentialed scientists who are creationists? So? Are they doing science or creationism? And if creationism, odds are long their publications are not in a scientific journal unless they pulled some sort of sneaky to get there.
And if there are so many credentialed scientists on these lists, where are the creation "science" experiments? They surely could come up with some experiments to bolster their case, eh?
Face it, creation "science" is religious apologetics and everyone knows it.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 130 of 396 (581675)
09-16-2010 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Taq
09-16-2010 9:08 PM


An experiment
This is because you probably do not know the current creationist model of the worldwide flood, I see no contradiction.
What geologic formation, if found, would contradict the model? What experiments do we run to test this model?
Here's an experiment that anyone can run to determine if the flood story is true, that is, a global flood about 4,350 years ago.
All you have to do is do a little archaeology or geochronology and find a soil deposit somewhere that spans that time period. There are a lot of time stratigraphic markers that can be used, but it is often easier to find an archaeological site and work with that.
If you can find an archaeological site anywhere in the world that spans the 4,350 year date and which has no evidence of a flood (either erosional or depositional) then the global flood scenario about 4,350 years ago is in trouble. If you can find a lot of such sites it is falsified. Simple, eh?
And fortunately that time period is easy to find and study. There were peoples living almost everywhere in the world at the time, and their sites are generally easy to find and test. I've tested maybe a hundred such sites in my career as an archaeologist.
And not a one had evidence of a flood at that time period.
So here's the experiment: creationists only have to find archaeological sites or soil deposits that they can date to that time period and which have evidence of a massive flood. If they can start building up a record of such sites around the world then they may have evidence that means something.
OK creationists, there's your experiment. Have at it!

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Taq, posted 09-16-2010 9:08 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Taq, posted 09-16-2010 10:07 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 136 of 396 (581693)
09-16-2010 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by slevesque
09-16-2010 11:16 PM


Experiment
Any comments on the experiment I proposed to determine the presence/absence of the global flood ca. 4,350 years ago?
Does that sound like a reasonable way to approach this question?
Edited by Coyote, : grammar
Edited by Coyote, : grammar again!

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by slevesque, posted 09-16-2010 11:16 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by slevesque, posted 09-17-2010 12:07 AM Coyote has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 140 of 396 (581703)
09-17-2010 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by slevesque
09-17-2010 12:07 AM


Re: Experiment
We don't need to deal with the RATE project.
We just need to establish that deposits of 4,350 years of age can be dated.
That's pretty easy to do. The are a bunch of ways to date those deposits.
What you have to do though is show that all of these recent deposits has evidence of a global flood. If there was such a flood, the evidence would be everywhere. It is not.
The dating issue is a red herring. It doesn't matter whether those dates are off by a thousand years, or even two thousand or three thousand. There is still no evidence of a massive flood during historic times. You might feel better because you can raise an objection to the evidence, but that doesn't make the evidence go away. You would have to show that the dating -- all of it -- is massively wrong, and that has not been done. Not even close. Your disbelief does not constitute evidence.
Now if you look in southeastern Washington you can find flood evidence at the end of the last ice age, and those floods were pretty substantial. Water was backed up behind ice dams around the Idaho panhandle, and it backed up all the way into central Montana. Eventually each of these ice dams let go, producing a whopper of a flood. But we can determine the dates and extent of those floods. They are easy to see! Just google "channeled scablands." I've flown over the area in a small plane and been on the ground in field trips during grad school. Those floods are obvious!
Creationists need to come to grips with the fact that nobody has been able to document a flood that had to be more recent, and had to be vastly larger in scope. And that would certainly have wiped out evidence of those earlier floods.
That is the purpose of the experiment I proposed.
Quibbles about dating don't get creationists off the hook. There is either evidence for a flood worldwide in historic times, or there is not. There is either evidence of this flood everywhere in recent deposits -- including in your back yard -- or there is not.
All creationists have to do is go out and find that evidence.
(Hint: the early creationist geologists gave up about 200 years ago.)

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by slevesque, posted 09-17-2010 12:07 AM slevesque has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 251 of 396 (583640)
09-28-2010 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by Just being real
09-28-2010 5:26 AM


Doing ID/Creation science
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
So If I present an ID experiment that follows all of the above steps, am I to understand that we will accept it as "science?"
You might start with #1.
Let us know when you can observe and describe (in a manner that others can repeat) one or more supernatural critters, and then we will have a beginning.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Just being real, posted 09-28-2010 5:26 AM Just being real has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-28-2010 11:04 AM Coyote has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 258 of 396 (583791)
09-28-2010 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by Just being real
09-28-2010 10:46 PM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
A stick in the hands of a chimpanzee displays apc when he uses it as a tool to retrieve ants from an ant hole.
OK
Given a series of a dozen or more sticks, determine using a series of rules that apply universally, which display apc and which do not.
And determine, using the same set of rules, whether a quartz crystal, and ice cube, and an icicle do or do not display apc.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Just being real, posted 09-28-2010 10:46 PM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Just being real, posted 09-29-2010 7:17 AM Coyote has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 273 of 396 (583859)
09-29-2010 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by Just being real
09-29-2010 7:17 AM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
determine, using the same set of rules, whether a quartz crystal, and ice cube, and an icicle do or do not display apc.
There's no comparison between crystals and protein molecules. Though crystals appear to produce quite elaborate patterns, the information in the crystal is quite small in comparison to a protein molecule. Crystals are merely repeated information.
You are not answering the question, you're ducking!
If you are going to pretend to discern design from non-design you need a set of rules to differentiate between these two objects:
And the rules need to produce the correct answer every time, or else you are left with, "I know it when I see it!" which is useless.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Just being real, posted 09-29-2010 7:17 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by Just being real, posted 09-29-2010 12:58 PM Coyote has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 283 of 396 (583891)
09-29-2010 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by Just being real
09-29-2010 12:58 PM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
You are not answering the question, you're ducking! If you are going to pretend to discern design from non-design you need a set of rules to differentiate between these two objects:
I did set up the rules to discern between design and non design. If we can observe apc then we know for sure based on observation it was designed. The fact that we do not observe apc may not necessarily tell us it is not designed. It just may mean we have not yet observed the cue needed to decided. For example your first picture is an unknown object. I have no idea what it is or what it is constructed out of. I can see complexity, but I can not see it coupled with particularized information from your photo.
The items in those two photos are a metal cube and a quartz crystal.
One is designed, while the other is natural.
What are your rules for discerning the differences between the two such that you can identify design?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Just being real, posted 09-29-2010 12:58 PM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by Just being real, posted 09-29-2010 1:12 PM Coyote has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024