"Creation Science" experiments.

Um, yes, he does, and rightly so.If a group of organisms live in a harmonious order, then their relative behaviour to each other is kind of the entire makeup of that harmony.How can you have something living in harmony with something else if they have no relationship whatsoever? How can you have an "easily demonstrable order" if there are no relationships and therefore no order at all? Meh. Neither he nor I hold the creationist position, so we are bound to represent it as we see it. Just as you misrepresent evolution and science in general when arguing against us.
Not holding two conflicting positions at once is actually something I would expect of one with intelligence capable of reaching a conclusion as to selecting one or the other. Your lack of respect and direct resort to insult, however, indicates that perhaps you aren't yet at that level.

But just as we can gather evidence about how Lincoln's address occurred and did not occur, we should be able to find clear evidence that exists if and only if something was intelligently designed or saltationally created.Hooah asks for any experiment which has the potential to falsafy divine creation or ID if those were not correct. Yet not a single creation "scientist" can provide such an experiment, nor indeed even a consistent rationale in which the divine or supernatural could be included in the scientific method.They've got no leg to stand on, so they fall flat on their faces as soon as the race starts.
But like all fair-minded people, we give them the chance to try if they want to. And like all reasonably sensible people, we laugh when they, despite knowing their incapability, fail miserably.

And when you have tens of thousands of different scientists from hundreds of different cultures and religions all finding the same data and coming to the same conclusions, why do you think this is confirmation bias rather than just confirmation?Need I point out that the first people to invalidate the global flood myth were in fact those who went looking specifically to demonstrate that it was true?
That was 200 years ago, by the way. Since then archaeologists and historians and geologists (and indirectly, physicists and chemists) have found sites and evidence that further dismantles the myth's possible reality. You can't get much better than someone who wants to show something, and instead finds and acknowledges evidence that they were exactly wrong. Except evolution isn't just an interpretative framework. It's a predictive framework too: it makes predictions that can only be valid if evolution is a fact. And these predictions turn out to be right (see the dozens of papers linked to in all of the various threads here for examples).Creationism can only ever be an interpretative framework, because it does not make predictions. It fails to be science on that alone. Then again, it doesn't actually explain how or why anything. All it does is say what happened. "Flood this" and "God did that" are not explanations. They're excuses not to provide one. Name one prediction that was made by the creationist model and turned out to be correct. By prediction I mean "something that could have falisified the concept should it turn out any other way". By "correct" I don't mean "gerrymandered into fitting the a priori assumptions of the Bible being perfect".
Name one creationist research paper that actually provided evidence and reasoning that didn't rely on "the Bible says.." or "God did.." or "we will later find evidence that says.." i.e. where they actually did science instead of apologetics.

ICR and AIG collect thousands each year from donations.

Idiots like Michael Behe and Ken Ham earn hundreds of thousands each year from their book sales.

Kent Hovind owned 10 properties which were seized after he was convicted of owing US$600000 in taxes from a 3 year period; that's 200K a year, which means he and/or his company earned at least a million dollars each year through book and merchandise sales. That is, in fact, what was reported as quoted here. His theme park was earning that much on its own.

​

Saying that creationists don't have money is plain bullshit, and you should know better.

No.
I was saying that despite almost every one of those scientists bringing beliefs and expectations, many of which are not ever the same, they stil manage to agree on evolution being a fact. So, why can all of these diverse starting points reach the same answer no matter what?Unless you wish to suggest scientists come to the lab with conpiracies in the forefront of their minds? You call my statement "misrepresentative"? I couldn't think of something that was further from the truth.
Well over 99.9% of scientists in the relevant fields acknowledge the reality of evolution. Creationists are a tiny minority, and for all intents and pruposes they are truly relegated to the sideline, only watching and wishing they could get in to play. But they can't and won't, because creationism is not science. Had I been able to reply sooner, I would have had two, one of which has been provided already:

Adam Sedgwick (see message 152 by Taq).

William Buckland (Bridgewater Treatise, 1836. Also see any remotely complete biography about the man).
I did have a third, but can't remember the name or a reference.

​

Baumgardner's Catastrophic plate tectonics model..

has already been hacked apart by Dr Adequate; I imagine he's used to it by now, all prepped with a generic "[insert list of problems] [insert quoted claims of Goddidit] [insert actual evidence that demonstrates the opposite claim to be correct] [provide sources] [insert caustic remark about creo intelligence] [insert argument conclusion showing that creo is wrong]".
Onwards!

​

Thousands of donations isn't much when you consider the amount of employees they have, and all the rest, don't you think ? When you consider that research projects can go in the millions (as was the case with the RATE) it is expected that they research a lot less then publicly funded researchers.

But the point is that they don't produce any real research at all. They just advertise and promote.
25 million dollars on a museum that features no actual evidence, when you could have spent it on actually getting the evidence? The projects might cost millions, but you be able to do at least a handful of them; maybe an expedition to the Red Sea, a few diggings around the world to find flood deposits in the same geological layer, maybe an improved version of the RATE Project... fuck, it's not a hard decision to make if they actually wanted to do it. But they don't, because they know they're wrong, and as long as they never do it themselves they can always say it's a conspiracy against Christianity -- once again, ignoring the fact that a lot of scientists are Christians -- and continue their propaganda.

​

Behe is not a creationist.

Ah, the old 'No True Scotsman' game! Gee, you guys really love it, don't you. Next you'll be saying that Buckland wasn't one because he was only a "pretend creationist" because he was old-earther.
Yeh-no, he promotes intelligent design. He's a creationist.

​

And Hovind is an idiot

An idiot, yes. But also a creationist who made millions of dollars a year.

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. 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? 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?

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.

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...

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. Then what the hell is this if not commenting on their findings: 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.