Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "Creation Science" experiments.
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 166 of 396 (581910)
09-18-2010 3:57 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by Nij
09-18-2010 1:30 AM


Re: Behe
Be fair, Behe is an ex-creationist. Now he just peddles the idea that God does a bit of genetic tinkering to help evolution out. Excepting that issue he now accepts universal common descent. Which rather raises the question of how this could happen if the evidence really supported creationism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Nij, posted 09-18-2010 1:30 AM Nij has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 167 of 396 (581915)
09-18-2010 5:27 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by slevesque
09-15-2010 4:34 PM


Re: Creation/ID "Science" and Discovery
Hi Slev - concerning your list of PhDs, just have to ask this: how many PhDs do you think there are in the world that recognise that the earth is only several Ka in age, but do not profess a faith in an Abrahamic deity?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by slevesque, posted 09-15-2010 4:34 PM slevesque has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 168 of 396 (581918)
09-18-2010 6:21 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by slevesque
09-15-2010 4:34 PM


Scientists who are creationists make for very bad science
Ok, so I took a look down Slev's list looking for someone related to my own field. Not many theoretical physicists there, nor cosmologists, but I did find an astronomer/astrophysicist in Ron Samec, who is currently at Bob Jones University...
Popping over to CreationWiki to find some of his articles (deliberately not hot-linking here), I find these:
quote:
creation.com/no-sign-of-gravitational-lensing-in-the-cosmic-microwave-background
Here, Ron picks up on a single paper: On the absence of gravitational lensing of the cosmic microwave background and uses it to claim:
quote:
This is a major blow to the big bang theory where the existence of the CMB is the main evidence for its occurrence...
...Thus the CMB may not be the ‘whimper’ of the big bang, but just a rather homogeneous but dirty expulsion of a nearby supernova.
Ok, I give him credit for his "may not be" uncertainty, but he is using his position as an astrophysicist to write the usual desperate "see, look how secular science is falling apart" article. Pathetic.
Oh, sorry. How valid was the paper he referenced? You judge. Here's the relevant papers from the arxive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by slevesque, posted 09-15-2010 4:34 PM slevesque has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by PaulK, posted 09-18-2010 6:25 AM cavediver has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 169 of 396 (581919)
09-18-2010 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by cavediver
09-18-2010 6:21 AM


Re: Scientists who are creationists make for very bad science
Given that the list includes Jack Cuozzo (a crazy dentist) I do have to wonder just how many of the entries are pure padding...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by cavediver, posted 09-18-2010 6:21 AM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Theodoric, posted 09-18-2010 11:19 AM PaulK has not replied

Just being real
Member (Idle past 3935 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 170 of 396 (581937)
09-18-2010 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by jar
09-17-2010 4:00 PM


Re: Creation/ID "Science" and Discovery
It is not necessary to know who designed a car to know how cars work.
This is true. But I'll bet you're a lot more confident driving family and friends in the car, with the knowledge it was designed...
...rather than blown together by a chance wind storm and lightning strikes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by jar, posted 09-17-2010 4:00 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by jar, posted 09-18-2010 10:14 AM Just being real has not replied

Just being real
Member (Idle past 3935 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 171 of 396 (581938)
09-18-2010 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by Straggler
09-17-2010 4:00 PM


Re: Creation/ID "Science" and Discovery
I simply question the validity of such interpretations because they have never demonstrated themselves as reliable in terms of prediction and discovery.
But you apparently are about to change all that for me. So let's hear it?
Again, post 155 third paragraph.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Straggler, posted 09-17-2010 4:00 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by AZPaul3, posted 09-18-2010 11:05 AM Just being real has not replied
 Message 182 by Theodoric, posted 09-18-2010 11:21 AM Just being real has not replied
 Message 189 by Straggler, posted 09-20-2010 8:31 AM Just being real has not replied

Just being real
Member (Idle past 3935 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 172 of 396 (581939)
09-18-2010 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by menes777
09-17-2010 4:36 PM


Re: Creation/ID "Science" and Discovery
You are missing the OP's point, he wasn't asking for you to show him proof of creation/ID from someone else's work. He was asking for an experiment (so to speak) that we all can do that will show us proof that creationism or ID is scientific.
And all of my posts since I started commenting, have been explaining why the question is not valid. For anyone to attempt such a feat would be similar to the wisdom of putting braille on the sign in this link.
Forbidden
The blind will never see it until its too late and hits em square in the face.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by menes777, posted 09-17-2010 4:36 PM menes777 has not replied

Just being real
Member (Idle past 3935 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 173 of 396 (581940)
09-18-2010 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by bluegenes
09-17-2010 5:29 PM


Re: Atheists for supernatural science!
We observe that time is a property of the universe.
Actually time is a human invention and therefore only relevant within the construct of human thought. Therefore for humans to "think" about what was before there was a universe is completely logical. We observe the effects of decay, rust, erosion, and particle break down and call it "aging" but in truth, our invention of time has nothing to do with those effects.
In this way time is similar to a number line a teacher has drawn on the board before her students. Though it ends at each edge of the board, the arrows signify it continuing on. We can imagine it carrying on infinitely in both directions. Since we "drew" the time line we can also conceive of time infinitely in both directions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by bluegenes, posted 09-17-2010 5:29 PM bluegenes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by cavediver, posted 09-18-2010 9:25 AM Just being real has replied

Just being real
Member (Idle past 3935 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 174 of 396 (581941)
09-18-2010 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by Taq
09-17-2010 6:06 PM


Re: Creation/ID "Science" and Discovery
All theories start out as an untested hypothesis which is very different than a myth. A hypothesis is, by definition, testable.
I said a myth "of sorts," meaning a concept explaining the occurrence of a specific phenomena. Isn't that what the definition of a hypothesis is?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Taq, posted 09-17-2010 6:06 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Granny Magda, posted 09-19-2010 1:31 PM Just being real has not replied
 Message 190 by Taq, posted 09-20-2010 7:11 PM Just being real has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 175 of 396 (581944)
09-18-2010 9:13 AM


...rather than blown together by a chance wind storm and lightning strikes.
Your point being...? If you are referring to, say, human life, remember that you are the product of many billions of generations of organisms that all survived long enough to reproduce. And the did so despite chance wind storms and lightning strikes.
Actually time is a human invention and therefore only relevant within the construct of human thought.
Bologna. Are you telling me a bear in the woods doesn't age unless a human is nearby with a calendar? That a smallish star doesn't start as a cloud of gas and end up as a white dwarf even if nobody is timing it?

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Just being real, posted 09-18-2010 11:14 AM Coragyps has replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 176 of 396 (581948)
09-18-2010 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by Just being real
09-18-2010 8:51 AM


Re: Atheists for supernatural science!
Actually time is a human invention and therefore only relevant within the construct of human thought. Therefore for humans to "think" about what was before there was a universe is completely logical. We observe the effects of decay, rust, erosion, and particle break down and call it "aging" but in truth, our invention of time has nothing to do with those effects.
No, you are completely wrong about this. I can think of four separate concepts that are referred to by the word time, only one of which has anything to do with human "thought". I think you need to learn quite a bit more before you start making blanket proclamations like this. It helps prevent you look quite so stupid.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Just being real, posted 09-18-2010 8:51 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Just being real, posted 09-18-2010 11:14 AM cavediver has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 177 of 396 (581949)
09-18-2010 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by Just being real
09-18-2010 8:50 AM


Re: Creation/ID "Science" and Discovery
This is true. But I'll bet you're a lot more confident driving family and friends in the car, with the knowledge it was designed...
...rather than blown together by a chance wind storm and lightning strikes.
In fact I would have far more confidence in a vehicle that evolved biologically than in one designed by a human. I would have to be very foolish not to.
But you are also just showing that you have no clue what the Theory of Evolution says.
That is also why it is likely that no Creationist has been able to present a "Creation Science" experiment.
So here is an experiment for you.
In your own words, try to explain why I would have far more confidence in a vehicle that evolved biologically than in one designed by a human.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Just being real, posted 09-18-2010 8:50 AM Just being real has not replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 178 of 396 (581955)
09-18-2010 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Just being real
09-18-2010 8:51 AM


Re: Creation/ID "Science" and Discovery
Again, post 155 third paragraph.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Just being real, posted 09-18-2010 8:51 AM Just being real has not replied

Just being real
Member (Idle past 3935 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 179 of 396 (581956)
09-18-2010 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by Coragyps
09-18-2010 9:13 AM


If you are referring to, say, human life, remember that you are the product of many billions of generations of organisms that all survived long enough to reproduce. And the did so despite chance wind storms and lightning strikes.
Lets say hypothetically I accept that. How did the first organism complete with reproductive capabilities form? Didn't Miller suggest a random lighting strike?
Bologna. Are you telling me a bear in the woods doesn't age unless a human is nearby with a calendar? That a smallish star doesn't start as a cloud of gas and end up as a white dwarf even if nobody is timing it?
I am saying the concept of "aging" is a human invention. Not the current process of things wearing out. We call it aging but things were not originally designed to wear out. And there will come a day when our physical bodies take on an incorruptible nature and no longer wear out. When this occurs "time" as we know it will have no real meaning to us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Coragyps, posted 09-18-2010 9:13 AM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Coragyps, posted 09-18-2010 2:49 PM Just being real has replied
 Message 185 by jar, posted 09-18-2010 2:56 PM Just being real has not replied

Just being real
Member (Idle past 3935 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 180 of 396 (581957)
09-18-2010 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by cavediver
09-18-2010 9:25 AM


Re: Atheists for supernatural science!
No, you are completely wrong about this. I can think of four separate concepts that are referred to by the word time, only one of which has anything to do with human "thought". I think you need to learn quite a bit more before you start making blanket proclamations like this. It helps prevent you look quite so stupid.
Note that you referred to all of them as "concepts" and not laws or phenomena with physical properties. Time is a human "concept."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by cavediver, posted 09-18-2010 9:25 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by cavediver, posted 09-18-2010 1:31 PM Just being real 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