Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-26-2019 1:47 PM
31 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,827 Year: 9,863/19,786 Month: 2,285/2,119 Week: 321/724 Day: 46/114 Hour: 1/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
1718
...
27NextFF
Author Topic:   "Creation Science" experiments.
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 226 of 396 (583424)
09-27-2010 4:58 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by Just being real
09-27-2010 4:07 AM


Re: A few guidelines
No you didn't. What you laid out were examples of scientific experiments. But you did not define what qualifies as science in your eyes. And this is what I seem to not be able to convey to you people. Your beginning post of this thread lays out the question like the old childhood school bully who asks, "Does your Daddy know your so dumb?" The very question postulates itself in such a way that a plain yes or no answer sets up the person to fail either way. To answer no means that the kid is admitting he is dumb but just that his daddy doesn't know it.

As bad excuses go, this absurd not-actually-an-analogy is a bad excuse for a bad excuse.

A better analogy would be this: a persistent liar who claims to have a pet unicorn is asked: "Why won't you show us your pet unicorn?". Yes, he's being "set up to fail", but only because he's a liar who doesn't own a pet unicorn. It's his own silly fault.

You are doing the same thing in your request for "creation/ID science experiments." On the one hand you are asking for the experiments, but on the other you define science in such a way as to exclude ID or creation as even being a possibility.

Quote, please?

If that is not true then you would have no problem just defining science in a way that does not exclude ID or creation.

The Scientific Method For Beginners.

If you genuinely don't know what science is, then feel free to post any questions you may have on that thread.

On this thread, perhaps you could stop making feeble excuses for not answering the question, and either start answering it or admit the real reason you can't answer it.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Just being real, posted 09-27-2010 4:07 AM Just being real has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 227 of 396 (583427)
09-27-2010 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by Just being real
09-27-2010 4:07 AM


Re: Not so nice a subtitle
If it was as well defined as you think, then there would not be people like me claiming that creation and ID are scientific theories ...

And I guess if "flat" was as well-defined as we think, there'd be no flat-Earthers.

A disagreement as to whether X is Y need not involve ambiguity in the definition of Y. It can also be because some people are ludicrously wrong about whether X is Y.

(and yes even Richard Dawkins the atheist admits it)

Quote, please?

This is why I insist on having the person I am discussing "science" with, define exactly what they view as science.

See my previous post.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Just being real, posted 09-27-2010 4:07 AM Just being real has not yet responded

hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 228 of 396 (583443)
09-27-2010 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by Just being real
09-27-2010 4:07 AM


Re: A few guidelines
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.

But you did not define what qualifies as science in your eyes.

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.

Your beginning post of this thread lays out the question like the old childhood school bully who asks, "Does your Daddy know your so dumb?" The very question postulates itself in such a way that a plain yes or no answer sets up the person to fail either way. To answer no means that the kid is admitting he is dumb but just that his daddy doesn't know it.

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}

On the one hand you are asking for the experiments, but on the other you define science in such a way as to exclude ID or creation as even being a possibility.

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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Just being real, posted 09-27-2010 4:07 AM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Son, posted 09-27-2010 10:47 AM hooah212002 has responded
 Message 241 by Just being real, posted 09-28-2010 4:26 AM hooah212002 has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30997
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 229 of 396 (583448)
09-27-2010 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by Just being real
09-27-2010 4:07 AM


Re: Not so nice a subtitle
Jbr writes:

AZPaul writes:

"Science" is well defined and has a basic set of ground rules

If it was as well defined as you think, then there would not be people like me claiming that creation and ID are scientific theories (and yes even Richard Dawkins the atheist admits it), and then people like "Jar" (in post #15) clearly saying they are not.

I doubt very much you can point out where Dawkins says there is any valid ID science being done. Second, you are once again misrepresenting what I said, so here is Message 15.

quote:
jar writes:

Jbr writes:

If I'm not mistaken, isn't creation, a form of origins theory?

No, it is not a Theory at all. A Theory explains how some observed fact happens. Creation is just magic.


Note that there you were asserting that Creationism is a form of origins theory and I was pointing out that "goddidit" explains nothing. There is NO mention or discussion related to ID.

Jbr writes:

Again I will be glad to do so just as soon as you define what you mean by "science" and I see that it does not exclude ID as a possibility even before we get started.

ID can be included in science as soon as you present sufficient evidence that there is an Intelligent Designer and place that Designer on the lab table so that we can test both its existence and its intelligence.

Once there is as much evidence of the existence of the Intelligent Designer and of just how intelligent the designer is we can begin to test to see if that particular Designer had anything to do with any of the life forms so far discovered.

We can then decide if the Designer is liable for any product liability suits based on the failure rate and suffering caused by his failed designs.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Just being real, posted 09-27-2010 4:07 AM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by NoNukes, posted 09-27-2010 2:34 PM jar has responded
 Message 242 by Just being real, posted 09-28-2010 4:57 AM jar has responded

Son
Member (Idle past 2002 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 230 of 396 (583449)
09-27-2010 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by hooah212002
09-27-2010 9:30 AM


Re: A few guidelines
Nice message, I want to add that there's a related thread that should interest Just Being Real :http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?control=msg&t=14764

Any new big theories in science is not outright accepted, their proponents have to work before getting there. They don't whine and stuffs saying they're being bullied by big bad science, thye work through the scientific method. Even Darwin had to go through it. I don't understand why ID doesn't just do that. You're supposed to show experiments and say why they work and stuffs, not insist on not showing it until you get a "fair hearing".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by hooah212002, posted 09-27-2010 9:30 AM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by hooah212002, posted 09-27-2010 11:01 AM Son has not yet responded

  
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 231 of 396 (583450)
09-27-2010 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by Son
09-27-2010 10:47 AM


Re: A few guidelines
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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Son, posted 09-27-2010 10:47 AM Son has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4140
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 232 of 396 (583459)
09-27-2010 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Just being real
09-27-2010 4:07 AM


The Smell of Weenies Roasting In A Campfire
If it was as well defined as you think, then there would not be people like me claiming that creation and ID are scientific theories

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?

(and yes even Richard Dawkins the atheist admits it)

You mean the dishonestly edited interview from that propaganda piece Expelled? Are you really this stupid?

you know what the "kitty said when the milk ran dry."

I think it was something like:

"I have nothing so I might as well dance!"

I could be wrong here.

But to throw the baby out with the bath water is not a fair reaction. You and I both know that some in the "Evolution camp" have not all been on the up and up.

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.

Likewise you can not use peoples sinister motives for using ID, as a reason to disqualify it as a scientific theory.

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.

I agree that some had ill intents in the ID community.

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.

Again I will be glad to do so just as soon as you define what you mean by "science" and I see that it does not exclude ID as a possibility even before we get started.

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 message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Just being real, posted 09-27-2010 4:07 AM Just being real has not yet responded

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 233 of 396 (583466)
09-27-2010 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by jar
09-27-2010 10:11 AM


Re: Not so nice a subtitle
jar writes:

ID can be included in science as soon as you present sufficient evidence that there is an Intelligent Designer and place that Designer on the lab table so that we can test both its existence and its intelligence.

I think you are overstating the requirements for ID to be considered science when you require that the Designer be placed on the lab bench. Even indirect, circumstantional, material evidence for a designer ought to be sufficient as long as it leads logically, and nearly inevitably to the existence of the designer. What is important is that ID lead to predictions that can be verified by experiment.

Scientist know that stars are formed when the heat generated by gravitational collapse starts is sufficient to start hydrogen fusion. But nobody has ever collapsed a cloud of hydrogen in a lab.

My opinion is that ID is non scientific primarily because no methodology is given for identifying the designer's work other than the marvel or incredulity of the ID proponent. IDists simply adapt Justice Stewart's, "I know it when I see it" approach to identifying obsenity to identifying design work.

IMO, there is nothing wrong with believing things for non-scientific reasons. Only a few people have any real interest whatsoever in ID being considered science. Even most YECs accept that creation was a supernatural event.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by jar, posted 09-27-2010 10:11 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by hooah212002, posted 09-27-2010 3:34 PM NoNukes has responded
 Message 238 by jar, posted 09-27-2010 5:21 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

Taq
Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 234 of 396 (583472)
09-27-2010 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Just being real
09-26-2010 11:37 AM


Re: Not "pseudoscience" -- it IS pseudoscience
To you it is not science when the conclusions allow for an intelligent source for life and the universe.

If you had read the rest of the post you would realize the mistake that you just made. It is not the conclusion that is the problem. It is the dogmatic nature of the conclusion that is the problem. No matter what the evidence is the conclusion is still held as being true.

I don't think that is what they said at all.

Yeah, it is.

"Of greater concern to both supporters and skeptics of the RATE project is the issue of how to dispose of the tremendous quantities of heat generated by accelerated decay during the Genesis Flood. The amount of heat produced by a decay rate of a million times faster than normal during the year of the Flood could potentially vaporize the earth’s oceans, melt the crust, and obliterate the surface of the earth. The RATE group is confident that the accelerated decay they discovered was not only caused by God, but that the necessary removal of heat was also superintended by Him as well."
http://www.icr.org/article/rate-review-unresolved-problems/

They have God magic away the heat so that it is no longer a problem. Does that sound like science to you? Can you point to other scientific studies that wish away contradictory evidence by claiming "God did it"? I can't.

The clear consequence of their accelerated decay model is the destruction of the Earth by massive amounts of heat. Obviously, the Earth is still here and has not suffered a massive meltdown. If this is not a problem for their model, then please tell us what would be.

They suggest that if several of the "world clocks" suggest a young earth and several suggest an old one, it is not being very responsible to only "cherry pick" the one's that best suits your world view.

None of the clocks do suggest a young earth. That is the problem.

Of course the RATE team are Biblical creationists and therefor their world view allows for a "Goddidit" as a possible explanation. That doesn't mean they quit the investigation at all.

So what experiments do you do after you decide that "Goddidit"? You pretty much have to close up the lab and go home, don't you?

But this highlights a very serious problem for creation science. No matter what the results of an experiment are they will still claim that the Earth is young, that there was a recent global flood, and that species were created separately. It doesn't matter what the evidence shows. They will still push the same conclusion. The RATE group demonstrates this perfectly. If you don't believe me, then tell us what type of geologic formation would be inconsistent with a global flood? I have yet to meet a YEC that will answer this question.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Just being real, posted 09-26-2010 11:37 AM Just being real has not yet responded

hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 235 of 396 (583473)
09-27-2010 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by NoNukes
09-27-2010 2:34 PM


Re: Not so nice a subtitle
Even indirect, circumstantional, material evidence for a designer ought to be sufficient as long as it leads logically, and nearly inevitably to the existence of the designer.

Scientist know that stars are formed when the heat generated by gravitational collapse starts is sufficient to start hydrogen fusion. But nobody has ever collapsed a cloud of hydrogen in a lab.

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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by NoNukes, posted 09-27-2010 2:34 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by NoNukes, posted 09-27-2010 5:24 PM hooah212002 has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 236 of 396 (583474)
09-27-2010 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Just being real
09-26-2010 11:37 AM


Re: Not so nice a subtitle
Again, that depends on how you are going to define science. If you define it in a way that excludes ID as an explanation from the beginning... well then I guess according to you... not.

Here is a simple rundown of the scientific method:

quote:
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.
source


Can you show us how we can test ID using those steps?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Just being real, posted 09-26-2010 11:37 AM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Just being real, posted 09-28-2010 5:26 AM Taq has responded

frako
Member
Posts: 2814
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 237 of 396 (583484)
09-27-2010 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Just being real
09-26-2010 11:37 AM


Re: Not so nice a subtitle
Again, that depends on how you are going to define science. If you define it in a way that excludes ID as an explanation from the beginning... well then I guess according to you... not.

ok this is how the scientific method works and has worked for well some say over 1000 years and it is the core of what science is.

1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.
2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.
3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?
4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.[13]

or

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

i got this from Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

read the article there follow the steps form a hypothesis show us the data then we can talk about creation being plausible oh and your hypothesis cannot contradict any known fact

moste of you creationist have problems whit step 4 (Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.[13])

read about it here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

Edited by frako, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Just being real, posted 09-26-2010 11:37 AM Just being real has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30997
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 238 of 396 (583486)
09-27-2010 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by NoNukes
09-27-2010 2:34 PM


Re: Not so nice a subtitle
But they claim more then just design, they claim an Intelligent Designer.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by NoNukes, posted 09-27-2010 2:34 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 239 of 396 (583487)
09-27-2010 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by hooah212002
09-27-2010 3:34 PM


Re: Not so nice a subtitle
hooah212002 writes:

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.

You are setting a standard that many branches of science cannot meet.

I don't believe anyone has ever witnessed the process of a protostar becoming a star. The process simply takes too long. Instead we have observed many protostars and gas clouds in various pre-star states. In addition the process of star formation has been modeled on computers programmed with our understandings of how molecular clouds and plasmas behave. There is surely enough evidence supporting the scientific explanation of star formation, but it is all indirect evidence.

While we have not witnessed a human being created ex-nihilo, neither have we ever seen a human evolve from a non-human ancestor. All of the evidence for such evolution is indirect, but nevertheless convincing. In my opinion ID's failure to be science is not that it is not evidenced by direct observation, but that it is not empirically evidenced at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by hooah212002, posted 09-27-2010 3:34 PM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by hooah212002, posted 09-27-2010 7:09 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 240 of 396 (583506)
09-27-2010 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by NoNukes
09-27-2010 5:24 PM


Re: Not so nice a subtitle
You're putting words in my mouth, I believe.

I don't believe anyone has ever witnessed the process of a protostar becoming a star.

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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by NoNukes, posted 09-27-2010 5:24 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
1718
...
27NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019