why creation "science" isn't science

Citing the worst definition that is out of context is a rather feeble attempt to argue creationism is science. Either creationism can meet the scienitific method or it can't. And for it to do so there would have to be testable hypotheses, confirming evidence, potential falsifications and not be falsified. To date, you, nor any other creationist, can't meet that standard.Cheers,
Larry

quote:

---

John Paul:
So it's the worst definition that is out of context, how? Just because you say so? That is a rather feeble rebuttal.

---

No, it is common sense and clear to anyone who has ever taken a college entrance exam. When discussing modern science the scientific method is clearly the determinant of what science is. If you wish to discuss the Arts and Sciences in colleges your definition would be appropriate. Knowledge of the English language is all that is required to know you are misusing that language. If that isn't good enough for you, I would suggest you look at how the philosophy of science classes look at the issue:
http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node5.htmlYou offer no rebuttal to the understanding of the word in context. Unless you can, your argument is silly and assanine. Words' meanings are in relation to their context. Everything in this discussion has centered on modern science.

quote:

---

\John Paul:
It has been done. I showed you where you can read about the what you posted. You didn't like it so you say it doesn't exist. Lame, very lame indeed.

---

No, you haven't provided a scientific theory yet. You have claimed it exists, but you cannot provide a testable hypothesis, confirming evidence, or a potential falsification for this supposed theory. Either do so, or stop trying to claim you have. If you had it woudl be simple to cite the post. You haven't done that, so you have some work to do.

quote:

---

John Paul:
I take it English is your second language. The challenge has been met, you just refuse to see it.

---

Actually, I have questions about your English, with the rather odd definitions of science you attempt to use. Now, where is the theory. Cite where it has been provided in an operationalized manner.Cheers,
Larry

You are ignoring evidence for evolution back to 3 billion years ago and an Earth of the age around 4.5 billion years. This is positive evidence. What you seem to be arguing is that all of that evidence doesn't matter since we don't know everything before it. That isn't evidence for anything you are proposing, it is an argument based the lack of specific evidence for another theory. You could argue that we don't have enough evidence to infer abiogenesis, but this is not evidence against abiogenesis, it is an argument that we don't have enough evidence. This would say nothing about an old Earth or evolution however.And arguing against these theories doesn't support you theory. So why don't you operationalize your theory with testable hypotheses, confirming evidence and potential falsifications.Cheers,
Larry

So operationalize either of these models. What is the hold up?

No one claims scientists are free of bias. However, a scientist is one who uses the scientific method to reduce that bias and come to reliable and valid conclusions. Whether creationism is scientific is entirely dependent on whether it can be operationalized within the scientific method. To date any "theory of creation" introduced is either not able to be operationalized or it has been falsified.

quote:

---

I think bias is still apparent in scientists, despite the scientific method. And if any bias is involved, science can not be pure.

---

Bias is produced by the scientific method. The point of science is to produce a result that is biased towards the "true" state of the natural phenomenon being studied through the use of reliable and valid measures. We test hypotheses specifically to check any previous bias an individual scientist has. The method itself is designed to check prior biases and through doing so arrive at a bias that is consistent with the natural world.

quote:

---

Science is not just facts. It is interpretation of the facts. If a bias affects the interpretation, the science is not perfect.

---

The "interpretation" is testable and in science it is tested. The point of testing hypotheses and providing potential falsifications is exactly to check an individual's bias and provide an accurate finding. The outcome isn't predetermined in science, it is determined by testing hypotheses.

quote:

---

I think Evolutionists and Creationists are equally guilty of letting bias affect interpretation.

---

Evolutionists test their hypotheses and provide potential falsifications. Creationists do not do so. The evidence of this is that one cannot provide a testable theory with potential falsifications of a creationist theory that hasn't already been falsified.

quote:

---

"Why is it Creationists are CONSIDERED the only group of people that let their pre-determined ideas affect their research or interpretation of the facts?"

---

Because they don't test their ideas. They don't submit their biases to the method designed to test those ideas in any meaningful manner.Larry

====talkorigins(a quite biased group claiming to present the facts)A series of FAQs based on the current state of science actually. It is biased, but biased in favor of the scientific conclusions.

Such a questioning would be absurd given the overwhelming support.And it is irrelevant to the question of whether or not there is evidence that falsifies evolution. Nor does it address how creationism is scientific. Indeed, the telling aspect of the discussion is how creationists cannot introduce a scientific theory of creationism nor can they offer any key falsifications of evolution. The discussion instead centers on some sort of conspiracy which is so good that there is absolutely no evidence of it.Cheers,
Larry

So identify a competing theory with testable hypothesses, confirming evidence, potential falsifications and hasn't been falsified. If creationism is science this should be trivial. Complaining about some sort of conspiracy says nothing about the evidence.

Why should evolution be questioned if the evidence is consistent and there aren't competing theories? What evidence calls it into question?

Please provide some evidence of this vast conspiracy....If it exists there should be some evidence for it more than simple assertion by creationists.

All scientists have their work ridiculed. It is called peer review or a job/visiting lecture. They are quite vicious in some cases, but I'm unclear on why a creationist couldn't handle this process, but evolutionists can?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

​

--Besides the fact that the vast majority of this overwhelming support is given its basis on the assumption that evolution has happend, the point was that scientists working with evolution in almost all cases will overlook the question of the foundation of evolution, has it even happend? So they move on to test their theory that requires this to be true.

---

That assumption has been tested, however. You have not addressed the evidence for evolution with any substance other than to insist it is all an assumption. Why don't you specifically address a problem with evolution instead of insisting there are problems (in a different thread).

quote:

---

"And it is irrelevant to the question of whether or not there is evidence that falsifies evolution."
--This is the question he was asking.

---

Again, this might be better suited for another thread, but please provide any alleged falsifications with full citations to the literature.

quote:

---

"Indeed, the telling aspect of the discussion is how creationists cannot introduce a scientific theory of creationism nor can they offer any key falsifications of evolution."
--Creation science is nothing less than scientific, I stand by this response and challenge anyone to defend it as it is true.

---

Argument by assertion. The onus is on you to provide a scientific theory of creation or concerning some aspect of "creation science" that is testable, has confirming evidence, has potential falsifications, and has not been falsified. Claiming it to be true is different than demonstrating such a thing. This would be the appropriate place to demonstrate it.

quote:

---

"The discussion instead centers on some sort of conspiracy which is so good that there is absolutely no evidence of it."
--What kind of conspiracy? Because it defenantly isn't involved with creation science as there is no conspiracy initiated in the science.

---

The conspiracy you are claiming exists throughout the entire scientific community.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[B]"Why should evolution be questioned if the evidence is consistent and there aren't competing theories? What evidence calls it into question?"
--This wasn't the point Cobra was making, its that people often overlook this basis, in which the majority of this 'overwhelming evidence' earns its basis on the assumption that evolution has certainly happend. [/QUOTE]Such as? Could you be specific? This again is an assertion with no support. The literature for evolution is quite vast, why don't you pick an example from it?

quote:

---

Also evolution has an abundance of theories, using different ones you can get a vast veriety on the way evolution has taken place.

---

Cite these different theories with specific literature.

I'm sorry, I missed the cite to that finding. Please provide