Science is evidence-driven. That is, theories are developed from the evidence found in nature; they are frameworks for understanding the evidence.
quote:
Right.
By contrast, Creation science begins not with evidence, but with the conclusion; "the bible is factually correct in all things regarding nature".
quote:
Yes.
This makes Creation 'science' revalatory in nature, not evidence-driven. They believe thay can know the conclusion before they ever even look at any evidence. This is backwards to the way real science is conducted.
quote:
This is how science should work. Search for ALL possible explanations of the facts. My belief that eventually explanations consistent with and supportive of a recent creation and flood will surface is no different than your belief that the same will happen for the TOE.
Sorry, how science "should" work, according to your preference and religious bias, is not how it DOES work.
Also, you do know that the Theory of Evolution is among the most supported theories in all of science, don't you?
It is quite ridiculous for you to say that it isn't supported by the evidence.
You can only be completely ignoring the evidence, or you have been lied to.
quote:
Since I am biased left and you are biased right, and both of us are basically capable of looking at and honestly evaluating evidence, there will be a competition between our two interpretations of the evidence. Competition is always good for bringing out the truth, which is why we have courts. Right now the Judge and Jury are all biased towards the prosecution and there is no one willing and able to step up to the defense.
You are under the mistaken impression the Creationism has any scientific merit in the least.
That's the point, Hangdawg. Creationism is just religious dogma, dressed up in a lab coat and holding a beaker, trying to look impressive and educated to people ignorant of real science. It doesn't follow any of the rules of scientific inquiry, so it has no clout or power in scientific matters, any more than Astrology, Dowsing, or Alien Abduction claims do.
You also still do not understand that the theory of Evolution has been tested millions of times and has survived those tests.
Every time we find a fossil in the layer the Theory predicted it would be in, the theory survived another test. Every time the predicted (through morphology) evolutionary relationship between species is confirmed with genetics, the theory is strengthened. etc.
Science works by doubting, Hangdawg.
If you do not think that the ToE has been tested enough to trust it's validity, you must also pretty much mistrust all scientific theories, because not many of them have been tested as much as the ToE.
quote:
I know what you mean by cherry picking, but I think it is unfair to imply that evolutionists do not also do this.
Show me any scientific paper from the professional literature that does not bend over backwards to include all the ways their conclusions could be explained in other ways.
The peer-review process is
specifically designed to weed out this kind of sloppy/dishonest research.
quote:
I recognize that much evidence exists that is interpreted to support the evolutionary theory. Those who believe it is true are not morons. But facts can be interpreted in different ways.
Sure, but to ignore the accumulated work of hundreds of thousands of scientists over the last 150 years because you think that sometime, in the future, all of it will be shown to be wrong, AND your non-scientific religious creation myth will be shown to be correct, seems silly, willfully ignorant and narrow minded.
quote:
Right now, everyone interprets facts to fit the evolutionary model.
Nope, that's not how science is done, as I have explained. I will do it again...
The facts/evidence found either fit the
predictions of the theory/explanation or they do not.
See, the
predictions are made ahead of time, before the evidence is found. If the evidence fulfills the
prediction, then the theory is strengthened. If the evidence contradicts the
prediction, the theory is shown to have some problems.
quote:
Scientists, being so sure that evolution is true, have forgotten that many things are still unproven assumptions.
Nope, that is not how science is done.
Each
prediction is a test of the theory. There are no assumptions, only provisional acceptance that the ToE is the best current explanation of the evidence.
...unless you are expecting scientists to continue to seriously doubt that which has been shown to hold up under millions of repeated tests for the last 150 years.
Science could never progress if we, for example, continued to test the premise that germs cause disease. We "assume" that the ToE is accurte in the same way we "assume" that the Germ Theory of Disease or the Atomic Theory of Matter are accurate.
quote:
It is still an unproven assumption that all strata is the result of billions of years of deposition.
No, it is not "assumed", it is
inferred from the evidence.
quote:
Some evidence that would confirm this as fact is also based on assumptions.
This makes no sense.
Evidence cannot be based upon "assumptions". Evidence just is.
quote:
For some evidence that would confirm this, an alternative explanation has never been sought. It is my desire as a creation scientist to explore plausible alternative explanations of the evidence.
You do realize that this already happened 200 years ago, right?
It always astounds me how little most Creationists know about the history of their own movement.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/6040/flood21.htm
Flood geology was considered and tested by early-nineteenth-century geologists. They never believed that a single flood had produced all fossil-bearing strata, but they did accept and then disprove a claim that the uppermost strata contained evidence for a single, catastrophic, worldwide inundation. The science of geology arose in nations that were glaciated during the great ice ages, and glacial deposits are similar to the products of floods. During the 1820s, British geologists carried out an extensive empirical program to test whether these deposits represented the action of a single flood. The work was led by two ministers, the Reverend Adam Sedgwick (who taught Darwin his geology) and the Reverend William Buckland. Buckland initially decided that all the "superficial gravels" (as these deposits were called) represented a single event, and he published his Reliquiae diluvianae (Relics of the Flood) in 1824. However, Buckland's subsequent field work proved that the superficial gravels were not contemporaneous but represented several different events (multiple ice ages, as we now know). Geology proclaimed no worldwide flood but rather a long sequence of local events. In one of the great statements in the history of science, Sedgwick, who was Buckland's close colleague in both science and theology, publicly abandoned flood geology -- and upheld empirical science -- in his presidential address to the Geological Society of London in 1831.
'Having been myself a believer, and, to the best of my power, a propagator of what I now regard as a philosophic heresy, and having more than once been quoted for opinions I do not now maintain, I think it right, as one of my last acts before I quit this Chair, thus publicly to read my recantation.... 'There is, I think, one great negative conclusion now incontestably established -- that the vast masses of diluvial gravel, scattered almost over the surface of the earth, do not belong to one violent and transitory period....
™ Version 4.2