The Nature of Scientific Inquiry - Contrasted with Creation "Science"

First, the mouth of the Mississippi and it's course have moved quite often. The delta is also built up, and then washed away by storms. Core samples from the Great Barrier Reef record over 600,000 years of punctuated growth. The Chinese calendars all date from significant events, usually the establishment of a Dynasty. The Hebrew calendar begins (guess what) with the OT Genesis tale. But regardless, none of those are proof or even evidence of a true beginning. Check out the Hindu calendar as an example. There are similarities among many myths.BUT...there is no physical evidence of a world-wide flood that has been found to date.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Actually, the ones like the Great Barrier Reef are pretty new. Like I said, they may be as young as 600,000 years. But then there are the ones that make up the several of the limestone layers of the Cambrian Era.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Here's some info on the Mississippi River. That is from USGSI'm sorry but it is very hard to point to an example when there simply is "No Evidence".What would I consider evidence of a world-wide flood? Well, floods do leave some pretty good evidence. There are many many examples that have been found over the years. But they have all been localized and the causes pretty well understood. The last really big one that wouold have been close to world-wide would have been after the last ice age but it would still have been coastal in nature and certainly didn't cover mountains.But there are also many examples that absolutely falsify a great world-wide flood and many of those have been pointed out to you. For example, the Australian Great Barrier Reef shows that there has not been a major flood, particularly one that changed the salinity of sea water to fresh water in at least 600,000 years.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Very glad that you brought this up.What you describe is a classic example of how many folk think science works. Too bad they are wrong.What actually happens (and happens quite often) is that the Evolutionist sees the old dog and young cat. Where you make the error is in the next step. That is not what would happen. The Evolutionist might well and reasonably make a hypothesis that the dog birthed the cat. That is certainly a valid hypothesis. But that is all that it is. The hypothesis must then be tested. When that happens, it will become obvious that the dog and cat are different species. Therefore, it is unlikely that the dog birthed the cat. Hypothesis disproved.Evolutionist happy.But let's carry it a few steps further. Let's say that the studies done on the dog and the cat included physiological and DNA examination. Those examonations show that there are many similarities between the two critters. They both appear to be, based on all the evidence, the same KIND of critter, namely Mammals. In fact, the DNA analysis shows that they share many of the same patterns, identical links, in their DNA. From that is possible to make another hypothesis, that all mammals will share certain traits.Lots of other mammals are tested and guess what, they all do share certain common traits. So the new hypothesis is supported.But then the question comes up, what about things that are not mammals? So lots of them are examined. And again, lots of similarities are found. So yet another hypotesis is made. The new hypothesis is that all the things that share those common traits are another KIND, a bigger KIND, called animals.But what about things that are not animals? So lots of things that are not animals, grass and trees and flowers and moss and lichen are tested and guess what, they all share common traits. So yet another hypothesis is proposed, and that is that all them things are part of a super KIND called living things.And that is the difference between science and Creation Science.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You are still confusing terms it seems. Many Evolutionists have no problem with "In the beginning God", but the rest of the Genesis myth, the seven literal days has certainly been falsified. Not even most Christian Churches hold that as a literal interpretation and it is certainly not part of many Christian's Dogma.But you still make an error in your view of how science works.Science does not work to prove OR disprove any Theory.You do make a hypothesis. You do test the hypothesis. But proving or disproving the hypothesis are equally valid outcomes. The conclusion can never come first.When you say that something has a goal of disproving some theory, that means you have already determined the conclusion.That is not, and can not be science.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

First, can you use the little red button to respond to each post, that way someone knows when you have responded to them.

quote:

---

jar said:
Not even most Christian Churches hold that as a literal interpretation and it is certainly not part of many Christian's Dogma.

---

and jt responded: Nonsense. That is a statement of fact. It can be independantly tested and verified or refuted. I provided a list of churches in the US that have stated their opinions. You can argue with the list or provide one of your own, but it is hardly an appeal to authority.You went on to say: Well, surprise, I bet every Evolutionist would agree that Creation occured. At least those that exist would agree. Evolution does not deal with creation. You know that. So are you saying that the first couple verses of Genesis should be taken literally?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

If you use one big post, most folk will not know you've responded. By doing it as you did this one, they get notified quickly that you have responded.This message has been edited by jar, 08-05-2004 10:37 PM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well, since Evolution and the theory of evolution have absolutely nothing to do with creation, I don't see how it can make much difference. But it's fine to describe yourself anyway that you think explains your position. For example, I fully support evolution and also believe in Creation. But those are two different and unrelated subjects.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Sorry, JT, but Schraf is right. In fact, the YEC idea was falsified long before Darwin published his book. YEC has never been able to explain the world we see around us and certainly fell apart as soon as we began to understand where the stars were really located.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

When you go out at night do you see stars?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Do you know where those stars are actually located?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Okay. I see there is little point in going on with this. Enjoy your beliefs.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

They beat the hell out of the long rambling ones IMHO.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Not your post specifically. But we have a few members that have to parse every single line of the posts they are responding too. Also a few posters that even after you read it a half dozen times you are still not sure whatthey were trying to say.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion