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

This is an interesting area, I am going to pose a question that I think is valid and on-topic for this question:Are there any models that creation science has proposed that has been accepted into a peer-reviewed journal? Even to be refuted?This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 07-18-2004 02:16 PM

Practically ever culture worldwide has a legend that there was a worldwide flood in which only a few people survived in a boat.There is a big claim - can you back it up with some examples?If every culture has one - about ten will be fine (of course not including the christian ones).

So can you give us an example of a "good" creation scientist? We could examine the methodologies that person uses and try and work from there.

I do see your point but at the same time it's also an arguement to the future, no?

But that we don't have any evidence of this at present?

Good point - how do you perform science around a belief that cannot be measured by science (ie the idea of God)?

Hi - I don't mean to be rude but that is unreadable (or it just me?).EDIT: No it's not just me - that's unreadable nonsense.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 07-20-2004 02:20 PM

The only evidence I know of for creation is the evidence against the rival hypothesis, evolution. This linkage is not a scientific linkage. It is common sense, which is sometimes the only tool we have to examine things. That is why, when trying to show creation reasonable/probable/very probable, creation scientists attempt to falsify evolution.Why rely on common sense when we have science? If you are saying that creation can't be tested with science, you are basically giving up any claims that you were making towards Creation scienceIndeed as other pointed out - what if you did manage to falsify evolution - so what?That still leaves you with about 3600 Gods who could have done it.
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 07-20-2004 04:47 PMThis message has been edited by Charles Knight, 07-20-2004 05:11 PM

Is there any articulate intelligent evolutionists believer out there who can prove evolution subjects are scientific subjects. (in 30 words or less)That's a bit of a bloody cheek isn't it? considering how rambling and hard to understand your post was?

Well with that post - you have eliminated the christian god as being the creator of the universe - because according to your post he does not exist. If he does not exist, the bible must be lies and therefore Creation science (in the christian sense) must be false.So that's this all wrapped up - it's rubbish. ten bonus points to the person that can tell us why!This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 07-23-2004 08:32 PM

What is a naturalist? I hear the term a lot here but don't encountered it in the UK?

Can you give us an example of how they present the origins of life?

Generally - no.He may do scientific work which he submits to a journal while working as a SCIENTIST, however once he does something connected with the big C - then generally it never goes to such publications...strange that.

em...because that's a term that creationist like to use to make it sound like there is a real basic to their work.Sure some of them are even real scientists - but remember it's the science not the scientist that we are interested in. Testimonial means nothing.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 08-06-2004 08:48 PM

If you don't know - why don't you find out? - where is the "fair debate" in making points just because you want to upset someone - how does that add to the debate?