Creation science II

quote:

---

I don't know what you mean by asking what are these studies?--since I gave you quite the long list of what these studies are.

---

I think what everyone would like to see, Kelly, is a specific creation science study. I'm talking about a paper, written by creation scientists, using the methodology of creation science.I can cite scientific papers written by evolutionary biologists. You are being asked to cite a paper for the CS side. Please give it a go. I can't overemphasise how much more seriously you would be taken if you could produce a quality creation science paper.Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : Rephrased it a bit.

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

quote:

---

Was not to prove that these were all creation scientists per sey, but to show that real science existed long before evolutionary scientists were in practice.

---

No-one is disputing that, but it is worth noting that pre-Twentieth Century science was a somewhat different beast to the modern form. Certainly pre-Darwin biology was very different indeed. Since the main distinction between creation science and mainstream science (or "science" as I like to call it ) is the approach to evolution, it is unreasonable to label pre-Darwin scientists as "creation scientist" or otherwise. The label simply makes no sense. For them, there was no dichotomy. The term "creation science" was not coined until the mid-Twentieth Century.In calling someone like Newton a creation scientist you are putting words in his mouth. We cannot say what Newton would think if he were alive today. We don't know what he would make of creation science. Trying to claim him as your own is unreasonable. Newton had no more opinion on the theory of evolution than he did on string theory.

quote:

---

Even today, there are many scientists who perform the so-called real science using all of our scientific methods and data who do not accept evolution in the vertical sense as a good explanation of what we find through these studies.

---

There are many scientist for whom evolution is not relevant to their work. A nuclear physicist, for example, need not concern himself with evolution one way or the other.When it comes to biology however, the overwhelming majority of experts favour evolution. There are not "many" creationist biologists, at least not in comparison to the many evolutionists.

quote:

---

The scientic method, its appraoch, equipment and data do not belong exclusively to those who seek to find evidence of slow evolution.

​

Creationists have every right to these things and have every right to disagree with evolutionists without having to hear that they are just practicing religion.

---

I agree that the scientific method is for everyone. Please bear in mind that people are not objecting to CS because it is misusing the scientific method, but because it does not use the scientific method at all. Where are the peer-reviewed CS studies? I have asked you for these so many times that I have lost count. When are you going to provide us with a quality CS paper?As for religion, CS would not be accused of being religious if it were not for the fact that its practitioners are always religious fundamentalists. It would not be accused of being religious if it were not for the constant efforts of CS groups to push Bible stories as if they were science.You keep pushing What is Creation Science and yet that book is written by two evangelical Christians, who are both members of openly religious pressure groups (AiG and IRC). What do you expect people to think?

quote:

---

The sooner people finally grasp what Creation Science really is, the sooner we can all move on from this tired old song and dance.

---

The sooner you show us some creation science, the sooner you will be able to show us its real merits.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

quote:

---

I think it makes sense that those who adhere to creation science would be Christians by the majority. That does not mean that the science is a study of religion or of the Bible.

---

The mere fact of someone's Christianity does not make them a creation scientist^TM. Take Ken Miller for example. A practising Catholic, Miller is a respected scientist and staunch opponent of creationism/creation science.You seem to be trying to suggest that is, in a sense, no such thing as creation science, only science done by creationists. In actual fact, creation science is quite distinct from what most people think of as science.

quote:

---

I am trying to show that creationists use the same scientific methods and study the same data in the same way as evolutionists do.

---

Well why don't you then? Show us the studies!

quote:

---

Creation Science has nothing to do with religion or the Bible.

---

Did you not notice when dwise1 posted this; {Thanks to dwise1 for that, I hope you don't mind my cribbing!}If creation science and the Bible are not related, they're uncannily similar. Add to this the fact that creation scientists are always fundamentalists and the picture becomes quite clear.If I am wrong, perhaps you would care to back up your earlier assertion that "there are many creationists who do not have a religion or specific belief in any God?". I have named a Christian evolutionist and I can name many more. Can you name these non-religious creation scientists? Perhaps you can point me to a non-religious creation science organisation?

quote:

---

The book I am recommending was written by two scientists who happen to be Christians. In fact, Gary Parker was a staunch evolutionist, with a doctorate in biology, who eventually abandoned those views on evolution later on in his life. Henry Morris has a doctorate from the University of Minnesota where he majored in hydraulics and hydrology and minored in geology and mathmatics.
They practice real science.

---

Henry Morris is no scientist. He knows nothing about biology and has no right whatsoever to claim any authority on the subject of evolution. I am not terribly familiar with Parker, but I would be very surprised to see any actual scientific works from him that specifically deal with creation.If I am wrong, show me the studies.There is also an important distinction to be made here. I have no doubt that there are creationists who have done good scientific work in areas that do not touch evolution, but when they do deal with this kind of subject matter (also topics such as the age of the Earth or the Flood), they don't publish through regular scientific channels. They go straight to a public forum on websites and in popular books, instead of approaching peer-reviewed journals. Why are they so shy of peer-review? Simple; they know that they will get trashed if they peddle their dubious wares in front of experts who actually know the subject. Much better to go direct to the faithful.

quote:

---

There is nothing about true science, by-the-way, that excludes the study of created objects and order as opposed to evolved objects

---

I quite agree. There is nothing to exclude the scientific method from studying created objects. So why the need for creation science at all? Why not just call it "science"?Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

quote:

---

All I had to do was check on one: Australopithecus afarensis,

---

I'm sorry Kelly, but that is most ridiculous thing you have said yet. You only need discredit A. Aferensis and then you will have proved that there are no transitional fossils? Is that really what you are saying? I am amazed.Even if we accept your view that aferensis is only an ape (and by the way, humans are only apes), that still leaves every other proposed transitional fossil for you to debunk. Even if aferensis is not a transitional, Tiktaalik still might be. Do you see where I'm coming from?To claim that no transitional fossil has been found requires that you address every fossil. It's an unenviable task, but I'm afraid that debunking one fossil just doesn't cut it.Besides, you're wrong. A. Aferensis is a transitional fossil. A simple comparison of its cranial capacity compared to that of earlier apes and then to humankind should demonstrate this, along with its appearance at exactly the point in the fossil record where we would expect to see a transitional hominid. Remember, that the existence of hominids was not known to Darwin. They were predicted by evolutionary theory and they were subsequently found. To my mind, that is extremely powerful evidence in favour of evolution.I note that you link to an AiG page. Isn't that the same AiG that you described thus "AIG is not a Creation Science study..it is a biblical creation organization"?Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Is that it?

quote:

---

No one can claim to be doing real science in the operational sense and both are guilty of being influenced by their worldviews. Pretending that evolutionists are different is just too silly!Evolution is also just a religious a faith based model as creation and no more scientific in the historical sense than creation.

---

Three sentences? Even with a fifteen-minute post limit, you're really happy to post so little? Just three sentences, consisting of nothing more than buzzwords? You have brought us two arguments that have already been refuted. You have ignored the refutations and merely repeated the arguments.Do you really think that this is going to convince anybody? You accuse us of being closed-minded, but when you are willing to put so little into your arguments, why should anyone be convinced? You're contribution here has been equivalent to merely repeating "But creation science is real science" over and over again.Do you imagine that we haven't heard this kind of crap before?As long as you are going to keep repeating refuted arguments and discredited creationist slogans in trite one or two paragraph messages, you are wasting your time here. Why not try arguing with evidence? Why not take the AiG Tiktaalik article and rephrase its arguments in your own words for example?Why not? Because you can't be bothered. That is astonishingly lazy, especially given that, if your world-view is correct, our immortal souls might depend upon our being brought around to your way of thinking.For God's sake, make an effort! Present something we can get our teeth into, not just bare links and the mindless repetition of creationist mantras. [/rant]Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade