|
Author
|
Topic: Creation science II
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2317 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
|
Message 76 of 207 (502068)
03-09-2009 1:34 PM
|
Reply to: Message 69 by Kelly
03-09-2009 12:58 PM
|
|
Re: I am sorry
Kelly writes: ut there is no difference between evolutionists and creationists with respect to how they came up with their model or hypothesis.
Yes there is, you even admitted as much. "Evolutionists" started out with data, then formed there hypothesis, made predictions, tested them and they turned out to be correct. That's science Creationists started out (again, by your own admission) with a thing they wanted to prove, and they're searching for evidence to support their beliefs. That's not science.
Neither group has concrete evidence that their theory about how life might have originated is true for sure.
Evolution isn't about the origin of life, not is this thread about evolution.
We each come up with our hypothesis based on what we *think* the evidence will reveal.
WRONG. You gather data, and only THEN come up with the hypothesis, that's how science works. So, again, by your own admission, creation science isn't science.
No one has concluded that macroevolution is true because they can see it happening.
They've concluded that it's true because of what the evidence shows.
It is an extrapolation, something that some *believe* is what microevolution must necessarily lead to. It is an assumption no different than that of the creationist who believes that microevolution reveals design and that the second law precludes anything but creation.
No, it's not, since there's actually evidence for "macroevolution" and there isn't any evidence for "creation". And the second law is not applicable to Earth, since Earth is an open system. Go read up on what thermodynamics actually says, before making such false statements.
Everyone keeps asking me to show you evidence that creationists are doing science with acceptable scientific methods.
Indeed, are you finally going to provide it?
Well I have offered you a book choc-ful-of-examples and facts about it.
No, you haven't. You've asserted time and again that it's science, nowhere have you even given a hint of evidence that it actually is. Like I said, it's not difficult. Let's start it out simple. Answer this question in your own words: "What is creation science?". After you've done that, we can move on. Please, no jabs at evolution or anything else, just tell me in your own words what you think creation science is, and we'll take it from there.
I cannot find much online available for me to direct you to.
I don't want to be directed, I've read most of it already anyway. I want to discuss this with you, not read what some website says about it.
Most things are copyrighted and unless I am going to sit and type you a book, there is not much more I can offer.
Just give me your own words and thoughts, not something you copied off of a website or out of a book, I'm not doing that either.
As I have stated, I am not looking to debate the science, just to show you that creation science is indeed every bit as much a scientific endeavor as is evolution.
Great, then let's start with an answer to that question: "What is creation science?". In your own words please, we'll move along after that has been cleared.
I hunt for the truth
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 69 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 12:58 PM | | Kelly has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 77 of 207 (502073)
03-09-2009 1:45 PM
|
Reply to: Message 75 by Kelly
03-09-2009 1:33 PM
|
|
Re: Very good Modulous
Science is based on observation of facts and is directed at finding patterns of order in observed data. The essence of the scientific method is measurement, observation, repeatability. The great philosopher of science, Karl Popper stresses that "falsifiability" is the necessary criterion of genuine science. A hypothesis must-at least in principle-be testable and capable of being refuted, if it is truly scientific. Hey, you said something true!
Clearly neither model of origins--creation or evolution (Darwinian)--is scientific in this sense. Neither one can be tested for the simple reason that we cannot repeat history. And then you blew it all. Obviously you do not need to repeat history in order to test propositions about it.
That does not mean, however, that their results cannot be observed and tested. This is, we can define two models of origins and then make comparative predictions as to what we should find if creation is true, and conversely, what we should find if evolution is true. The model that enables us to do the best job of predicting things that we then find to be true upon observation is the model most likely to be true. Yes. This is why we know that evolution is true and creationism is rubbish.
They are beyond the reach of the scientific method in the proper sense. Actually, the "proper sense" of "the scientific method" would be the method used by scientists. Not some rubbish that creationists have made up.
You may wish that you can wrap things up nicely and simply determine that creationists are not practicing science, but then you would have to come to the same conclusion about evolution in the vertical sense. No. We would not. Not if we use "science" to mean what scientists mean by "science". And they, not you, are the experts on what science is. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 75 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 1:33 PM | | Kelly has not replied |
|
Kelly
Member (Idle past 5517 days) Posts: 217 Joined: 03-01-2009
|
|
|
Message 78 of 207 (502075)
03-09-2009 2:00 PM
|
Reply to: Message 74 by Percy
03-09-2009 1:30 PM
|
|
Thanks Percy
I didn't know that you accepted anything from ICR or AIG, otherwise, I could link you to alot of arguments against radiometric dating and show you that even if you disgree with their findings, they are coming to their conclusions based on performed scientific studies.
Answers
| Answers in Genesis
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 74 by Percy, posted 03-09-2009 1:30 PM | | Percy has replied |
|
Modulous
Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: 05-01-2005
|
|
|
Message 79 of 207 (502079)
03-09-2009 2:25 PM
|
Reply to: Message 75 by Kelly
03-09-2009 1:33 PM
|
|
Re: Very good Modulous
That is pretty much what I have been trying to say. Neither model can pass the litmus test for being truly scientific. OK, that just about wraps this thread up. Creation Science isn't science. So when you were saying we didn't know what Creation Science was and we were saying that Creation Science wasn't science, we are agreed that we were in fact, correct? Fantastic.
You may wish that you can wrap things up nicely and simply determine that creationists are not practicing science, but then you would have to come to the same conclusion about evolution in the vertical sense. Since evolution isn't on topic we can't really explore whether the problem that affects Creation Science affects evolution. We have tested out what we thought Creation Science was out in two threads dedicated to it, and we seem to have been vindicated that whatever it is, it isn't science. Now, will you dare enter a thread dedicated to evolution and we can explore whether or not evolution is not science? There are plenty out there, might I suggest you go over to Confidence in evolutionary science where I lay out some science as well as some philosophy. You can tell me where I've gone wrong. The cool science bit kicks off at message 17.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 75 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 1:33 PM | | Kelly has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 81 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 2:31 PM | | Modulous has replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 80 of 207 (502081)
03-09-2009 2:26 PM
|
Reply to: Message 78 by Kelly
03-09-2009 2:00 PM
|
|
Re: Thanks Percy
I didn't know that you accepted anything from ICR or AIG, otherwise, I could link you to alot of arguments against radiometric dating and show you that even if you disgree with their findings, they are coming to their conclusions based on performed scientific studies.
Answers
| Answers in Genesis
Being wrong about real science done by real scientists is not the same as being a real scientist doing real science. You, for example, can recite rubbish about the second law of thermodynamics. But that doesn't make you a physicist.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 78 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 2:00 PM | | Kelly has not replied |
|
Kelly
Member (Idle past 5517 days) Posts: 217 Joined: 03-01-2009
|
|
|
Message 81 of 207 (502083)
03-09-2009 2:31 PM
|
Reply to: Message 79 by Modulous
03-09-2009 2:25 PM
|
|
If you say so, Modulous
Lol! But I think you are entertaining on the side of delusional if you think that you have shown that you understand what creation science really is. I believe that you have shown the exact opposite, of course. We don't need to explore anything with regard to what I said about the comparison of models...both are equally unscientific in their format, but the evidence can be studied scientifically to support or refute the hypothesis. No one has disproven the creation model by scientific means. No, not at all. In fact, the evidence is a better fit for creation in my opinion. Thanks for trying, though : ) Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 79 by Modulous, posted 03-09-2009 2:25 PM | | Modulous has replied |
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
|
|
Message 82 of 207 (502085)
03-09-2009 2:39 PM
|
Reply to: Message 78 by Kelly
03-09-2009 2:00 PM
|
|
Re: Thanks Percy
I didn't know that you accepted anything from ICR or AIG, otherwise, I could link you to alot of arguments against radiometric dating and show you that even if you disgree with their findings, they are coming to their conclusions based on performed scientific studies.
Answers
| Answers in Genesis
I've read most of those and dozens of others. They are a mix of misrepresentation, omission, ignorance, religious belief and outright nonsense all trying to look like science. But that is off topic for this thread. We have threads on radiocarbon dating on which you could discuss this issue, or you could start a new thread. Then we could go into the issue in some detail. But be warned: several of the posters here actually know something about radiocarbon dating. I've submitted nearly 600 radiocarbon samples over 30+ years, and have both written and lectured on the subject. Many of us here know when something claimed on one of those sites is accurate and when it is junk. Venture there at your own peril!
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 78 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 2:00 PM | | Kelly has not replied |
|
Modulous
Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: 05-01-2005
|
|
|
Message 83 of 207 (502087)
03-09-2009 2:44 PM
|
Reply to: Message 81 by Kelly
03-09-2009 2:31 PM
|
|
Re: If you say so, Modulous
Lol! But I think you are entertaining on the side of delusional if you think that you have shown that you understand what creation science really is. Well, I think I've been of the position that Creation Science isn't science since the start. You agree with that much at least. That Creation Science is the notion that all life was created by non-natural means into set forms, or 'types' or 'baramin' at some point in the past. Stop me if I'm getting it wrong. Feel free to add things to my description. In Message 30 I even stuck my neck out and tried to make a prediction about Creation Science. based upon what I know about it. You are in a position to show me that that prediction is false.
We don't need to explore anything with regard to what i said about the comparison of models...both are equally unscientific in their format, but the evidence can be studied scientifically to support or refute the hypothesis. Right. If you would like to present some evidence, discuss that evidence scientifically and show how it supports Creation that would be great. If not, I'll see you in one of the evolution threads where you can see how its really done  Yours delusionally but entertainingly, Modulous
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 81 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 2:31 PM | | Kelly has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 88 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 5:35 PM | | Modulous has replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 84 of 207 (502090)
03-09-2009 3:05 PM
|
Reply to: Message 81 by Kelly
03-09-2009 2:31 PM
|
|
Re: If you say so, Modulous
Lol! But I think you are entertaining on the side of delusional if you think that you have shown that you understand what creation science really is. I believe that you have shown the exact opposite, of course. We don't need to explore anything with regard to what I said about the comparison of models...both are equally unscientific in their format, No. Evolution makes testable predictions which have been shown to be correct. This is science.
but the evidence can be studied scientifically to support or refute the hypothesis. Yes. Evolution makes testable predictions which have been shown to be correct. This is science. Incidentally, did you notice that your last two claims contradicted one another? No, you didn't, did you.
No one has disproven the creation model by scientific means. No, not at all. If saying ridiculous nonsense like that magically made it true, then you guys would win every debate. But your words have no such magical power to change reality.
In fact, the evidence is a better fit for creation in my opinion. And in the opinion of scientists, who are familiar with the evidence, unlike you, and who know what science is, unlike you, you are wrong.
"Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision." --- Albanian Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina; Australian Academy of Science; Austrian Academy of Sciences; Bangladesh Academy of Sciences; The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium; Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina; Brazilian Academy of Sciences; Bulgarian Academy of Sciences; The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada; Academia Chilena de Ciencias; Chinese Academy of Sciences; Academia Sinica, China, Taiwan; Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences; Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences; Cuban Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic; Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters; Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt; Acadmie des Sciences, France; Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities; The Academy of Athens, Greece; Hungarian Academy of Sciences; Indian National Science Academy; Indonesian Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran; Royal Irish Academy; Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities; Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy; Science Council of Japan; Kenya National Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic; Latvian Academy of Sciences; Lithuanian Academy of Sciences; Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academia Mexicana de Ciencias; Mongolian Academy of Sciences; Academy of the Kingdom of Morocco; The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences; Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand; Nigerian Academy of Sciences; Pakistan Academy of Sciences; Palestine Academy for Science and Technology; Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru; National Academy of Science and Technology, The Philippines; Polish Academy of Sciences; Acadmie des Sciences et Techniques du Sngal; Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Singapore National Academy of Sciences; Slovak Academy of Sciences; Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academy of Science of South Africa; Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain; National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka; Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences; Council of the Swiss Scientific Academies; Academy of Sciences, Republic of Tajikistan; Turkish Academy of Sciences; The Uganda National Academy of Sciences; The Royal Society, UK; US National Academy of Sciences; Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences; Academia de Ciencias Fsicas, Matemticas y Naturales de Venezuela; Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences; The Caribbean Academy of Sciences; African Academy of Sciences; The Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS); The Executive Board of the International Council for Science (ICSU). I'm thinking that they might know more about it than you do. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 81 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 2:31 PM | | Kelly has not replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.8
|
|
|
Message 85 of 207 (502092)
03-09-2009 3:09 PM
|
Reply to: Message 78 by Kelly
03-09-2009 2:00 PM
|
|
Re: Thanks Percy
The reason creationist papers appear in venues like ICR and AIG instead of mainstream journals is because they do not employ scientific methodologies. You don't accept this, and so we must examine some creationist papers in detail so that you can convince us that they did follow valid scientific methods, or we can convince you that they didn't. So one more time, the paper I suggested you use as an example is:
I think you'll find that the evolutionists here will find it very challenging to explain how that paper fails to adhere to scientific methods and why it wouldn't be acceptable in scientific journals. --Percy
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 78 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 2:00 PM | | Kelly has replied |
|
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4211 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: 10-06-2007
|
|
|
Message 86 of 207 (502098)
03-09-2009 4:08 PM
|
Reply to: Message 61 by Kelly
03-09-2009 11:39 AM
|
|
Re: Radiocarbon dating
Recent studies have provided evidence that radioactive decay supports a young earth. You've made a statement, now show who did the research and what research was done to determine these findings. That is what has been asked of you throughout this topic, show who & where the research is.
There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 61 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 11:39 AM | | Kelly has not replied |
|
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2871 days) Posts: 397 Joined: 01-10-2009
|
|
|
Message 87 of 207 (502100)
03-09-2009 4:11 PM
|
Reply to: Message 61 by Kelly
03-09-2009 11:39 AM
|
|
A mark for creation science..
not to argue the data or study itself (I am not really qualified)
...and here is the crux of the problem. You are not knowledgeable enough to recognize the fallacies being passed off on you as science. Until if and when you choose to do something to correct that situation you will continue to be the 'mark' of these con artists who are funded by donations from similar marks like yourself. (edit starts) Your argument has been reduced to one of "an appeal to authority", not a surprising approach for a creationist really. (end edit) Edited by shalamabobbi, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 61 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 11:39 AM | | Kelly has not replied |
|
Kelly
Member (Idle past 5517 days) Posts: 217 Joined: 03-01-2009
|
|
|
Message 88 of 207 (502108)
03-09-2009 5:35 PM
|
Reply to: Message 83 by Modulous
03-09-2009 2:44 PM
|
|
misrepresentation
You say:
Well, I think I've been of the position that Creation Science isn't science since the start. You agree with that much at least. That Creation Science is the notion that all life was created by non-natural means into set forms, or 'types' or 'baramin' at some point in the past. That is a total misrepresentation of what I actually said. I never said that creation science isn't science without elaborating that I am talking about the model. The practice of studying the evidence is indeed scientific. I also pointed out that the evolutionary model in the vertical sense is also not a scientific model. I explained why. There is nothing about true science that says we cannot study created objects and order. If you want to talk about improbability, Modulous, you should consider the odds that life could somehow just spontaneously generate itself up out of nothing and then proceeded to leap from the most simplest of forms to some of the most complex forms that we see today--especially considering the second law. If we were to throw heaps of electronic peices and parts into the air enough times, we stand a better chance of seeing those parts organize themselves into a computer.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 83 by Modulous, posted 03-09-2009 2:44 PM | | Modulous has replied |
|
Richard Townsend
Member (Idle past 4754 days) Posts: 103 From: London, England Joined: 07-16-2008
|
|
|
Message 89 of 207 (502110)
03-09-2009 5:36 PM
|
Reply to: Message 85 by Percy
03-09-2009 3:09 PM
|
|
Re: Thanks Percy
quote:
I think you'll find that the evolutionists here will find it very challenging to explain how that paper fails to adhere to scientific methods and why it wouldn't be acceptable in scientific journals.
Do you really mean that, Percy? As an amateur I'm not going to try to analyse the paper in detail but in no way does it look like a rigorous scientific study. Perhaps a better word than 'challenging' would be 'fun'!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 85 by Percy, posted 03-09-2009 3:09 PM | | Percy has not replied |
|
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4738 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: 02-28-2008
|
|
|
Message 90 of 207 (502116)
03-09-2009 6:24 PM
|
Reply to: Message 88 by Kelly
03-09-2009 5:35 PM
|
|
Simplton Representation
If you want to talk about improbability, Modulous, you should consider the odds that life could somehow just spontaneously generate itself up out of nothing and then proceeded to leap from the most simplest of forms to some of the most complex forms that we see today--especially considering the second law. Your understanding of 2LoT is idiotic. Is rain a violation of 2LoT? If not, then neither is the leaping, if 3.5 billion years can be properly called a leap, from the most simplest of forms to some (Which ones missed the cut?) of the most complexest forms. Not that any of it is on topic. You: Creationists do real science. Me: Really, how? You: Doing the same thing other scientists do. Me: Such as ? You: Research. Me: Do you have an example? You: Scientific research isn't only done by scientist. Me: Actually it is; that's why they are called scientists. Can you show me any scientific research that was done by creationists. Ox: Everything is different, but the same... things are more moderner than before... bigger, and yet smaller... it's computers... San Dimas High School football rules! Bill: Bogus. Heinous. Most non-triumphant. Edited by lyx2no, : Lost some of the quote. Edited by lyx2no, : Typo.
Genesis 2 17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness. 18 And we all live happily ever after.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 88 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 5:35 PM | | Kelly has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2