Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-22-2019 6:54 AM
49 online now:
(49 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,541 Year: 3,578/19,786 Month: 573/1,087 Week: 163/212 Day: 5/25 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
23NextFF
Author Topic:   People Don't Know What Creation Science Is
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2792 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 1 of 336 (500800)
03-02-2009 3:30 PM


Welcome Kelly
In another thread a new member, Kelly, wrote:
Creation Science is a study of the same evidence that evolutionists study, using the same scientific methods of making observations, establishing a hypothesis to explain those observations, and then testing said hypothesis. My purpose is to explain that most people do not really know or understand what Creation Science is.

I'd like to modify this a bit to:

Creation Science is a study of the natural biological history of Earth using scientific methods of making observations, establishing a hypothesis to explain those observations, and then testing said hypothesis. My purpose is to explain that most people do not really know or understand what Creation Science is.

I do this to eliminate the reference to evolution. If "Creationist Science" is "¬ evolution" then this would be yet another stupid "Evolution-has-problems" thread. Anyone referring to flaws in evolution or evolutionists is off topic in this thread.

Kelly, you claim to be passionate about this topic. I start this thread for you. Please come and tell me about the science, the methods, the hypotheses and the tests preformed or planed of creationist scientists. I am totally ignorant of any. My ear is yours.

(Is it Science)

Edited by lyx2no, : Typos and add subtitle


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.
Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Huntard, posted 03-02-2009 4:53 PM lyx2no has not yet responded

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 336 (500825)
03-02-2009 4:50 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
Huntard
Member (Idle past 371 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 3 of 336 (500828)
03-02-2009 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by lyx2no
03-02-2009 3:30 PM


Re: Welcome Kelly
I'm also intrigued by this, will we finally get to see what methods are used, and what hypotheses are tested? I can hardly wait!

Kelly, I'll follow this thread with great interest!


I hunt for the truth
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lyx2no, posted 03-02-2009 3:30 PM lyx2no has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 4 of 336 (500834)
03-02-2009 4:59 PM


Non-Theist Creationists?
One good way to demonstrate the difference between creation science and religious creationism would be to provide some evidence for this claim;

Kelly writes:

Did you know that there are many creationists who do not have a religion or specific belief in any God? They simply recognize that the earth and all living things cannot be explained solely in terms of a self-contained universe by ongoing natural processes.

From here.

Who are these non-theist creation scientists? If they exist, they would go some way toward proving that creation science is not merely religion in disguise. If there are "many" they should be easy to find; so who are they?

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
Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Theodoric, posted 03-02-2009 5:10 PM Granny Magda has not yet responded
 Message 6 by lyx2no, posted 03-02-2009 5:12 PM Granny Magda has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5954
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 5 of 336 (500835)
03-02-2009 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Granny Magda
03-02-2009 4:59 PM


Re: Non-Theist Creationists?
I have requested evidence from Kelly, to back up his assertions and comments, a few times already today.

Here
Here
And here

Still waiting for a shred of evidence. I don't think any will be forthcoming.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Granny Magda, posted 03-02-2009 4:59 PM Granny Magda has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Kelly, posted 03-02-2009 7:13 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2792 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 6 of 336 (500838)
03-02-2009 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Granny Magda
03-02-2009 4:59 PM


Re: Non-Theist Creationists?
Who are these non-theist creation scientists? If they exist, they would go some way toward proving that creation science is not merely religion in disguise. If there are "many" they should be easy to find; so who are they?

I'd think it more productive to find out their methods then their affiliations. Though I'd not bet my old socks that their methods won't give them away. Let wait and see, shall we.

AbE: Hi Theodoric:

I have requested evidence from Kelly, to back up his assertions and comments, a few times already today. Still waiting for a shred of evidence. I don't think any will be forthcoming.

Yes, I read them. I'm going to be inviting in this thread. Not that I don't intend to defend reality to the best of my ability, but if my understanding of CS is a straw man I'd be glad to be rid of it for an honest depiction. I know haw annoyed I get having to reiterate the "strawmanhoodnessship" of a zillion versions of the ToE. I'd like Kelly to have a chance.

Edited by lyx2no, : No reason given.


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 4 by Granny Magda, posted 03-02-2009 4:59 PM Granny Magda has not yet responded

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 7 of 336 (500843)
03-02-2009 5:19 PM


Thread moved here from the Biological Evolution forum.
Kelly
Member (Idle past 3572 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 8 of 336 (500871)
03-02-2009 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Theodoric
03-02-2009 5:10 PM


Re: Non-Theist Creationists?
I really think you missed my point with this. I wasn't saying that i had a list of people who believed that the earth showed creation or inteeligent design but that absolutely did not believe in a God. The point was that just as not every evolutionist is an atheist, so too, not every creationist is a religionist.

"The idea that life had an intelligent source is hardly unique to Christian fundamentalism. Advocates of design have included not only Christians and other religious theists, but pantheists, Greek and Enlightenment philosophers and now include many modern scientists who describe themselves as religiously agnostic. Moreover, the concept of design implies absolutely nothing about beliefs and normally associated with Christian fundamentalism, such as a young earth, a global flood, or even the existence of the Christian God. All it implies is that life had an intelligent source." (Of Pandas and People (2nd ed, 1993), pg. 161, emphasis added)

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1341


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Theodoric, posted 03-02-2009 5:10 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by lyx2no, posted 03-02-2009 7:29 PM Kelly has not yet responded
 Message 10 by Coyote, posted 03-02-2009 8:55 PM Kelly has not yet responded
 Message 11 by Granny Magda, posted 03-02-2009 9:13 PM Kelly has not yet responded
 Message 12 by bluegenes, posted 03-02-2009 9:43 PM Kelly has not yet responded
 Message 13 by PaulK, posted 03-03-2009 1:44 AM Kelly has not yet responded

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2792 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 9 of 336 (500876)
03-02-2009 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Kelly
03-02-2009 7:13 PM


I Guess I Did
I really think you missed my point with this. I wasn't saying that i had a list of people who believed that the earth showed creation or inteeligent design but that absolutely did not believe in a God. The point was that just as not every evolutionist is an atheist, so too, not every creationist is a religionist.

I must have missed my own point, too, because I didn't think I asked for a list of people who believed that the earth showed creation or intelligent design but that absolutely did not believe in a God. I did take evolutionist off the table though; I remember that.

"The idea that life had an intelligent source is hardly unique to Christian fundamentalism. Advocates of design have included not only Christians and other religious theists, but pantheists, Greek and Enlightenment philosophers and now include many modern scientists who describe themselves as religiously agnostic. Moreover, the concept of design implies absolutely nothing about beliefs and normally associated with Christian fundamentalism, such as a young earth, a global flood, or even the existence of the Christian God. All it implies is that life had an intelligent source." (Of Pandas and People (2nd ed, 1993), pg. 161, emphasis added)

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1341

Ya' know with apologies to Bill S. I'm done to death of reading tracts full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Don't forget the reply button.


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 8 by Kelly, posted 03-02-2009 7:13 PM Kelly has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 182 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 10 of 336 (500886)
03-02-2009 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Kelly
03-02-2009 7:13 PM


Re: Non-Theist Creationists?
You cite a paragraph from Of Pandas and People as if that meant something in a Science Forum.

That "text" is devoted to promoting religion in the guise of creation "science" and it was further changed following the Edwards decision of the U.S. Supreme Court to an "intelligent design" book.

But the authors missed an edit! What was "creationists" throughout the text was changed to "design proponents" -- except they missed one and ended up with "cdesign proponentsists."

Here is some documentation: Missing link: "cdesign proponentsists"

In other words, Of Pandas and People is a religious text, nothing but apologetics. It has no place in a scientific debate. Why are you citing it here?

Care to try again?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Kelly, posted 03-02-2009 7:13 PM Kelly has not yet responded

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 11 of 336 (500889)
03-02-2009 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Kelly
03-02-2009 7:13 PM


quote:
I really think you missed my point with this. I wasn't saying that i had a list of people who believed that the earth showed creation or inteeligent design but that absolutely did not believe in a God. The point was that just as not every evolutionist is an atheist, so too, not every creationist is a religionist.

I just wanted to know who these non-religionist creationists were that's all. You said there were lots. Then you post a page by a Christian which quotes two other Christians. Hmm...

Nonetheless, lyx2no has said that this isn't what he wants to talk about, so how about this; if creation science is valid, why don't you tell us about it?

  • Who might be a good example of a creation scientist?
  • Can you show us a high quality scientific paper by a creation scientist?
  • What have creation scientists discovered?
  • Which predictions of creation science have been borne out by observation?
  • What practical benefits has creation science provided?

Answering these questions would go some way toward making a case for the validity of creation 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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Kelly, posted 03-02-2009 7:13 PM Kelly has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 553 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 12 of 336 (500895)
03-02-2009 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Kelly
03-02-2009 7:13 PM


Re: Non-Theist Creationists?
Kelly writes:

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1341

Kelly, you link to an article by the devoutly religious and, frankly, rather simple minded Casey Luskin.

The thing about the I.D. movement of which he is part that's important to understand is that all the arguments that they put forward for intelligent design require a supernatural designer who is exempt from their own arguments. In other words, no natural designer (like us) could exist without itself having been designed, according to their arguments, because intelligence has all the attributes of complex function that they claim cannot be produced naturally.

So, when Luskin and other I.D. people claim that their designer could be natural, they are being disingenuous.

I.D. is a claim that a highly complex intelligent being can exist without being designed, but that less complex things like DNA can't. It's a silly and self-contradicting argument when you think about it, isn't it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Kelly, posted 03-02-2009 7:13 PM Kelly has not yet responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 14749
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 13 of 336 (500900)
03-03-2009 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Kelly
03-02-2009 7:13 PM


Re: Non-Theist Creationists?
Given that the topic is "Creation Science" it is important to note that "Creation Science" is explicitly a project of Young Earth Creationists, who reject even Old Earth Creationism as not adhering closely enough to a literal interpretation of Genesis.

"Creation Science" is an attempt to pretend that apologetics for a sectarian religious position - that the literalist interpretation of Genesis favoured by YECs is infallibly true - is valid science. It isn't. When they tried to get their materials taught in the U.S. public school system the courts recognised what was going on and - upholding the Constitution - rejected their attempts.

(ID is much like "Creation Science" - and in fact was started to get around the problem that "Creation Science" was so obviously religious. Like "Creation Science", however, its claims to be scientific are mostly a pretence).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Kelly, posted 03-02-2009 7:13 PM Kelly has not yet responded

  
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 1007 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 14 of 336 (500938)
03-03-2009 2:18 PM


Morris and Creation Science
In the thread "Best approaches to deal w/ fundamentalism" Kelly is repeatedly urging us to read What is Creation Science. I was going to respond there, but think that thread is drifting and here is the place to talk CS and specifically this book. In Message 70 Kelly writes:

This does not mean, however, that the "origin results" the evidence in the world.., cannot be observed and tested. That is, we can define two "models" of origins, and then make comparative predictions as to what our observations should find if evolution is true, and conversely, what we should find if creation is true. The model that enables us to do the best job of predicting things which we then find to be true on observation is the model most likely to be true, even though we cannot prove it to be true by actual scientific repetition.

This book is one that I either do not have or cannot find in my library so I have ordered a copy (with expedited shipping!) from Amazon. I will read it and either find a thread to discuss it in detail or maybe start one.

I have read several of Morris' other books, and am not expecting to be surprised. In Scientific Creationism he outlines a series of faux-scientific predictions of 'evolution' (he combines multiple physical and biological sciences under this umbrella) and creation, then shows the evidence and proudly crows that CS is the winner. The problem is that his predictions on all sides are nonsense and/or post hoc. I do not have the book handy, so am going off of memory here, but here is an example (you might want to buckle up, not responsible for damage due to ROFLMAO's here).

Morris claims that evolutionary theory should predict a continuum of elements on the periodic table, where we would see gradations between hydrogen and helium, helium and lithium, etc. "transitional" species between the all of the elements as one evolved into the next complex. Creation science, on the other hand, predicts that the elements should all neatly fit into categories that are discreet, even able to be organized into some form of table or something. Voila! Looks like the evidence supports CS!

I will read it with an open mind, but HM Morris hasn't surprised me yet.


Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"
Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Kelly, posted 03-03-2009 2:58 PM Lithodid-Man has responded
 Message 19 by cavediver, posted 03-03-2009 4:09 PM Lithodid-Man has responded

  
Kelly
Member (Idle past 3572 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 15 of 336 (500947)
03-03-2009 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Lithodid-Man
03-03-2009 2:18 PM


That sounds great Lithodid-man..it is at least a start.
But don't get too far ahead of yourself. You are already refuting the book and convinced it can't be right. That doesn't sound very open-minded to me.

Also, keep in mind that the point of the book is to dispell the silly notion that creation science is not a science. You will quickly discover that even though you may not agree with the findings, it is still a science.

It is very hard to have a serious discussion with people who actually disregard Creation Science based on the false belief that Creation Science is religion in disguise. I mean, I am the one who is ROTFLMAO! That notion is absolutely ignorant.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Lithodid-Man, posted 03-03-2009 2:18 PM Lithodid-Man has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by NosyNed, posted 03-03-2009 2:59 PM Kelly has not yet responded
 Message 17 by Lithodid-Man, posted 03-03-2009 3:08 PM Kelly has not yet responded
 Message 18 by Straggler, posted 03-03-2009 3:29 PM Kelly has responded
 Message 20 by Theodoric, posted 03-03-2009 4:18 PM Kelly has responded

1
23456
...
23NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019