Creation science II

I don't understand this.First a clarifying question:Are Ar/Ar and radiocarbon both "radiometric" dating methods?If Yes:"The results are instead consistent with an age of the earth of only some thousands of years, and with a global flood around 4300 years ago."
...would be meaningless since the conclusion is that all radiometric dating is unreliable, which is where "the results" would be coming from, no?How can the "radiocarbon age determined by the laboratory must be accurate" be true if we are concluding that "all radiometric dating is unreliable?"

I think I understand.So, they're trying to say that the radiocarbon date "must be correct" in the sense that it's method was flawless... however, since it's date is, um... "obviously larger than the age of the earth" (!?!)... then we must conclude that the correct-method of radiocarbon dating only pruduces unreliable results.I see.Yes, that contains its own circular sillyness.

Let's see where the rest of my confusion lies:"The material found in the formation was wood."
-as shown in the paper provided"It was dated to around 45,000 years old using radiocarbon dating."
-as shown in the paper provided"The encasing material was dated to millions of years old."
-as shown in the paper provided"Obviously these dates contradict one another..."
-as shown in the paper provided"...a proper analysis yields consistent dates around the time of the flood"
-???What does "a proper analysis" entail?
Was "a proper analysis" discussed in the paper? I don't remember seeing it.
How do we know that "a proper analysis" (whatever it is) is not "unreliable" in some other fashion?
Does "a proper analysis" have potential errors like radiometric dating has potential errors? That is, the potential errors of radiometric dating were identified and accomodated for in the paper provided. Does "a proper analysis" also have potential errors that need to be identified and controlled?

Kelly, you are correct here.In fact, you could even say "--this is true for everyone."However, there is a difference between Science and Creation Science.Science acknowledges and specifically identifies all the "non-scientific factors" that can influence the conclusions. And they then specifically avoid making conclusions based on these non-scientific factors. That's why they're called "non-scientific," because they aren't included when doing Science.Creation Science acknowledges these non-scientific factors and embraces them. They then specifically make use of them in order to influence their methods so they can reach their desired conclusions. The use of these non-scientific factors is what makes Creation Science not Science.Science is, even when dealing with the past, only based on those facts and observations that can be verifiably confirmed. Those observations that cannot be verifiably confirmed exist (for everyone) but they are not acknowledge by science since they cannot be relied upon and they could be wrong. That means they cannot be influnced by their "world view." It's impossible, the fact that all the observations used can be verfiably confirmed by anyone (even you, if you're willing to do the work required), guarantees the Science is immune to being influenced by anyone's world view.Creation Science, by embracing their world view and allowing all those non-scientific factors to influence their conclusions... are not doing Science.You can say that Science allows a world view to influence it's conclusions all you want. But the fact that Science can show you to be wrong is all any honestly curious person requires.Your mere words about Science are worthless when compared to the actions from Science that prove you wrong.Like everyone keeps telling you, you need to show how what you say is true. Since just saying it is obviously false as shown by the actions that anyone can see.

But that's just it. We are all on equal-footing to start with.And, yes, creationists do experiments, testing and studying.But that's where the similarities end.Creationists then add in the additional information from their world view to skew their findings into a particular conclusion.Science doesn't do that.When we have evidence, and we do a test... there is only one answer.
If there are multiple answers then it wasn't science, the test was not refined enough and must be thrown out and repeated to be science.That's what "science" means... that everyone comes to the same answer. World views do not enter into the picture. They aren't allowed to, they're specifically tested for and removed by making sure that everyone comes to the same answer.Therefore we are most definitly not on equal-footing to end with since science accounts for world-views and makes sure they don't influence conclusions where creation science embraces world-view skewing influences.Therefore it is very misleading to say the two are "on equal footing." Because they're not. They're very different, one is science and the other is not.You may wonder why creation scientists do not come to the same conclusions that all other scientists (across the entire world) come to. And the answer is very simple... creation scientists are not doing science, they are allowing their world-view to corrupt their conclusions. It is similar to a child doing math for the first time. They don't get the same answer as everyone else because, simply put, they're doing it wrong. Whatever the child is doing, it isn't math. Whatever creation scientists are doing, it isn't science.It's not only atheist scientists that show creation science to be wrong. If that were so, you may have a point. But it's not true:
Christian scientists show that creation science is not science.
Hindu scientists show that creation science is not science.
Australian scientists show that creation science is not science.
Nazi scientists show that creation science is not science.
Jewish scientists show that creation science is not science.
Southern Baptist scientists show that creation science is not science.
Catholic scientists show that creation science is not science.Any and all scientists (those who do not allow their world-view to corrupt their conclusions) all agree with the exact same answer -> Evolution. They all agree that creation science is not science. They all agree that creation science is not science because it allows its world view to corrupt its conclusions.

That's quite possibly true. But one conclusion will be right, and the other will be wrong.2+2=4Two people can start with the same information (2+2) and end up with differing conclusions (4 or say... 5). But one of them is wrong.This is what science does. Science sets up it's questions in the form of 2+2 such that there is only one answer and that answer must be true from the starting information.That's what a scientific experiment is, it's an experiment where the starting information and method is carefully controlled to make sure that regardless of who does the experiment... there's only one answer.If the experiment can be done to give varying answers, then it's not a scientific experiment. The whole idea of science is to provide questions that will lead to correct answers. If the answers are unidentifiable, then the questions are useless and not scientific. You really got this from what I said? That's pretty much the opposite of what I said.I said that creation scientists do experiments, studying and testing. However, they do not do any scientific experiments, scientific studying or scientific testing because they allow their world-view to get involved and shape the conclusions. Not necessarily for all people. But in the case of the creation scientists this thread is talking about... most certainly yes. Where do you get this stuff?
That's not what I said.
I said that "doing science" is when you control and ensure that your world view does not affect your conclusions.One can very easily not believe in creation and still let their world view (whatever else that is... say... magical Matrix simulations) affect their conclusions. This, because the world view affects the conclusions, is not science. No. I'm not saying the opposite of what I'm saying, you really had to ask that? I'm saying what I said: -Not all experiments are controlled to ensure that world views do not affect the conclusions.
-Controlling to ensure that world views do not affect conclusions is scientific.
Therefore, not all experiments are scientific.Hope that helps to clear it up.Maybe you are feeling upset that I seem to be singling out creation scientists? I assure you that I am not. Anyone is capable of allowing their world view to affect the conclusion of an experiment. If they do, then they're not doing science. I'm only talking about creation scientists here because, well... that's the topic of this thread.

But, if we're honest, this is ridiculous.Here's an example of Horse evolution:(Not even remotely sorry to steal this from here: Message 1) And here are all the transitional fossils required to make such a jump: Little Dogs to Big HorsesSo, we see that there are transitional fossils.So, what now?Now the things that you just say have been actually shown to be false. What are you going to do?You can act in an honest manner and accept that your previous ideas were somewhat incorrect.Or you can act in a creation scientist manner and simply continue to keep merely saying the same words that have been shown to be wrong. And just jump into something else entirely.What are you going to do? Can you show that you are honest and focus on this topic and follow it to the honest truth, whatever that is? Or is your proposed "honesty" only more mere words from your mouth and you'll move quickly on to something else?Can you be honest, or do you have higher priorities?

No, the transitional fossils I linked to clearly show it becoming a horse.
If I could make it whatever I wanted, I'd probably make it a dragon. Dragon's are much more interesting. Rest of old post hidden. (Actual copyrighted material deleted).

---

After thinking about all this copyright stuff, I think I'll just give you another chance.Try to stay focused on the information I've actually provided to you. I don't want to talk about stuff that may or may not deal with the actual issue. That's what creation scientists do... they grab whatever information they can to confuse the issue.Let's forget about that previous post. Let's wipe the slate clean again. Perhaps you just jumped to conclusions without actually reading my post. Here it is again if you missed it: Message 168And the transitional fossils that I'm claiming to exist: Little Dogs to Big HorsesNow, let's try again. While being honest can you tell me why these transitional fossils are "demonstrably false?"These fossils exist. Their progression is obvious to anyone who actually clicks on the website and looks at the pictures. They are in chronological order.I may very well be wrong (I really don't know much about this stuff). But in order for you to show that I am wrong, you have to show that what I've presented is wrong. You can't show that I'm wrong by showing that other people are wrong... that doesn't make any sense.That's what honest exploration is about. Showing things to be correct or wrong. Creation Scientists don't show things, they simply say them. Anyone can say things.Are you going to be honest and show how what I have provided is false?
Or are you going to act like a Creation Scientist and simply say that what I have provided is false and move onto other areas?Edited by Stile, : Deleted portions of text... completey, did not just hide... that quoted some material from Kelly's post that are apparently under a copyright system covering "creative work" :
I did, however, simply hide my responses that only made sense to those remarks.

This kinda is the topic... as long as we stress the methodology.The difference between Creation Science and Science is the difference between just saying something and actually showing it.When Kelly's just talking about anything... she's just doing Creation Science. It's only if she ever shows something that it will actually be Science.Obviously Kelly doesn't understand this by telling it to her, that's why we need to show it to her. (It's quite possible that this method will fail as well, but I'm hoping against that).Showing Kelly that the proper way to convince someone is to show them and not to simply say it to them is exactly the topic.It is kinda confusing that what we're using "to show" is other evolutionary data... but, well, it's readily available at this site

Not if one of them answers "4"! Or, are you going to argue that this is incorrect?
That's the entire purpose of science. To phrase questions and make progress in such a way that it is insane to argue against. Because it simply must be. I didn't read their minds. I read their statements. I'm sure you've heard of the Wedge Document where they clearly state that their world view is going to be influencing their conclusions. That's who creation scientists are. That's what creation scientists do. They spell it out for everyone to read in plain english. I agree it's not very bright... but no one here is claiming that creation scientists are smart.No mind reading necessary. This is quite easily shown to be false.Stile says:

quote:

---

Using standard mathematics (and anything greater than a base-4 system): 2+2=4

---

Stile also says:

quote:

---

Using standard observations from this universe: there exists a measurable force that is relative to an object's observable mass which pulls other objects with mass towards each other. This force can be represented with very specific equations.

---

Both those statements are findings that are not affected by mine or anyone elses world views. They are simply correct. They are simply "the way things are." They must be. Regardless of all world views.I'm not dead.The scientists who figured these things out were also not dead when they figured these things out. They're likely long dead now, though...It remains that you are mistaken. But don't take it too hard, wives tales usually are rather useless when analyzed against reality.Smarter people than you and I have gone over and over this problem of world views. And they've devised quite specific and easy-to-follow methods that will ensure that your world view will cannot influence the final results. This is generally called "the scientific method" and it includes peer review which is other people, many (MANY!) other people, (quite likely and hopefully with a polar-opposite world view) trying to show that you are wrong. If they can't, if no one can... then you can be assured that the final solution is independent of all worldviews. What about them? I didn't claim to know anything about "little horses to BIG horses as in your avatar." Why are you asking me such a thing? I even clearly explained that I don't even know much about what I did actually show. Are you, just like Kelly and just like creation scientists, not being honest and not talking about what I actually said? Again? Continually? All I said was that the transitional fossils I linked to show a very clear and obvious progression from the picture I showed to modern day horses.Are you honestly trying to deny such a thing?Or are you trying to confuse the issue by talking about anything else you can think of?Phooey. All I was hoping for was honest discussion... better luck next creation scientist, I suppose.

I like the Free For All forum so I can ask questions like this:Here's the copyright text from the site that caused the problem a few posts back:

---

Do NOT post any material from ChristianAnswers.Net on any other Web site, newsgroup or chat room. All material is copyrighted under U.S. and International Copyright Laws. Please respect the legal and inherent human rights of copyright owners to control their creative works.
To those who may have considered taking material from this Web site (or any other Web site) to use on their own or someone else's site without permissionWithout express written permission, it is not only presumptuous, but also against the law to publish, copy, reproduce or plagiarize material from this Web site or any other and put it on your own Web site or anyone else's. This includes all pages, content, pictures, audio, video, code, etc. The same is true of posting it in a newsgroup or chat room. Such use is a clear infringement of the copyright owner's rights under U.S. and International Copyright Law and carries serious penalties. By the way, there is no waiver of this law for religious or educational organizations; we all must abide by it.

---

My question has to do with this part:

quote:

---

Please respect the legal and inherent human rights of copyright owners to control their creative works.

---

Joking aside... does anyone know if it's an actual requirement for things to be copyright-protected that they are, in fact "creative work?"I know that Religious or ID type internet sites didn't used to carry copyright protections on them.
Then people started to quote things off their pages and show how factually wrong they were all over the place.
So, to stop this, the sites now employ a copyright protection so that others cannot quote and debunk with so much ease.I'm wondering if this is sort of a double-edged sword for them. That in order to prevent people from freely debunking their mis-use of facts they now have to fully admit that such things are merely creative ideas, and therefore do not necessarily have any basis in fact at all.
Is the "creative work" thing above just a slip-of-the-tongue, or trying to cover most other aspects of the site?
Or is it part of the process of having something copyrighted that it must actually be a creative work?Are normal scientific studies gererally copyrighted? I thought they were not. Sort of because they are just (at the basic level) observations of the way things are... therefore, it's not really possible to copyright such material.Just wondering... anyone know?

I understand this is the Free for All forum, so you don't have to remain on topic. But that still doesn't mean I have to reply to any of the off-topic stuff. Reality. No, I don't.