Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation science II
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 30 of 312 (501876)
03-08-2009 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Lithodid-Man
03-08-2009 3:33 AM


Taken them to the cleaners
I am very eagerly awaiting my copy of "What is Creation Science" from Amazon. I couldn't wait so used Amazon's 'search within this volume' and I see that he dedicated some time to symbiosis and specifically cleaner behavior. I did my Master's work on the reproductive biology of cleaner shrimp, so not specifically on cleaner behavior. However, I was expected to know a great deal about cleaner shrimp and other 'cleaner' species like the fishes. So I have all of that literature in hard copy, including many papers on the evolution of such behavior. I cannot wait to see how he ties this to a creation science worldview, when there is 40+ year old literature on how it evolved. This includes "part time" cleaners as well as obligate cleaners. Fun times ahead!
*puts on his Creationist lab coat*
But how did the first cleaner fish come about? Did it just happen to have a mutation that happened to give it the idea to go into a sharks mouth and did it just happen that that shark had a mutation that gave it the idea to not eat the fish that swam into its mouth? What massive improbability!
Since I cannot think of a way for such a system to evolve, both the cleaner and the cleaned animal must have been created by an non-specific non-natural process, at some non-specific time.
*takes of lab coat*
I've not read the book, but I think I might presumptuously lay a virtual bet that this is pretty close to the reasoning employed.
If I am right - I guess I do know Creation Science after all - I just did some all on my own!
If I am wrong - then I don't know Creation Science and I need to go back to Creation School.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Lithodid-Man, posted 03-08-2009 3:33 AM Lithodid-Man has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 71 of 312 (502059)
03-09-2009 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Kelly
03-09-2009 12:58 PM


A plague on both your houses!
But there is no difference between evolutionists and creationists with respect to how they came up with their model or hypothesis. Neither group has concrete evidence that their theory about how life might have originated is true for sure. We each come up with our hypothesis based on what we *think* the evidence will reveal. No one has concluded that macroevolution is true because they can see it happening. 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.
If this were true, I would argue that neither Creation Science nor evolutionary biology were science.
As far as this topic is concerned, we can wrap things up nicely with the conclusion that Creation Science is not science.
If you'd care to join us in an evolution based thread we can explore whether evolutionary biology is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 12:58 PM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 1:33 PM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 79 of 312 (502080)
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

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 83 of 312 (502088)
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

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 96 of 312 (502141)
03-09-2009 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Kelly
03-09-2009 5:35 PM


Re: misrepresentation
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.
Indeed - but that's the important bit right? And that bit wasn't derived in any scientific fashion, it is just plucked from wherever as an idea.
The practice of studying the evidence is indeed scientific.
Exactly, but when we are studying the evidence we aren't doing 'Creation Science' we're just doing 'science'. Even if we're studying the evidence to test the hypothesis that all life was created, we are doing science.
That is a simplified account. Simply studying the evidence isn't science of course, science is a specific methodology for reaching conclusions given the totality of relevant evidence available.
I also pointed out that the evolutionary model in the vertical sense is also not a scientific model. I explained why.
I'm fairly sure that the evolutionary model that you think that I accept is indeed a load of nonsense and is as far from science as the Creation Science model. If you want to discuss the actual claimed science behind the evolution that scientists and many posters here tentatively accept and why, you are free to join a discussion about that.
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.
I have. Funnily enough, you aren't the first person to suggest that life somehow 'spontaneously generated itself up out of nothing' and then 'leaping from simple forms to complex forms' is highly improbable. Indeed I have a book (several actually) by Richard Dawkins here which says pretty much the exact same thing, only in more depth.
Neither Richard Dawkins nor I believe any of that gibberish. It's far too silly. If you want to discuss the actual science behind actual evolution, please feel free to...oh wait I've done that already.
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.
Maybe so. Or what about a tornado in a junk yard producing a Boeing 747, don't forget that one. If you haven't heard it, add it to the playbook its a vital part of any good creationist (and you even get to say that a proper scientist invented it too!)
OK.
So you don't want to tell me whether my Cleaner Fish prediction was wrong or right. You don't want to get into an actual in depth look at the evidence to determine whether on the whole it really does support creation science, and though you seem to be happy to accept you probably aren't in a qualified position to do this, you do believe that the evidence supports creation better than evolution.
We have both agreed that both Creation and Kelverlution (ie., Kelly's version of evolution) are not scientific and that the science is all about studying the evidence, creating tests, comparing the results of those tests with the predicted outcomes from a hypothesis, reformulating the hypothesis, created new tests, etc etc.
Given all of that - exactly what did want to gain from your experience with discussing these topics with people that hold contrary views to yourself?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 5:35 PM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Kelly, posted 03-10-2009 8:52 AM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 105 of 312 (502182)
03-10-2009 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Kelly
03-10-2009 8:52 AM


Science is more than pointing at evidence and saying "See?"
I just wanted to correct the misconception that creation scientists aren't performing scientific experiments or studies using real scientific methods, etc.
Oh, well it depends what you mean. I think we are all aware that scientists that happen to believe in Creation perform science all the time. If you think that Creation Scientists do science with regards to Creation...then you can clear up that misconception by showing us the scientific experiments etc that they are employing.
So either it wasn't a misconception, or you haven't yet done what is necessary (we lovers of science don't just take people's words on these kinds of claims, we need evidence )
I am so tired of people actually thinking they are saying something true when they claim that creation science is about religion or theology or whatever other false claim they love to fall back on when challenged by creationists.
Yes, I imagine it is frustrating. Imagine how the ID people felt at Dover when their side kept rabitting on about God and religion and stuff?
We have explained to you why it is associated with religion. If you want to correct us on this issue, show us the non-religious based science that is related to Creation.
Whether you agree with their findings or not is besides the point. Whether creationists are right about the unreliability of radiocarbon dating or not is also besides the point. My point is that they arrived at their conclusions based on the scientific data, experiments and results.
The unreliability of radiocarbon dating, even if it were truly the case, does not support the Creation Model. All it means is that we cannot use radiocarbon dating to date things. It doesn't say "this indicates that X number of types were created within a short time period by a non-natural process".
The Earth could be 1,000 billion years old, having formed slowly, with life VERY gradually arising over 800 billion years and every single dating method could be wrong.
That dating methods might be unreliable is not supportive that things were created. It is therefore unrelated to Creation and therefore is nothing to do with Creation Science.
Further, arriving at conclusions based on evidence is not necessarily science.
The fact that these things confirm Scripture is just icing on the cake for those who believe that God has given us His Word and that it is a reliable source for understanding and living life to its fullest.
Sssh, you'll give the game away. You don't want people thinking that you have fallen prey to confirmation bias do you?
The fact that study X just happens to support dowsing, astral projection, telepathy, tarot reading, homeopathy etc etc, is just the icing on the cake as far as us woomeisters are concerned. It doesn't matter that that the study happens to be significantly flawed* according to almost 99% of scientists, even many of those that are themselves woomeisters.
*I don't mean 'whoops made a mistake there', I mean the methodology for collecting the data, the logic based on that data, the assumptions going into it etc etc are all fundamentally the wrong way of doing a scientific study.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Kelly, posted 03-10-2009 8:52 AM Kelly has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 111 of 312 (502208)
03-10-2009 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Kelly
03-10-2009 10:01 AM


Re: Radiometric Dating is Unreliable
I am glad to see that you at least recognize that scientific study and inquiry were used by this creationist and that you want to look at it based on scientific merits. Knock yourself out and explain in scientific terms why these examples and explanations are wrong if you want to. Remeber that i am just happy that you would come this far.
Since we're being patronising, allow me to congratulate you on your promotion. You've gone from bare assertions to posting about long refuted pseudoscience - this is a good firm step in a creationist lifecycle. Glad to see you arrive finally.
Of course, if this fossil wood really were 225—230 million years old as is supposed, it should be impossible to obtain a finite radiocarbon age, because all detectable 14C should have decayed away in a fraction of that alleged timea few tens of thousands of years.
Can you explain exactly why it would be impossible to obtain a finite radiocarbon age? You probably can't. Radiometric dating is something you have to be careful with, and the nearest analogy I can come up with is as follows.
Imagine you have a 1 metre ruler. I ask you to measure something that is 50cm long. You do that no problem. Then I ask you to measure something that is about 50m long. Your ruler isn't long enough. All plop your ruler down, and the thing you are measuring definitely goes all the way to the end. Without being able to see beyond the edge of the ruler, you would say that the ruler method gives a result of 1 metre.
What is the limit of radiocarbon dating? It depends on the lab and the equipment etc, but it usually ranges from 25-50,000 years. After that point, your answer is just going to be basically meaningless.
For an amusing ten minute video that expands upon this, take a look at this video. It covers other creationist 'science' surrounding this issue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Kelly, posted 03-10-2009 10:01 AM Kelly has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 222 of 312 (502574)
03-12-2009 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by Stile
03-12-2009 11:16 AM


Re: Copyrights and Such
In all fairness, 'creative' means, in this case, 'written'. As in, the people that write these articles (or the people they submit them to depending on agreements) have intellectual property rights for the piece of work that they created. It doesn't necessarily mean, 'invented', 'fantasy' or other possible synonyms for 'creative'.
Some scientific papers are protected by intellectual property laws, including copyrights. Though there is a movement buidling in the community to completely open up scientific papers and make them 'free' (though as with any 'free' or 'open' there are probably restrictions on copying and distributing it).
If we are going to be charitable 'Creation magazine' might be a bit like BBC Focus or New Scientist or some other popular level magazine. Though the articles may be based on scientific findings, the presentation and collation of that information is the intellectual property of the author and/or publisher.
But yes, it is amusing that they chose to call them 'creative works', rather than 'intellectual property'. I'm also amused that they call them 'inherent human rights', but that's probably a topic in its own right.
To answer Mr Jack - most of the big creationist sites are affiliated with one another. I wouldn't be surprised if the author signed off on allowing 'Creation magazine and its affiliates' to distribute the works published herein or somesuch.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Stile, posted 03-12-2009 11:16 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 274 of 312 (502655)
03-12-2009 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Sky-Writing
03-12-2009 4:13 PM


Re: Accomplished What?
The real argument here should be "Why aren't 99.5 percent of all fossils clearly transitional?"
Most fossils are. Then again, most fossils don't interest most people. If you want to look at row after row of molluscs and teeth I'm sure you can do. You said so yourself earlier, soft tissue stuff tends to "get eaten and digested." So we find lots and lots and lots and lots (billions probably more in fact) of microfossils, usually of things with hard parts like shells.
That kind of stuff doesn't tend to interest us squishy apes.
Even Science admits that sharks and turtles east Darwin theories for breakfast.
Who is Science and what institute does he work for? Is his first name Creation? Do you know anything about what he says, I'm keen to learn more about Dr Creation Science and whether he admits or plays or denies or does anything interesting at all?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-12-2009 4:13 PM Sky-Writing has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 280 of 312 (502667)
03-12-2009 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by ICANT
03-12-2009 4:41 PM


Re: Show it, don't say it.
But when it comes to evolution and creation there are very few facts.
There are no land animals that have been found fossilised in rocks dated to older than 400 million years old. That's a pretty stark fact. There are lots more. Denial of these facts doesn't make them go away.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by ICANT, posted 03-12-2009 4:41 PM ICANT has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024