Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation science II
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 47 of 312 (501973)
03-09-2009 4:29 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Kelly
03-08-2009 8:37 PM


Re: I think it makes sense
I am trying to show that creationists use the same scientific methods and study the same data in the same way as evolutionists do.
But this is untrue.
Anyone with a even the remotest familiarity with "creation science" knows that it is based on stuff that creationists have made up.
This is why it has earned such thorough contempt from real scientists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Kelly, posted 03-08-2009 8:37 PM Kelly has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 56 of 312 (502018)
03-09-2009 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Kelly
03-09-2009 9:57 AM


Re: Do you think that evolutionists are any different?
I could as easily point out that evolutionists need an old age theory to be true because without the necessary eons of time required for evolutionary processes to occur, the theory collapses.
This is why evolution is science. It makes a prediction: scientific methods of dating will show that the Earth is old. And they do. If they didn't, evolution would be abandoned as false. This is science.
Now, in principle, Young-Earth Creationism also makes a prediction: scientific methods of dating will not show the Earth is old. And this prediction was wrong. At which point, instead of abandoning their falsified hypothesis, they start whining and lying about the scientific methods of dating, because not a crumb of a particle of the mountain of facts proving the Earth to be old is permitted to touch their precious religious beliefs. This is not science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 9:57 AM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 11:39 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 58 of 312 (502024)
03-09-2009 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Kelly
03-09-2009 10:50 AM


Re: I am interested only in first showing
that creation science is a science.
Go for it.
What are its principles, and what predictions can be logically derived from them?
And are these predictions supported or disproved by observation?
I am not interested in debating the findings until you first concede that we are discussing "different" scientific findings and not whether or not one group's studies can be considered scientific.
Disproving the findings of an opposing viewpoint does not prove that the scientific method was not followed or that theirs' is not a science. Two evolutionary scientists can come to different conclusions based on their studies yet one would never tell the other that he wasn't practicing science, would he?
That would depend on whether he was, in fact, practicing science. If, for example, he was making stuff up, like creationists do, then yes, he would be told that he was not practicing science.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 10:50 AM Kelly has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 62 of 312 (502034)
03-09-2009 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Kelly
03-09-2009 11:39 AM


Re: Radiocarbon dating
AIt is as I said: "Instead of abandoning their falsified hypothesis, they start whining and lying about the scientific methods of dating, because not a crumb of a particle of the mountain of facts proving the Earth to be old is permitted to touch their precious religious beliefs."
However, this is not the right thread to do it in.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 11:39 AM Kelly has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 66 of 312 (502044)
03-09-2009 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Kelly
03-09-2009 12:00 PM


Re: I am interested only in first showing
Creation Scientists utilize the very same methods, technics, data/evidence etc.. to perform their studies.
This is not true. This is obviously untrue. If, for example, they both used the same techniques to find the age of a rock, they would get the same age, and the Young-Earthers would have to abandon their Young-Earth beliefs as stupid.
What is different is their hypothesis or model that they start with and set out to confirm.
You apparently have no idea how science works.
Again, take the dating of rocks. The method doesn't care what you think. It'll return the same age whether you think the rock is young or old. At which point, if you're a creationist, you go into a state of terrified denial and start talking gibberish. This is why creationism is not science.
Scientists --- real ones --- do not "set out to confirm" a hypothesis, they set out to test it.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 12:00 PM Kelly has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 73 of 312 (502063)
03-09-2009 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Kelly
03-09-2009 12:58 PM


Re: I am sorry
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.
Please learn what the theory of evolution is.
We each come up with our hypothesis based on what we *think* the evidence will reveal.
Please learn what science is.
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.
This is not true.
The theory that evolution accounts for the diversity of life leads to predictions that can be tested against observation and are invariably found to be correct. This is why evolution is science.
The absurd creationist lies about "the second law" lead to physicists laughing at you, and that's all. This is why reciting creationist lies is not science.
Everyone keeps asking me to show you evidence that creationists are doing science with acceptable scientific methods. Well I have offered you a book choc-ful-of-examples and facts about it. I cannot find much online available for me to direct you to. Most things are copyrighted and unless I am going to sit and type you a book, there is not much more I can offer. 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.
This is not true. Making stuff up is not a "scientific endeavor". It's a desperate and pathetic attempt to avoid reality.
We are familiar with creationist rubbish. We've probably seen more of it than you have, and we certainly know more about it than you do. Reciting the same old dreary creationist tosh at us will not convince us.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

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 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 77 of 312 (502074)
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

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 80 of 312 (502082)
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

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 84 of 312 (502091)
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

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 101 of 312 (502163)
03-10-2009 5:34 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Kelly
03-09-2009 6:35 PM


Re: No, actually it is based on discrimination
Many have chosen to shun creationist's writings simply because they wrongly believe that it is religion in disguise.
Many have chosen to read a lot more creationist gibberish than you have, and have rightly discovered that it is religion in disguise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 6:35 PM Kelly has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 102 of 312 (502165)
03-10-2009 5:41 AM
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. 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.
And you are wrong.
You don't get to decide what is and isn't science.
There is nothing about true science that says we cannot study created objects and order.
Of course there is not. But there is something about true science that says that you can't pretend that uncreated objects are created by talking gibberish and making stuff up.
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
No-one claims that that has happened.
Read a biology textbook.
You are clearly familiar neither with creationism nor with biology.
This leaves you in no position to judge between them, does it?
--especially considering the second law.
Read a textbook of thermodynamics.
Really, don't you think it's wrong --- morally wrong --- to go around talking rubbish about a subject which you know nothing about, and have never tried to find out about?
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
You remember how I explained to you that your words don't have magical powers to change reality?
If just saying crap like this was sufficient, you guys would be on to a good thing. But it isn't.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 5:35 PM Kelly has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 132 of 312 (502277)
03-10-2009 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Kelly
03-10-2009 8:52 AM


Re: I just wanted to correct the misconception
that creation scientists aren't performing scientific experiments or studies using real scientific methods, etc. 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. That's all. 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 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.

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

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 133 of 312 (502279)
03-10-2009 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Kelly
03-10-2009 10:34 AM


Re: Not ignoring anything Percy,
Remember that whether or not any of these studies (whatever the subject matter) are right or wrong has no bearing on the fact that they are scientific studies.
But the fact that these "studies" involve talking ignorant unscientific gibberish does have a bearing on whether they are scientific studies.
Talking about science using the terminology of science but getting it all wretchedly, pitifully wrong doesn't make you a scientist. It makes you a creationist.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Kelly, posted 03-10-2009 10:34 AM Kelly has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 138 of 312 (502318)
03-11-2009 4:09 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Kelly
03-10-2009 8:52 AM


Re: I just wanted to correct the misconception
that creation scientists aren't performing scientific experiments or studies using real scientific methods, etc. 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. That's all. 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.
Let me explain this to you by analogy. Imagine that a man dresses up in a white coat, puts a stethoscope round his neck, picks up a kitchen knife and goes running out into the street and starts randomly stabbing passers-by.
You are in the position of someone saying: "No, this guy isn't a psychopath, he's a surgeon. That fact that you claim that all his patients died is beside the point. I'm not debating whether he's a good surgeon or a bad surgeon, I'm just trying to get you all to admit that he is a surgeon and that what he was doing was surgery."
You've been fooled by the superficialities of the white coat, the knife, and the fact that he inflicts incisions on people. But these are not sufficient to make it surgery.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by lyx2no, posted 03-11-2009 8:33 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 139 of 312 (502320)
03-11-2009 4:20 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Kelly
03-10-2009 9:38 AM


Re: "A process was involved!"
... life might have begun through a random process of time and chance--which is the underlying model of macroevolution--even if you won't admit it.
Kelly, Kelly, Kelly. It's this sort of naked creationist dishonesty that makes it so pointless debating with you people.
Suppose that I told you that the underlying model of creationism was that a dog created the world six days ago --- "even if you won't admit it" --- and proceeded to argue against that instead of against your real opinions.
Would you not conclude:
(1) That I had no arguments against what creationists actually think, or I'd have used them.
(2) That there must be no good arguments against creationism, or I'd have found them and used them.
(3) That I was either incredibly ignorant, or actually insane, or a blatant, shameless liar.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Kelly, posted 03-10-2009 9:38 AM Kelly 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