|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: "Creation Science" experiments. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Jbr writes: If I'm not mistaken, isn't creation, a form of origins theory? No, it is not a Theory at all. A Theory explains how some observed fact happens. Creation is just magic. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Since creation derives its tenets from design and other observable and testable evidences, using valid rules of evidence, your wrong as usual And, again as usual, you fail to tell us what those are. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
slevesque writes: For example: secular science assumes naturalism, that only nature exists (matter and energy, to put it simply without going too deep into the physics of it).. This assumption leads to another corrollary; God has never intervened into nature in the past. However neither of those are assumptions of science. Unfortunately, I see Creationists often making that very claim, often repeating it even after being corrected. Science assumes that only those things that can be shown to exist and that can be evidenced should be used as explanations. Matter and Energy can be evidenced. The problem is that "super natural" has so far never been evidenced. If it could be evidenced, then Science could use it as explanation. Science does not say that "God has never intervened into nature in the past" but rather that no evidence has ever been presented showing that God has intervened and so far no explanation has required the insertion of God or magic. IF, an experiment could be designed that requires divine intervention, and if that experiment succeeded, then that would count as evidence there was some super natural force. Failure would not refute the existence of God or super natural necessarily (that would depend on the exact parameters of the experiment). BUT...even if the experiment was successful, Science requires going to the next step and that is figuring out how the God or super natural force works. Of course, once that is known then the God or super natural force would no longer be God or super natural, rather just another known and understood force. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Jbr writes: Are you really going to exclude all the scientific accomplishments made by scientists of the past who strongly held personal views of a Creator/intelligent designer along with them? Or isn't it only fair to give credit to whom credit is do? To do otherwise it seems to me you'd end up eatin your shorts a lot. No one said anything about that. And yes, if their work was based on Creationism, it should be discarded. BUT...guess what. Not one of them ever did anything scientifically that included {insert miracle intervention here}. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Jbr writes: This speaks directly to my point of getting on this thread to begin with. In truth scientific inquiry and observation must be conducted equally the same regardless of your personal points of view. The statement I was addressing specifically wasn't rather or not ID'sts do science over some black cauldron chanting spells or something. I rather was responding in particular to this comment:
Creationists and IDists don't do anything that can be meaningfully called science. They don't do experiments. Clearly that is not true. If you expected them to wave some sort of creationist magic wand over the data before releasing it, in order for it to be considered "creationist science" then your absolutely right. That's never going to happen. BUT...that is exactly what Creationists and the ID movement do. They begin with a conclusion and then magic the data to fit the conclusion. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The example I keep returning to of the genetic bottleneck is a great example in my opinion of a valid Creation Science or Biblical Science experiment. Another great example would be to look for a common ancestor for all mankind that dates to the same period as all the other animals, plants and bugs. After all, it either of the Genesis Creation stories are true, then the first of each kind was created within days of each other and therefore we should see the lineage of all critters converging to a single point in time.
Another experiment would be to look at the geological record and see if it supports the order of creation found in one or the other Creation myths. For example, it is quite clear from Genesis 1 that the very first plants were seed bearing. If the geological record shows that seed bearing plants appeared before other types then it would support the hypothesis. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I would love to see the Creation Science model for the Vishnu Schist. Not the whole grand Canyon mind you, I'm not asking that much of them, just the Vishnu Schist.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped! |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Are you familiar with Georges Lematre?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Another Creation Science experiment might be to develop the model for changing YX to XX.
If woman was created as a clone of man as described in Genesis 2, then women should have one X and one Y chromosome. They don't. So a Creation Science experiment would be to develop and test the model that would change a Y chromosome to an X chromosome during cloning. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Yet another Creation Science Project.
There are two current conventional models for making sand. one based on geological origin for the basic materials and the second one based on biological origin for the basic material. In the former, highlands, mountains, volcanoes, uplifts and ridges are formed. Over time those geological formations are weathered and eroded and the material is then transported by wind, water and gravity to lower locations. The process is relatively slow since you first need to create the solid, uplift it, weather it and then transport the product to lower levels refining it as it travels. In the latter process living critters gather minerals, usually calcium to build biological structures; shells, coral, bones, etc. Once they die the hard material is then weathered, eroded, broken into smaller pieces and then transported to some other location. So a home experiment might be... get a rock and place it outside where it can weather. Mark off an area around the rock. Observe the process and record the results. Grade and follow each piece that breaks off the rock noting changes in shape (from rough with sharp edges to rounded and smooth over time). How long does it take to create sand equal to 1/100th of the original volume or mass of the rock? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
If you don't believe me ask yourself this, "What atheistic evolutionist approaches science and says that he will accept whatever the evidence points to, even if it is a supernatural cause?" Every atheist I have ever met has said they would even accept the existence of God if sufficient evidence was presented to support that position. The problem is that by definition, once the evidence is available the object is no longer supernatural. Edited by jar, : fix subtitle Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The significance of that paper seems to be that it again totally refutes the possibility of a Biblical Flood.
Note that it is a poster session, not a major address. BUT... the significant points are as follows. First, I will be referencing Exploring the Grand Canyon, from the bottom up.
The thread Exploring the Grand Canyon, from the bottom up. is important because in nearly 300 posts we still did not succeed in working our way from the lowest exposed layers (the Vishnu Schist) even up to the Red Wall Limestone. This is another example of the Creation Science tactic of withholding data that refutes their position. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
No, poster sessions are more than that and in some ways, less as well.
Poster Sessions are usually part of a professional conference and can be open sessions or fairly tightly controlled. It is a way for folk who believe they have something of value to present or who are looking for funding for an idea to promote it, market it, to a wide spectrum of the profession. The basic name came from the way they market themselves; usually a large poster or backdrop designed to quickly attract attention and hopefully get folk to stop and ask questions. Th sessions can be in a room nearby the main auditorium, in the hallways or lobby, just about anyplace that allows traffic.
Here are some pictures of typical poster sessions.
Nudder example The material may or may not be peer reviewed, my experience is that generally an abstract was wanted and decisions made based on that. The poster sessions subject matter is usually related to the theme of the conference but considered either insufficient or not important enough to be included as a major presentation. The secret to a successful poster session? Bring your own rug and some really high grade padding to go under it. Nothing, no subject no matter how important or well presented can compete with a chance to stand on something softer than the typical convention floor. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
This is because you probably do not know the current creationist model of the worldwide flood, I see no contradiction. This is another example of the standard tactic of implicitly making up a strawman of the flood. LOL I have the Biblical record that explains the flood, and it has been totally refuted. But that is beside the point. I am amazed that you cannot see the contradiction, but here is your chance to help me understand. What exactly is the current creationist model for making limestone? Once I understand that we can move on to the other layers. AbE: Please take the time to read Exploring the Grand Canyon, from the bottom up. I assure you that it totally demolishes any idea that there is a young earth or a Biblical flood. Edited by jar, : added link again Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
If you can't define all of those terms without in someway excluding or disqualifying the concept of Intelligent Design before we even start, then the point I've made all along has just been validated. Actually 'design' as well as 'intelligent design' should be rejected even before we start until someone can show that there is any knowledge value or merit in either topic. The fact is, even if there was design or even an intelligent designer (or even what seems more likely; an inept, incompetent, irrational, ill-informed, inefficient, incapable, inadept. inexpert, inexperienced, ineffectual, inadequate designer) it is Irrelevant to understanding how things work. It does not matter who designed the first radio to understand how radios work It is not necessary to know who designed a car to know how cars work. It is not necessary to know if life is designed to understand how life evolves. 'Design' and 'ID' (regardless of what the I is short for) is simply not necessary to understand evolution. What value would knowing that something is designed add? What value is there in knowing who the Designer was beyond a historical footnote, patent rights and product liability suits? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024