|
Author
|
Topic: "Creation Science" experiments.
|
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 823 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: 08-12-2009
|
|
Message 1 of 396 (578261)
09-01-2010 8:59 AM
|
|
|
Given the influx of IDists/creationists touting a separate form of science and differentiating between "secular" science and "ID/creation science", I propose they provide us with some experiments that would be in accordance with said "ID/creation science". All that is required would be something that any one of us could do at home with household materials, as there are hundreds of thousands of "secular" experiments we can do. Here is a site that is full of simple experiments that anyone can do: science is FUN DAMMIT! My main goal for this is to get the anti-science crowd to appreciate what science is and for them to stop thinking that it is something out to get them.
Your god believes in Unicorns
|
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 823 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: 08-12-2009
|
|
|
Message 3 of 396 (578467)
09-01-2010 8:00 PM
|
|
|
No takers?
No one has any experiments for us to try?
Your god believes in Unicorns
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 4 by Coragyps, posted 09-01-2010 8:13 PM | | hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied |
|
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 823 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: 08-12-2009
|
ICR Sues Texas is what made me think of this. The resident creationist/IDist's seem to think that their science is different than actual science. This is their chance to show us an alternative to secular science, since they are so adamant that secular science just doesn't work. If creation science is better, then I should be able to perform some simple experiments, yes? If it can replace the accepted scientific method, any layperson should be able to perform some experiments using the creation/ID method. Edited by hooah212002, : fixed thread link
Your god believes in Unicorns
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 5 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-01-2010 8:21 PM | | Dr Adequate has not replied |
|
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 823 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: 08-12-2009
|
|
|
Message 7 of 396 (578685)
09-02-2010 10:25 AM
|
|
|
Contestant Number 1
Message 250 ICR Sues Texas Dawn Bertot writes: Observe an organism, a micro-organism, watch its independent functions of coherently, logical and orderly operation and consistent behavior. Then draw a conclusion after you observe tens of thousands of other organisms, see if they operate in the same orderly, logical fashion, independently and in conjuntion with other organisims Do thier parts operate in an orderly fashion to make the organism function properly and accurate fashion to achieve its purpose So, the first experiment we have is "does life look to me like it was designed". I'll take one bit of this: "see if they operate in the same orderly, logical fashion, independently and in conjuntion with other organisims" Yes. Symbiosis is most definitely not a characteristic of design. It is a sign that said organisms fill their particular niche and have evolved alongside other organisms to live harmoniously with them. How can we test this? Easy: introduce a new species to an area and see what happens. This is evident in the infestation of the Asian Carp in the Great Lakes Also, any number of invasive species. If life was designed, why doesn't all life live harmoniously? Remember, this is the science forum, so "the fall" copout won't cut it.
Your god believes in Unicorns
|
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 823 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: 08-12-2009
|
Re: What's a creation experiment exactly?
My reason for this topic, as noted in my OP, is due to the vast majority of creationist attack on "secular science" in that they appeared to have an alternative method to study the world around us. This thread was for them to provide that other method and show us how to perform simple experiments using the "creation/ID method" to study the world around us. So far, all we have is a personal attack. In this thread, I did not goad a single poster and made an honest attempt to provide an avenue for the resident creationists to teach us their way.
Your god believes in Unicorns
|
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 823 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: 08-12-2009
|
Re: Contestant Number 1
You're right and make a valid point. However, I said that in response to (I'm paraphrasing here because I'm too tired and lazy to search for the direct content) "go observe something and see how well it works. That proves it's designed". So, if we have the same designer designing all of life, all life should live harmoniously, yes? Then I threw in the invasive species to throw a stick in that cog. Perhaps I am thinking a little too simplistically, though. But then again, we are dealing with creationists......
Your god believes in Unicorns
|
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 823 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: 08-12-2009
|
Re: What's a creation experiment exactly?
Well don't you think that since we are talking about an origins event This particular thread is not a request to provide tests for creation itself, but for their particular methodology. You will note in the OP, I provided a link to various simple home experiments that anyone can do at home, but using the "secular" scientific method. All I am asking is for a workable "creation/ID" scientific method, since so many creationists as of late seem to have a problem with the already accepted scientific method.
Your god believes in Unicorns
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 31 by slevesque, posted 09-04-2010 6:09 PM | | hooah212002 has replied |
|
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 823 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: 08-12-2009
|
|
|
Message 33 of 396 (579508)
09-04-2010 10:58 PM
|
Reply to: Message 31 by slevesque
09-04-2010 6:09 PM
|
|
Re: What's a creation experiment exactly?
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. Then give us some experiments to do using your method. I'm pretty sure I have been abundantly clear in that request. {ABE}
So none of the linked experiments from your OP could be deemed to be strictly ''secular''. Here is the rub that sparked this thread into existence. Many creationists here do not seem to accept the scientific method for either certain studies or at all. If you (in the general sense) do not accept the scientific method as it currently is, surely you have an ID/creation scientific method with valid experiments to replace those done with the "secular" scientific method. Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.
Your god believes in Unicorns
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 31 by slevesque, posted 09-04-2010 6:09 PM | | slevesque has not replied |
|
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 823 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: 08-12-2009
|
|
|
Message 34 of 396 (579514)
09-04-2010 11:03 PM
|
Reply to: Message 30 by Blue Jay
09-04-2010 6:01 PM
|
|
Re: Contestant Number 1
Well, Jay, while I appreciate you calling me ignorant in Message 29, I am not here to discuss what creationists do or do not believe. All I am asking for are some experiments using their methods. I've linked to the thread where all of secular science has been bad-mouthed so I don't think it is so cut and dry to say that creationists in general accept a natural explanation for how life coincides with life.
Your god believes in Unicorns
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 30 by Blue Jay, posted 09-04-2010 6:01 PM | | Blue Jay has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 35 by Blue Jay, posted 09-04-2010 11:49 PM | | hooah212002 has replied |
|
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 823 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: 08-12-2009
|
Re: What's a creation experiment exactly?
Go read through ICR Sues Texas and practically any post on this forum where Buzsaw mentions science. It is almost always in reference to "failed secular science". I have a house full of crazy children at the moment, so later today I will go through that thread and pull some quotes so as not to appear to be trying to make anyone support my case for me.
To be fair wouldn't you say that the majority of creationists and ID proponents claim to use the same scientific methods as anyone else, Quite not because there are so many areas of science that they vehemently disagree with because it goes against their fairy-tale book. Perhaps though, I am looking at this issue in the wrong light or too simplistically. If that's the case, I will gladly take some criticisms constructively.
Your god believes in Unicorns
|
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 823 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: 08-12-2009
|
|
|
Message 39 of 396 (579626)
09-05-2010 9:26 AM
|
Reply to: Message 35 by Blue Jay
09-04-2010 11:49 PM
|
|
Re: Contestant Number 1
Ok then. I concede that my example was a bad one. However, a simple "no, that is a bad example" or something like that would have sufficed as opposed to calling me ignorant. I have said before that I am not a professional nor even college educated. All of my knowledge is self taught and I am still learning. Perhaps someone could provide a better example in response to "just look at life. It looks designed, so it must be." which is what my invasive species example was in response to. Surely it is not completely off kilter to see where I was coming from.
Your god believes in Unicorns
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 35 by Blue Jay, posted 09-04-2010 11:49 PM | | Blue Jay has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 41 by nwr, posted 09-05-2010 10:00 AM | | hooah212002 has replied |
|
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 823 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: 08-12-2009
|
Re: Contestant Number 1
And that it was only when they dropped the ball (so to speak), that "invasive-ness" became prevalent? Oh, you mean "the fall of man"? Yea, well that would be invoking supernatural to explain things that have natural explanations.
don't you think you do have to include that as part of the creationist model? For other discussions, possibly. However, what I am asking for are valid experiments using the creationist model. If all they have are ones that invoke the supernatural or using variables that cannot be tested for, then they should stay away from science.
Your god believes in Unicorns
|
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 823 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: 08-12-2009
|
|
|
Message 42 of 396 (579638)
09-05-2010 10:27 AM
|
Reply to: Message 41 by nwr
09-05-2010 10:00 AM
|
|
Re: Contestant Number 1
OK. I'm not offended really and I don't want to drag any further discussion down into who called who what names, because I am genuinely interested in learning some creation experiments. Bluejay: I see what you meant and no offense taken.
Your god believes in Unicorns
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 41 by nwr, posted 09-05-2010 10:00 AM | | nwr has seen this message but not replied |
|
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 823 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: 08-12-2009
|
|
|
Message 44 of 396 (579665)
09-05-2010 1:45 PM
|
|
|
List of quotes defining the purpose for this thread
In no particular order, and not even in entirety, here are some quotes from ICR Sues Texas which led me to create this thread.
Message 214Buzsaw writes: LOL. Secularists define science very narrowly so as to accomodate their own science agenda and disqualify alternative premises from which alternative scientists postulate. Message 197Busaw writes: Are you alleging that ICR does not do observation research, experiment and has no science methodology to develop an ever improving understand of the universe? Why must creationist ID scholastically accredited scientists conform to a naturalist only form of science in order to be considered for creditaion? Admittedly, accreditation to ID institutions will limit the graduates in finding jobs, but there are a number of employers who would rather hire ID scientists and educators over secularist evolutionist ones. Why can't Texas allow creditation based on the science premises of both naturalistic and ID science premises so long as they meet reasonable academic standards? Message 32archeologist writes: thenon the other hand, since the secular world does not own the field of science they have no authority to say what is or isn't scientific. Message 46archeologist writes: and that is why you cannot rely, depend, trust secular science--they are not looking for answers and many people die not knowing anything because they looked to science and they are lost. God is a God of answers and you get to choose that is why the Bible is better than wscience, we get answers and do not have to waste time, energy or money looking for them. Message 52archeologist writes: so it is like the rest of science, done wrong, it is very wrong, done right, it can be ofhelp {and in the science thread I posted links to articles where DNA can be faked so i do not trust secular scientists, and some christian ones when they claim certain results}. archeologist writes: no. the problem is that the secular world rejects the existence of the devil and think everything is okay and that no deception is going on. what is it that they say...'the first thing the devil did was convince people he did not exist...' Message 153Buzsaw writes: Yes, but the concocted theory involves the debatable topic of the properties of space. There's yet a lot of questionable mystery involved in the secularist explanation of gravity for which there is no empirical model. Message 161Buzsaw writes: But Intelligence Design science is not anti-science just because it is an alternative to secularistic science. Message 169Buzsaw writes: I expect some fairnes and balance. As usual secularists insist on their majority bully pulpit science to be exclusively allowed for accreditation. The peer reviews have the same attitude towards what is considered science. None other need apply. Message 226Buzsaw writes: It's alternative sciences that need be left alone and recognized as an alternative real science by definition, in that real accredited scientists subsribe to it, albeit that it is from the ID premise, ID having some supportive aspects. This IDist premise vs naturalistic premise debate has not been won yet by either side, though you non-IDists would like to think and act as if it was. Message 123Dawn Bertot writes: Its really very simple, its an observation of the natural order of chemical and biological processes working together and independently of each other to accomplish its desired and designed purpose, or appearent purpose The evidence is as good for design by an observation and EXAMINATION of the naturalorder of things, s is evolution. Both will not be absolutley demonstratble, but both are evidential and fall within only two logical possibilites Its really that simple. Both are scientific observations Even Percy noticed it:
Message 284Percy writes: You've been telling us that what you call secular science is different from intelligent design science, and we agree. Now, the way I had originally read what Dawn Bertot was writing was supportive of my original assertion (in line with this thread). However, upon further investigation, I realized that he/she was not of the same camp as the above. Rather, he/she is simply asserting "it looks designed, so it must be". Also, I will note that in Message 250 DB does attempt to posit a possible experiment, only coming to the conclusion that "it looks designed, so it must be". If my line of reasoning behind this thread is skewed, please let me know. Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.
Your god believes in Unicorns
|
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 823 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: 08-12-2009
|
Re: List of quotes defining the purpose for this thread
JBR writes: However if you will note in Buzsaw's post #197...... Buzsaw's Message 197quote:
Why must creationist ID scholastically accredited scientists conform to a naturalist only form of science in order to be considered for creditaion?
—Busaw
Looks to me as if he is positing a different form of science........
JBR writes: Then when I examined all of the examples you presented by "archeologist" I did not even seem to find a phrase where s/he postulated creation science as being conducted differently than any other. Maybe not in so many words, but he does say numerous time that "secular science" doesn't work and should be replaced. I am fairly certain I could find quotes form him that said as much, but he's just a troll anyways.
JBR writes: You yourself disqualified Dawn as a good example, For this exact instance? Yes. However, DB does seem to have a different idea of what is acceptable as evidence, as can be still noticed in the ICR Sues Texas thread.
JBR writes: and of course Percy is known to not at all be a spokesman on the side of creationists or ID'sts. I said:
quote:
Even Percy noticed it:
Meaning that Percy noticed that these individuals (or the individual he was replying to) seem to think there is a different form of science.
JBR writes: can we conclude that perhaps you may have inadvertently jumped to conclusions? That is always a possibility. I don't think so just yet though.
"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.
|
™ Version 4.2