"Creation Science" experiments.

A fundamental difference between science and creation science is that science advances knowledge, where creation science advances itself.Creation science will never have an independent set of experiments because that's not the pursuit of creation science. Creation science is about affirmation and not discovery. Mainly affirmation for the Xians that want to believe already. The creatiom museum wasn't made to pull in non-believers and convert them. It was made to milk, err I mean attract Xians who already want to believe in what they are being presented. They just need an Animatronic dinosaur and whatever else to comfort them in what they believe to be true. Note: The most obvious experiment related to that is to visit a dinosaur bone site and test for the presence of hominid bones among the dinosaur ones. Of course creation science doesn't want you to do that because you won't find any. You only hear more of what Coyote calls the Xian "What if's?" on why human bones don't appear with dinosaur ones.You must also keep in mind that religion itself doesn't encourage questioning of any kind. In fact some believe that questioning Jesus as the Messiah even once is instant condemnation to hell for eternity. Experimentation is one of the ultimate forms of questioning and creation science also doesn't encourage that. They don't want the average joe to discover things and advance their knowledge, they want them to believe what they say without question. Most of the time since what they teach is to fellow Xians they don't get much push back anyway. Experimentation is the scientists way of saying "Show me the money" errr I mean "Show me the data". Creation science is about convincing others (and often times themselves) about what they want (and sometimes desperately need) to believe. Not about what the observed data really shows.Experimentation is almost entirely useless when used against almost any creationist hypothesis. The reason for this, is because almost every experiment that can be done relating to creation science can use the phrase "God must have intervened" to fix any problems that do not provide the correct results. Any experiment that runs into a problem can immediately apply the "Goddidit!" step and fix the results to whatever they want them to be. Sort of like having a giant cosmic easy button they can push anytime they need an explanation that doesn't fit the facts. Of course this completely nulls out the whole point of the experiment and creation scientists know it. Can you imagine how unenforceable certain laws would be if that were allowed as evidence? Well you as can plainly see the devil put the fingerprints on the murder weapon and placed the defendants DNA all over the crime scene. Of course that would be laughed out of court the same as it should be laughed out of anywhere near calling itself science.Just MO

quote:

---

Actually yes I can. I can name a few as a matter of fact. But why would I bother? The thought of jogging in place or pedaling one of those stationary bikes for hours and hours upon end, boars me to tears before I even start. I like to see some ground covered for my efforts. Again... it would be an exercise in futility without you even acknowledging ID as a viable possibility next to AE.

​

I say that because you and I know how the conversation would go. I would present scientist "A" who did ID research #1, #2, and #3, and published his results in peer review literature a, b, and c. Then you would come along and attack scientist A's credentials, thereby claiming to have discredited all of his research, and then the icing on the cake will be when you call all of the peer review journals and literature "nothing but pseudo-science, not recognized by the REAL scientists." And the same will go on for my presentation of Scientist B, C, D, E, F, G........and so on.

​

So before we even start such a conversation we would need to both agree on what constitutes "real" science, what constitutes a real scientist, what counts as real research, and finally what counts as peer review publications. 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.

---

You are missing the OP's point, he wasn't asking for you to show him proof of creation/ID from someone else's work. He was asking for an experiment (so to speak) that we all can do that will show us proof that creationism or ID is scientific.It also sounds more like "Sure god could let you win the lottery, but you would waste all the money anyway and be miserable and probably ending hurting everyone you love. So in other words he loves you so much that he won't let you win it". Essentially a big rationalized cop out that seems moar, I mean more like you got nothing than something.

Edited by menes777, :