What IS Science And What IS NOT Science?

probably a moot point, but: Duane Gish? Kent Hovind? Randman? Herapton? ICR?I mean, come on, there are a ton of people who debate things without knowing a damn about what they're debating. And they will actually issue the challenges! You don't really think that those four people and one group really get evolution, do you? And what stops them from issuing challenges and debating on evolution and trying to disprove it?I'm not sure if the statement you made is a fallacy, but it defintely is not a good argument to use. Knowledge is, apparently, not a requisite for debate.

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

try this on for size--it's called the scientific method.Define the question
Gather information and resources
Form hypothesis
Perform experiment and collect data
Analyze data
Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypotheses
Publish resultsthis list here, from wiki is a liitle extensive, but it has all the core parts. Notice where the hypothesis is? On this list it's third. On the usual five-step list it's second. And guess what comes before you form the hypothesis? Observations and questions.Here's how the full thing works.
Hey, this is interesting (finds odd fact--no edge of world) observationWhy is there no edge to the earth? from questionMaybe there is no edge because the earth is a sphere? hypothesisHow can I test this hypothesis? I know, let's sail around it. If I make it all the way around the world without falling off, the earth is at least edgeless. experiment(let's just say he's successfull)okay, so I've got this data here, and it appears to confirm my hypothesis. analyze and collect datanow I'll just send it to my collegues so they can repeat and verify.And yeah, I kinda screwed up with the (analyze, collect, and interpret part. maybe because I worded my hypothesis wrong)anywho, the whole point--you're wrong. THe scientific method is how you do science, and it never, never, never starts with the hypothesis. It always starts with observations.

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

What are trying for here? Pity? Empathy? Or are you just plain mad? Percy would die if this happened. The moment you can actually do creationsim as real science, you can talk about it all you want, consider it all you want, support it all you want. But that's the caveat--you have to do it by science's way. I wonder why this is so? That intelleigent entity you speak of isn't testable. We accept the possibility for intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. What we don't accept, on a scientific basis, is that there is a God behind all this (the "other intelligence considered by creos" part of the last quote). Why? You cannot scientifically test God. He isn't part of the natural world, you know, that realm in which only the physical happens. I might want to remind you, that at least historically, the method behind science came about before this debate, and it shoots down astrology, cosmology, phrenology, and a bunch of other psuedo-sciences. Now then, tell me, which is more scientific--astronomy or astrology? If science wasn't based on methodological naturalism (which, by the way, doesn't preclude the non-existance of God. it just leaves the question open) and the scientific method, you would have to not only include creationism (and it's cousins of YEC, OEC, ID), but also astrology, cosmology, and phrenology.As to other parts of that quote, such as "rejecting the universal English language dictionary definition which would accomodate all views". You better believe we do that. Tell me, which "theory" defintion should science use? The collogquial, or the scientific? You are asking science to use the colloquial defintions to do science. Words have different meanings for a reason. Do you engineers get to define the words the use in their field? Do theologists? Why not scientists? And what's the point of having a science (which is supposed to find out how things work through physical means) if any explanation will work? There won't be any moving forward.Science depends on this narrow defintion to move forward. If you allow all views to be acceptable, then I can explain A with B, and you can explain A with C, and Percy can explain A with D, and all of them are valid. And then, when trying to apply A to the real world, we're screwed. It's like allowing christian theology to allow all views to be acceptable. Now then, clearly Judaism is not christianity, right? But if I turn the tables on you, and ask you to make it so that christian theology accepts all views, well, Judaism must be accepted as christianity. So what if science, in this instance, is highly bigoted. It has to be to succeed in its stated aim of finding out how and why things happen through physical means. oh boo-hoo. you're appeal to pity here ain't gonna work. hell, you think this place is tough. Don't you realize that scientists tear each other up in the same way? When you bring forth a position, and it gets refuted, and then bring it up again, and it's refuted a second time, and you just keep on bringing it up and up and up, ad infinitum, well, of course we're gonna get peaved. Just like if I kept on bringing up my picture of christianity, and it keeps on getting refuted by you, and yet I don't listen, and bring it up time and time again, you'd get just as peaved, wouldn't you?We've explained to you just what science is, the methodology and the philosophical foundation, and why it has to be like this. And yet, you ignore it and bring up the same shit over and over. Naturally, we get peaved. Once a point is refuted, unless you've got new evidence that undoes the refutation, drop the point. you are a master of self-pity, aren't you? You're only upset that what you brought to the fight wasn't good enough, so now you're running to mommy screaming "they fit me, they fit me, it hurts so bad" (and crying at the same time). Or, you're the kid whose claiming that the other side used unfair measures to win, when in all reality, you didn't have what it took to win. Get over it, pick youself back up, and actually build up your case.You're right about the "pet agenda", though. Of course, not in the way you're thinking. The purpose of this site, is education. Educating creationists in just what science is.In the end, you lost this debate. You promised to bring forth a creationist doing real science trying to support creationism. You're two examples failed miserably. The first, Chris Miller (I think that's the name) wasn't even doing science--his guppy thing was on off the side hobby. Now, his geology work might count as science, except he's doing it in the service of New York state--which means he's using mainstream, scientifically accepted, geology. Not geology attempting to support creationism. The second example, the ICR guy, was doing false science the moment he omitted any data that would screw up his conclusion--that radiometric dating is false.And now that you've lost, you've become the kid crying about how "unfair" it all is. (sorry if this seems harsh, admins and buz. there's a certain point in me, and those last two statements by buz broke them. I think they're an accurate portrayal of what's happening, but . . .)

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

I'm sure other's will respond too, but here's my shot at this. creo counter is false. We do not know what happened at the time of the singularity. However, we have the basic history for all but like the first several million years. How? the laws of physics, and when you get down to it, if those were different in the past (and then changed to what they are today) (which we can see over 13 billion years into) we would see a different result. I'm not too familiar with this, however . . .
I'd wager that we would see a different earth history if this was the case. We can tell that the oceans during the mesozoic were a lot warmer, like around a hundred degrees farenhheight. So I doubt that we can't figure out the distance from the sun and earth millions of years ago. What with being able to look at life history and all. I've never encountered this claim by creos before. I'm not even sure what the hell you're "creo counter" is trying to say. Someone else, I'm sure, will answer this. my favorite one. Science doesn't even claim a uniformitarian atmosphere for the life history of the earth. And we have evidence that says the atmosphere has changed. From a methane based to a nitrogen based. And we know that the oxygen levels were around 40% during the carbiniferous period (i think that's the right one). That's the Paleozoic era. Even now the atmosphere is changing--we're getting a heck of a lot more CO₂ in the air, and even this has changed dramatically in the past.But a vapor canopy? what the hell is that? I thought it was supposed to be this shell around the earth's surface, up in the sky, that held water. But a lack of empirical evidence for this idea seriously disables it. why? if it was around in the past, there should be something hinting at that, more, that is, than just a passing reference of it in the bible.

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

As far as I can tell, the vapor canopy is nothing more than a source of water for the flood, along with the fountains of the deep. Of course, even AIG has problems with it, such as the intolerable heat for life on earth if it were true. Oh, and by the way, what do you mean by "nonuniforitarian atmosphere".Because, by uniformitarian, I would think you mean non-changing. When applied to the atmoshpere, this would mean the atmosphere has never changed. In one sense, this is right. The atmosphere has always been made of gas. On the other hand, the composition of the atmosphere has changed, especially concerning the levels of specific gases. And one new element has been added since the earth's creation. So by non-uniformitarian, when applied to the atmosphere, do you mean that the atmospheric composition has never changed, or that it once was made of something other than gases?(oh, and vapor implies gaseous state, unless you've changed it's meaning, too).And in the end, no, the vapor canopy could not have been.

quote:

---

Vardiman12 recognized a major difficulty with the canopy theory. The best canopy model still gives an intolerably high temperature at the surface of the earth.

​

Rush and Vardiman have attempted a solution,13 but found that they had to drastically reduce the amount of water vapor in the canopy from a rain equivalent of 40 feet (12 meters) to only 20 inches (.5 meters). Further modeling suggested that a maximum of 2 meters (6.5 feet) of water could be held in such a canopy, even if all relevant factors were adjusted to the best possible values to maximize the amount of water stored.14 Such a reduced canopy would not significantly contribute to the 40 days and nights of rain at the beginning of the Flood.

---

from about halfway down the page, A major probelm with canopy theoryTake note in the next paragraph, which I did not quote, but follows the one I did. Creationists are abandoning the model. It can't exist at the necessary temperature while giving enough water to the flood. For life to even be possible, AIG claims that the only vapor canopy possible is one that supplies 20 inches to 40 feet of water.And others have, naturally, falsified the vapor canopy.(and one last thing--it doesn't depend on a non-uniformitarian atmosphere, either)

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

first problem with this paper: you do not use C¹⁴ to date rock layers older than 70,000 years. If you do, you will automatically get a date that shows 70,000. The reason why? because at that point, there's so little unstable isotope left as to not get an accurate reading.And he ignores what dates other isotopes give for these rock layers, except to say that which in and of itself is an improper conclusion.So he says that all isotope dates show this conflict, but he doesn't give the numbers to support his claim in the paper.As to why it's an improper conclusion, is that the uniformity of decay rates is not based soley on radioactive decay. He ignores the evidence (a lot of it organic, such as tree rings) that confirm half-life decay rates backwards for several million years at the least.So we have two problems here--he ignores evidence that throws out his conclusion, and then he makes the claim of a circular argument being used to prove a separate conclusion, when this isn't the case.I'll let others handle other problems with this paper.

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.