What IS Science And What IS NOT Science?

quote:

---

Is the possibility of uniformitarianism forever as falsifiable as the possibility of a ww flood given the likelihood that atmospheric carbon, nitrogen, and other elements would not be uniform in a pre-flood atmosphere which could render the dating of pre-disaster organisms as appearing very old? How about the possibility of other unknown disasters relative to element makeup of atmosphere and organisms at any given time tens of thousands to tens of millions of years ago rendering dating methods questionable?

---

I think that this treally illustrates Buzsaw's approach to science. Good science is all about sayign what Buzsaw wants to hear. Making up excuses about a pre-Flood atmosphere is "good science" no matter that the evidence does not show a Flood, does not show any of these supposed differences and that the dating methods have been checked (did you know that C14 dating has to be calibrated because ther rate of production is NOT constant ?). It is not just that these excuses do not apparently need a factual basis - they do not even need a theoretical basis in "Buzsaw science". Certainly I've never seen any valid explanation of why a "pre-Flood" atmosphere would be expected to be different - and certainly no reason why the abundance of C14 relative to other carbon isotopes should be different.

quote:

---

Question for you and others: Are IDist scientists who study the layering of sediments et al, oberving samples, recording the results of research done by means of photography, written data and comparisons with other data, publishing the data and forming a (Abe:WW )flood hypotheses on the basis of what they have observed et al doing science? Would they be doing all of this science work if the flood were not falsifyable?

---

Yes. In fact the YEC "scientists" (not ID-ists in general, many of whom accept that the Earth is old or won't admit to caring about the age) are doing "all this work" to try to discredit the evidence that falsifies the Flood. They would be quite happy to make the Flood unfalsifiable - as the attack on dating methods quoted above makes clear. They would like to "prove" that the religious dogma that they worship is correct - but they would be happy to settle for making it unfalsifiable.

quote:

---

PaulK says they check dating methods.

---

Because it's true.

quote:

---

I say PaulK and others are not factoring in our hypothesis that there was as ww flood which skews any form of modern dating technique.

---

It's not that your hypothesis isn't dealt with - it's that it is solidly contradicted by the evidence and lacks even a plausible theoretical basis. It's just bullshit made up to avoid dealing with the facts. Real science can, should, must reject it.

quote:

---

Why can't you people understand why we should not be expected to debate our science on the basis of your pemise?

---

Because what you call "our premise" is the truth. Science is NOT about forcing the evidence to fit sectarian dogma as you and Iano would have it. Science is a non-sectarian method of discovering the empirical world around us.

quote:

---

Your premise is secularistic. Ours factors in a supreme designer intelligently guiding prosesses

---

That ignores the religious believers here who accept science as it is, and those who work within science. There is no "secularistic premise" just a general understanding that God is beyond the reach of science.And of course you misrepresent the truth when you say that you simply "factor in" a "supreme designer". The fact is that you assume that your interpretation of Genesis is literal truth - and hold that there is no need to accurately represent the evidence or even know what it is. All that matters to you is agreement with Buzsaw.And that is what you call science. It isn't. It is anti-science. It is religious apologetics. To call it science would be a lie.

Here is what Judge Overton stated in the Arkansas trial:

quote:

---

More precisely, the essential characteristics of science are:
(1) It is guided by natural law;
(2) It has to be explanatory by reference to nature law;
(3) It is testable against the empirical world;
(4) Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and
(5) Its is falsifiable. (Ruse and other science witnesses).

---

Even if there is no precise definition of science these are at least very good points that need to be considered.Considering the hypothesis of "different conditions before the Flood" which somehow affect all dating methods that give results inconvenient to YECs it seems to fail all of the above points.It especially falls afoul of the fifth in that it is produced precisely to evade falsification. Why presume conditions that just happen to give results that are consistently wrong in different dating methods which have no direct connection ?

To see if this is a scientific hypothesis I would like Buzsaw to answer the following questions.For the purrpsoes of this post I would like to specifically consider radiocarbon dating, dendrochronology and the varve counts from Lake Suigetsu. Other dating methods, such as Luminescence dating may be considered llater.1) When do we place the Flood and how does the Flood appear in the data used in the above methods ?2) What are these conditions and how do they affect the dating methods used ?3) What reason do we have to think that these conditions applied ?4) Why do all these methods produce results which are quite strongly consistent ?
(There are some differences - which are expected - due to the production of C14 varying over time - but the results are still close enough).

I think that they are relevant since they deal with the issue of whether the idea is scientific or simply an excuse to ignore solid evidence. I strongly suspect that the reason that you do not answer is that you have no answer worth mentioning.

quote:

---

For example, Chris Miller, the geologist who did the science seminar at our church is working to falsify (abe: his) creo hypothesis that guppies stop variations of micromutations at a given perameter/boundary, preventing them from mutating out of the species. As I mentioned before this is an ongoing research he does in his home basement lab (abe: with hundreds of guppies). Nobody will ever convince me that this bonafide working ID creo scientist/geologist is not doing science and that what he is doing is not science, peer review or not. I don't see anything in this thread that effectively refutes that argument.

---

This does not seem to be a very good example (and why is a geologist trying to deal with biology when YEC has very serious problems with geology - shouldn't he be trying to solve the problems in his own field ?). For instance we might ask how the experiment is done. Is there any selective force involved which might support speciation ? How is he determining if speciation has occurred ? How is he measuring "micromutations" ? How long has his experiment gone on for ? How is he managing the fish ?There are a lot of questions to be answered before we can confidently declare this to be worthy of being called science. And that is why the lack of peer review is worrying. At the least he should have got someone familiar with evolutionary biology - and guppies - to look over the experiment and work out if it is being done correctly.Still at least we have an example of a creationist who still rejects speciation despite the massive evidence for it.

quote:

---

Razd, you are judging this scientist as to his work without neither of us having enough information to make a judgement regarding the quality of the science he is doing.

---

Yet you were quite happy to insist that it was science and use this man as an example of "good science" when apparently all he is doing is preaching things that you like to hear and running an experiment that is probably pointless and quite likely completely incapable of actually addressing the question it is supposed to address.(How long does he intend to run the experiment, anyway ? Even if he gets everything right the "rapid" speciation of Punctuated Equilibria is supposed to take centuries - maybe around 1000 years. So unless he has set up his experiment so that it will continue to run that long I doubt that it could ever support the conclusion he wants)

Thatr answer doesn't addess any of the serious concerns (to list three examples: lack of input from knowledgable sources at the time the experiment was designed, test for speciation, timescale). It just looks even more as if the experiment is a waste of time and doesn't really attempt to engage evolutionary theory. Whatever results he get will have no significance to the question the experiment was supposed to address.So you can stand by your opinion all you like, but without evidence its still just an opinion.

OK. We note that you cannot support your claim that creationists do genuine science and don't feel it even worth the effort of making a serious attempt.I have to ask than, what was the point of starting the thread ? Did you seriously expect your opponents to simply change their minds on your say-so ?

I'd strongly suggest looking for work by Kurt Wise - he's as well qualified as any creationist and seems to be more honest than most.

quote:

---

1. Only one hypothesis is acceptable to EvC science, that of The E in EvC, allowing the C of EvC no hypothesis from which to interpret the evidence observed.

---

By which you mean that falsely labelling your religious dogma a hypothesis it should be accepted as scientific - even though it is not tested and will not be rejected no matter what the evidence shows.

quote:

---

2. Evo assumes the level of inteligence here on this speck of a planet in the whole universe as the only possible intelligence in the universe, totally ignoring and rejecting evidence creos incorporate in their hypothesis upon which alternative interpretation may be based. Throughout the thread I have given examples of this which has been ignored or passed over by my counterparts.

---

This is utterly false. Evolutionists DO accpet the possibility of intelligence elsewhere - but it is not treated as relevant to the history of life on earth because the evidence for it is simply not adequate.

quote:

---

3. Evo's tyrannical and oppressive hold on the science agenda including their own narrow view of the definition of science, rejecting the universal English language dictionary definition which would accomodate all views, has given them the bully pulpit so as to silence all other views than their own in education, in journals, in the media and in forums like EvC.

---

I note that the chosen dictionary was close to 100 years old and did not reflect modern usage. So this claim is also false. What you mean is that creationists seek to redefine "science" to include their religious apologetics - but evolutionists stick with current usage. It is the creationists who want to play definitions game to falsely claim the prestige that real science has earned.

quote:

---

4. The atmosphere from which I have been debating here in this thread has been both demanding and unfriendly for the most part with moderation skewed to favor the majority viewpoint for much of the thread. This becomes wearisome and depressing after so much of it so as to render each loggin as another unpleasant experience. EvC is becoming ever more hostile, exclusive and condescending to objective debate on the issues.

---

There's plenty of hostility from your own posts. And your misrepresentations have not helped. Nor have your unsubstantiated attacks on the moderation. And to suggest that favouring objective truth over your subjective opinions impedes "objective debate" is ludicrous.

quote:

---

5. My counterparts who reject the ICR research project which I have cited as as well as ICR Grand Canyon projects as non-science show that their collective biased chorus of self gratification for their own pet agenda prevails, leaving any creo debate as a waste of time and effort

---

The study referred to involved either hopeless incompetence - or more likely outright dishonesty. To accept it as real science would be foolish in the extreme. The date produced was the date that the method should have produced if it were working correctly. To trumpet that as evidence that it doesn't work - especially given the likelihood that the result was intentional - is not in the least scientific.

quote:

---

Baumgardner is also ignoring all the other radiometric data, such as K/Ar and Rb/Sr dating to mention just two...

---

He's also ignoring the fact that radiometric dating confirms that the rate of seafloor spreading has been of the same order of magnitude as current rates for a long time. There's no evidence for his catastrophic plate tectonics.

I think that Buzsaw's attitude throughout this thread has demonstrated why creationism is not and never will be scienceBuz sees no need to actually look into the facts. In the case of Chris Miller he stated that "nothing would convince him" that Miller was not doing science. Yet Miller himself admitted that the experiment Buz referred to did not exist.On the other hand Buzsaw's opponents have dug into the facts and found that Buz is wrong. For this they are met with anger and false accusations. For telling the truth instead of agreeing with Buzsaw.Science requires digging into the facts. It is not about choosing a conclusion that suits the enquirer and not bothering to look further. In choosing the latter approach Buzsaw has illustrated exactly what is wrong with creationism and why it cannot be science.