Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9209 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,486 Year: 6,743/9,624 Month: 83/238 Week: 0/83 Day: 0/24 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What IS Science And What IS NOT Science?
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2767 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 271 of 304 (358615)
10-24-2006 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by Buzsaw
10-24-2006 6:30 PM


Re: ICR Science Research Papers
I'm sure other's will respond too, but here's my shot at this.
Evo says: 1. God - an entity for which we have no emperical evidence
Creo counters: BB singularity - an event for which we have no emperical evidence.
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.
Evo says: 2. A greater distance from the earth to the sun - a situation for which we have no empirical evidence
Creo counters: Uniformitarian distance from the earth to the sun - a situation for which we have no empirical evidence.
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.
Evo says: 3. A greater concentation of dust between the earth and the sun - a situation for which we have no empirical evidence
Creo counters: One of several possibilities, possibility models and senarios being sometimes factored into evo science methodology in consideration of science hypotheses as well.
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.
Evo says: 4. The sun reflecting off of the top of the alleged vapor canopy - a situation for which we have no empirical evidence
Creo counters: Uniformitarian atmosphere - a situation for which we have no empirical evidence
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Buzsaw, posted 10-24-2006 6:30 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Buzsaw, posted 10-24-2006 6:57 PM kuresu has replied
 Message 277 by RAZD, posted 10-24-2006 11:04 PM kuresu has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 272 of 304 (358616)
10-24-2006 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by Straggler
10-24-2006 6:00 PM


Re: ICR Science Research Papers
Hi Straggler. I do appreciate your more amiable approach to debate on these issues. There are others as well who certainly are not caustic. My apologies for possibly implying otherwise in some of my remarks.
Being this thread is nearing fruition and being I'm not inclined to get into another science debate restricted by what is considered science as per EvC present policy, I think it best for you to assess the overall modus operandi as observed in ICR's research papers by and large. If there's even some of these which satisfy the science criteria which you refer as science, end of debate. There is ID and creo science. There are bonafide ID and creo scientists and there is ID creo science being done some where by humans on planet earth today.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Straggler, posted 10-24-2006 6:00 PM Straggler has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 273 of 304 (358618)
10-24-2006 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by kuresu
10-24-2006 6:46 PM


Re: ICR Science Research Papers
kuresu writes:
But a vapor canopy? what the hell is that?
Hi Kuresu. That, my friend, is something that could have been, as per the ww flood science hypothesis, assuming (abe: your scientific} nonuniforitarian atmosphere on planet earth.
Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by kuresu, posted 10-24-2006 6:46 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by kuresu, posted 10-24-2006 7:15 PM Buzsaw has not replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2340
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 7.8


Message 274 of 304 (358621)
10-24-2006 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by Buzsaw
10-24-2006 6:30 PM


Re: ICR Science Research Papers
yup lots of good science in both science hypotheses being researched
What is the authors' hypothesis in the Tunguska paper? What science is being done?
The section headers of the Tunguska paper:
INTRODUCTION
Description of the Event
The Comet Theory
The Nuclear Theory
The Anti-matter Hypothesis
The Black-Hole Hypothesis
CONCLUSION
All the authors write about is other people's idea's. They do not provide their own hypothesis. They do not propose a test for their hypothesis. All they have done is a sum up other people's ideas and say "it appears that the present consensus favors the comet hypothesis". They have not done any science.
Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Buzsaw, posted 10-24-2006 6:30 PM Buzsaw has not replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2767 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 275 of 304 (358623)
10-24-2006 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by Buzsaw
10-24-2006 6:57 PM


Re: ICR Science Research Papers
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 theory
Take 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Buzsaw, posted 10-24-2006 6:57 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22947
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 6.9


Message 276 of 304 (358637)
10-24-2006 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by Buzsaw
10-24-2006 6:30 PM


Re: ICR Science Research Papers
Hi Buz,
Dr. Jones has posted concerning the paper Temperature Profiles for an Optimized Water Vapor Canopy by Larry Vardiman, and you have responded, so let's stick with this one.
As the author himself notes, the idea has fallen upon "hard times", and he's referring to creationist circles. The problem with the vapor canopy, one the author himself does not mention, is that there is no evidence that there ever was one. The reason one was postulated by creationists was to provide a source of water for the flood of Noah, another event for which there is no evidence.
The paper itself proposes God as one possible cause of reduced solar output, and God is another phenomenon for which there is no known scientific evidence. A number of passages from the Bible are openly proposed as sources of evidence for reduced solar output without reference to any corroborating evidence, a highly questionable approach.
The paper itself has a fair amount of technical content, but it serves only as a smokescreen for the lack of any evidence. Vardiman begins by assuming a vapor canopy, something for which there is no evidence and which is widely viewed as not credible, and then he seeks avenues by which a vapor canopy might not really be impossible. If in the end he succeeds in proving that a vapor canopy is not physically impossible, he still will not have completed the very first step in the scientific process: the gathering of evidence. Without evidence his hypothesizing is disconnected from the natural world that science is intended to explore, and so it isn't science.
In other words, Vardiman's paper is a prime example of creationists ignoring evidence. The vapor canopy is not proposed to explain an observed phenomenon of the natural world, but to explain the flood of the Bible. It's perfectly valid to allow the Bible to serve as a source of ideas and inspiration for seeking evidence of a vapor canopy, but evidence of a natural phenomenon must precede the formation of hypotheses.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Buzsaw, posted 10-24-2006 6:30 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by Buzsaw, posted 10-24-2006 11:14 PM Percy has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1659 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 277 of 304 (358665)
10-24-2006 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by kuresu
10-24-2006 6:46 PM


Re: ICR Science Research Papers
Evo says: 2. A greater distance from the earth to the sun - a situation for which we have no empirical evidence
Creo counters: Uniformitarian distance from the earth to the sun - a situation for which we have no empirical evidence.
I'm not too familiar with this, however . . .
I'd wager that we would see a different earth history if this was the case.
Actually we would see differences in the lengths of the year unless the spin of the earth also changed, and there would have to be overall conservation of momentums.
We have astronomical observations of the earth-moon system that talk about the moon orbit increasing and the spin rate decreasing due to gravitational effect of tides on the moon, and this has been calculated back to the time of ancient corals that curiously show the same number of days in a year as what the earth-moon decay rate predicts. And it is not ONE spin rate change but a change in concert with the orbit change. See Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) and page down to the "Talking Coral Heads" section.
Changing the orbit just a little changes the number of days in a year significantly. The evidence is that this did not happen.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by kuresu, posted 10-24-2006 6:46 PM kuresu has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 278 of 304 (358668)
10-24-2006 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Percy
10-24-2006 8:31 PM


Re: ICR Science Research Papers
Percy writes:
Dr. Jones has posted concerning the paper Temperature Profiles for an Optimized Water Vapor Canopy by Larry Vardiman, and you have responded, so let's stick with this one.
OK, assuming the evidence is weak on this paper, are there any of the other papers which have at least enough evidence for you to admit there's some evidence used by creo scientists? Remember, we're suppose to be here debating as to whether creo and ID science exists anywhere by anyone. You people are saying it doesn't. I don't want to spend what's left on this thread discussing the quality of one paper's evidence when there's likely some other science research papers of ICR which have at least a measure of credible evidence.
These papers are not novelist manuscripts, Percy. They are science research papers produced by bonafide scientists like Baumgartner et al. Are you telling the www that none of these ID creo scientist's science research papers have any evidence in them and that none of them can be considered to be science?

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Percy, posted 10-24-2006 8:31 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by FliesOnly, posted 10-25-2006 8:09 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 280 by Percy, posted 10-25-2006 9:46 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 281 by Straggler, posted 10-25-2006 10:05 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 282 by Silent H, posted 10-25-2006 10:30 AM Buzsaw has replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4399 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 279 of 304 (358718)
10-25-2006 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by Buzsaw
10-24-2006 11:14 PM


Re: ICR Science Research Papers
Buzsaw writes:
These papers are not novelist manuscripts, Percy. They are science research papers produced by bonafide scientists like Baumgartner et al. Are you telling the www that none of these ID creo scientist's science research papers have any evidence in them and that none of them can be considered to be science?
Come on now Buz, you're asking "us" to read through quite a few articles and comment on their scientific validity, when most likely many of the article are outside "our" area(s) of expertise.
You have been asked by others to simply pick one of these articles as being something you find particularly convincing. Why not do that one small thing and save us all a great deal of time? So Buzsaw . which paper do you feel best represents a {great} contribution to science by a creo scientist?
But first, let me ask you this:
How many of these articles have been published in peer reviewed scientific journals? Hell, how many have even been submitted for peer review?
If your answer is "none" then my next question to you is: "Why not?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Buzsaw, posted 10-24-2006 11:14 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22947
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 6.9


Message 280 of 304 (358737)
10-25-2006 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by Buzsaw
10-24-2006 11:14 PM


Re: ICR Science Research Papers
Buzsaw writes:
OK, assuming the evidence is weak on this paper, are there any of the other papers which have at least enough evidence for you to admit there's some evidence used by creo scientists?
The larger question is why you're arguing a point for which you have to ask your opponents to find the evidence for you. One would expect that you've taken on the task of arguing that creationists are doing science because you've examined their work in detail and, being fully aware of the requirements of legitimate scientific research and what constitutes valid science, you've judged the larger body of creationist research to be valid science. Given this, you should be able to draw upon this detailed knowledge to make cogent and specific points about how creationism has evidence supporting its foundational hypotheses of a young earth and a world wide flood.
I've shied away from commenting on your competence to argue your position, but asking your opponents to find your evidence for you is just too big a red flag to ignore. If indeed you are competent to argue your position and if indeed there is merit for your position, then carry on in proper debate fashion and support your premise with evidence. But if you are not competent to argue your position or if you're simply out of ammo, then quit arguing.
Remember, we're suppose to be here debating as to whether creo and ID science exists anywhere by anyone.
People might draw conclusions pro and con on this point from the discussion in this thread, but that is not the topic. We're discussing what is and is not science. We've defined science (see Message 144), and we've agreed (or at least I thought we had) to examine an example of creationist research in detail, not so much to reach a final conclusion (that would require examining many papers) but to emphasize by example the essential scientific qualities that tend to be absent from creationist research.
I don't want to spend what's left on this thread discussing the quality of one paper's evidence...
This thread's almost done, so obviously there's a continuation thread in our future if people want to continue the discussion with you, and if you want to continue yourself. I think you'd be best served recruiting someone with a scientific background to take your place. Chris Miller seems like a pretty well-informed guy, and someone like you should take it upon yourself to help him get over his reluctance to participate in on-line discussions.
... when there's likely some other science research papers of ICR which have at least a measure of credible evidence.
I'm sure lots of creationist papers contain credible evidence. I can think of two that do just that off the top of my head. There's Steve Austin's paper, already mentioned in this thread, where he misinterprets and misanalyzes and misreports legitimate scientific evidence. Then there are the many Snelling papers on radiometric dating with tons of legitimate scientific evidence that is all misinterpreted because Snelling ignores all the existing evidence about argon levels in geologically recent volcanic material and about confirmation of K/Ar dating from other radiometric dating methods.
If you go to some mountain tops (the Alps are an example, I believe) you can find fossil sea shells. Legitimate scientific evidence. Evidence of the flood only if you ignore radiometric dating. And ignore that the fossil sea shells can go miles deep in places. And ignore that the migration rate of oysters is measured in miles/century so how did they get to the mountain top and then leave remains of more oysters than could live in a millennium, let alone a single flood year. And ignore what we know of sedimentology and how floods deposit layers. And ignore that there is no evidence of floods leaving behind layers of solid rock. And ignore that the only known way to turn a sedimentary layer into rock is to bury it under ultra-megatons of overlying material so as to compress it into rock. And that the only way to expose that sedimentary rock is through uplift and erosion that takes millions of years. And ignore...well, that's a long enough list, I'll stop. It should be clear just how much obvious evidence creationists are ignoring.
What this fossil shells example makes clear is a significant difference in the way that creationists approach science when contrasted with legitimate science. Let's look at my step 5 of the scientific method from Message 144:
  1. Based upon the results of those tests, either discard the hypothesis as falsified, or return to step 2 and reformulate the hypothesis, or consider the hypothesis confirmed.
Creationists follow a different step 5:
  1. Based upon the results of those tests, ignore the non-confirming evidence and consider the hypothesis confirmed.
ICR puts the requirement of ignoring evidence right into its statement of faith that all ICR members have to sign:
  1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and we believe it to be inspired throughout, all of its assertions are historically and scientifically true in all the original autographs. To students of nature, this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.
So in light of this, what is a Bible-believing creation scientist to do when he encounters evidence that contradicts the Biblical account? Well, we've seen what they do with such evidence. They ignore it, misinterpret it, rationalize it or call it a mystery that can't be explained at present, and I'm sure there are approaches to dispensing with inconvenient evidence that I've missed.
These papers are not novelist manuscripts, Percy. They are science research papers produced by bonafide scientists like Baumgartner et al.
It has been explained many times here at EvC Forum, perhaps even in replies addressed directly to you though I don't actually recall, that Baumgardner (note your misspelling) is a legitimate scientist who does legitimate science having nothing to do with creationism that gets published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, and who also does creationist research that never gets published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
Baumgardner's creationist efforts, for example his Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: The Physics Behind the Genesis Flood, isn't science because he is postulating about a phenomenon for which there is no evidence. Like many creation scientists he has completely ignored the initial scientific requirement to only hypothesize about observed natural phenomenon. He's hypothesizing in a scientific manner about the Genesis account of Noah's flood, but because he did not begin with evidence for the flood drawn from the natural world his hypothesizing is therefore disconnected from the natural world that it is science's purpose to study, and it is therefore not science.
In anticipation of a continuation thread and given the difficulty you're having supporting your premise, my suggestion is that you find a qualified proxy to stand in for you in this discussion.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Buzsaw, posted 10-24-2006 11:14 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Buzsaw, posted 10-25-2006 10:11 PM Percy has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 320 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 281 of 304 (358742)
10-25-2006 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by Buzsaw
10-24-2006 11:14 PM


Re: ICR Science Research Papers
Are you telling the www that none of these ID creo scientist's science research papers have any evidence in them and that none of them can be considered to be science?
Obviously I have not read all these papers. However I am afraid that this is what we are saying.
Not because we have decided that anything that proposes an alternative to established theories must by definition be wrong (that is after all how science progresses). Nor because we have all just decided that anything that suggests a version of physical events compatible with biblical creation cannot be science. That conclusion is potentially as valid as any other if the conclusions are made scientifically.
Rather this assertion is based on the fact that every example given here and every example of creationist research I have ever seen (and presumably the others opposing you on this thread have ever seen) applies a fundamentally different approach to it's research than that which has been described as the definition of the scientific methdod elsewhere in this thread and that which has been used to achieve the results of all conventional science.
Science is it's method. If the method is different it is not science.
Creationist research just does not apply this method.
Creationist research effectively draws it's hypotheses from predetermined conclusions that it considers irrefutable. These conclusions are based neither on physical evidence nor logical inevitability. It then sets out to show how the evidence supports these claims by considering only evidence that COULD support these claims.
The scientific method is so much more than merely making a claim and then looking for evidence that could support it. Without prediction, without the possibility of refutation and without the logical consequences of the hypotheses being examined in detail the investigation is just not scientific.
I fully expect that ALL the papers you have put forward for examination will follow a general trend to a greater or lesser extent.
1) They will make a claim or state a hypotheses the basis of which is indirectly biblical with no physical foundataion.
2) They will then put forward the physical evidence which they assert supports this claim.
3) Any way in which the claim and the evidence supposedly supporting this claim contradicts conventional science will be examined in this context at great length. The strong implication being that if the conventional view is wrong then the one being put forward must by default be true.
4) No predictions regarding unknown outcomes of future investigation or experimentation will be made.
5) No means of refuting the hypotheses in any practical context will be put forwards.
6) No known evidence that contradicts the original hypotheses in any way will be discussed.
7) Finally a conclusion will be drawn that the physical evidence fully supports and justifies the original hypotheses.
That just is not science. As long as IDists put forward research of this type they will not be accepted as doing science no matter how much evidence they put forwards.
Until it is understood (and agreed) why the above is not science there is absolutely no point discussing creationist research on a case by case basis.
However if you feel there are any of these papers which do not fall foul of the above then it seems there are many of us here happy to examine them.
I wish you well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Buzsaw, posted 10-24-2006 11:14 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 6074 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 282 of 304 (358749)
10-25-2006 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by Buzsaw
10-24-2006 11:14 PM


a point about
OK, assuming the evidence is weak on this paper, are there any of the other papers which have at least enough evidence for you to admit there's some evidence used by creo scientists?
In reviewing the list of papers, I found 2 which I could agree there is some science being done, even by today's standards. It is not well done science and I'd have criticism regarding methods and conclusions... not to mention lacing a research paper with quotes from the Bible... but that is besides the point.
They were both by Baumgartner and managed to stay within science in that, no matter what else he argued and was not science, he attempted to test the validity of assumed static decay rates by testing products of decay. He limited the scope of his inquiry to some apparently valid questions regarding products given steady state activity for billions of years, and actually attempted to test them.
Now don't get too excited. First, the studies were problematic (at least one involved a subject I am personally familiar with... zircon as a metamict mineral), though I will not discuss that explicitly unless you want to. Second, and more important, just because someone can do science does not mean all others, or even most, are doing science.
They are science research papers produced by bonafide scientists like Baumgartner et al.
As others have pointed out some of these don't even involve experimentation. Many of them that I looked at were merely theorizing on why something might not be impossible, using other theories as philosophical justifcation. That is not science... not even under the broad definition you argued for.
The fact that you ask others to look through the list to find the evidence you seek, should indicate to YOU that there is a problem, and it is not with the opposing side.
The fact that others manage to find numerous errors, and some errors are found by creationists themselves (yet many creos continue to list them as valid studies), should indicate there is a weakness in creo approaches to science.
The one thing I found refreshing in Baumgartner's papers were some admissions of error as well as discussing (at least in part) the limits of his findings.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Buzsaw, posted 10-24-2006 11:14 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by Buzsaw, posted 10-25-2006 10:20 PM Silent H has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 283 of 304 (358891)
10-25-2006 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by Percy
10-25-2006 9:46 AM


Re: ICR Science Research Papers
Percy writes:
It has been explained many times here at EvC Forum, perhaps even in replies addressed directly to you though I don't actually recall, that Baumgardner (note your misspelling) is a legitimate scientist who does legitimate science having nothing to do with creationism that gets published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, and who also does creationist research that never gets published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
Baumgardner's creationist efforts, for example his Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: The Physics Behind the Genesis Flood, isn't science because he is postulating about a phenomenon for which there is no evidence. Like many creation scientists he has completely ignored the initial scientific requirement to only hypothesize about observed natural phenomenon. He's hypothesizing in a scientific manner about the Genesis account of Noah's flood, but because he did not begin with evidence for the flood drawn from the natural world his hypothesizing is therefore disconnected from the natural world that it is science's purpose to study, and it is therefore not science.
Here in this science research paper which you cite he goes through all the required steps including his observed scientific evidence, charts, models and falsification factors carefully illustrated and explained in the paper he shows, not only his cited evidence that the flood hypothesis is a viable interpretation of the observed evidence, but he also meets head on the primary evo objection, being radiometric dating showing in his scientific research paper clearly why he rejects the dating methodology which supports the uniformitarian non-catastrophic hypothesis. I have brought forth exerpts of the paper and emboldened phrases for emphasis to highlight the science in this paper.
This is your cite, Percy and you can impose any definition of science you wish for your satisfaction, but the evidence shows that there is a great deal of ID creationist science being practiced in the world today by such highly accredited and acclaimed scientists as Dr Baumgardner and other PHD doctorate level scientists associated with or employed by ICR. This is just one example and whoever is interested enough to take the time to briefly scan the other papers on the list cited can see readily that claims by you and others here at EvC that there is no such thing as ID or creationist science is a biased unsupported claim .
We're all here at your website and of course must, so long as we are members here abide by your guidelines.
This thread has served to establish the fact that this is essentially a evo site designed to porpagate and teach the secularist evolutionist ideology and is not a place for evo/creo science debate as the website name erroneously emplies. Again as per your clear stance on your personal definition of science, imo, it would be helpful for you to warn up front at the registration page that creo hypothesis is not allowed in EvC's science fora and that there is no alternative science forum in this site for creos to debate alternative science hypotheses. This would eliminate a lot of unpleasant encounters with creationists who come here originally under the notion that evo vs creo science could be debated.
I am not inclined to participate in another thread since your position has been made very clear here as to what you consider to be acceptable science on your site. To go on would be simply be to beat a dead horse and serve no purpose so far as I can see.
Baumgardner scientific research paper writes:
OBSERVATIONAL SUPPORT FOR CATASTROPHIC PLATE TECTONICS
If such a dramatic catastrophe has occurred in the recent past of our planet, surely there should be abundant observations to confirm it. Because of space restrictions I will limit my discussion to only a few lines of supporting evidence. First, there is the rock record itself. ............... Beyond such impressive lateral continuity at the regional scale, Ager [1] documents many examples of amazing persistence in physical properties of sedimentary units on a global scale. One example is the classic set of formations that comprise the German Triassic: the Keuper, Muschelkalk, and Bunter. These formations with near to identical coloration and physical properties are also found across Europe from England to Bulgaria and in North America on the eastern seaboard as well as across Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona [1, pp. 4-6]. ...............Further, the general absence of erosional channels at boundaries between these sedimentary units suggests a single continuous cataclysm [3, pp. 42-51].
Of course, one of the chief mental barriers to acceptance of the idea of a single cataclysm is the belief that radioisotope dating has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Phanerozoic record spans many hundreds of millions of years. There is a startling inconsistency, however, between radiocarbon and long half-life radioisotope methods. Since the advent of the accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS) approach to measuring 14C/C ratios about twenty years ago, AMS analyses of organic samples from throughout the Phanerozoic record consistently show reproducible amounts of 14C that constrain their ages, instead of to 30 or 100 or 350 million years, to less than 70,000 years. This is true of essentially all samples tested since the early 1980’s in dozens of AMS laboratories around the world as documented in the peer-reviewed radiocarbon literature [9]. Recent AMS analyses conducted by the RATE team on a set of ten coal samples solidly supports this conclusion [9]. The extreme conflict between 14C age determinations and methods based on longer half-life isotopes is pointing to the likelihood that a foundational assumption of radioisotope dating, namely, that nuclear decay rates have always been time-invariant, is incorrect. ...............Moreover, the observed small amount of helium in the Earth’s atmosphere is consistent with only a small amount of helium outgassing from the Earth’s mantle and crust, contrary to the higher levels expected if the conventional radiometric time scale were true [11].
Another indication that the uniformitarian time scale is faulty is the timing of the uplift of today’s continental mountain ranges. Ollier and Pain [24], have reviewed the considerable documentation in the geomorphology literature for a recent (Plio-Pleistocene) near-synchronous uplift of all the continental mountain belts. They point out that in most cases this uplift was preceded by widespread regional erosional planation of the land surface. They emphasize that both the planation and the rapid uplift were
9
global phenomena.
But they are utterly mystified as to what could have been the mechanism for the vertical uplift. ............Catastrophic plate tectonics, however, not only solves the time scale problem, but it also accounts for the widespread erosional planation, provides the mechanism for large local changes in crustal thickness, and explains why the uplifts occurred simultaneously.
................ Cenozoic portions of geologic history are compressed into the span of a year in the catastrophic plate tectonics framework, uplift naturally takes place afterward and, especially from a uniformitarian perspective, appears sudden and simultaneous. The earlier planation corresponds to large-scale erosional processes operating while most of the continental surfaces were still near sea level. Hence, the timing and simultaneity of the uplift of today’s mountains represents powerful support for a recent catastrophic plate tectonics episode.
Yet another type of evidence for recent global tectonic catastrophe is the large magnitude of the temperature anomalies inferred for the rock near the bottom of the mantle. One of the most robust features of lateral mantle structure provided by the field of seismic tomography over the last fifteen years is a ring of dense rock at the bottom of the mantle roughly below the perimeter of today’s Pacific Ocean [26]. ...........Although accounting for such large density contrasts is currently a significant problem for the uniformitarian framework, it is readily explainable in the context of a recent episode of runaway subduction.
10
Figure 4. Distribution of hot (light shaded surfaces) and cold (darker shaded surfaces) regions in today’s lower mantle as determined observationally by seismic tomography as viewed from (a) 180 degrees longitude and (b) 0 degrees longitude. (Figure courtesy of Alexandro Forte.)
................Still another line of evidence supporting the sort of mantle instability described in this paper comes from Earth’s sister planet, Venus. What are some of the most notable difficulties for the concept of catastrophic plate tectonics in accounting for the Earth we observe today, including its record of past geological process? One of the most prominent problems I have mentioned in earlier papers is how the newly formed ocean lithosphere could cool to its present state within such a short span of time. Discussions in early 2001 with Nathaniel Morgan, a new graduate student at Los Alamos National Laboratory with a background in multiphase heat transfer, led us both to realize that supersonic steam jets were almost a certainty along the spreading boundary between diverging ocean plates during the runaway phase of the catastrophe. Further analysis showed that jet velocities exceeding the Earth’s escape velocity might be possible. In this case, the energy per kilogram of steam escaping to space is sufficient to accomplish the bulk of the
11
CONCLUSIONS
As I drive and hike through the southwestern U.S. where I live and observe on a frequent basis the magnificent exposures of the stratigraphical record, I can come to no conclusion other than the uniformitarian story, told over and over for the last 150 years or more”that present day processes operating at roughly present day rates correctly accounts for these strata”is just not true. The story simply does not agree with what can be casually observed in the field. Why then has generation after generation of geologists continued to pay it homage? Part of the answer no doubt is that much of geology focuses on the local detail and is not so directly concerned with big-picture issues. Another part of the answer, however, I believe is that a conceptual model that could account for the magnitude and character of the geological change implied by the observations was simply not available. But with the development of plate tectonics during the 1960’s, this situation changed. For the first time in human history a conceptual framework existed that could account for large-scale tectonic change in a coherent manner. A piece of the framework still lacking at that point was a detailed understanding of the deformation properties of mantle rock. But methodical laboratory experiments over the last 35 years have largely removed this barrier. It is now clear that silicates, like metals, display a rich array of deformation behavior, including dramatic weakening at high temperature and moderate levels of stress. With numerical methods now available it is straightforward to show, upon including these deformation properties, that mantles of planets like the Earth have the potential for catastrophic runaway of the material that form their thermal boundary layers. The evidence is compelling that Venus experienced such a global scale mantle runaway event in its relatively recent past. The evidence is even more compelling, in my assessment, such an event has also taken place on Earth.
I therefore conclude that God has given His church crucial insight that allows us an opportunity to present to the world a framework for earth history with vastly more explanatory power that anything that uniformitarianism has been able to muster. This is a historic moment. We have the key that unlocks secrets to the history of the Earth that no one has ever had before. I believe as creationists we should be laboring with every resource we have at our disposal to bring to fruition a comprehensive Flood geology model/framework that not only includes the large-scale tectonic phenomena but also details of dynamic topography during the catastrophe that influenced the erosion and sediment deposition patterns
12

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Percy, posted 10-25-2006 9:46 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by kuresu, posted 10-25-2006 10:46 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 287 by Percy, posted 10-26-2006 2:03 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 292 by FliesOnly, posted 10-26-2006 8:38 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 284 of 304 (358894)
10-25-2006 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by Silent H
10-25-2006 10:30 AM


Re: a point about
Holmes writes:
Now don't get too excited. First, the studies were problematic.......
At least two is enough to assume that you do not agree with those who argue that there's absolutely no ID or creo science being done any place by any anyone.
Baumgardner cites problems with the creo dating et al as well, so the problem factor is a two way street depending on one's science view.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Silent H, posted 10-25-2006 10:30 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Silent H, posted 10-26-2006 5:36 AM Buzsaw has replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2767 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 285 of 304 (358899)
10-25-2006 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by Buzsaw
10-25-2006 10:11 PM


Re: ICR Science Research Papers
first problem with this paper:
Since the advent of the accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS) approach to measuring 14C/C ratios about twenty years ago, AMS analyses of organic samples from throughout the Phanerozoic record consistently show reproducible amounts of 14C that constrain their ages, instead of to 30 or 100 or 350 million years, to less than 70,000 years. This is true of essentially all samples tested since the early 1980’s in dozens of AMS laboratories around the world as documented in the peer-reviewed radiocarbon literature
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
The extreme conflict between 14C age determinations and methods based on longer half-life isotopes is pointing to the likelihood that a foundational assumption of radioisotope dating, namely, that nuclear decay rates have always been time-invariant, is incorrect.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Buzsaw, posted 10-25-2006 10:11 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by Buzsaw, posted 10-26-2006 12:12 AM kuresu has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024