Administrator2
New Member
DOUGI
For creationism to be scientific it must be testable and falsifiable. Since it is the central assumption of creationism that the Christian god as perceived by Protestants created the universe 10,000 years ago and the Earth 6,000 years ago we should assume that the creationists have developed a model for testing this assumption as well as proposed models that would render this assumption false.
Since the assumption is considered scientific there can be no use of religious texts and miracles to make up for missing data. So throw out all the notions that God is supernatural (since he must be testable and tangible, therefore he must be a part of nature), and throw out all the notions that things just happen as a result of miracles, scripture saying so, angels, demons, smurfs and Harry Potter conspiracies.
I ask the creationists to provide their scientific data with the methodology used to form such conclusions. Also provide what sort of evidence would be required to make the creationist assumption falsifiable.
JHAPPEL
It is falsifiable. Creationists believe God created kinds of animals. Don't ask me define every kind but clearly birds, mammals, reptiles, fish, plants, insects are separate kinds. So if common ancestry can be proven creationism collapses. But guess what there is no evidence of common ancestry. The question is can evolution be falsified? I say no. Since the current dogma is science must be naturalistic evolution will never be dethroned because nobody has a better naturalistic theory. Cambrian explosion should have done away with evolution years ago.
Since it is the central assumption of creationism that the Christian god as perceived by Protestants created the universe 10,000 years ago and the Earth 6,000 years ago we should assume that the creationists have developed a model for testing this assumption as well as proposed models that would render this assumption false.
The 6,000-10,000 years is a different issue and would be difficult to falsify because we believe God created the universe fully formed.
How about some evidence of macro-evolution?
We do not deny a young earth is religous and would be difficult but not impossible to falsify. Fortunately there is a lot of evidence for a young earth. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp
JOE MEERT
I fail to see a problem with the “Cambrian Explosion.”
What evidence would convince you of common ancestry?
DOUGI
Your attempts to attack evolution are irrelevant since the topic is the validity, testability and falsifiability of creationism.
TGAMBLE
Creationists believe God created kinds of animals. Don't ask me define every kind but clearly birds, mammals, reptiles, fish, plants, insects are separate kinds.
Amazing. Mammals include humans, apes, rats, dogs etc. Are all mammals (including humans) a single kind?
So if common ancestry can be proven creationism collapses. But guess what there is no evidence of common ancestry.
guess what? There is plenty of evidence for it. The fossil record, embryology, molecular biology etc. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
The question is can evolution be falsified? I say no.
Creationists claim that all the time.
In any case, a precambrian rabbit would do the job nicely.
It's [YEC] been falseified by radiometric dating methods. Not to mention the fact that there's no evidence to show a young earth.
DANEEL
Creation science is "science in reverse"
First: You reach a conclusion based on what you already know is true.
Second: You look for anything that will support your conclusion.
Third: If you find anything that doesn't support it. You ignore it.
Fourth: If there is evidence against it that you don't understand you declare it impossible.
Fifth: If there is any evidence that supports any other theory you try to make it false even if you have to make things up.
This method is far superior to the actual scientific method because you are always right! Cool.
JOHN WELLS
Show me in the fossil record all the in between species. There should be millions of them. There should be more in between species than the species that are alive today. Where are they? I'm not interested in one freak mutant or minor cellular anomalies. Bring me box loads of half this, half that species.
HELEN
Folks,
We have a problem with lies on both sides. That is just the honest truth. I have literally spent the day today tracking down some of the evidences creationists use and there are a number which run somewhere between outright frauds and those which are simply not validated scientifically. Personally, I am disgusted by untruth on both sides.
Evolution, however, especially having so many more scientists working within that paradigm, certainly should clean up its own act. There are still knowingly fraudulent 'evidences' being presented in texts all the way up to the graduate level as well as to the general public. This has been well-documented by Jonathan Wells' in Icons of Evolution.
So it's, first of all, a matter of where the evidence itself actually lies.
Now, is creationISM a science? Of course not. No 'ism' is a science! That's why evolutionists love to use that word. Any 'ism' is a philosophy. Evolutionism included. Both creationism and evolutionism are ways of looking at the evidence and interpreting it. BOTH have the tendency to come at the data with presuppositions regarding the truthfulness of their position. There is circularity on BOTH sides regarding the arguments. Let's just be honest about that!
However, Doug, are there qualified and highly skilled scientists who believe creation is the correct interpretation?
You bet! And there are highly qualified and skilled scientists working full-time in the field as well. So no, 'creation science' is not an oxymoron -- it is a term used to indicate a particular way of looking at science, just as evolution science is another way of looking at science.
And both are based on essentially unprovable beliefs! Both are, in that sense, religious. Creationism implies and requires a creator. Christian/Jewish creationism identifies the Creator as the God of the Bible. Evolution does not specifically deny a deity but marginalizes one to the extreme, since all processes that are acceptable are naturalistic and material. That is basically a religious statement and belief! There is certainly no way of proving it! "All" of just about anything is a mighty hard thing to deal with, and if you are referring to all time, then it is impossible to deal with. Therefore it is a presupposition unsupported by evidence.
We know a great number of causes are quite natural. We see them everyday. But that says nothing about ALL causes. It can't.
So both sides are based on belief systems. You can call that religious or just belief systems, but neither has an essentially scientific foundation.
In other words, evolution is no better than creation where that is concerned.
As I have said before here, the concept that God must be testable to be real is bizarre. Man is not the pentultimate of all time and space and mass, let alone anything outside that continuum! Something does not have to be testable and manipulable (I think I just made up that word?) to be real. That is a statement so arrogant as to be unbelievable.
[Administrator: Cambrian Explosion material removed from this post and the responses in this thread and moved to the Cambrian Explosion thread]
To Daneel – Your description of what happens in ‘creation science’ is absolutely the best I have ever heard – concerning EVOLUTION SCIENCE. I’m serious about that! Evolutionists always presume evolution happened before they even look at the data. The claim is "we have overwhelming evidence" and then they interpret the latest whatever in light of the evolutionary presuppositions and, lo and behold, look -- there's more evidence for evolution!
Both sides have a tendency to do this very thing, actually, and involve themselves in way too many circular, or self-referencing arguments. Where evolution is concerned, there couldn't be a more perfect example than the entire field of cladistics. It is predicated from the start on the idea that common ancestry is true and goes from there. This presupposition on the part of this entire field totally invalidates the objectivity of any conclusions they may draw from their work. The work is interesting, but different presuppositions can really alter the conclusions...
And if the evidence still does not fit evolutionist presuppositions, then you make up new 'reasons' (read 'excuses') like 'convergent evolution' which is, as I have mentioned recently, where the sublime meets the ridiculous in evolutionary propaganda.
TGAMBLE
There is plenty of evidence for it. The fossil record
--- Show me in the fossil record all the in between species. There should be millions of them. There should be more in between species than the species that are alive today.
You don't know much about fossilization do you? How rare and difficult it is.
If a scientist falsifies data, they are shunned like a leper.
JOHN WELLS
You don't know much about fossilization do you? How rare and difficult it is.
No, I'm not an expert by any means, but if you sent me a dump truck load of jackelope, horsedog, and salapanther fossels you'd make a believer out of me!
TGAMBLE
Originally posted by Helen:
Folks,
We have a problem with lies on both sides. That is just the honest truth. I have literally spent the day today tracking down some of the evidences creationists use and there are a number which run somewhere between outright frauds and those which are simply not validated scientifically. Personally, I am disgusted by untruth on both sides.
It's good to see you make that admission. The question is, what problem is there with lies on the evolution side?
Evolution, however, especially having so many more scientists working within that paradigm, certainly should clean up its own act. There are still knowingly fraudulent 'evidences' being presented in texts all the way up to the graduate level as well as to the general public. This has been well-documented by Jonathan Wells' in Icons of Evolution.
His claims are mostly bogus. You just said above that creationists use a lot of misinformation to support their claims. How willing are you to trust one without checking his claims out? http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/icons_of_evolution.html http://fp.bio.utk.edu/skeptic/Debates/Wells%20guide.htm
So it's, first of all, a matter of where the evidence itself actually lies.
That would clearly be with evolution.
Now, is creationISM a science? Of course not. No 'ism' is a science! That's why evolutionists love to use that word.
Oh please! give us some credit! A rose by any other name and all that.
Any 'ism' is a philosophy. Evolutionism included. Both creationism and evolutionism are ways of looking at the evidence and interpreting it.
Simply untrue. Evolutionism refers to the fact and theories of evolution. It's not a philosophy.
BOTH have the tendency to come at the data with presuppositions regarding the truthfulness of their position. There is circularity on BOTH sides regarding the arguments. Let's just be honest about that!
please do. Demonstrate where bias is used on the science side. Keeping in mind that many scientists are, in fact, christians. Keeping in mind that (for example) the old age of the earth was first discovered by Christians. Rather unlikely that they set out to prove the bible wrong! So where's the bias?
However, Doug, are there qualified and highly skilled scientists who believe creation is the correct interpretation? You bet!
problem is, they also insist that evidence doesn't matter. If the bible says something, it's true. End of story. Now that's bias! Scientist on the creationist side are a very low minorty.
And there are highly qualified and skilled scientists working full-time in the field as well. So no, 'creation science' is not an oxymoron -- it is a term used to indicate a particular way of looking at science, just as evolution science is another way of looking at science.
"evolution science" is not a way of looking at science. there's no such thing. Evolution is a part of science. It's as silly as reffering to relativity science.
Creation "science" is an oxymoron because it doesn't follow the rules of how science works.
And both are based on essentially unprovable beliefs! Both are, in that sense, religious. Creationism implies and requires a creator. Christian/Jewish creationism identifies the Creator as the God of the Bible. Evolution does not specifically deny a deity
Good grief! First time I've seen a creationist admit that!
but marginalizes one to the extreme, since all processes that are acceptable are naturalistic and material.
You could say the same thing about chemistry, physics, geology, astronomy or any other field of science.
That is basically a religious statement and belief! There is certainly no way of proving it!
First, it's the way science operates. Does a pretty good job that way. 2nd of all, of course there's no way to prove there isn't a god. You can't prove a negative.
We know a great number of causes are quite natural. We see them everyday. But that says nothing about ALL causes. It can't.
If a god exists, you can't know that ANY causes or processes are natural. God could be doing it and explanations that are natural could be totally false.
So both sides are based on belief systems. You can call that religious or just belief systems, but neither has an essentially scientific foundation.
On the contrary, what you describe for evolution IS the foundation of science.
As I have said before her, the concept that God must be testable to be real is bizarre. Man is not the pentultimate of all time and space and mass, let alone anything outside that continuum! Something does not have to be testable and manipulable (I think I just made up that word?) to be real.
Maybe (through I doubt you could name something known to exist that isn't testable in anyway.
That is a statement so arrogant as to be unbelievable.
I have an invisible pink unicorn in my garage. If you couldn't test for it in any way, would you accept that it exists?
These are just two quotes from sources from "your side" out of, literally hundreds, of references to the problems posed evolutionarily regarding the Cambrian explosion.
I beg to differ, neither one shows that the so called explosion is a problem. They don't even say it's a problem.
Why is it a problem? You haven't shown that.
To tgamble -- no, there is no EVIDENCE of common ancestry. There is only the INTERPRETATION of common ancestry from the evidence!
No, there is evidence for common ancestory. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Tell me, if you will, why should the interpretation be made from the evidence of a common ancestor instead of a common designer?
Like I said, that's a question creationist needs to answer. Mainly because you have things like psedugenes that have no fuction. Maybe because you have similar structures for dissimilar function. etc. etc.
To Daneel -- evolutionists always presume evolution happened before they even look at the data.
Not so. Science doesn't work that way. Evolution is tested all the ttime. They look at the data with "if evolution is true we should see this, or shouldn't see that"
Where evolution is concerned, there couldn't be a more perfect example than the entire field of cladistics. It is predicated from the start on the idea that common ancestry is true and goes from there.
This is simply untrue. Cladistics does NOT assume common ancestory at all.
JOHN WELLS
When evolutionists talk fossils, they talk about cambrian age worms and then ones with feet at a higher layer. Let's fastforward to a much later geologic time. What did horses, antelopes, and panthers evolve from? Send me a truckload of their fossils. There would have to be many. They can't just disappear.
For creationism to be scientific it must be testable and falsifiable. Since it is the central assumption of creationism that the Christian god as perceived by Protestants created the universe 10,000 years ago and the Earth 6,000 years ago we should assume that the creationists have developed a model for testing this assumption as well as proposed models that would render this assumption false.
Since the assumption is considered scientific there can be no use of religious texts and miracles to make up for missing data. So throw out all the notions that God is supernatural (since he must be testable and tangible, therefore he must be a part of nature), and throw out all the notions that things just happen as a result of miracles, scripture saying so, angels, demons, smurfs and Harry Potter conspiracies.
I ask the creationists to provide their scientific data with the methodology used to form such conclusions. Also provide what sort of evidence would be required to make the creationist assumption falsifiable.
JHAPPEL
It is falsifiable. Creationists believe God created kinds of animals. Don't ask me define every kind but clearly birds, mammals, reptiles, fish, plants, insects are separate kinds. So if common ancestry can be proven creationism collapses. But guess what there is no evidence of common ancestry. The question is can evolution be falsified? I say no. Since the current dogma is science must be naturalistic evolution will never be dethroned because nobody has a better naturalistic theory. Cambrian explosion should have done away with evolution years ago.
Since it is the central assumption of creationism that the Christian god as perceived by Protestants created the universe 10,000 years ago and the Earth 6,000 years ago we should assume that the creationists have developed a model for testing this assumption as well as proposed models that would render this assumption false.
The 6,000-10,000 years is a different issue and would be difficult to falsify because we believe God created the universe fully formed.
How about some evidence of macro-evolution?
We do not deny a young earth is religous and would be difficult but not impossible to falsify. Fortunately there is a lot of evidence for a young earth. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp
JOE MEERT
I fail to see a problem with the “Cambrian Explosion.”
What evidence would convince you of common ancestry?
DOUGI
Your attempts to attack evolution are irrelevant since the topic is the validity, testability and falsifiability of creationism.
TGAMBLE
Creationists believe God created kinds of animals. Don't ask me define every kind but clearly birds, mammals, reptiles, fish, plants, insects are separate kinds.
Amazing. Mammals include humans, apes, rats, dogs etc. Are all mammals (including humans) a single kind?
So if common ancestry can be proven creationism collapses. But guess what there is no evidence of common ancestry.
guess what? There is plenty of evidence for it. The fossil record, embryology, molecular biology etc. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
The question is can evolution be falsified? I say no.
Creationists claim that all the time.
In any case, a precambrian rabbit would do the job nicely.
It's [YEC] been falseified by radiometric dating methods. Not to mention the fact that there's no evidence to show a young earth.
DANEEL
Creation science is "science in reverse"
First: You reach a conclusion based on what you already know is true.
Second: You look for anything that will support your conclusion.
Third: If you find anything that doesn't support it. You ignore it.
Fourth: If there is evidence against it that you don't understand you declare it impossible.
Fifth: If there is any evidence that supports any other theory you try to make it false even if you have to make things up.
This method is far superior to the actual scientific method because you are always right! Cool.
JOHN WELLS
Show me in the fossil record all the in between species. There should be millions of them. There should be more in between species than the species that are alive today. Where are they? I'm not interested in one freak mutant or minor cellular anomalies. Bring me box loads of half this, half that species.
HELEN
Folks,
We have a problem with lies on both sides. That is just the honest truth. I have literally spent the day today tracking down some of the evidences creationists use and there are a number which run somewhere between outright frauds and those which are simply not validated scientifically. Personally, I am disgusted by untruth on both sides.
Evolution, however, especially having so many more scientists working within that paradigm, certainly should clean up its own act. There are still knowingly fraudulent 'evidences' being presented in texts all the way up to the graduate level as well as to the general public. This has been well-documented by Jonathan Wells' in Icons of Evolution.
So it's, first of all, a matter of where the evidence itself actually lies.
Now, is creationISM a science? Of course not. No 'ism' is a science! That's why evolutionists love to use that word. Any 'ism' is a philosophy. Evolutionism included. Both creationism and evolutionism are ways of looking at the evidence and interpreting it. BOTH have the tendency to come at the data with presuppositions regarding the truthfulness of their position. There is circularity on BOTH sides regarding the arguments. Let's just be honest about that!
However, Doug, are there qualified and highly skilled scientists who believe creation is the correct interpretation?
You bet! And there are highly qualified and skilled scientists working full-time in the field as well. So no, 'creation science' is not an oxymoron -- it is a term used to indicate a particular way of looking at science, just as evolution science is another way of looking at science.
And both are based on essentially unprovable beliefs! Both are, in that sense, religious. Creationism implies and requires a creator. Christian/Jewish creationism identifies the Creator as the God of the Bible. Evolution does not specifically deny a deity but marginalizes one to the extreme, since all processes that are acceptable are naturalistic and material. That is basically a religious statement and belief! There is certainly no way of proving it! "All" of just about anything is a mighty hard thing to deal with, and if you are referring to all time, then it is impossible to deal with. Therefore it is a presupposition unsupported by evidence.
We know a great number of causes are quite natural. We see them everyday. But that says nothing about ALL causes. It can't.
So both sides are based on belief systems. You can call that religious or just belief systems, but neither has an essentially scientific foundation.
In other words, evolution is no better than creation where that is concerned.
As I have said before here, the concept that God must be testable to be real is bizarre. Man is not the pentultimate of all time and space and mass, let alone anything outside that continuum! Something does not have to be testable and manipulable (I think I just made up that word?) to be real. That is a statement so arrogant as to be unbelievable.
[Administrator: Cambrian Explosion material removed from this post and the responses in this thread and moved to the Cambrian Explosion thread]
To Daneel – Your description of what happens in ‘creation science’ is absolutely the best I have ever heard – concerning EVOLUTION SCIENCE. I’m serious about that! Evolutionists always presume evolution happened before they even look at the data. The claim is "we have overwhelming evidence" and then they interpret the latest whatever in light of the evolutionary presuppositions and, lo and behold, look -- there's more evidence for evolution!
Both sides have a tendency to do this very thing, actually, and involve themselves in way too many circular, or self-referencing arguments. Where evolution is concerned, there couldn't be a more perfect example than the entire field of cladistics. It is predicated from the start on the idea that common ancestry is true and goes from there. This presupposition on the part of this entire field totally invalidates the objectivity of any conclusions they may draw from their work. The work is interesting, but different presuppositions can really alter the conclusions...
And if the evidence still does not fit evolutionist presuppositions, then you make up new 'reasons' (read 'excuses') like 'convergent evolution' which is, as I have mentioned recently, where the sublime meets the ridiculous in evolutionary propaganda.
TGAMBLE
There is plenty of evidence for it. The fossil record
--- Show me in the fossil record all the in between species. There should be millions of them. There should be more in between species than the species that are alive today.
You don't know much about fossilization do you? How rare and difficult it is.
If a scientist falsifies data, they are shunned like a leper.
JOHN WELLS
You don't know much about fossilization do you? How rare and difficult it is.
No, I'm not an expert by any means, but if you sent me a dump truck load of jackelope, horsedog, and salapanther fossels you'd make a believer out of me!
TGAMBLE
Originally posted by Helen:
Folks,
We have a problem with lies on both sides. That is just the honest truth. I have literally spent the day today tracking down some of the evidences creationists use and there are a number which run somewhere between outright frauds and those which are simply not validated scientifically. Personally, I am disgusted by untruth on both sides.
It's good to see you make that admission. The question is, what problem is there with lies on the evolution side?
Evolution, however, especially having so many more scientists working within that paradigm, certainly should clean up its own act. There are still knowingly fraudulent 'evidences' being presented in texts all the way up to the graduate level as well as to the general public. This has been well-documented by Jonathan Wells' in Icons of Evolution.
His claims are mostly bogus. You just said above that creationists use a lot of misinformation to support their claims. How willing are you to trust one without checking his claims out? http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/icons_of_evolution.html http://fp.bio.utk.edu/skeptic/Debates/Wells%20guide.htm
So it's, first of all, a matter of where the evidence itself actually lies.
That would clearly be with evolution.
Now, is creationISM a science? Of course not. No 'ism' is a science! That's why evolutionists love to use that word.
Oh please! give us some credit! A rose by any other name and all that.
Any 'ism' is a philosophy. Evolutionism included. Both creationism and evolutionism are ways of looking at the evidence and interpreting it.
Simply untrue. Evolutionism refers to the fact and theories of evolution. It's not a philosophy.
BOTH have the tendency to come at the data with presuppositions regarding the truthfulness of their position. There is circularity on BOTH sides regarding the arguments. Let's just be honest about that!
please do. Demonstrate where bias is used on the science side. Keeping in mind that many scientists are, in fact, christians. Keeping in mind that (for example) the old age of the earth was first discovered by Christians. Rather unlikely that they set out to prove the bible wrong! So where's the bias?
However, Doug, are there qualified and highly skilled scientists who believe creation is the correct interpretation? You bet!
problem is, they also insist that evidence doesn't matter. If the bible says something, it's true. End of story. Now that's bias! Scientist on the creationist side are a very low minorty.
And there are highly qualified and skilled scientists working full-time in the field as well. So no, 'creation science' is not an oxymoron -- it is a term used to indicate a particular way of looking at science, just as evolution science is another way of looking at science.
"evolution science" is not a way of looking at science. there's no such thing. Evolution is a part of science. It's as silly as reffering to relativity science.
Creation "science" is an oxymoron because it doesn't follow the rules of how science works.
And both are based on essentially unprovable beliefs! Both are, in that sense, religious. Creationism implies and requires a creator. Christian/Jewish creationism identifies the Creator as the God of the Bible. Evolution does not specifically deny a deity
Good grief! First time I've seen a creationist admit that!
but marginalizes one to the extreme, since all processes that are acceptable are naturalistic and material.
You could say the same thing about chemistry, physics, geology, astronomy or any other field of science.
That is basically a religious statement and belief! There is certainly no way of proving it!
First, it's the way science operates. Does a pretty good job that way. 2nd of all, of course there's no way to prove there isn't a god. You can't prove a negative.
We know a great number of causes are quite natural. We see them everyday. But that says nothing about ALL causes. It can't.
If a god exists, you can't know that ANY causes or processes are natural. God could be doing it and explanations that are natural could be totally false.
So both sides are based on belief systems. You can call that religious or just belief systems, but neither has an essentially scientific foundation.
On the contrary, what you describe for evolution IS the foundation of science.
As I have said before her, the concept that God must be testable to be real is bizarre. Man is not the pentultimate of all time and space and mass, let alone anything outside that continuum! Something does not have to be testable and manipulable (I think I just made up that word?) to be real.
Maybe (through I doubt you could name something known to exist that isn't testable in anyway.
That is a statement so arrogant as to be unbelievable.
I have an invisible pink unicorn in my garage. If you couldn't test for it in any way, would you accept that it exists?
These are just two quotes from sources from "your side" out of, literally hundreds, of references to the problems posed evolutionarily regarding the Cambrian explosion.
I beg to differ, neither one shows that the so called explosion is a problem. They don't even say it's a problem.
Why is it a problem? You haven't shown that.
To tgamble -- no, there is no EVIDENCE of common ancestry. There is only the INTERPRETATION of common ancestry from the evidence!
No, there is evidence for common ancestory. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Tell me, if you will, why should the interpretation be made from the evidence of a common ancestor instead of a common designer?
Like I said, that's a question creationist needs to answer. Mainly because you have things like psedugenes that have no fuction. Maybe because you have similar structures for dissimilar function. etc. etc.
To Daneel -- evolutionists always presume evolution happened before they even look at the data.
Not so. Science doesn't work that way. Evolution is tested all the ttime. They look at the data with "if evolution is true we should see this, or shouldn't see that"
Where evolution is concerned, there couldn't be a more perfect example than the entire field of cladistics. It is predicated from the start on the idea that common ancestry is true and goes from there.
This is simply untrue. Cladistics does NOT assume common ancestory at all.
JOHN WELLS
When evolutionists talk fossils, they talk about cambrian age worms and then ones with feet at a higher layer. Let's fastforward to a much later geologic time. What did horses, antelopes, and panthers evolve from? Send me a truckload of their fossils. There would have to be many. They can't just disappear.