Creation Science

[SkyWriting]

SkyWriting said: ↑
That's a very very old ploy. At creation debates, audience members will confront the creationist, after the debate, and spew out something published they feel "proves" the Creationist wrong. Then, from that point on they say the Creationist has been informed on his error, and any time the issue is repeated, he is deliberately misleading his followers. It's an ignorable claim.

You can provide an example?

You could contrast it with support for your dishonest complaint.
"a deliberate dishonest misrepresentation of the same evidence."

See......people get to do that. Reinterpreting evidence is how science works.
You should be more supportive.

 

[RickG]

SkyWriting said: ↑
That's a very very old ploy. At creation debates, audience members will confront the creationist, after the debate, and spew out something published they feel "proves" the Creationist wrong. Then, from that point on they say the Creationist has been informed on his error, and any time the issue is repeated, he is deliberately misleading his followers. It's an ignorable claim.

You could contrast it with support for your dishonest complaint.
"a deliberate dishonest misrepresentation of the same evidence."

See......people get to do that. Reinterpreting evidence is how science works.
You should be more supportive.

I'm not surprised, you don't get it either. One saying that they use the same evidence as mainstream science with a different interpretation, is intellectual dishonesty. One saying that they use the same evidence but present their argument with "different evidence", is deliberate dishonesty. The latter is the focus of this thread.

 

[SkyWriting]

I'm not surprised, you don't get it either. One saying that they use the same evidence as mainstream science with a different interpretation, is intellectual dishonesty. One saying that they use the same evidence but present their argument with "different evidence", is deliberate dishonesty. The latter is the focus of this thread.

I missed your point for very good reason. Any scientific examination of evidence
and subsequent formation of theoretical and therefore purely fictional "stories"
regarding historical events and guesses. Some well informed guesses, some not.

If you start out with the lie that you "know" what happened in the past, the your lies
will bite you in the butt and people will ridicule your imaginary geological-force friends.
No matter how popular your imaginary friends may be.

I have no sympathy for liers you get their views distorted. It is such bologna
that has people believing that any planet with water will have life.

My prediction is that we find millions of ocean planets with no signs of life.

The scientific method, a time-honored approach for discovering and testing scientific truth, ...does not work for past events. Past events cannot be observed, cannot be predicted or deduced from physical evidence, and cannot be tested experimentally.

Secondly, one cannot predict the past. Prediction is an activity in the present that looks to the future, not the past. An attempt to use the scientific method to determine what happened in the past would be “retrodiction.” “Retrodiction” is a neologism for good reason: science cannot “retrodict.” This will be explained subsequently.

Thirdly, one cannot design experiments or controlled observations to determine what happened in the past. Experiments or controlled observations might help one see if a situation is possible or not possible under a set of defined circumstances, but one cannot design an experiment that will replicate the complex variety of conditions that existed in the past — conditions that are often not known in full detail. An experiment or set of controlled observations also cannot provide information about the order and timing of past events.

 

[MikeEnders]

I think if someone is offensive, ignore might be an option, but otherwise other motives like frustration over not being able to support your claims or anger over someone disagreeing with someone else's interpretation of evidence is not a good reason to take that option.

I love it! I get a good chuckle when they announce triumphantly to me and or the board "I am putting him on ignore" as if ensuring that i get the last word to whatever they have to say because they never see it to respond to it is punishment....lol

 

[RickG]

There we go....proves our point. Every year we have people proposing new theories on the same evidence but Rick claims thats intellectually dishonest. Thats pretty much what this whole thread is about - Rick trying to redefine "deliberate" and "dishonest" in order to misrepresent others whose views he doesn't like as "deliberately dishonest"

Based on your previous posts to me it doesn't surprise me in the least that you don't know the difference between the two. But assuming you don't have a professional background in any of the physical earth sciences that would be understandable, and I guess I should have included those definitions in the OP. So, here they are now.

• The deliberate dishonesty, which I did describe in the OP, is claiming to have a different interpretation of the same evidence, but in doing that they do not use the same evidence.
  
• Intellectual dishonesty, is using only the evidence that supports ones position while ignoring all the evidence that does not support that position. This can be either deliberate or through ignorance.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Agreed

How boring. ....

 

[Oncedeceived]

I love it! I get a good chuckle when they announce triumphantly to me and or the board "I am putting him on ignore" as if ensuring that i get the last word to whatever they have to say because they never see it to respond to it is punishment....lol

 

[Oncedeceived]

Based on your previous posts to me it doesn't surprise me in the least that you don't know the difference between the two. But assuming you don't have a professional background in any of the physical earth sciences that would be understandable, and I guess I should have included those definitions in the OP. So, here they are now.

• The deliberate dishonesty, which I did describe in the OP, is claiming to have a different interpretation of the same evidence, but in doing that they do not use the same evidence.
  
• Intellectual dishonesty, is using only the evidence that supports ones position while ignoring all the evidence that does not support that position. This can be either deliberate or through ignorance.

[/QUOTE]
That is shown here repeatedly by materialists.

 

[Goonie]

How boring. ....

I know it's dreadfull, I must learn to disagree regardless of my opinion

 

[RickG]

In Rick's case if you don't adhere to one interpretation...his...then you are being deliberately dishonest. Bully tactics.

Review my reply in post #218, especially the two definitions I provide. And before making anymore unfounded remarks, try to understand what each is and the difference between the two. Next go back to the posts (geologic column doesn't exist, and the lost squadron invalidates ice core chronology) where I provided and described an example and review what I said there.

My whole point is not whether they are wrong or not, the point is that "creation science" claims to use the same evidence with a different interpretation. They are using DIFFERENT EVIDENCE, the interpretation is irrelevant.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I know it's dreadfull, I must learn to disagree regardless of my opinion

There ya go, leave rationality to the wind.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Review my reply in post #218, especially the two definitions I provide. And before making anymore unfounded remarks, try to understand what each is and the difference between the two. Next go back to the posts (geologic column doesn't exist, and the lost squadron invalidates ice core chronology) where I provided and described an example and review what I said there.

My whole point is not whether they are wrong or not, the point is that "creation science" claims to use the same evidence with a different interpretation. They are using DIFFERENT EVIDENCE, the interpretation is irrelevant.

And my point is that even if this is true, which as you know I don't know anything about this area, but you are making a statement concerning the entire branch of science. That is simply to me unfair and unfounded and tends to make you look biased.

 

[Loudmouth]

LOL.....No its not - of course its not "no different". I told you to come up with a better analogy . . .

What's wrong with the analogy?

but for all the reasons I stated before it just doesn't work as an equivalent regardless of what you claim about creationists not understanding.

I showed that your reasons are without merit. There are places on the globe where sedimentation is not happening. Therefore, the geologic column in that place will be missing a layer. Sedimentation does not produce a globe with layers like an onion.

You could conceivably have all layers if even impartially as you concede in one location for the geological column.

However, there is no guarantee that it will. There is no expectation that we should have all the layers in one place.

Also, what does being impartial have to do with this? Perhaps you are using the wrong word?

 

[Loudmouth]

Dubai gets their water from the ocean. That is why they were able to build a city that otherwise has no fresh water supply. Even ships have their own water purification stations to clean the ocean water. A lot of the use of the water is to cool the building to make them more comfortable in that heat.

Desalinization is the word you are looking for, not "clean". Drinking clean ocean water would still leave you dehydrated.

 

[snoopy500]

MOD HAT ON

Thread has undergone a major clean due to off Topic and Flaming. Please stop challenging others people's opinions and please stay on topic with the thread. Further breaking of these will result in further action taken. Thank you.
MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Butterfly99]

I've never even heard of creation science before. I read a thread earlier about creationism being taught in school. So is it creation science that's being taught instead of real science? How does that work? This might be a dumb question but do the people who reject evolution mean they also reject stellar evolution? Is there another version of astronomy they study too?

 

[AV1611VET]

This might be a dumb question but do the people who reject evolution mean they also reject stellar evolution?

I hope so.

 

[RickG]

I've never even heard of creation science before. I read a thread earlier about creationism being taught in school. So is it creation science that's being taught instead of real science? How does that work? This might be a dumb question but do the people who reject evolution mean they also reject stellar evolution? Is there another version of astronomy they study too?

I prefer the term "creation science" as opposed to "creationism". The reason for this is that the original conception of a creationist was one that believes in a literal creation according to the Genesis account and based only on that account; i.e., no science to explain the creation events. These are people that I view as mainstream Christian creationists. However, since the mid twentieth century, there is a group of Christians that have started interjecting their ideas of science into the Genesis account to explain those events. Unfortunately, well accepted and understood (mainstream) science does not agree with creation science. I suggest three things that need to be understood with this conflict. First, there are very few actual scientists that actually write this literature. Second, of those who actually have some sort of scientific credentials, publish completely out of their field of expertise, with very little exception. Third, there is a huge amount of this science deliberately misrepresented. That is, they claim "mainstream" science says many things it does not, thus deliberately misleading their intended audience, which by the way is not the scientific community, rather an audience hugely ignorant of science hearing what they want to hear knowing they will never fact check anything.

 

[AV1611VET]

I prefer the term "creation science" as opposed to "creationism".

I can see why, too.

I don't, though.

Creation science is a contradiction in terms.

 

[RickG]

I can see why, too.

I don't, though.

Creation science is a contradiction in terms.

Yes, I agree. Thus, the topic of the OP which demonstrates this.