How do you do creation science research?

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
That is not the question that science is asking. Science asks, "How could you know?". That is at the heart of science, finding a way to test your ideas to figure out if they are right or wrong.



First, you need to figure out what the mechanism of creation is. Then, you need to figure out what pattern of similarity and differences this mechanism should produce when species (both living and extinct) are compared to one another.



Here is a big paper comparing two ape genomes (Pan troglodytes and Homo sapiens):

Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome : Article : Nature


You still haven't shown how a scientist can do scientific research using creationism.

See, that is what an evolutionist can do. It did not address the question.
I want to compare genomes of "a sequence of" "extinct" apes. It is useless only to compare genomes of modern species. They only show differences, but do not indicate evolution.
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
However, any alternative age must be supported by evidence. Creationism is an alternative mechanism to evolution, therefore it must be supported by evidence.



Then there is no substitute. You have to do research and support any substitute with evidence.



Yep. This is why it is called a false dichotomy. There is always a chance that both answers are wrong.



Then show how a young earth could be falsified. Describe a geologic formation that should not exist if the Earth is only 10 my old.

Same as biology, there are things called mechanism and process. Different mechanism and process will result in different Rate. A faster rate will shorten the time needed to make an object. I don't need to falsify anything. I just need to find an alternative, but faster way to make the same thing.

Many people said now that Darwinism is wrong. I believe they are right. And I don't think it is hard to argue against any specific case about Darwinism. It is possible that even I can do some.
 
Upvote 0

mzungu

INVICTUS
Dec 17, 2010
7,162
250
Earth!
✟24,975.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
My comparison is on the red text. The design of the project is the most prominent advantage for a creationist.
Have you turned heathen now? The text in red is blasphemy. Don't you know the answer? In The case you have forgotten here it is:

CREATIONISM = GOD DID IT CASE CLOSED!

Swallow your pride and move on ;):wave:^_^^_^^_^
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
Same as biology, there are things called mechanism and process. Different mechanism and process will result in different Rate. A faster rate will shorten the time needed to make an object. I don't need to falsify anything. I just need to find an alternative, but faster way to make the same thing.

You also need to show that these different mechanisms and processes were responsible for the formation, that they actually exist, and be able to differentiate them from the processes that produce a similar formation at slower rates.

So what type of geologic formation would be inconsistent with a 10 myo Earth? What type of formation could these mechanisms and processes not produce?

If your theory is unfalsifiable you need to go back to the drawing board. One of the most important steps in designing a scientific research program is determining what your null hypothesis is. You have to be able to show other scientists that you are able to detect false positives if they exist. The placebo effect is a good example of this. In drug studies, some of the subjects are given a sugar pill. If the drug under investigation has the same or lesser effect than the sugar pill then the drug effect is considered a false positive.

You also need to construct a dating method of some kind that is objective and justifiable.

Many people said now that Darwinism is wrong. I believe they are right. And I don't think it is hard to argue against any specific case about Darwinism. It is possible that even I can do some.

Science is not the process of saying that a theory is falsified. It is about DEMONSTRATING that a theory is falsified. Within the scientific arena, once you have falsified evolution you still need to support creationism with positive evidence. This may not be the case in the theological arena, but it is this way in the scientific arena.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
Since you are pushing, then I will give you a definition of creationism.

Creationism = science + God.

Then all you need to show is how God can be used as part of the scientific method. Show how you can create a testable hypothesis based on the actions of God. How do you create a null hypothesis when the hypothesis contains the actions of God?

If you are not using the scientific method, then there is no science in the equation.

Can you see that creationism includes science but is bigger than science?

I am looking forward to you showing me how the two can work together. So far, you have only claimed that they can be used together. I am waiting for you to demonstrate how it is done.

Since evolution claimed to be scientific, if I can knock it down, then God is the only choice for evolutionist without evolution.

You first need to show that creationism is a choice. This requires research demonstrating that creationism is a scientifically viable mechanism. Without this work there are zero choices after the falsification of evolution.

In short, a creationist could be a scientist (same as every other scientist) but with God in his mind. I don't have to prove God. So your challenge is not really a valid one.

Let's look at this from the opposite direction. All I need to do to prove evolution is to find one piece of evidence that is inconsistent with creationism, correct? As soon as I have disproven creationism it makes evolution true by default, according to your argument. Therefore, radiometric dating of rocks demonstrates that they are older than 10 myo. Creationism is now falsified. Evolution is proven.
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Then all you need to show is how God can be used as part of the scientific method. Show how you can create a testable hypothesis based on the actions of God. How do you create a null hypothesis when the hypothesis contains the actions of God?

If you are not using the scientific method, then there is no science in the equation.



I am looking forward to you showing me how the two can work together. So far, you have only claimed that they can be used together. I am waiting for you to demonstrate how it is done.



You first need to show that creationism is a choice. This requires research demonstrating that creationism is a scientifically viable mechanism. Without this work there are zero choices after the falsification of evolution.



Let's look at this from the opposite direction. All I need to do to prove evolution is to find one piece of evidence that is inconsistent with creationism, correct? As soon as I have disproven creationism it makes evolution true by default, according to your argument. Therefore, radiometric dating of rocks demonstrates that they are older than 10 myo. Creationism is now falsified. Evolution is proven.

Not that easy. We do not know what does the the number from the calculation mean. We assume it is, for example 15 m.y. We do not really know it is 15 m.y.. In other word, we do not understand the nature of radiometric decay.

You continuously try to put God into the realm of science (such as hypothesis, falsify, prove, etc.). That is wrong. For example, something God can do, but are like magics to us. So when we study the nature by science, you may close your eyes to things that can not be explained by science. But if you do not, then you should consider God. It is true 1000 years ago. The key fact is that it is still true today. (example: before radiometric dating, we do not understand geology. with radiometric dating now, we still do not understand geology.)

Since creationism = science + God, then the correct question for you to ask is: what is the content on the "God" part? If you continuously try to jam God into science, then you do not understand that simple definition, and you do not try to understand it.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Since all the evidence contradicts the biblical creation, I'm assuming you just read Genesis. Only the entire bible is finite. Does that mean that if I've read the bible, I'm just as qualified as any other creation scientist? What about the creationist accounts of religions other than Christianity? Do I just read their holy books?

I'm going to assume you mean "Scientific Evidence" for a moment:

There may be no more important issue for authors and reviewers than the question of reproducibility, a bedrock principle in the conduct and validation of experimental science.


I've always relied on regular Science journals to tell me that all the "kinds" of life on the earth have always existed from the beginning. And Science has never disappointed me. Species are found "Much older than assumed", are found to "evolve faster than anyone imagined they could", are found Ancient and unchanged, are found "co-existing", when thought to be ancestors....on and on. All pointing to a singe creation event with certain kinds of species engineered to adapt to a degrading environment.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
We assume it is, for example 15 m.y. We do not really know it is 15 m.y..

Then you are assuming the conclusion which is very non-scientific.

In other word, we do not understand the nature of radiometric decay.

You may not, but physicists do. So not only does creationist research require you to assume the conclusion, it appears it also requires you to ignore 100 years of research in physics.

You continuously try to put God into the realm of science . . .

No, that would be creationists. They are the ones trying to force creationism into the science classroom. Creationists are the ones claiming that creationism is a valid scientific option to evolution.

If you want to claim that creationism is not scientific and is purely a religious belief then I will agree with you.

So when we study the nature by science, you may close your eyes to things that can not be explained by science.

Science does just the opposite. It opens its eyes even wider and looks for an explanation. Creationists do just the opposite. They try to prevent others from finding an answer. Read my signature.

But if you do not, then you should consider God.

Why? Name one thing we were ignorant of 200 years ago that is KNOWN to be the product of God's actions? By KNOWN, I mean demonstrable through positive evidence. Name one thing. I can name thousands and thousands of things that we were once ignorant of but is now explained by science and is backed by mountains of empirical and repeatable observations.

"God did it through magic" has been a complete failure as an explanation for what we are ignorant of.

The key fact is that it is still true today. (example: before radiometric dating, we do not understand geology. with radiometric dating now, we still do not understand geology.)

Since when do we not understand geology? In 1831, Adam Sedgwick admitted that Noah's flood was falsified. We knew enough 180 years ago to know that creationism was false. Our knowledge of geology has only increased since then.

Since creationism = science + God, then the correct question for you to ask is: what is the content on the "God" part?

No, what is the science content? If you can't show how the scientific method is used then there is no science in the equation. It is creationism = religion. That's it.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
I've always relied on regular Science journals to tell me that all the "kinds" of life on the earth have always existed from the beginning. And Science has never disappointed me.

Evidence please.

Species are found "Much older than assumed",

How does this indicate that the species was magically poofed into being by a supernatural deity?

are found Ancient and unchanged,

Name one modern species that is found unchanged in rock that is 500 million years old.

are found "co-existing", when thought to be ancestors

Just like Europeans are co-existing with Americans even though Europeans are the ancestors of Americans. Yeah, way to think that one through.
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Then you are assuming the conclusion which is very non-scientific.



You may not, but physicists do. So not only does creationist research require you to assume the conclusion, it appears it also requires you to ignore 100 years of research in physics.



No, that would be creationists. They are the ones trying to force creationism into the science classroom. Creationists are the ones claiming that creationism is a valid scientific option to evolution.

If you want to claim that creationism is not scientific and is purely a religious belief then I will agree with you.



Science does just the opposite. It opens its eyes even wider and looks for an explanation. Creationists do just the opposite. They try to prevent others from finding an answer. Read my signature.



Why? Name one thing we were ignorant of 200 years ago that is KNOWN to be the product of God's actions? By KNOWN, I mean demonstrable through positive evidence. Name one thing. I can name thousands and thousands of things that we were once ignorant of but is now explained by science and is backed by mountains of empirical and repeatable observations.

"God did it through magic" has been a complete failure as an explanation for what we are ignorant of.



Since when do we not understand geology? In 1831, Adam Sedgwick admitted that Noah's flood was falsified. We knew enough 180 years ago to know that creationism was false. Our knowledge of geology has only increased since then.



No, what is the science content? If you can't show how the scientific method is used then there is no science in the equation. It is creationism = religion. That's it.

So you do not agree with my definition.

That is fine. We just have a different definition on the same term. That is OK. This is a simple and fundamental difference, why would it take you so much trouble to argue on things that have different definition to begin with? That is not very scientific. Is it?

Creationists interfere the school teaching on science because they think that science education should include more than just science, it should include God in addition to science. The reason is simple: science can answer very few questions. It is not good enough for science education.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Originally Posted by SkyWriting I've always relied on regular Science journals to tell me that all the "kinds" of life on the earth have always existed from the beginning. And Science has never disappointed me. Species are found "Much older than assumed"
Evidence please.

On the following diagram, a "Creationist Tree" would have some minor branches and no major ones. Support for the "Creation Tree" is any pushing of branches to the left, plus co-existing species.

The Tree of Life


How does this indicate that the species was magically poofed into being by a supernatural deity?
Explained above.

Name one modern species that is found unchanged in rock that is 500 million years old.
Only Igneous and some metamorphic rocks can be dated. (Lava)
There are no species in Lava. I'm not saying that the dating is accurate. Just that true believers, like yourself, place much faith in their guesstimates.
are found "co-existing", when thought to be ancestors -Sky
Just like Europeans are co-existing with Americans even though Europeans are the ancestors of Americans. Yeah, way to think that one through.
Fortunately for us, scientists have no bias when seeking the truth:

"We came into the project extremely biased against the idea of gene flow," said Harvard Medical School's David Reich, one of the study's authors, who specializes in examining the relationship between human populations using genomic data.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Some Questions for Christians:

- Why do you hate the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

It has no effect on me or anyone I've ever had contact with, is the logical answer.
Pure indifference.


- If God created man from dust, then why is there still dust?
It has multiple uses, is the logical answer.

- How can God just be created from nothing?
He wasn't created, is the logical answer.

- If you believe in God and the bible, where do you get your morals from?
"Parents" is the " "

- Why do you want to keep religion in our government when the United States was obviously founded on atheist beliefs?
Per Jefferson, our Government is "powered by the governed" and the founders are now dead.

About them dead guys:
Of the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence,
nearly half (24) held seminary or Bible school degrees.

John Adams - "Suppose a nation...should take the Bible for their only law Book...what a Paradise would this region be."

Thomas Jefferson - "I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ."

John Hancock - "Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual...your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us."

Benjamin Franklin - "Here is my Creed. I believe in one God, the Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His Providence. That He ought to be worshipped...As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, is the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see;



Samuel Adams-
James Madison

Roger Sherman

Benjamin Rush

John Witherspoon

Alexander Hamilton

Patrick Henry

John Jay



- Why do you want to ban atheism from schools?
A clear straw man. I can't find any general support for the idea anywhere.

- Why are you so intolerant of Judaism?

You mean like my good friends for 20 years?
Granted, I've only been to temple a couple times.
I don't call that intolerant.

You mean why doesn't the US support Israel?
Support for Israel in U.S. at 63%, Near Record High
 
Upvote 0

Davian

fallible
May 30, 2011
14,100
1,181
West Coast of Canada
✟31,103.00
Faith
Ignostic
Marital Status
Married
<snip>
Benjamin Franklin - "Here is my Creed. I believe in one God, the Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His Providence. That He ought to be worshipped...As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, is the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see;

...

"Here is my Creed: I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable Service we can render to him, is doing Good to his other Children. That the Soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with Justice in another Life respecting its Conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental Principles of all sound Religion, and I regard them as you do, in whatever Sect I meet with them. As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw, or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting Changes, and I have with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his Divinity" - Benjamin Franklin

I saw that you forgot to include that last bit.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Davian

fallible
May 30, 2011
14,100
1,181
West Coast of Canada
✟31,103.00
Faith
Ignostic
Marital Status
Married
"Here is my Creed: I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable Service we can render to him, is doing Good to his other Children. That the Soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with Justice in another Life respecting its Conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental Principles of all sound Religion, and I regard them as you do, in whatever Sect I meet with them. As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw, or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting Changes, and I have with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his Divinity" - Benjamin Franklin

I saw that you forgot to include that last bit.

We certainly see Ben's problem here, don't we?

I'm just a newbie here, and would not hazard a guess at what you are thinking. Please elucidate.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Name one modern species that is found unchanged in rock that is 500 million years old.
Fern has not changed. Even before I know anything at all, I could tell looking at a fern that it was very old compared to most everything else in the world we live in.

So tell me that part again about why some things change and some things do not change.
 
Upvote 0