Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[bhsmte]

That's kinda what I thought.

I'll say it again:

Creationism is not science.

Science can get lost.

If anyone disagrees with me -- let's discuss it.

Unlike some though, let's do it like adults.

No kidding AV.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Where does the word Creation come in then?

Creation in the realm of science comes in as the hypothesis. Trying to determine from the predictions (Genesis 1) to what we find in our universe (Science).

 

[Oncedeceived]

That's kinda what I thought.

I'll say it again:

Creationism is not science.

Science can get lost.

If anyone disagrees with me -- let's discuss it.

Unlike some though, let's do it like adults.

I think AV that you get caught up in the philosophy of science rather than the actual science. Science only is that data that we can discover, the philosophy of science is the interpretation of the data.

 

[Jan Volkes]

a

Creation in the realm of science comes in as the hypothesis. Trying to determine from the predictions (Genesis 1) to what we find in our universe (Science).

Why stop with the bible? all the religions have a creation myth, will your reasoning work for them as well? I think it might.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Sorry, I don't see how you test your hypothesis.

What seems to confuse you?

 

[AV1611VET]

I think AV that you get caught up in the philosophy of science rather than the actual science.

No -- let me make this perfectly clear:

In the light of creationism, SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE.

That means it can take its philosophy & actuality with it.

Science only is that data that we can discover,

Then please feel free to show us the data that says God created this universe ex nihilo, raising its level of mass/energy from zero to its current amount over a period of six days.

And I'll even greatly simplify it.

Just use Day One of the creation week (i.e., just the earth -- not the whole universe) and show me exactly what discovery you would test.

 

[Oncedeceived]

a
Why stop with the bible? all the religions have a creation myth, will your reasoning work for them as well?

It certainly can be accomplished. Is there any scientific evidence that the universe came from breaking into two parts from a cosmic egg? Is there any scientific evidence to support for what
comes next by the growth of a giant whose limbs eventually form the observable world?

 

[bhsmte]

Sorry, I don't see how you test your hypothesis.

Good question.

I would have thought, the handful of Phd scientists who support ID, would have figured that out by now.

 

[bhsmte]

No -- let me make this perfectly clear:

In the light of creationism, SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE.

That means it can take its philosophy & actuality with it.Then please feel free to show us the data that says God created this universe ex nihilo, raising its level of mass/energy from zero to its current amount over a period of six days.

And I'll even greatly simplify it.

Just use Day One of the creation week (i.e., just the earth -- not the whole universe) and show me exactly what discovery you would test.

In the light of creationism, science MUST take a hike.

Sort of like, in the light of holocaust denial, all rational thinking and evidence must take a hike and be ignored.

 

[Goonie]

Typical Evo response...... I guess the pictures of actual existing monstrosities of engineering are "shopped" too.

When I was young I used to just put my hands over my ears and yell LALALALALLALALALAA!

So no change then?

 

[AV1611VET]

In the light of creationism, science MUST take a hike.

You seem to be agreeing with me all of a sudden.

Are you going Stockholm now so you can avoid answering Post 898?

 

[Oncedeceived]

No -- let me make this perfectly clear:

In the light of creationism, SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE.

That means it can take its philosophy & actuality with it.Then please feel free to show us the data that says God created this universe ex nihilo, raising its level of mass/energy from zero to its current amount over a period of six days.

And I'll even greatly simplify it.

Just use Day One of the creation week (i.e., just the earth -- not the whole universe) and show me exactly what discovery you would test.

Lets take the Earth, we don't have the earliest crust from its creation. Now taking the current model (I know that age of the universe is in conflict with YEC but lets ignore that for now) and the dates of origin for the earth and sun. There is no direct way to date the sun, we can't for certain date the earth because of the loss of the earliest record being lost. If we did find a remnant of this earliest time period and it showed (according to dating now used) that the earth was older than the estimated date of the sun it would support the Biblical narrative. As it stands now, the age of the sun is determined not on its direct age but the model in which scientists have developed by not just the data or facts but on what they "think" is reasonable in accordance to what we see now. Science has its uses and it is a tool to determine many aspects of the world but it also must be filtered by biases. Science began as man's way to explain how God did it. I just believe that Genesis is literal and Science just hasn't all the information it needs to completely support it now.

 

[AV1611VET]

Lets take the Earth, we don't have the earliest crust from its creation.

I'm not interested in what we don't have.

I'm interested in these "discoveries" that can supposedly be tested in a lab to confirm creationism.

There is no direct way to date the sun,

Excuse me, but I tried to make this as simple as I could by paring creationism down to Day One -- where the earth is the only thing in existence with mass.

Are you trying to complicate it now by factoring in the sun, which didn't come into existence until Day Four?

 

[Loudmouth]

There were hundreds of discoveries of groups of giant human skeletons throughout the 19th century all over North America. Ranging from 7 to 12 feet tall. These discoveries were routinely reported in the mainstream news (all the original newspapers clipping are freely available online), and official archaeological teams and museums like the Smithsonian were even involved in some of the discoveries. Apparently some were even on display in museums at one time but have since been 'misplaced'. It's pretty amazing when you see all the historical evidence. A world of archaeological discovery that was considered relatively mundane and commonplace little more than a century or so ago just seemingly vaporized into thin air (coincidentally about the same time Evolution theory was rising to prominence) and is now talked about like it is Bigfoot or UFOs.

Richard Dewhurst did a good job of compiling all the information if anyone's interested.

""There's a sucker born every minute" -- David Hannum

That's what Hannum said of PT Barnum's circus. Interestingly enough, that circus had a fake giant.

"The Cardiff Giant was one of the most famous hoaxes in United States history. It was a 10-foot (3.0 m) tall purported "petrified man" uncovered on October 16, 1869, by workers digging a well behind the barn of William C. "Stub" Newell in Cardiff, New York. Both it and an unauthorized copy made by P.T. Barnum are still on display."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardiff_Giant

Just another example of how gullible creationists are.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I'm not interested in what we don't have.

I'm interested in these "discoveries" that can supposedly be tested in a lab to confirm creationism.Excuse me, but I tried to make this as simple as I could by paring creationism down to Day One -- where the earth is the only thing in existence with mass.

Are you trying to complicate it now by factoring in the sun, which didn't come into existence until Day Four?

I'm saying that there is no scientific evidence that provides falsification to the earth being in existence first.

 

[Loudmouth]

Lets take the Earth, we don't have the earliest crust from its creation.

We do have meteorites which mark the beginning of planet formation in our solar system. Meteorites consistently date to 4.5 billion years.

"There are 3 important things to know about the ages in Table 1. The first is that each meteorite was dated by more than one laboratory — Allende by 2 laboratories, Guarena by 2 laboratories, and St Severin by four laboratories. This pretty much eliminates any significant laboratory biases or any major analytical mistakes. The second thing is that some of the results have been repeated using the same technique, which is another check against analytical errors. The third is that all three meteorites were dated by more than one method — two methods each for Allende and Guarena, and four methods for St Severin. This is extremely powerful verification of the validity of both the theory and practice of radiometric dating. In the case of St Severin, for example, we have 4 different natural clocks (actually 5, for the Pb-Pb method involves 2 different radioactive uranium isotopes), each running at a different rate and each using elements that respond to chemical and physical conditions in much different ways. And yet, they all give the same result to within a few percent. Is this a remarkable coincidence? Scientists have concluded that it is not; it is instead a consequence of the fact that radiometric dating actually works and works quite well. Creationists who wants to dispute the conclusion that primitive meteorites, and therefore the solar system, are about 4.5 Ga old certainly have their work cut out for them!"
http://ncse.com/rncse/20/3/radiometric-dating-does-work

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm saying that there is no scientific evidence that provides falsification to the earth being in existence first.

Where is the scientific evidence demonstrating that the Earth is older than the Sun?

 

[Loudmouth]

That doesn't sound like a hard number or anything.
60%? 80%? 95%?
Or is the number

your opinion?

"Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent. "
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html

 

[Loudmouth]

Creation in the realm of science comes in as the hypothesis. Trying to determine from the predictions (Genesis 1) to what we find in our universe (Science).

Where can we find papers where these hypotheses are tested through the scientific method?

 

[Oncedeceived]

We do have meteorites which mark the beginning of planet formation in our solar system. Meteorites consistently date to 4.5 billion years.

"There are 3 important things to know about the ages in Table 1. The first is that each meteorite was dated by more than one laboratory — Allende by 2 laboratories, Guarena by 2 laboratories, and St Severin by four laboratories. This pretty much eliminates any significant laboratory biases or any major analytical mistakes. The second thing is that some of the results have been repeated using the same technique, which is another check against analytical errors. The third is that all three meteorites were dated by more than one method — two methods each for Allende and Guarena, and four methods for St Severin. This is extremely powerful verification of the validity of both the theory and practice of radiometric dating. In the case of St Severin, for example, we have 4 different natural clocks (actually 5, for the Pb-Pb method involves 2 different radioactive uranium isotopes), each running at a different rate and each using elements that respond to chemical and physical conditions in much different ways. And yet, they all give the same result to within a few percent. Is this a remarkable coincidence? Scientists have concluded that it is not; it is instead a consequence of the fact that radiometric dating actually works and works quite well. Creationists who wants to dispute the conclusion that primitive meteorites, and therefore the solar system, are about 4.5 Ga old certainly have their work cut out for them!"
http://ncse.com/rncse/20/3/radiometric-dating-does-work

Your point?