My Creation Science Challenge

[Larniavc]

Do you know, Rick, that I went through 12 years of education, then two more years of college, and not once did I see a peer-reviewed article?

I don't even know what one looks like, or how they come about.

Then you show up demanding peer-reviewed articles from us.

I consider that a form of bullying.

What did you study at college (just for my own curiosity)?

 

[AV1611VET]

The existence and reaction to this thread does pose the question of why there is no original research being presented and this has the clear implication that Creation Science is not actually a working science.

Ain't that a shame?

 

[AV1611VET]

What did you study at college (just for my own curiosity)?

Business Administration

 

[RickG]

Do you know, Rick, that I went through 12 years of education, then two more years of college, and not once did I see a peer-reviewed article?

I am not criticizing that.

I don't even know what one looks like, or how they come about.

That is the purpose of this thread, to educate those who don't understand what original research is and what the criteria is for passing peer review demands in the physical sciences.

Then you show up demanding peer-reviewed articles from us.

I consider that a form of bullying.

Asking for supporting evidence for a claim made in a post is bullying? Wow! Just wow. Then I suggest you to report me to the moderators along with everyone else who also asks for supporting evidence and links to it.

 

[JacksBratt]

That question is impossible to answer, because I've never been presented with a god-model sufficiently detailed wich could be validated by evidence.

That's kind of the problem with such unfalsifiable, vague, abstract concepts.

And that's talking about some generic "god" entity.
When going into specific religions, like christianity, we can consider the stories and test them against reality to see if they hold up. And i'm afraid they don't. Adam and eve, Noah and the flood, etc.... Those are a done deal. They are definatly false stories and thus not accurate portrayels of earth's or humanity's history.

Allow me to turn your question around though....

What evidence (or lack thereof) would convince you that what you believe, is actually false?

So, if you cannot tell me what evidence would convince you, how is it possible to present evidence to you at all?

You don't even know yourself, what is sufficient. How are we to, then, present such evidence.

It is an unattainable quest. You make us jump and jump higher and higher. All the time you have no intention of ever being satisfied. Or better still if you can even be satisfied or by what you would be satisfied.

 

[JacksBratt]

There is no "poofing out of thin air" in biology.
But there is in ex-nihilo creationism.

There never will be "poofing out of thin air" in biology. It happened once and now there is no more need of it.
God took six days to "poof" everything into existence that is needed to exist. And, He saw that it was good and rested.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Asking for supporting evidence for a claim made in a post is bullying? Wow! Just wow. Then I suggest you to report me to the moderators along with everyone else who also asks for supporting evidence and links to it.

There's a case to be made that this kind of passive-aggressive self-victimization is a form of bullying in its own right, but I've encountered worse examples on these forums. It's best ignored.

 

[Loudmouth]

So, if you cannot tell me what evidence would convince you, how is it possible to present evidence to you at all?

You could start by citing origin research that has been done in the field of creation science. Where is it?

 

[Loudmouth]

There never will be "poofing out of thin air" in biology. It happened once and now there is no more need of it.
God took six days to "poof" everything into existence that is needed to exist. And, He saw that it was good and rested.

The challenge is to present original research in the field of creation science. Where is it?

 

[RickG]

There's a case to be made that this kind of passive-aggressive self-victimization is a form of bullying in its own right, but I've encountered worse examples on these forums. It's best ignored.

Then the rule under the Formal Debating Rules, "3. Proper citations must be given." is bullying? Houston, we have a problem.
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/formal-debating-rules.2911417/

 

[DogmaHunter]

There never will be "poofing out of thin air" in biology. It happened once and now there is no more need of it.
God took six days to "poof" everything into existence that is needed to exist. And, He saw that it was good and rested.

No, it didn't even happen once.

And I always found it rather funny that an all-powerfull being required "rest".

 

[DogmaHunter]

So, if you cannot tell me what evidence would convince you, how is it possible to present evidence to you at all?

You don't even know yourself, what is sufficient. How are we to, then, present such evidence.

By first presenting a well-defined model that could actually be supported by evidence.
And then presenting that evidence...

Seems rather obvious.

It is an unattainable quest. You make us jump and jump higher and higher. All the time you have no intention of ever being satisfied. Or better still if you can even be satisfied or by what you would be satisfied.

If you fail to present a well defined, falsifiable model, then there is nothing to support with evidence in the first place.

Unfalsifiable models are infinite in number.

 

[AV1611VET]

There never will be "poofing out of thin air" in biology. It happened once and now there is no more need of it.
God took six days to "poof" everything into existence that is needed to exist. And, He saw that it was good and rested.

DogmaHunter needs to learn the difference between creatio ex nihilo and creatio ex materia.

 

[AV1611VET]

And I always found it rather funny that an all-powerfull being required "rest".

 

[HitchSlap]

DogmaHunter needs to learn the difference between creatio ex nihilo and creatio ex materia.

Wouldn't it be more descriptive if you called it creatio ex nihilo anticus materia?

 

[AV1611VET]

Wouldn't it be more descriptive if you called it creatio ex nihilo anticus materia?

If they can't get creatio ex nihilo down, how are they going to get all that other stuff down?

 

[HitchSlap]

If they can't get creatio ex nihilo down, how are they going to get all that other stuff down?

Who cares, really?

 

[AV1611VET]

Who cares, really?

I would think you would, for one.

That way, you wouldn't make mistakes like this:

"There is no "poofing out of thin air" in biology.
But there is in ex-nihilo creationism."

Now, I'll admit, there is no "proofing out of thin air" in biology; and there is in ex nihilo creationism; but I don't think that's what the poster meant.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Then the rule under the Formal Debating Rules, "3. Proper citations must be given." is bullying? Houston, we have a problem.
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/formal-debating-rules.2911417/

Indeed, it's absurd; this may not be a formal debating forum, but requesting a citation to support an assertion is par for the course in a science forum.

 

[HitchSlap]

I would think you would, for one.

That way, you wouldn't make mistakes like this:

"There is no "poofing out of thin air" in biology.
But there is in ex-nihilo creationism."

Now, I'll admit, there is no "proofing out of thin air" in biology; and there is in ex nihilo creationism; but I don't think that's what the poster meant.

Yeah, but other than internet forumz, this is meaningless drivel. Those of us who value reality can't be bothered to understand trivial, convoluted myths to satisfy personal egos.