My Creation Science Challenge

[USincognito]

Ow my....
Amazing to see that people still say such things.

Well, you are talking about someone who thinks that, "open your eyes and look around you" is original research.

 

[USincognito]

I haven't had time to read the whole thread but can anyone direct me to the post where some original creation research was presented?

It hasn't.

 

[USincognito]

No matter, I find that science is out to prove itself rather than look for the real truth. This all started when mankind wrote in stone their idea of truth. Now, anything that contradicts it is ridiculed and anything at all that can be bent to prove the hoax of evolution is held at the top of the list and shouted from the rooftops as solid truth.

Good thing that science is not a pursuit of "truth".

Peer review has lost it's punch, lost it's validity, lost it's integrity.

You can keep repeating a falsehood, but it won't make it the truth*.

*See what I did there.

 

[Kenny'sID]

You actually think it is an assumption. It isn't. We can observe the universe expanding. It is a scientific conclusion backed by evidence, not an assumption.

You have GOT to be kidding me, of course it's assumption.

See how ridiculous you people are. I can observe things being created every day, an absolute fact, then from that conclude it was all created but be wrong in your minds, while you make an observation, a pretty damned wild one at that, yet it is becomes a fact, not assumption. And the double standard is the least of your problems with that one.

The universe puts off dust too, but that doesn't equate to dust creating the universe, so not only is that not evidence it's a ridiculous, even laughable assumption.

I'm stunned at how gullible seemingly intelligent people can be. Dogma said he never stated there was no God or something like that, so I should not accuse him of it, but gotta' say, you people have to have some type of serious agenda to fall for this stuff.

Talk about a complete lack of reasoning, your posts are perfect examples. You don't even understand what an assumption is.

My lack of reasoning? Oh please, after all you've claimed recently? Still dwelling on the definition of assumption I see? Your desperation is showing, but I'd be desperate too if I were in your shoes, so I get the fact you have to grab hold of what you think is usable in order to dig your way out. However, the fact I get it, doesn't make it any less sad.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Well, you are talking about someone who thinks that, "open your eyes and look around you" is original research.

Well you all seem to keep your eyes closed and completely miss the simple observations, or try to cover it up with long winded lies, so I thought it bared mentioning.

And I guess you conveniently missed the part where I said my answer was what it was, all depending on what the OP meant by original research.

While you berate others, I have to wonder if you can do better. What do you have for us, what is your own original research?

 

[RickG]

You have GOT to be kidding me, of course it's ( an expanding universe) assumption.

Seriously? It was first observed by Hubble in the 1920s. It's measurable. Are you saying the universe is stagnant, not expanding?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Seriously? It was first observed by Hubble in the 1920s. It's measurable. Are you saying the universe is stagnant, not expanding?

Not at all, I'm saying it's assumption that because it's expanding now doesn't equate to it all started with expansion as was claimed.

Read my comment about "dust". The claim is a convenient, ridiculous, out of the blue assumption.

 

[RickG]

Not at all, I'm saying it's assumption that because it's expanding now doesn't equate to it all started with expansion as was claimed.

In other words you deny the big bang. I guess the entire astronomical community are just a bunch of blithering idiots then.

 

[AV1611VET]

I guess the entire astronomical community are just a bunch of blithering idiots then.

Mainly lost souls in search of the Truth.

FYI, the Bible says the universe is expanding.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

You have GOT to be kidding me, of course it's assumption.
. . . ..

So what other suggestion do you have to account for the present expansion of the universe? And what would make any other suggestion MORE than an assumption?

 

[Larniavc]

You actually think it is an assumption.

EVERYTHING IS ASSUMOTIONS!

It's as if the word conclusion or prediction simply does not exist.

It's ASSUMOTIONS all the way down.

 

[DogmaHunter]

.......this person actually thinks assuming something expanded somewhere as a beginning to it all rates as a scientific theory. I stick with my guns on my definition of theory and it's usage here.

Your guns, are pointed at your own feet then.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You have GOT to be kidding me, of course it's assumption.

No. The universe is factually, demonstrably, verifiably, observably expanding.

You didn't know this? This is rather old news, you know...

 

[AV1611VET]

The universe is factually, demonstrably, verifiably, observably expanding.

Psalm 104:2 Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:

Confirmed (not discovered ... confirmed) by the Hubble telescope.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Psalm 104:2 Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:

Confirmed (not discovered ... confirmed) by the Hubble telescope.

The expanding universe looks nothing like a "curtain", not even in a far reaching analogy.

 

[AV1611VET]

The expanding universe looks nothing like a "curtain", not even in a far reaching analogy.

Thats probably because the word EXPAND is confusing you.

The Bible says "stretchest."

There's a big difference.

 

[JacksBratt]

But there is so much nonsense out there that would utterly clog the journals if it were simply printed whenever submitted. Somebody, somewhere, has to weed out the clear nonsense, there's no choice, there is so much of it.

I agree, however, a bunch of people backing a myth is no way to do science. Science chases the truth. It does not try to support a preconceived theory and reject anything that doesn't fit the predetermined idea.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I agree, however, a bunch of people backing a myth is no way to do science. Science chases the truth. It does not try to support a preconceived theory and reject anything that doesn't fit the predetermined idea.

This leads me to believe that you have a very warped idea about how peer review really works.

In general, it's not so much that actual idea presented in the paper that is being evaluated, as it is the methods and data used and the quality of the science.

A peer reviewer doesn't really ask the question "what is the conclusion of this paper?"... rather, (s)he'll ask questions like how was the conclusion obtained? How is it supported? How were the experiments set up? Can this be repeated / verified?

It's, primarily, the science that's being evaluated. Not the conclusion per say...

It seems like are of the opinion that "peer review" is all about "i agree" or "i don't agree" with the conclusions.
Not so much. It's actually, at least equally, about "is this proper form / good science?".

 

[lesliedellow]

Not at all, I'm saying it's assumption that because it's expanding now doesn't equate to it all started with expansion as was claimed.

So it was static, or even contracting, and then decided to start expanding for no good reason. You wouldn't like to come up with a physical mechanism for that, would you?

 

[florida2]

Actually, it's not funny. It's quite sad. Peer review is losing it's "validity". So is science.

Science used to look at all the data, all the observations were considered as the scientist searched for the truth. Peer review was in place so that a new discovery could be seen by all and thus "reviewed" to see if it correlated with the findings of other scientists and their observations. Everything was heading for the big picture, the real truth of this world. Everyone was open to new ideas and you could get quite a name if you found something new.

The thing is, we have now got a solid fact based truth of how the world got to where it is. It's age and how the creatures and humans ended up here. This "fact" that is taught everywhere is "evolution". Somewhere it went from a theory taught along side creation, to being the one and only possibility for everything we see when we get up in the morning or stare at a starry sky...The elusive "truth" was found.

PROBLEM.... now, if you are a scientist and your are gathering information and tabulating data... it becomes quite a problem if you discover something that is going to be difficult to fit in the "truth" that academia is teaching and drumming into everyone's head. You discover something.... it just won't fit the model. But, you retest and find it to be true. Do you dare present this new observation? Hardly... you will be scoffed at, ridiculed, funding will be stopped, careers ruined.. credibility...lost. Any paper will be ripped to shreds by the hive mind.

So, you have a choice. Cover it up, lose it, distort it so that it fits. Skew the results or forget it all together.

Now, on the other hand, a paper of vague credibility that fits the present day model, will be welcomed with open arms and you will be patted on the back for such a superb job. If your work is close but not a perfect fit, someone else out there will be happy to show you the way to mold it into the model.

What I am saying is that scientist today are looking, more, for proof of the existing dogma instead of looking at the observations and letting the truth unfold. The are out to prove a concept at whatever cost.

Why have we veered from this foundational necessity of science? Pour water on the ground and see where it flows... but oh no.......... that's not where the water should have went, according to the past predictions. So, you carve up the land, digging here, mounding there and in the end the water flows just where it was predicted to flow........ Not the true path but that's not what matters.

Science is no longer a quest for truth. It is a bunch of egg heads picking up the pieces they want and leaving behind anything that could cause difficulty in putting the truth together.

Peer review becomes "pal" review. A bunch of good 'ol boys patting each other on the back, keeping the funding and gravy train rolling, maintaining their "good" names and fancy labs. Keeping their supporters and investors happy while the truth, well the truth is not important.

Oh look, a load of assertions with zero evidence from somebody who has never worked in science. Gosh.

If science works as you describe, how are things discovered? How are new things invented? Why is it that, for example, scientists are incredibly excited by what the LHC is discovering with the most exciting outcome being that the standard model of particle physics should be rewritten? Scientists are recognised for breakthroughs, new discoveries and changing existing theories. Nobody in science wants to keep everything at the status quo, that goes against the whole point of science.