Will Creation Science Ever Be Accepted By Mainstream Scientists?

[Green Sun]

You may define your faith the way you wish and it may be accurate for you but the Bible has absolutely no such definition and other Christians need not abide your definition, Thats a made up definition hundreds of years after the early church. When Thomas was saying he needed to put his hand in his side and see the nail marks he was most definitely asking for proof. When Peter was saying look at fulfillment of prophecy he was stating there was evidence. Practically every sermon in Acts appeals to evidence.

The idea that faith is based on no evidence is a bogus false doctrine (that sometimes people try to justify by twisting "not walking by sight"). I can have faith in my friends when it doesn't look like I should. I can have faith in my Parents and children and it is based very much upon evidences that make me have that faith.

Strictly speaking, one of the definitions of faith is a "belief that is not based on proof".
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith

But again, this thread isn't about what people need to believe or what their beliefs are, it is "Will Creation Science ever be accepted by Mainstream Scientists?".
And the truth to that is no. No it will not. As pointed out by KTS, Creationism cannot be tested and it cannot be falsified.
The Omphalos hypothesis I mentioned earlier is an attempt to create some sort of argument that would explain the discrepancies between the universe being bllions of years old and the YEC claim that the universe is only a few thousand years old. However, because the Omphalos hypothesis is both unverifiable and unfalsifiable. It is impossible to test using any sort of empirical data even in theory, because this data itself has been arbitrarily created to look the way it looks by the "Creator".

In America not even a majority of people let alone Christians believe this.

At least according to Gallup, the majority believes in evolution, although it is a mix of theistic and atheistic.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx

Protestants are more likely to be creationists than catholics are

One of the big reasons for this is that the Catholic Church has no official position on evolution. One is free to agree or disagree with evolution. Though the Church supports and allows the teaching of evolution, as it is taught in Catholic schools. Pope John Paul II said, in reference to the to the encyclical Humani Generis by Pope Pius XII, that there was "no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of faith".

 

[madera23]

.[/QUOTE
Hi
Have you seen SCottM around since the reason board was shut down?
how are you since then? Have you found the reply to your question?.
Madera

 

[The Cadet]

Yes, bacteria do change somewhat. But every last one of them stays a bacteria.

...Do you have any idea how broad "bacteria" is? You might as well say "Yes, animals do change somewhat. But every last one of them stays an animal." Except that Bacteria have far more genetic variance and a far deeper genetic tree than Animalia, and branch off the tree considerably closer to the base. So more like "Yes, eukaryotes do change somewhat..." It's ridiculous.

 

[SkyWriting]

Scientific papers are published every year that deal with subjects that cannot be directly examined

That's what I just said. There are topics that are being pursued that are outside
of what the scientific method can examine.
" Things that are not falsifiable fall under the realm of faith, not science."
-from another poster.
This is not testable science. When
a person publishes a theory which no other person can examine, then it is not
a scientifically testable topic or theory. It is just a daydream, or musing
or what is rightly called, science-fiction.

 

[SkyWriting]

Actually Sky thats patently and obviously false. Science cannot talk, is not a person and does not exist outside of human knowledge so it certainly does not readily admit anything you just claimed.

You are correct. "Scientists in particular, and the science community in general" would be more appropriate than "Science."
Lazy me.

 

[SkyWriting]

Present day Science DOES NOT stop at what is subject to examination or no scientists would talk about multiverses,

Yes......science does stop at what is subject to examination.
People, who happen to be scientists, do not stop there.
And that's ok. But what they do publish must be examined
and if is not supportable or open to examination by critics
then is must be shelved or ignored or discarded.

 

[LoricaLady]

The Cadet - In response to my saying:
Yes, bacteria do change somewhat. But every last one of them stays a bacteria.
You said: ...Do you have any idea how broad "bacteria" is? You might as well say "Yes, animals do change somewhat. But every last one of them stays an animal." Except that Bacteria have far more genetic variance and a far deeper genetic tree than Animalia, and branch off the tree considerably closer to the base. So more like "Yes, eukaryotes do change somewhat..." It's ridiculous.

So...great. Wow, you've got so many different choices with bacteria to pick and chose from! So pick one. Name it. Show me any ev-i-dence it ever was, or ever will be, anything but a variety of....bacteria.

To reiterate, don't tell me "Well, you see it had this change and that change" which turned it into a somewhat modified...bacteria "which shows what could have...must have...and therefore I have...faith...happened in the long ago and far away conveniently invisible and unverifiable past". Provide observable data for what you have named, demonstrating a non bacteria coming from bacteria - of your multiplicity of choices so convenient for you to pick from - or a bacteria that turned into non bacteria. Of course you can use any number of fossilized bacteria or examples of living bacteria.

Evidence now, not logical fallacies and hypotheticals like "may have...must have...could have....might have...we can infer....billions of conveniently untestable, unobservable and unverifiable years ago in Evolutionary Dream Land..." being passed off as evidence.

Remember, friend, there are world famous evolutionists telling you that you are nothing but a big modified, bug/bacteria. Before you buy that, maybe you should actually, seriously, studiously, check out both sides on this issue, and, btw, learn the difference between faith and facts.

 

[LoricaLady]

KTS - You said:

Creationism will be accepted as an accurate scientific explanation the second it is able to show something about the real world which is able to withstand investigation.

Evolution has been able to do that. Creationism hasn't even tried.
-----------------------------
Your sentences show you have not at all looked outside the matrix, the box. You accept that creation scientists have no evidence for creation, just as you accept evolution....based on faith. I will give some resources below to show how patently untrue your statements are, though that will lead you only to the tip of the iceberg in terms of evidence from creation scientists.

In the meantime, why don't you help a fundie out? Help me to come into the great evolutionary "light." I left some questions, in bold, about 9 posts ahead. Wanna answer them using actual data, not logical fallacies and hypotheticals passed off as scientific fact?

This vid is highly technical and no doubt will require more than one listening - if you decide to look outside the box that is. I will tell you one highlight though. People say the universe could not be young because the speed of light shows distant stars are billions of years away from us. There are several problems with that scenario and I'll give just one while Dr. Russell Humphreys, a world class peer reviewed cosmologist who has made accurate predictions about distant moons based on a young cosmos paradigm, will show you some others.

Science has discovered that space, as in outer space, is stretchy, not empty. In the Bible 17 times we are told that YHWH, aka God, "stretched out the Heavens." If the stars are stretched out, so will their light beams stretch out. Yeal, creation science is real. It deals with real facts, not smoke and mirrors mumbo jumbo pseudo science.

Are you really what Richard Dawkins says you are, namely just a big, modified bacteria? Or is there evidence that you are infinitely more than that? You haven't looked outside the box yet, at least not with any serious study or you would not have made that claim about creation science. Dare to be different. Carefully, thoughtfully, thoroughly, examine both sides. Find out who you really are.

And btw evolution has never met the criterion for the scientific use of the word "falsifiable." You are in a habit of just popping out this and that "fact" while revealing you honestly don't know the facts. I'd bet you have an adequate mind and can move from "Well, we all know evolution has to be true so I don't need to really think about it or investigate it and can just believe what they tell me," to "I'm going to be honest and open minded, scientific minded, and check this issue out from scientists on both sides of the issue."

You have a Heavenly Father Who loves you and created you. One of the ways you can find out about Him is through studying creation science.

 

[Armoured]

*eyeroll *

 

[Michael]

Michael - Thank you for proving my points.

I don't think you really listened, or you wouldn't feel that way.

I asked for any ev-i-dence that any bacteria anywhere ever have turned into non bacteria.

That's not even a reasonable or logical request by the way. Macroevolution doesn't necessarily take place in a petri dish on a timeline of your choosing.

You just cut and pasted something that is showing...faith...not evidence. For ex. in your link it says the usual, with faith factor words, namely "This could have been accomplished...would have allowed...may provide...which suggests... may explain..." T

The 'hedging' aspect is typical in science. It demonstrates a potential for something to be falsified by later evidence. I can't see macroevolution take place on a short timeline, so in fact there is a certain amount of "faith' involved as you put it, but it's a reasonable thing to put faith in due to the lab work that supports it.

They are operating here on the presuming omniscience logical fallacy.

Omniscience? How so?

Do you understand that the article gives no evidence whatsoever?

Quite the contrary. It shows that even simple changes to a few specific genes can generate macroscopic changes in an organism, just as we might expect if evolutionary theory is true. I find that people subjectively tend to dismiss evidence that they simply don't wish to deal with, or to acknowledge however.

It shows no, zip, zilch, nada bacteria or bacteria fossil turning into non bacteria.

That specific request wasn't reasonable to begin with by the way, and I didn't attempt to demonstrate it. What I did demonstrate however is that minor changes in genetic material an and does cause macroscopic changes in organisms, just as evolutionary theory would predict.

It only gives this long, fanciful, never supported by any actual data, story of what "could have" or "would have" happened.

As I said, you're confusing ordinary conservative speech in science with some form of weakness. That's simply your own spin.

I've got real data. Bacteria stay bacteria.

For how long? Unless you've got a few billion years of lab evidence to support that claim, it's still an ""act of faith" that nothing is ever going to change.

That's what we've seen with living examples for hundreds of years.

So what? The timelines of macroevolution are probably measured over millions of years, not a hundred years.

That's what we see with so called Cambrian plant and animal fossils that contain fossilized bacteria. The bacteria are virtually identical to what we see today.

And that is exactly what evolutionary theory would predict by the way. The fact that a new type of organism can form, doesn't mean that *all* the organisms of the original sample will automatically go away, die out, or be completely replaced with the new organism. You do understand that, right?

Real science doesn't just push all the observable data aside

Correct. That's why "real science" embraces evolutionary theory.

and go for "could have....would have...may provide...may explain..."

Actually science does that all the time. It's quite rare for actual scientists to treat theories as 'fact'. They tend to hedge their bets, and they tend to keep an open mind to the possibility of being wrong. Again, you're confusing ordinary scientific conservative use of speech with a weakness of some type. That's not how it actually works by the way.

This is a classic case of the Emperor's New Clothes, which is part of the foundation of evolution. What you can see is ignored if it doesn't fit into the theory.

What do you think I actually ignored? Even evolutionary theory *assumes* that some bacteria stay as ordinary bacteria, perhaps forever. There's nothing to ignore, and nothing that isn't 'predicted' by evolutionary theory in the observation that some bacteria stay the same over generations and hundreds of years. That's actually a *prediction* of evolutionary theory, and it's perfectly congruent with evolutionary theory.

What you can't see, or test, or verify in any way, what is invisible, is treated as gawd's truth fact in order to support the theory.

Er, you could at least be consistent in your criticisms by the way. First you complain that the words they used are ambiguous, and not definite, and now you're accusing them of claiming it's "gawd's truth fact". Which is it? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

The entire link is based on theoreticals. Yet they are being presented as done deal facts. Think about that. It should bother you. And it's totally typical of evo. lit.

Actually it would bother me a whole lot more if they were using terms like 'definitely','absolutely' and 'certainly'. Science isn't supposed to be closed minded.

They used changes in crustaceans and six legged animals to try to prove their point. Uh...did the crustaceans stop being crustaceans? Did the six legged bugs stop being six legged bugs? Of course not. But they believe in the false mantra "Change is evolution" so, on...faith....they use their magic evo. crystal ball to tell you something happened in the conveniently invisible, untestable and unverifiable distant past.

IMO you missed the whole point of the article. It simply shows that *relatively minor*, and/or very limited changes in DNA can and do generate *massive* changes to the organism.

You know......

A long time ago I gave up debating evolutionary theory mostly because it's 'doubters' tended to hide behind pure denial as it relates to evidence. I get that same impression from you at this point. I don't think you even cared about the content of the article, mostly because you failed to acknowledge the fact that relatively small changes in certain parts of the DNA structure can and do create significant changes in the form of extra legs, and major body changes. If you cannot accept that 'fact' (I'll use stronger terms for you if that makes you feel better), then there really isn't much to talk about.

It's silly of you to *require* something that isn't even a prediction of a theory. EV theory doesn't *predict* that bacteria need or will change over a 100 year timeline. That's your own personal pet peeve apparently but it's not a valid argument. Even evolutionary supporters would *predict* that bacteria will continue to thrive, and that it doesn't predict macroscopic changes over 100 year timelines.

 

[Michael]

Creationism will be accepted as scientific the second it makes a claim about reality that can be tested and falsified. (Falsified means that there is something that could conceivably prove it false.)

I would argue that YEC in particular does make such predictions and they have been falsified in a variety of ways, particularly the notion that the Earth is only 6000 years old. That's why it's been rejected by the scientific community in fact.

 

[Michael]

The Cadet - In response to my saying:
Yes, bacteria do change somewhat. But every last one of them stays a bacteria.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0/evoscales_03

And yet they don't all stay *exactly* the same. Why not? How do you figure that antibiotic resistance happens?

 

[LoricaLady]

Michael - You continue to present faith as facts, as in, in effect, "Well, yeal, for hundreds of years in petri dishes, and in the so called earliest level 'Cambrian' fossils, we don't see any changes from bacteria to non bacteria or vice versa, but it all happened billions of years ago so how unreasonable of you to expect evidence! That's our excuse and we're sticking to it."

Your whole post is pushing faith in the unseen and unverifiable over the actual, overflowing, evidential data.
You think that if they have a theory that bacteria turned into nonbacterial, then that is as good as, and even nullifies, the actual evidence. You're looking at, and believing in, pseudo science.

Until you can learn that an hypothesis is not evidence, that convoluted theories aren't facts, there is nothing I can do to help you. Please learn to think, and to think for yourself. Please learn what real science is. I pray for that for you and much more. Bye!

 

[MikeEnders]

Strictly speaking, one of the definitions of faith is a "belief that is not based on proof".
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith

one of the definitions doesn't make it THE definition. You just plain skipped over several others in your own source. Its not even debatable. Any christian can crack his Bible and see multiple instances when evidence of what was going on at the time had evidence offered for it. Like I siad you are ree to claim anything but I need not accept your faulty defintion

But again, this thread isn't about what people need to believe or what their beliefs are, it is "Will Creation Science ever be accepted by Mainstream Scientists?".
And the truth to that is no. No it will not.

Actually claiming to know what the future holds is just silly. I never took the question too seriously and no one who intelligently thinks about it will either. You an;t claim to know the truth about the future you can only fool yourself in the present that you KNOW. For someone claiming to follow science I would love to hear how you validate by objective evidence what cannot happen in the future

As pointed out by KTS, Creationism cannot be tested and it cannot be falsified.

I don't get my facts from a forum poster

The Omphalos hypothesis I mentioned earlier is an attempt to create some sort of argument that would explain the discrepancies between the universe being bllions of years old and the YEC claim

So what? Creationism neither rises nor falls on that hypothesis (I don't even know anyone that holds to that hypothesis) . It doesn't even rise and fall on YEC

At least according to Gallup, the majority believes in evolution, although it is a mix of theistic and atheistic.

Meaningless because A) truth is not determined by a poll B) polls change C) the number of people still holding to strict creationism is pretty high for the amount of time people have been indoctrinated and D) many in the God by evolution camp are still creationists (although you seem utterly confused that all creationists are YEC)

http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx

Though the Church supports and allows the teaching of evolution, as it is taught in Catholic schools. Pope John Paul II said, in reference to the to the encyclical Humani Generis by Pope Pius XII, that there was "no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of faith".

Don't give a rip about Popes. They open their mouth I expect anything Godly or ungodly to come out. YOU are free to believe in them but just informing you that in a discussion with a protestant appealing to the authority of the pope is akin to saying your Aunt jenny's husband said - probably worse.

 

[LoricaLady]

Michael - I wanted my last post to you to be my last post, but looking over this page I saw you asking about antibacterial resistance. I will bite one last time, but again, until you learn the difference between faith and facts we are both spinning our wheels here.

Once again, bacteria resistant to antibiotics are still....are you listening?....bacteria. Every bit as much bacteria as non resistant bacteria. Let's say some people are resistant to some antibiotics. And some are! Uh, does that show those people are climbing up Darwin's mythical "Tree of Life" to turn into non people? Nooooo, it just shows there is variety in nature. But didn't you already know that? There are countless varieties of dogs who are all staying....dawgs.

How would bacteria being resistant to some antibiotics show that they eventually turned into you or anything else? Sorry, I can't figure that out whatsoever.

Oh yeal, now I remember. I'm supposed to nod my head dumbly and mindlessly to "Change is evolution" and then believe that because I see change - though it only leads to more 100% bacteria and more 100% people who happen to be resistant to antibiotics - that....somehow....shows evolution.

And guess what? They have found bacteria, frozen in places where no antibiotics were ever used, that are resistant to antibiotics. So, again, how does that show they are climbing up Darwin's "Tree" to eventually lead to people?

Again, start learning to think, to do critical analysis. I left some vids, above, where you can do compare and contrast with what evolution says (and the vids go over that theory in detail) and what creation says. Compare and contrast is a great way to learn to do critical thinking. If you are only listening to one side, you will never be really using your full mind or learning the real truths in life.

May I suggest you pray about this issue? I used to vehemently believe in evolution. In this brain washed world sometimes only the Holy Spirit can open the eyes of our understanding, sometimes especially to the obvious.

 

[Michael]

Michael - You continue to present faith as facts,

You're clearly projecting. First you whined because they used terms like 'may'. Now you're confusing your own beliefs with theirs. You have *faith* that organisms always stay the same *in spite of* the actual evidence. They simply acknowledge those changes in the structure of DNA over time, and they look for the "explanation" for those changes which might result in macroscopic change over time. They hedge their bets, whereas you pontificate from on high about "facts" that are actually *predictions* of evolutionary theory, namely that most individuals of any population *will* stay the same over many generations.

as in, in effect, "Well, yeal, for hundreds of years in petri dishes, in the so called earliest level 'Cambrian' fossils, we don't see any changes from bacteria to non bacteria or vice versa, but it all happened billions of years ago so how unreasonable of you to expect evidence! That's our excuse and we're sticking to it."

You're insisting that macroscopic changes must occur over a 100 year timeline, or your simply 'have faith' that it never happens. As the HOX gene changes demonstrate, it can happen, and there's even a logical explanation for it.

Your whole post is pushing faith in the unseen and unverifiable over the actual,

Nope, You're doing that. You have 'faith' that macroscopic changes never occur over even billions of years. You have zero evidence to support that assertion.

Until you can learn that an hypothesis is not evidence, that convoluted theories aren't facts, there is nothing I can do to help you.

Pure projection. You apparently have a "hypothesis" that macroscopic change *never* occurs, and no facts to support it.

Please learn to think, and to think for yourself. Please learn what real science is. I pray for that for you and much more. Bye!

That's rather amusing coming from someone who's entire belief system was handed to them in church and who is incapable of thinking outside of the box. Irony overload.

 

[MikeEnders]

a person publishes a theory which no other person can examine, then it is not
a scientifically testable topic or theory. It is just a daydream, or musing
or what is rightly called, science-fiction.

And there lies the problem. You are arguing in a vacuum. Its just a fact that all kinds of papers particularly in cosmology are in fact published and people "examine" them without there being any way to directly verify. Whats one of the number one answers to the fine tuning of this universe employed everyday by atheists? - the multiverse. Can it be directly tested? Whats one of the big interpretation of QM - Many World's - can it be directly examined? No

Furthermore "Science" (or more accurately scientist) use deduction every day where the thesis itself cannot be directly examined. forget Darwinism in general and come down to several of the specifics. how many times have we been wrong about when "Science" says an animal went extinct??? Several. We have had index fossils that "science" said expired in a particular time period so much so that we can use a fossil of the species to date sediment - then ooops found out it never expired and is walking around in South America. How is this possible? Because we deduced a conclusion and cannot directly examine in many cases dates. The point IS NOT that on that basis you can invalidate Evolution but that we do in fact use deduction EVERY DAY in science where we cannot directly verify the past. Yet LO and behold if a creationist or a proponent deduces design its unscientific.

 

[LoricaLady]

Michael - You have completed the pattern that is most typical for evo. devotees. First, when asked for hard core data to support your beliefs, you offered an hypothesis and treated it like evidence. When asked for facts you gave theoreticals, i.e. faith based responses. You treated the actual, overflowing, evidence as if it was nothing worth considering. The last part (sometimes it is seen right away) is to go into personal insult mode as with "you whined....incapable of thinking outside the box." You sneered at Christian faith on a Christian forum that is gracious enough to let unbelievers post here. (I guess if you think you're only a modified bug/bacteria you don't have to worry about manners.)

That's called verbal abuse. It's why I have nothing more to say to you. You've been prayed for. You've gotten a peek outside the matrix. Best I can do. May you learn that you have a Heavenly Father Who loves you and wants to bless you beyond what you can imagine. FINIS.

 

[MikeEnders]

Yes......science does stop at what is subject to examination.

Believe what you wish Sky. You are still under the deception that science exists without reference to the mind. Science is wherever we take it and does not exist floating around independent of us.

 

[MikeEnders]

I would argue that YEC in particular does make such predictions and they have been falsified in a variety of ways, particularly the notion that the Earth is only 6000 years old. That's why it's been rejected by the scientific community in fact.

Lets not play pretend games here. People started rally against creationism when Darwin came upon his theory not when the age of the earth was determined (to the extent it is claimed to be) . Furthermore even the YEC position has never had strict adherence to Ussher and a dating of 6,000 years - though anti-creationists LOVE to claim all YEC's are limited to 6,000 years.

Strictly speaking despite the name YEC - a biblical creationist is not limited to anything but the Bible