Talk:Creation scientist

This "syllogism" is fairly ridiculous, but since it is a true description of the topic, it should not be altered. I say ridiculous, because the Bible is a matter of Faith, not verifiable facts. Turing the hot light of scientific inquiry on the Bible would be disastrous for the Book.

Palmd001 10:02, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Can we have some citations for the syllogism? I'd think the stated conclusion was actually a premise for many creationists. Tsumetai 10:04, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree that the Bible is a matter of faith; creation scientists seem to disagree, seeking to prove the conclusion by science instead. Isn't that their whole raison d'etre?--AmesG 10:11, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Not so sure about that. I think the reasoning is more that since the Bible (as they interpret it) is true, good science ought to agree with it. Therefore, it ought to be possible to come up with a coherent, scientific model of, say, a young Earth. Tsumetai 10:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Interesting possibility. You should add it to the article as an alternative perspective, like, "Alternately," or something.--AmesG 10:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Can anyone name a creation scientist?--Eljoe2 01:45, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I know and can name lots of them. Philip J. Rayment 09:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I can see two problems with Creation Science - though I won't be the first to mention this. The first is that science must be objective to be called science. If your objective is to prove a idea which you already hold then, strictly speaking, it can't be science. The second problem is that one of the axioms of the scientific method is: "All hypotheses and theories are in principle subject to disproof". As self-identified "Creation Scientists" I assume that they are unable to suggest circumstances which would cause them to change their ideas - and consequently can't be scientists.--British_cons (talk) 08:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I see the same problem with evolution and evolutionists. They like to say that it is in principle subject to disproof, but in practice this seems to not be the case. Sure, certain particular ideas about it are, but that same point applies to creation science. Philip J. Rayment 09:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

If you want a good treatment of how evolution is falsifiable, and creation "science" is not, please see my talk page, Philip, under the heading "creationism," where an actual scientist (user:PalMD001) has discussed the subject. -AmesG 10:14, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Okay, I've just had a quick look, and can't find a "good" treatment there at all. But I'll comment further there. By the way, I'm not a scientist, but I do knew quite a few "actual" scientists who are creationists. Philip J. Rayment 10:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I am a scientist and I have yet to meet a peer who believes in a 6000 year old Earth. Anyway, if you are looking for a surefire way to falsify evolution then the classic is "Rabbits in the Carboniferous". If Creationism is true then one would expect the occasional inconsistany like that (as well as fossilised remains of gigantic humans). Nematocyte 10:59, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I can't help it if you've not met any. As I said, I know quite a few (yeah, okay, I'm not suggesting that my "sample" is random. My point is that they really exist). If rabbits were found in the carboniferous, would it continue to be labelled "carboniferous"? Philip J. Rayment 12:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

These "scientists" are welcome to submit their discovery of Carboniferous rabbits if they find them. It would directly contradict everything we thought we knew about evolution and geology. If the flood "model" is correct, we ought to be able to find such inconsistancies (and where are the giants?). Nematocyte 12:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for maligning scientists who's views you disagree with, by using quote marks to subtly questioning whether they really are scientists. How about a bit of respect?

You appear to have missed my point about the rabbits. If rabbits were found in carboniferous sediments, I suspect that geologists would reclassify it to not be carboniferous, thereby denying that rabbits were found in carboniferous sediments. Besides, the creation model wouldn't predict rabbits there either. As for the giants, how many were there? Not everything has a preserved example, particularly if the population was small. Philip J. Rayment 12:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

The link follows, Philip. Remember to keep an open mind. Behold, for the truth shall set you free.-AmesG 11:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Finding the section wasn't the problem, it was finding a treatment that was "good". ;-) Philip J. Rayment 12:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)