Difference between revisions of "Talk:Creation scientist"

Revision as of 19:00, March 24, 2007

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)

I'm familure with the flood "models". There is absolutely no a priori reason why they would rule out a rabbit in the Carboniferous. In answer to your question, the Carboniferous strata can be dated absolutely according to radioactive dating, so it would be perfectly possible to find a rabbit in them if the flood occured. With regards to giants, if you believe that all fossilised animals were living at a single time, then that makes fossilisation relatively common, so the absence of any gigantic human being is a significant problem. Nematocyte 12:27, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

No, I guess that flood geology would not "rule out" rabbits in the Carboniferous, but it would predict that they would not be there as a rule, so their absence hardly proves anything.

It seems to me that radioactive dating is not taken too seriously by mainstream scientists when it suits them, such as when there is conflicting evidence.

I don't follow your point about the fossilised humans. But I've realised that I was on the wrong track there. That there were giants before the flood is based on particular translations of the Bible that were probably mis-translations. In other words, at the very least, we can't say for sure that the Bible even says that there were giants. Philip J. Rayment 12:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

They may declare that they are uncommon in different stratas, but the complete absence of any significant anachronisms represents a clear failure of the flood hypothesis.

Regarding your comments on radioactive dating, it may surprise you to learn than rocks are actually dated with a number of different decay types. If strata really were Carboniferous then it would be undeniable due if these different techniques gave a consensus time. Of course, this is academic, because there has been a complete failure to find such anachronisms.

That giants existed in early days is the mainstream YEC position, as taken by AiG and other such organisations. If you do not hold this view then my criticisms on this matter do not apply to your particular beliefs. Nematocyte 12:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I think you overstate the case about the "complete absence of any significant anachronisms", and what do you define as "significant"? Does a whale and a possum buried together count? My guess is that you wouldn't count that as "significant". And I also think that you overestimate the likelihood of such anachronisms with Flood Geology.

How often are given rock formations dated with different methods, with results that are the same? I've heard of so many cases where another scientist has used a different dating technique on a rock with the result that he has re-dated the rock. Mungo Man, for example, has been redated several times with different techniques giving different results.

You're wrong about the giants. Search for "giants" on this page on the CMI web-site. The same page on the AiG web-site is here.

Philip J. Rayment 22:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

The difference between scientists and creation "scientists" (I give respect where it is due, nowhere else) is that if there are no preserved examples, real scientists won't take it on faith that the species existed. Example. In Herodotus, the Greek historian notes a bunch of giant & cyclops species. Should we also assume that those were just a small sample size, explaining the lack of evidence, and classify it as scientific fact that these cyclops species existed, or should we take Herodotus for what he was: a guy who liked to invent myths?-AmesG 12:21, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

So people who have earned their PhDs, worked in secular institutions as scientists, in some cases as evolutionary scientists before they became creationists, are not "real" scientists, simply because they have a view that you don't agree with? That's hardly fair, is it?

And I suppose that you would deny that lions once existed in Palestine because there's no fossils of them, but only written records?

Philip J. Rayment 12:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

No, they aren't scientists because they have abandoned the proceedures and logistics of scientific methodology.

Geologicaly speaking your "lions in Palestein" is a clear strawman. A brief period of existance in a small state could be easily missed by the fossil record. An entire order of large creatures would be unlikely to be missed from the entirity of the fossil record. Nematocyte 12:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

That have not abandoned the scientific method. That is your interpretation based on your belief that creationism cannot be scientific.

The lions example was not a strawman, because we were talking about giant humans, and there is no evidence, if they even existed, that they were "[a]n entire order", let alone were a large population.

Philip J. Rayment 22:58, 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)

See, disagreeing with it doesn't make it bad.-AmesG 12:17, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

The question of whether or not evolution is falsifiable would be a great debate for the evolution article (if we had an article of the scientific theory of evolution)but here it is simply a distraction. The question here is, "Is creation science falsifiable?"--British_cons (talk) 13:23, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

To be fair, the question should be applied to both ideas. Philip J. Rayment 22:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

My position on the matter is that is was when originally formulated in a scientific manner, and it has been falsified. The modern "theory of creationism" makes no significant predictions, in fact it goes out of its way to justify why the strata should be indistinguishable from gradulistic accounts, and so it isn't science, just an excercise in apologetics. Nematocyte 13:27, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

On the contrary, it produces examples inconsistent with the gradualistic accounts. Philip J. Rayment 22:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I think that rather depends on one's definition. Certainly, specific creationist models, such as Humphreys' white hole cosmology, are falsifiable. And, indeed, false. More generally, though, no approach which allows for plugging gaps with 'and then a miracle occurred' is falsifiable, by definition. Tsumetai 13:29, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Creationism does not take the approach of plugging gaps with miracles. Philip J. Rayment 22:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I didn't say that all creatonist approaches did that; indeed, I specifically stated the opposite. Tsumetai 15:00, 24 March 2007 (EDT)