text: EvC Forum: People Don't Know What Creation Science Is
  Percy (Admin), Pressie (2 members, 30 visitors)
  Member (Idle past 3104 days)
  Kelly 95 84/183 Fetch
  Modulous 19 12/15 Fetch
  onifre 17 7/9 Fetch
  lyx2no 15 4/7 Fetch
  Coyote 14 1/8 Fetch
  Granny Magda 13 5/8 Fetch
  New Cat's Eye 13 5/9 Fetch
  Dman 12 5/6 Fetch
  Coragyps 11 1/2 Fetch
  Rahvin 11 3/5 Fetch
  subbie 10 3/4 Fetch
  Capt Stormfield 9 2/4 Fetch
  olivortex 9 2/5 Fetch
  Percy 9 2/3 Fetch
  AdminNosy 8 2/5 Fetch
  Dr Jack 7 4/4 Fetch
  Huntard 6 0/1 Fetch
  Lithodid-Man 5 2/5 Fetch
  Richard Townsend 3 1/1 Fetch
  shalamabobbi 2 0/0 Fetch
  Originated: 03-02-2009 3:30 PM
  Author Topic: People Don't Know What Creation Science Is
  Message 136 of 336 (501338)
  03-05-2009 6:23 PM Reply to: Message 135 by Kelly
  03-05-2009 6:17 PM
  Re: From what I can tell
  I know I said I would not respond to any of Kelly's posts anymore but I got to ask.
  What do you think these laws say?
  Message 135 by Kelly, posted 03-05-2009 6:17 PM Kelly has responded
  Message 145 by Kelly, posted 03-05-2009 7:08 PM Theodoric has responded
  Message 137 of 336 (501340)
  03-05-2009 6:28 PM Reply to: Message 133 by Capt Stormfield
  03-05-2009 5:14 PM
  I am sorry Capt Stormfield
  But I haven't got a clue as to what you are talking about.
  Message 133 by Capt Stormfield, posted 03-05-2009 5:14 PM Capt Stormfield has not yet responded
  Message 138 by onifre, posted 03-05-2009 6:39 PM Kelly has responded
  Message 138 of 336 (501343)
  03-05-2009 6:39 PM Reply to: Message 137 by Kelly
  03-05-2009 6:28 PM
  Re: I am sorry Capt Stormfield
  If the Capt. doesn't mind, I think he means, what seperates creaTion science from any other asserted claim about nature?
  Does it, or can it, provide evidence for design, creation or anything else it claims?
  Message 137 by Kelly, posted 03-05-2009 6:28 PM Kelly has responded
  Message 140 by Kelly, posted 03-05-2009 6:42 PM onifre has responded
  Message 139 of 336 (501344)
  03-05-2009 6:39 PM Reply to: Message 130 by Dr Jack
  03-05-2009 4:47 PM
  Creation theory says that
  Archaeopteryx is a bird, so?
  Australopithecus is an ape, so?
  This doesn't prove that birds evolved fron dinosaurs or that human beings evolved from apes. We can see similar design, but so what.
  Message 130 by Dr Jack, posted 03-05-2009 4:47 PM Dr Jack has responded
  Message 141 by Rahvin, posted 03-05-2009 6:49 PM Kelly has not yet responded
  Message 142 by subbie, posted 03-05-2009 6:53 PM Kelly has not yet responded
  Message 183 by Dr Jack, posted 03-06-2009 8:49 AM Kelly has responded
  Message 140 of 336 (501346)
  03-05-2009 6:42 PM Reply to: Message 138 by onifre
  03-05-2009 6:39 PM
  But then I would have to ask, what separates evolutionary theory from your list?
  Message 138 by onifre, posted 03-05-2009 6:39 PM onifre has responded
  Message 143 by onifre, posted 03-05-2009 6:57 PM Kelly has not yet responded
  Message 144 by Capt Stormfield, posted 03-05-2009 7:01 PM Kelly has not yet responded
  Message 141 of 336 (501348)
  03-05-2009 6:49 PM Reply to: Message 139 by Kelly
  Re: Creation theory says that
  This isn't really a statement of anything, Kelly. You're trying to support by disproving the theory of Evolution; it doesn't work that way. This is called a false dilemma - just because my car is not a Toyota does not mean it's a Honda. Similarly, even if the Theory of Evolution is completely incorrect, your as-yet undefined "Creation Science" does not "win" by default. Without evolution, the diversity of life on Earth could be the result of divine Creation, or alien genetic engineering, or some sort of cyclical time where given organisms arise at certain points in the cycle, or some as-yet unimagined natural process.
  So let's ignore evolution for the moment. A scientific theory is an explanatory model that accounts for relevant observations; the Theory of gravity, for example, explains the observation that objects tend to move towards the Earth when dropped (among other things).
  What evidence does Creation Science explain? What is the explanation of that evidence that Creation Science offers? How did Creation Scientists arrive at this conclusion? What predictions does Creation Science make, and which have been verified? Have any been falsified?
  Pretend we all know absolutely nothing about the subject. How would you explain Creation Science to someone who had never before heard of Creationism, or God, or biology?
  So far, it's difficult to even get a clear view of what you're talking about. If you can educate us in the simplest terms possible as to what your actual position is, we can actually debate that position instead of meandering about on various tangents and generally angering the mods.
  Message 139 by Kelly, posted 03-05-2009 6:39 PM Kelly has not yet responded
  Message 142 of 336 (501349)
  03-05-2009 6:53 PM Reply to: Message 139 by Kelly
  Scientists hypothesized that particular types of transitional fossils would be found in particular locations. When they looked there, they found the fossils. They didn't know that the fossils would be there before they looked, but they suspected they would be there because that was one prediction of the Theory of Evolution.
  Now, you can argue about whether you consider Archeopteryx is a transitional fossil or not, but you cannot argue against the fact that it exhibits characteristics of both birds and reptiles, and that scientists predicted that they would find such fossils exactly where they found them.
  Can you name one single such discovery that has come out of creationism? (Hint: the answer is no.)
  Message 143 of 336 (501350)
  03-05-2009 6:57 PM Reply to: Message 140 by Kelly
  03-05-2009 6:42 PM
  Re: Still not following ...
  I would then say that you are not keeping with the OP in this thread.
  You are evading answering questions propsed to you about creation science on a creation science thread.
  If you care to debate the points of evolution I suggest you find another thread to do so on.
  This thread is specific, "People don't know what creation science is"...so again, please, answer the questions pertaining to creation science.
  Message 140 by Kelly, posted 03-05-2009 6:42 PM Kelly has not yet responded
  Message 144 of 336 (501351)
  03-05-2009 7:01 PM Reply to: Message 140 by Kelly
  The fact that it can quite explicitly define the kind of evidence that would falsify it, and has a lot of literature demonstrating attempts to do just that.
  Oh, and thanks for acknowledging that it is a theory, btw, since that means it has done just what I described and thus distinguished itself from creationism.
  Message 145 of 336 (501354)
  03-05-2009 7:08 PM Reply to: Message 136 by Theodoric
  03-05-2009 6:23 PM
  I believe I indicated the answer somewhere in these threads
  But just to summerize, the first Law of Thermodynamics states that there can be no creation or annihilation of Mass/Energy. One form of energy can be converted into another, one state of matter into another, and there can even be Matter'Energy interconversions, but the totality of Mass'Energy in the universe remains constant.
  The Second Law is a little more detailed and can be expressed in several ways, all of which can be shown equivilent. There's Classical Thermodynamics, Statistical Thermodynamics and Informational Thermodynamics.
  In each case, entropy is a measure of the lost usefulness of the system. In classical it measures the useful energy which must be converted to nonusable heat energy. In statistical it measures the probability of the structured arrangement of the system--with the state of disorganization being most probable and in informational it measures the amount of garbled information, or noise, that accompanies the transmission of information by the system.
  These Laws apply to the whole universe. These Laws predict a gloomy future for the cosmos and indeed if evolution were true, this would be a gloom and doom situation for sure.
  Not only does the Second Law point back to creation; it also directly contradicts evolution. Systems do not naturally go toward higher order, but toward lower order. Evolution requires a universal principle of upward change; the entropy law is a universal principle of downward change.
  If language is meaningful, evolution in the vertical sense and the Second Law cannot both be true. The Second Law has been confirmed by all sorts of scientific tests, while macroevolution is a model not even capable of being tested scientifically. If one must make a choice, it would seem wiser to believe the testable evidence that precludes the extrapolation.
  Message 136 by Theodoric, posted 03-05-2009 6:23 PM Theodoric has responded
  Message 146 by subbie, posted 03-05-2009 7:13 PM Kelly has responded
  Message 147 by Rahvin, posted 03-05-2009 7:16 PM Kelly has not yet responded
  Message 148 by Coyote, posted 03-05-2009 7:20 PM Kelly has responded
  Message 152 by Modulous, posted 03-05-2009 7:44 PM Kelly has not yet responded
  Message 154 by lyx2no, posted 03-05-2009 7:55 PM Kelly has responded
  Message 157 by Theodoric, posted 03-05-2009 8:09 PM Kelly has responded
  Message 158 by Straggler, posted 03-05-2009 8:16 PM Kelly has not yet responded
  Message 177 by onifre, posted 03-05-2009 11:23 PM Kelly has not yet responded
  Message 255 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-06-2009 2:43 PM Kelly has not yet responded
  Message 146 of 336 (501355)
  03-05-2009 7:13 PM Reply to: Message 145 by Kelly
  03-05-2009 7:08 PM
  If what you say is true, why haven't physicists told biologists that they're wrong?
  Can you consider the possibility that those who know considerably more about the the 2LOT than you do understand that there is no contradiction? Or do you think that all scientists are in some vast conspiracy to hide the truth? If not, how do you reconcile your understanding with that of those who actually know something about the field?
  Message 145 by Kelly, posted 03-05-2009 7:08 PM Kelly has responded
  Message 150 by Kelly, posted 03-05-2009 7:28 PM subbie has responded
  Message 147 of 336 (501357)
  03-05-2009 7:16 PM Reply to: Message 145 by Kelly
  Re: I believe I indicated the answer somewhere in these threads
  And yet this is blatantly false, and it has been pointed out to you several times already. You haven't argued the refutations, you've simply ignored them.
  I'm not even going to talk about evolution here, since it's off-topic in this thread. Suffice it to say that you are misrepresenting what evolution says.
  As to thermodynamics - assuming this is on-topic - you're flatly wrong. Order can and does spontaneously form from chaos. One of the simplest examples is a snowflake - an organized, patterned crystal that forms without intelligent interaction and with a net gain in entropy. The form all the time, by the billions - saying that order cannot rise naturally from chaos is clearly factually wrong.
  Further, if your Creation Science claims Creation, then it does violate teh 1st Law of Thermodynamics - in your own words, matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Unless "Creation Science" refers more to "intelligent assembly from pre-existing matter." I'm not certain, of course, because you haven't told us what Creation Science says yet. We're almost 150 posts deep here, Kelly - would you please tell us what you mean by Creation Science?
  Message 145 by Kelly, posted 03-05-2009 7:08 PM Kelly has not yet responded
  Message 148 of 336 (501358)
  03-05-2009 7:20 PM Reply to: Message 145 by Kelly
  Systems do not naturally go toward higher order, but toward lower order. Evolution requires a universal principle of upward change; the entropy law is a universal principle of downward change.
  You are forgetting one small thing; while the overall entropy in a system might increase it is possible for localized parts to see a decrease in entropy.
  Or are you going to tell me a hurricane is impossible? Or a snowflake?
  Your understanding of the second law is completely flawed. It reminds me of a debate I participated in, on another website, where a poster told us that evolution was impossible because of the second law of thermal documents.
  You really should study real science for a change, and leave those creation "science" websites alone for a while. (When it comes to science, they lie. They have to lie, because the facts just don't work in the direction they want them to. If you want, start a new thread and we can discuss radiocarbon dating. That is a field I have studied a bit and which the creationist websites have to lie about. I'll be glad to show you where in a new thread, or even in an old one.)
  Message 153 by Kelly, posted 03-05-2009 7:48 PM Coyote has not yet responded
  Message 149 of 336 (501359)
  03-05-2009 7:23 PM
  We're almost 150 posts deep here, Kelly - would you please tell us what you mean by Creation Science?
  Yeah, that would be nice. Personally, I'm still waiting for an answer to these questions;
  Who might be a good example of a creation scientist?
  Can you show us a high quality scientific paper by a creation scientist?
  What have creation scientists discovered?
  Which predictions of creation science have been borne out by observation?
  What practical benefits has creation science provided?
  I can't tell you how much it would help your case, Kelly, if you were to answer some or all of these questions. So far, you have ignored them. If creation science is sooooo great, why the reticence? Why not just answer the questions?
  Message 150 of 336 (501360)
  03-05-2009 7:28 PM Reply to: Message 146 by subbie
  03-05-2009 7:13 PM
  Many evolutionists have recognized this problem
  But with all their gymnastics and pat rejoinders to this obvious conflict between evolution and entropy, can they really argue even with the two most internationally acknowledged authorities on Thermodynamics--Sonntag and Van Wylen? In their widely used two-volume textbook, these experts write:
  .."the authors see the second law of thermodynamics as man's description of the prior and continuing work of a creator, who also holds the answer to the future destiny of man and the universe." (Sonntag and Van Wylen, Vol. 1, 1973.)