No offense taken, I will bow to her greater expertise. I am just a layman. However I dont think our answers conflict as much as they seem to. I think we are saying the same thing in different ways, PW in much more detail than I.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Creation evidence
- Thread starter Jonsul
- Start date
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Yes, both answers are good. I would add that like almost everything science studies, it's not a bright line, two box thing, but a spectrum where we have to draw the line somewhere.
Jonsul
Ehh....
I think the biggest problem repeating here is that I'm judging everything against my own and a select few's personal outlook on creation, and your taking the general view of it. It's my fault, I should of wrote it before. I just didn't expect a debate to follow. In my view there is a fine line that distinguishes creation belief and creation science.
Creation science would hold true to what science is, by using the scientific method, by being open to being wrong, not assuming anything, and only taking the outcomes in experiments. It has no ties to any one religion, and it's only goal is finding if there is evidence that aligns with the historical accounts made through religions.
Anything that does not follow those rules I don't consider Creation Science, and would not in fact be science but belief. The problem is that there's so much out there that crosses the line, such as that "creation science" site that clearly is more about belief then science.
I hope everyone can agree that if creationism followed those rules that it would be alot closer to being science. I wish the whole Creation scene wasn't the mess it is right now. I've been hoping to make a website for sometime starting a new creationism, that follows strictly to those rules. With it's only goal finding how accurate the accounts of religions are, through evidence and science. And showing claimed evidence in an unbiased way.
But before I do that I need to finish my current online comic^^
And by the way I'd like to apologize if I've annoyed or angered anyone, I have a mild form of Asperger's autism and I don't always realize that what I say is clear or insulting.
Creation science would hold true to what science is, by using the scientific method, by being open to being wrong, not assuming anything, and only taking the outcomes in experiments. It has no ties to any one religion, and it's only goal is finding if there is evidence that aligns with the historical accounts made through religions.
Anything that does not follow those rules I don't consider Creation Science, and would not in fact be science but belief. The problem is that there's so much out there that crosses the line, such as that "creation science" site that clearly is more about belief then science.
I hope everyone can agree that if creationism followed those rules that it would be alot closer to being science. I wish the whole Creation scene wasn't the mess it is right now. I've been hoping to make a website for sometime starting a new creationism, that follows strictly to those rules. With it's only goal finding how accurate the accounts of religions are, through evidence and science. And showing claimed evidence in an unbiased way.
But before I do that I need to finish my current online comic^^
And by the way I'd like to apologize if I've annoyed or angered anyone, I have a mild form of Asperger's autism and I don't always realize that what I say is clear or insulting.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
They are the same thing.
"Creation science" is as impossible as "evolution science" or "Big Bang science". When you call it creation science, you automatically make it look for evidence to support the claim of creation. That's the problem.
Creationism does not use the scientific method, period. End of story. If you try to, you will find it to be an unsupported hypothesis. That's why it's not science. It's the same as me saying "There are no species of frogs. They are all the same thing". I can make that claim and believe it if I want to. However, if I try to put it through the scientific method, it will fail miserably, and I would have to either reject it or continue to believe it despite no evidence to support it.
Not a problem. I disagree with your ideas, and I'd like to help you see the inconsistencies in your view. I have not been insulted or angered, and I hope you haven't been either.
Jonsul
Ehh....
I think we should just agree to disagree.
I have been saying that some creationism can be science, if it follows the rules of science. Which unfortunately it mostly hasn't, but is very able to do.
Also I don't understand how making a theory"everything was created" and then seeing if evidence supports it classifies it as not science. Doesn't alot of science come up with theories based on observations, and then they find if experiments support it.
If a Creationist has a theory that "the world is created", from a question through observation, say intelligent design, and then goes through a process of finding evidence and experiments that support it. Isn't it then an act of science?
Isn't this following the scientific method?
- Ask a Question
- Do Background Research
- Construct a Hypothesis
- Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
- Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
- Communicate Your Results
- Was the world created?
- Intelligent design, support of historical accounts
- An intelligent force influenced the building of atomic structures into a planned order.
- Test whether certain forces can act intelligently and influence atomic structures. Test mathematically if this is possible.
- The forces have not been found to act intelligently or guided
- The experiment does not support the hypothesis
So it's completely possible for it to be science.
Now I need to show whether its has conducted itself like this before.
And I'll do research on it.
What I mean when I say Creation Science, is the general scientific work within the creation field and scientific work on Creation theory.
Last edited:
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
We can. However, this is not a matter of opinion. Creationism is not science.
No. Science starts with words like how, why, when, etc. It also limits itself to nature and things that can be tested. How the universe came to be can't be tested. So, the question is not one that can be answered through the scientific method to begin with.
Also, the question would have to go something more like "How did the universe get here?".
Then, intelligent design is not any kind of evidence. It's a hypothesis itself. "Support for historical accounts"? Historical accounts of the creation of the universe? As in "what the Bible says"? That's also not evidence. It's conjecture from another source.
Your third step is based on nothing more than an idea proposed by someone else. It's a hypothesis that uses another hypothesis as evidence.
The rest just doesn't make sense.
No, it's not. The origins of the universe is not a subject for science. The Big Bang is where science begins because before that, time and space didn't exist as they do now, and so there's no evidence for anything to go by.
You're welcome to, but it won't help your cause.
I know what you mean, but it's just plain not science. Science does not take a philosophical pondering and try to find evidence to support it. Science looks at the universe and tries to explain why things happen the way they do based on the evidence we have. Basically, it's drawing a conclusion from evidence rather than finding evidence to support a conclusion.
Last edited:
Jonsul
Ehh....
I recently found something of this,
I've been searching around for claims against this but I
haven't found any yet. If you have something that supports
it being false please let me know^^
Evidence 9: Carbon in diamonds
Any carbon 14 older than 100,000 years is undetectable by current measuring techniques. But carbon 14 has been measured within natural diamonds. Either the decay rate of carbon 14 is not uniform, or the diamonds are younger than believed.
It's interesting, and raises many questions.
By the way, is there anyway a mod can open my first post to edit
so I can add conflicting sources and new evidence?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Your view is the only place that line exists.
It would, if it existed, but it doesn't, so it isn't.
Why would you need a special "creation science?" Is there something wrong with plain old "science"?
And that site is the best of the lot.
You still haven't defined creationism, other than "not evolution."
It's an interesting enterprise, but it has nothing to do with "creationism" in the commonly used sense of the world. You might want to come up with a new name for it.
O.K., that helps.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
If it followed the rules of science, wouldn't it just be science?
When it does, it finds out it's wrong.
Is that how you're defining "creationism?" Because that's not what you said. You said "not evolution." Which is anti-science, because science, using the scientific method, has learned that evolution is correct.
It comes up with hypotheses, which generates predictions, which either support the hypothesis or not. A theory is a scientific explanation of a lot of phenomena that holds together and makes sense of all the predictions and observations. To the extent that creationism is a hypothesis, and makes predictions, those predictions have been falsified.
Do you mean the same thing by "Intelligent Design" as you do by "creationism?" Do you know what "Intelligent Design" means?
Yes, kind of. A crucial part that you left out is that you predict the outcome of your experiment, and if it doesn't come true, you have to revise your hypothesis. To the extent that creationism has done this, its predictions have not come true.
If the world were created by a super-intelligence, what predictions can you generate from that hypothesis? Bear in mind, the super-intelligence is both unknowable and all-powerful. Now make a specific, falsifiable prediction. See the problem?
I think you'll find that it isn't.
No, it hasn't. No predictions, no experiments, no falsifiable predictions.
Good idea.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING. Here: cite a single work of scientific research, a single study by any scientist in any field, by a "creation scientist", published in any reputable peer reviwed scientific journal. Just one.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
I recently found something of this,
I've been searching around for claims against this but I
haven't found any yet. If you have something that supports
it being false please let me know^^
Evidence 9: Carbon in diamonds
Any carbon 14 older than 100,000 years is undetectable by current measuring techniques. But carbon 14 has been measured within natural diamonds. Either the decay rate of carbon 14 is not uniform, or the diamonds are younger than believed.
It's interesting, and raises many questions.
By the way, is there anyway a mod can open my first post to edit
so I can add conflicting sources and new evidence?
I'm not a physicist, or an expert in physics--in fact I've never taken a physics class, but I'll try to explain what's wrong with this enterprise. As they correctly explain up front, you can't use carbon dating with anything older than 50,000 years. It doesn't work. It's like using a scale that only weighs up to 1 ounce. If you put anything heavier on the scale, the scale will still say 1 ounce, even if the elephant weighs a ton, see what I mean? So if you measure something 50,000,000 years old using carbon dating, you will always get the same result, as they say. The fact that they even try to use carbon dating on things older than 50,000 years shows how fundamentally dishonest they are. Would you use a 1 ounce scale to measure an elephant?
Here's a more technical refutation of this particular baloney.
So, as I asked, are we looking at the age of the earth? Do you want to learn why geology knows the earth is about 4.6 billion years old?
rocketman
Out there...
Yes it is interesting. Another YEC page on it here. Diamonds: a creationists best friend
I've raised it around here before. I think it's important to note that by itself it would only be a tiny piece of the picture and in that sense proves nothing of creationism (not that proving a young earth actually proves creationism
), but it is one of the few legitimate areas that warrants further investigation imho. Even so, the data shows 60-80 thousand years rather than 6 or 10 thousand, but the real issue is why does it show anything. The final line from the article is telling: "Rather, these results may further confirm the conclusions ..." (Emphasis mine.)
...So don't place too much hope in it.
For the smart scientists who can see through the weaknesses of the contamination claims and realise that there is actually some C14 present, they have developed a good counter argument that speculates that local uranium and thorium decay may be producing the C14 isotopes within the diamonds, similar to the way in which cosmic rays produce the isotope in the atmosphere. There is little data on this in the mainstream literature though.
I have no doubt that some of the locals around here will honk on with arguments against young diamonds such as background levels and error bars or source contamination, but diamonds are locked up pretty tight and the independant test method used was AMS, and knowing a thing or two about the process I personally treat all objections atm with a grain of salt (to put it diplomatically). It seems there is C14 present and we need to know why, for sure. If you look at the page Auto linked to it concludes: "RATEs processed diamond samples were probably contaminated in the sample chemistry. The unprocessed diamond samples probably reflect instrument background." That is so sloppy to speak of samples and tests with with they are not completely familiar. There are too many 'probablies' in there for me. I think everyone involved would do well to do some more research, and do it TOGETHER.
Of-course, the Old Earth creationists beg to differ with the YECers:
Creation Science Book Review, Thousands...Not Billions, Chapter 3, Carbon-14 Dating
What is really required here is for the YEC crowd to put this together as a paper and submit it to the mainstream community, not claiming anything about God and so on, but rather, one step at a time, working through these issues. The fact that they have not is telling however, wouldn't you agree? It would be of paramount importance for BOTH sides to get some comprehensive local readings of contamination and radiation sources before EITHER side makes a claim. If YEC are not completely transparent about what they are doing then it must be questioned, and similarly if the mainstream side won't get serious about this, then they only have themselves to blame for the ongoing debate. The two sides should be witnessing each other's work. As I said earlier, there should be no such thing as 'creation science', only science.
rocketman
Out there...
Right, good point, as Autos article suggests, even if it is true, it raises more questions than answers. We would need to sample a lot more to be sure of the proportion though, it's not something that is tested for every day.
EDIT: Meogi, if it can be shown that diamonds can be young, even if it were just some of them, that would call into question the formation of all of them. But that is still a big a 'if'.
Last edited:
meogi
Well-Known Member
Don't forget that we really don't know the exact conditions when the diamond was created. Diamonds can be rapidly made... earth impacts and geological anomolies come to mind.
I just thought about my previous question... is there some sort of list of diamonds that have been dated using c14? Shame on me for assuming something like that.
I just thought about my previous question... is there some sort of list of diamonds that have been dated using c14? Shame on me for assuming something like that.
rocketman
Out there...
Hey Meogi, I just edited my last post to you. I think we are talking about diamonds formed deep underground, supposedly really old stuff..? I'll keep an eye out for more info about the diamond dating.
Last edited:
Not necessarily.
meogi
Well-Known Member
Aye.rocketman said:
There are still alternate dating methods for diamonds (dating inclusions inside them) that place them at the extreme ages (1-3 billion years) they're generally associated with. Hell, the rocks in which they are contained are usually 50 to 1500 million years old as it is.
Last edited:
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Two quick points on the diamonds thing.
We can make diamonds in the lab... Where did the diamonds for the experiment come from?
C-14 is an atmospheric product... if the diamonds are formed from inorganic carbon then there wouldn't be any C-14 to begin with.
If the diamonds are really really old then carbon dating is useless anyway. Carbon dating can not be done on anything older than the 60,000 year range.
Carbon dating anything millions of years old is stupid to the point of purposefully lying.
ok, so it was three quick points.
wa:do
We can make diamonds in the lab... Where did the diamonds for the experiment come from?
C-14 is an atmospheric product... if the diamonds are formed from inorganic carbon then there wouldn't be any C-14 to begin with.
If the diamonds are really really old then carbon dating is useless anyway. Carbon dating can not be done on anything older than the 60,000 year range.
Carbon dating anything millions of years old is stupid to the point of purposefully lying.
ok, so it was three quick points.
wa:do
rocketman
Out there...
I suppose for meteorite formed nanodiamonds and so on, sure, but I think it would for the larger volume of natural diamonds which are thought to have formed under roughly similar circumstances. If some still have C14 then they must be younger than those that don't, but how much younger and why? That's the question. If the C14 claims turn out to be true, we would have to at least consider the possibility that they may all be younger than first thought.