the accomplishments of creation " science "

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Chester, we have already proven that you don't do very well with the English language. In science, a theory is something with supporting evidence.

Viz

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested, in accordance with the scientific method, using a predefined protocol of observation and experiment.[1][2] Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.[3]

[1] National Academy of Sciences, 1999
[2] "The Structure of Scientific Theories" in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
[3] Schafersman, Steven D. "An Introduction to Science"

originally posted by: Noinden

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested, in accordance with the scientific method, using a predefined protocol of observation and experiment.

Continue to carbon date dinosaurs. They will continually be less than 40,000 years old. Continue to date coal and diamonds, they too will be in the detectable C-14 range. How about the abundance of blatant dinosaur depictions throughout history? Continue to do research on the ice caps - the WWII plane found beneath supposedly 6000 layers of ice leads me to think our concepts on ice aging are uncalibrated. Continue to try to formulate some possible way to explain the irreducible complexity of all physiological processes in all organisms - otherwise consider tossing out this obsolete theory. Meanwhile not a single iota of evidence has ever been repeatably observed that proves that adaptation can amalgamate to an alteration of organisms outside of a particularly well-calibrated range.

This theory is dying. Don't cling to a sinking ship, look for the next shore.

“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.”

― Nikola Tesla

a reply to: cooperton

My Analytical team will not let me put unknown samples in their equipment Mind you its a Pharma analytical team, and that would violate GMP protocols

So what exactly has creationism contributed to science? What scientific advancements have been made as a direct result of theological study? Anything recent?

originally posted by: TzarChasm
So what exactly has creationism contributed to science? What scientific advancements have been made as a direct result of theological study? Anything recent?

If it weren't for people arguing the theory of evolution, we would be dictated by an atheological regime. Which is really what's happening already... They teach evolution as if its fact, and meaninglessness is the general conclusion for all public (and most private) schools. Even before schooling they are taught that everything is hundreds of millions of years old, yet there is no evidence that clearly demonstrates that. Preliminary data on carbon-dating dinosaur remains demonstrates they are younger than 40,000 years old. The theory of evolution is a house of cards, you have to prod it your self to see it fall. The textbooks you grew up with are a dead end.

a reply to: Noinden

"Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has that has no facts to support it. Like evolution.

It remains a theory until verifiable facts support it then it become scientific fact.

Kind of like I cannot prove you actually work in a Pharma lab as you claim. So until it can be proven it is just a theory that you claim to be true but without verifiable facts in other words it is a theory. Once you can prove you actually work at a Pharma lab then it becomes fact no longer a theory, So for now it is an idea, a hunch or a theory you claim to be true with no facts to support it.

LIVE Science

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Noinden

"Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has that has no facts to support it. Like evolution.

It remains a theory until verifiable facts support it then it become scientific fact.

Kind of like I cannot prove you actually work in a Pharma lab as you claim. So until it can be proven it is just a theory that you claim to be true but without verifiable facts in other words it is a theory. Once you can prove you actually work at a Pharma lab then it becomes fact no longer a theory, So for now it is an idea, a hunch or a theory you claim to be true with no facts to support it.

LIVE Science

You know it would be worth your while to pay attention once in a while. This has been posted numerous times with explanations. And yet, you still don't get it.

From the National Academy of Science - the most prestigious scientific organization in the world:

Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?

It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact." © PhotoDisc In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence. The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously. One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. For example, the theory of gravitation predicted the behavior of objects on the moon and other planets long before the activities of spacecraft and astronauts confirmed them. The evolutionary biologists who discovered Tiktaalik predicted that they would find fossils intermediate between fish and limbed terrestrial animals in sediments that were about 375 million years old. Their discovery confirmed the prediction made on the basis of evolutionary theory. In turn, confirmation of a prediction increases confidence in that theory. In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.

Now repeat after me:

In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur

And once more just for good measure:

In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur

a reply to: Phantom423

No I get it. But it has two meanings one where it is an idea or hunch and one where it is verifiable fact.

It is not the first time words can have two totally different meanings.

It is called dualism.

Peace!

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Phantom423

No I get it. But it has two meanings one where it is an idea or hunch and one where it is verifiable fact.

It is not the first time words can have two totally different meanings.

It is called dualism.

Peace!

That isn't in the scientific definition of "fact". Where does it say in the definition I posted that a scientific fact can have two meanings? It says just the opposite - that there is so much evidence for a given explanation that it is a FACT. There is only one meaning for FACT in science - not two.

Stop confusing yourself. Facts are facts. Evolution is a fact.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Barcs

A theory that is proven is no longer a theory, and theory that has not facts is still a theory. evolution has no real facts it is all based upon assumption and changes with the wind.

There s a difference between an adaptation and that of a transitional form. The latter is lacking in all forms of evolution.

Do you really have to keep lying like that? It's quite embarrassing.

Scientific theories ARE better than facts. They don't stop becoming theories when proven! They become theories WHEN they supported by enough testable evidence. They are theories because we don't know everything yet. A basic google search would show you this, but you folks NEVER do any honest research on anything, you just keep repeating lies. I posted the supporting facts for evolution numerous times and you have never even attempted to debunk any of it.

Germ theory is still a theory. Scientific theories are based on testable data, not just ideas. The theory of modern evolutionary synthesis is a scientific theory. Just like Germ theory, Gravity, Cell theory, etc. None of them have been reclassified as scientific facts, because theories are based on facts.

en.wikipedia.org...

www.talkorigins.org...

www.livescience.com...

This is why people make fun of creationists. Don't get me wrong, you can believe whatever you want, but attacking the opposition dishonestly and spreading lies about science is why so many people speak out against your claims. It's not that they hate religion or god, they just know you are full of crap.

a reply to: Barcs

I believe this IS the one thing Creation science has accomplished...

This is why people make fun of creationists. Don't get me wrong, you can believe whatever you want, but attacking the opposition dishonestly and spreading lies about science is why so many people speak out against you. It's not that they hate religion or god, they just know you are full of crap.

the establishment of feces in their reasoning/logic

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Noinden

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested, in accordance with the scientific method, using a predefined protocol of observation and experiment.

Continue to carbon date dinosaurs. They will continually be less than 40,000 years old. Continue to date coal and diamonds, they too will be in the detectable C-14 range. How about the abundance of blatant dinosaur depictions throughout history? Continue to do research on the ice caps - the WWII plane found beneath supposedly 6000 layers of ice leads me to think our concepts on ice aging are uncalibrated. Continue to try to formulate some possible way to explain the irreducible complexity of all physiological processes in all organisms - otherwise consider tossing out this obsolete theory. Meanwhile not a single iota of evidence has ever been repeatably observed that proves that adaptation can amalgamate to an alteration of organisms outside of a particularly well-calibrated range.

This theory is dying. Don't cling to a sinking ship, look for the next shore.

“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.”

― Nikola Tesla

And meanwhile, you can't post a single, peer-reviewed citation which supports your "theories". And that's a FACT.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm
So what exactly has creationism contributed to science? What scientific advancements have been made as a direct result of theological study? Anything recent?

If it weren't for people arguing the theory of evolution, we would be dictated by an atheological regime. Which is really what's happening already... They teach evolution as if its fact, and meaninglessness is the general conclusion for all public (and most private) schools. Even before schooling they are taught that everything is hundreds of millions of years old, yet there is no evidence that clearly demonstrates that. Preliminary data on carbon-dating dinosaur remains demonstrates they are younger than 40,000 years old. The theory of evolution is a house of cards, you have to prod it your self to see it fall. The textbooks you grew up with are a dead end.

That didnt really answer my question...

originally posted by: Phantom423

And meanwhile, you can't post a single, peer-reviewed citation which supports your "theories". And that's a FACT.

That would be like asking the Spanish Inquisition for the Quran.

Understand that the scientific field has a certain set of dogma that cannot be defied without totally upsetting the entire theoretical framework of the system. Of course peer reviewers outright refused Armitage, etc's data regarding C-14 dates for dinosaurs - it is empirical evidence that demonstrates that fallibility of the contemporary theories. I hope all of you who claim to be real scientists actually take interest in the empirical evidence, rather than remain anchored in old bias.

Don't conveniently ignore all dissenting evidence against evolution. Investigate further, and consider the option that humankind does not come from mutagenic random chance.

a reply to: Barcs

Germ theory is still a theory.

and if you have the forrtitude to poke the fetid underbelly of the " anti vaccination delusion " - you will find idiots who deny the veracity of " germ theory "

a reply to: Phantom423

He's referring to the Miller case, which is often cited. Shame about the truth.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: Phantom423

He's referring to the Miller case, which is often cited. Shame about the truth.

Ah yes, the famous Miller case. The same case that has been declared a fraud by experts and at least a half dozen times on this board. Coop has a problem with paranoia. He thinks everyone is crazy except him and the Creationist crowd. After all, they've reinvented science in their own image and likeness, that is, everything from ignorance to outright fraud. But no one seems to buy it!



If you want a sample of this famous bone, you can find it here:




I offered to have the sample analyzed in one of our labs, but for some strange reason, he turned me down!

a reply to: Phantom423

IF they can certify its source, and chain of custody, I've GMP and ISO certified labs that can do it too. WE know that will not happen. But offer is there.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Phantom423

IF they can certify its source, and chain of custody, I've GMP and ISO certified labs that can do it too. WE know that will not happen. But offer is there.

I seriously doubt a sample will be offered. It would be the death knell of Creationism!

a reply to: Phantom423

Not really our problem. I (as you do) have access to labs. I'd make sure all data is released