Creationists, what experiments are you doing?

This should be quite easy to understand for everyone. If creationists/ID'ers are pushing for their ideas to be taught in science class, then some sort of experimentation should be going on. That is a requirement of science.

So, let's have it. We don't need to get too complicated or drown ourselves in too many examples. Let's begin with one experiment and discuss it. Maybe have a couple as suggestions, but only go into depth with one.

A couple of things to remember, please:

1. Stick to the topic at hand
2. Do not mention evolution in this discussion, unless it's part of the ID experiment or hypothesis. THIS TOPIC WILL FOCUS ON CREATIONISM AND ID. I don't want anyone bashing creationism or evolution in this thread; that is not what this is about.

3. Do not add to this discussion by saying "There are no experiments that can be done" without actually explaining why this particular experiment is not scientific. If you are going to say anything it must pertain to the experiment which is being discussed.

If you are doing to submit an experiment to be discussed, please state the hypothesis first and then the experiment process after.

This thread doesn't necessarily need to include conclusions to the experiments about to be discussed. The important thing here is the METHODOLOGY. We can discuss the conclusions from the experiment(s) later or in another thread.


Ok, I'm all ears.

the large hadron collider is an experiment in creation. but according to the unified field theorys the are just gonna find another smaller particle within to infinity. god connects the infinitly small and the infinitly big in a loop and it is impossible for us to fathom the nature of that connection other then to live love and laugh. we are our own worst enemy not aliens, or devils

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
This should be quite easy to understand for everyone. If creationists/ID'ers are pushing for their ideas to be taught in science class, then some sort of experimentation should be going on. That is a requirement of science.

Do you not want to include evolutionary experiments in this brainstorm aswell? Because afaik there is no evolution experimentation that can be done in a science class either.

Originally posted by Man_Versus_AntiMan
Do you not want to include evolutionary experiments in this brainstorm aswell? Because afaik there is no evolution experimentation that can be done in a science class either.

Did you even read the whole initial post? I mean seriously, you either didn't read it or you purposefully decided to ignore the outline I have laid out. I don't know whats worse.

This has nothing to do with evolutionary theory unless you believe its part of a creationist/ID hypothesis.

Let's pretend you are a member of a team who is about to introduce a new science curriculum and you are deciding which ideas to include. Let's say evolution will not be included for what ever reason you want. Now, let's make the case for ID/creationism by explaining what kind of experiments you are doing/analyzing.

Originally posted by Man_Versus_AntiMan
Do you not want to include evolutionary experiments in this brainstorm aswell? Because afaik there is no evolution experimentation that can be done in a science class either.

This is completely untrue. Speciation as a result of natural selection has been observed in over a hundred instances, under experimental conditions. Fact is (and it's part of the point I think the OP is trying to make) there's a large amount of evidence supporting evolution- both experimental and theoretical, while there is NO evidence supporting ID.

Originally posted by SamuraiDrifter
This is completely untrue. Speciation as a result of natural selection has been observed in over a hundred instances, under experimental conditions. Fact is (and it's part of the point I think the OP is trying to make) there's a large amount of evidence supporting evolution- both experimental and theoretical, while there is NO evidence supporting ID.

Now wait a second here. The creationists/ID'ers haven't even stated a case yet!

You're just as guilty as him for derailing. PLEASE STOP TALKING ABOUT EVOLUTION!

Now, let's hear about ONE experiment please! What are creation scientists doing in the lab?

I dont know if this has been/could be done, but prehaps an experiment showing if a flagellum (spelling?) can function as it needs to with one of its components removed. This would go some way to proving the irreducible complexity thing.

reply to post by LuDaCrIs


Unfortunately you can't outline an experiment to test an unfalsifiable hypothesis. You simply can't. That is the whole issue at hand with ID. It's unscientific.

Yes mate i did read your post and i felt that you had made an error worthy of breaking your stipulated rules for.

You said that if Creationists want ID put on the curriculum, suitable tests for a classroom environment should be presented. However you have completely ignored the fact that there are ZERO evolutionary experiments one can perform in class either. I felt it was worth pointing that out as the tone of your post suggested you were using the point as a criticism.

I thought you were trying to be unbiased about this?

Originally posted by SamuraiDrifter
This is completely untrue. Speciation as a result of natural selection has been observed in over a hundred instances, under experimental conditions. Fact is (and it's part of the point I think the OP is trying to make) there's a large amount of evidence supporting evolution- both experimental and theoretical, while there is NO evidence supporting ID.

Clearly you had not read his post, he said 'IN SCIENCE CLASS'.

Im not opposing you, im from the UK, no ones stupid enough to believe in creationism here!

[edit on 29-9-2008 by Man_Versus_AntiMan]

Originally posted by Man_Versus_AntiMan
Yes mate i did read your post and i felt that you had made an error worthy of breaking your stipulated rules for.

You said that if Creationists want ID put on the curriculum, suitable tests for a classroom environment should be presented. However you have completely ignored the fact that there are ZERO evolutionary experiments one can perform in class either. I felt it was worth pointing that out as the tone of your post suggested you were using the point as a criticism.

I thought you were trying to be unbiased about this?

How is this relevant to the topic? I don't care about how you feel about evolution! Why is that so hard to understand. Saying evolution has no experiments to back it up isn't an experiment to show that creationism is valid, which is what this thread is about.

By the way, when I said in a science class, I didn't necessarily mean an experiment to be performed by the students. That would be a bonus. What I meant was presenting an experiment in writing or illustrations -- something along the lines of teaching the procedure, not necessarily performing it.

Originally posted by dave420
Unfortunately you can't outline an experiment to test an unfalsifiable hypothesis. You simply can't. That is the whole issue at hand with ID. It's unscientific.

Let's be more specific. This is exactly the type of answer which I was trying to avoid.

What hypothesis are you referring to? Have they tested it? How have they tested it? How is it falsifiable?

Where are the creationists/ID'ers? We haven't heard anything from them yet.

Here would be a great place to start.

First; lets try re-creating that experiment to create a protein out of the environment that is thought to have existed. The first time it was done they got the available ingredients wrong. Duke website (note: if the proteins came from space then that does not prove evolution or creation it only changes the location of the origin.)

Second, if given more accurate conditions get these proteins to combine, work together, and reproduce.

Third, get them to show some sort of intelligence, such as a reaction to stimuli.

how about we start there

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
g to? Have they tested it? How have they tested it? How is it falsifiable?

Where are the creationists/ID'ers? We haven't heard anything from them yet.

2 1/2 hours that's all we get. I was doing work.

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
This thread doesn't necessarily need to include conclusions to the experiments about to be discussed. The important thing here is the METHODOLOGY.

My first experiment, would be to understand the mind of an atheist.

My 2nd experiment would be to identify the paths and instances that lead to a person with no belief, to seeking.

My third, would be to define what Good is. Each investigator being the subject of experimentation, and would regulate all that would happen to them, him or her.

Lastly, the only requirement of the experiment would be to " Love one another, as one loves ones own self "

Peace


[edit on 29-9-2008 by HIFIGUY]

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
Now wait a second here. The creationists/ID'ers haven't even stated a case yet!

You're just as guilty as him for derailing. PLEASE STOP TALKING ABOUT EVOLUTION!

Now, let's hear about ONE experiment please! What are creation scientists doing in the lab?

Hey, calm down and stop throwing a hissy fit.

For the question to be answered, it must be in the right context. Creationists can't respond to questions about their "experiments" if they still have doubts about the opposition.

Did you read my post? I give three steps to test the origin of life.

Originally posted by SamuraiDrifter

Hey, calm down and stop throwing a hissy fit.

For the question to be answered, it must be in the right context. Creationists can't respond to questions about their "experiments" if they still have doubts about the opposition.

First off, I am not in a "hissy" fit, I was merely trying to focus the thread on the right track. You don't see where the frustration might be coming from when one sets out some basic rules and then someone goes out and almost instantly deviates from them?

As for not being able to respond to questions about their experiments, why does it matter if they have doubts about the opposition? I don't understand that. Your going to have to clarify that.

Why is it we can't discuss creationist experiments exclusively?

Originally posted by irongunner
Here would be a great place to start.

First; lets try re-creating that experiment to create a protein out of the environment that is thought to have existed. The first time it was done they got the available ingredients wrong. Duke website (note: if the proteins came from space then that does not prove evolution or creation it only changes the location of the origin.)

Second, if given more accurate conditions get these proteins to combine, work together, and reproduce.

Third, get them to show some sort of intelligence, such as a reaction to stimuli.

how about we start there

What is the hypothesis from all of this?

When you say, "get them to show some sort of intelligence", what do you mean? How do you show that? What is the prediction made from the hypothesis?

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
Why is it we can't discuss creationist experiments exclusively?

I don't know, maybe it has to do with the fact that they don't exist. Creationism is not observable, testable, or otherwise falsifiable. It is impossible to do any experiments testing the postulate of creationism.

[edit on 29-9-2008 by SamuraiDrifter]

Originally posted by SamuraiDrifter
I don't know, maybe it has to do with the fact that they don't exist. Creationism is not observable, testable, or otherwise falsifiable. It is impossible to do any experiments testing the postulate of creationism.
[edit on 29-9-2008 by SamuraiDrifter]

Ok, now we know what your stance is. Maybe you can contribute a little later on. The point of this thread is to get the creationists/ID'ers to present us with their ideas and then explain why or why not their hypothesis are scientific or not. You've already jumped to a conclusion without even letting them speak. Whether or not you are right is irrelevant at this point because we haven't even gone through their thought process--as no one has even presented an experiment yet.

This topic is aimed at ID/creation adherers. It is aimed at analyzing what they are doing in the lab--if that even exists.