Why creationism is not a valid scientific hypothesis.

The fact is they date the rocks by the fossils and they date the fossils by the rocks. That is right there in the science books. That is circular reasoning. Look that fact up.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The fact is they date the rocks by the fossils and they date the fossils by the rocks. That is right there in the science books. That is circular reasoning. Look that fact up.

Not circular at all. That assswipe who made that video just WANTS you to think it's circular but it is not in the slightest. Under the right conditions they can use fossils to get a decent handle on the age of rocks and under the right conditions, the opposite.

That idiot who made the idiot video just wants to kill evolution at any cost, so he is a politician only and I mean that in the pejorative sense.

You would never have come up with that bogus circular reasoning argument on your own so you just post assswipes who have a clear agenda to kill science if you think it will get political converts. You are a politician.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Not circular at all. That assswipe who made that video just WANTS you to think it's circular but it is not in the slightest. Under the right conditions they can use fossils to get a decent handle on the age of rocks and under the right conditions, the opposite.

That idiot who made the idiot video just wants to kill evolution at any cost, so he is a poli ...[text shortened]... clear agenda to kill science if you think it will get political converts. You are a politician.

Wrong. They began by assigning dates to the fossils to fit into the evolution time line; then they date the rock layers by the fossils they find in the rock layers. Then when new fossils are found they look at the rock layer that they are found in and date the new fossils by the rock layers. That is circular reasoning.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Wrong. They began by assigning dates to the fossils to fit into the evolution time line; then they date the rock layers by the fossils they find in the rock layers. Then when new fossils are found they look at the rock layer that they are found in and date the new fossils by the rock layers. That is circular reasoning.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/fosrec/McKinney.html

Now ask yourself if it takes four class hours for 8th grade students to absorb hovind's
circular parody on dating methods, or if in fact there's more to it than hovind lets on.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Wrong. They began by assigning dates to the fossils to fit into the evolution time line; then they date the rock layers by the fossils they find in the rock layers. Then when new fossils are found they look at the rock layer that they are found in and date the new fossils by the rock layers. That is circular reasoning.

So now you are an expert on geology as well as evolution a life origins?

Instead of just believing anything some assswipe says on a video who is an avowed creationist, why don't you instead ask a geologist?

You will get straight answers and the history of dating rocks to boot.

That so-called circular reasoning thing was how they did it in the 19th century. 2 centuries ago. Got that part? The half life of uranium 235 is about 700 million years and by taking samples of rocks with uranium in them and charting how much has been converted to lead 207, you can get decent dates for ages of rocks. The isotopes, parent and daughter relationship has not changed in all the 4.5 billion years old the planet really is.

Much as your buddies will try to use politics to deflect that truth, that IS the truth.

The problem with this thread is that the Evolutionists are arguing against Creationism on the basis of Popper's version of positivism which asserts the primacy of empirical evidence; Creationists are idealists and won't accept the primacy of empirical evidence. The creationists arguing against evolution on its own terms are making the same mistake. The two positions depend on different philosophies. You don't even agree on whether absolute truth exists.

Originally posted by DeepThought
The problem with this thread is that the Evolutionists are arguing against Creationism on the basis of Popper's version of positivism which asserts the primacy of empirical evidence; Creationists are idealists and won't accept the primacy of empirical evidence. The creationists arguing against evolution on its own terms are making the same mistak ...[text shortened]... itions depend on different philosophies. You don't even agree on whether absolute truth exists.

Science is grounded in empirical evidence, so creationism is by default a failed hypothesis
as far as science is concerned, whatever philosophical view creationists hold.

Originally posted by C Hess
Science is grounded in empirical evidence, so creationism is by default a failed hypothesis
as far as science is concerned, whatever philosophical view creationists hold.

Science is grounded in reproducible experiments. If you can't reproduce it, then belief in it is faith.

Originally posted by Eladar
Science is grounded in reproducible experiments. If you can't reproduce it, then belief in it is faith.

Wrong.

How many reproducible experiments do you think astronomers get to do?

We have only one climate, and can't do multiple runs on that...

Many sciences have to rely on observations and not repeatable experiments
because you can't do repeatable experiments.

That doesn't make it not science, and it certainly doesn't make it faith.


Faith requires belief without sufficient evidence.

You don't need to be able to do repeatable experiments to gather evidence.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Wrong.

How many reproducible experiments do you think astronomers get to do?

We have only one climate, and can't do multiple runs on that...

Many sciences have to rely on observations and not repeatable experiments
because you can't do repeatable experiments.

That doesn't make it not science, and it certainly doesn't make it faith.


Fai ...[text shortened]... fficient evidence.

You don't need to be able to do repeatable experiments to gather evidence.

You mean do astronomers get to test light or view far off stars with telescopes? I think those things would be considered experiments. Every time they look at the spot in the sky, the star is there. Every time a comet is where it is supposed to be, the calculations that predict where it will be is shown correct.

Faith requires belief with sufficient evidence for you. It may not be sufficient for others, but that's why others call it faith. You call it believing in truth.

Originally posted by Eladar
You mean do astronomers get to test light or view far off stars with telescopes? I think those things would be considered experiments. Every time they look at the spot in the sky, the star is there. Every time a comet is where it is supposed to be, the calculations that predict where it will be is shown correct.

Faith requires belief with sufficient evi ...[text shortened]... be sufficient for others, but that's why others call it faith. You call it believing in truth.

no they are observations not experiments.

We observe things happening in the sky, we do not conduct experiments on them.

Originally posted by googlefudge
no they are observations not experiments.

We observe things happening in the sky, we do not conduct experiments on them.

They can be repeated and tested directly. You predict where something will be in the sky and if it is there you've tested your model. You are dealing with something in real time.


The fossils are there, but how they got there is purely faith. We are not making fossils.

Perhaps the question is better dealt with in this question:

If God is real, can science show that he is real?

Originally posted by Eladar
They can be repeated and tested directly. You predict where something will be in the sky and if it is there you've tested your model. You are dealing with something in real time.


The fossils are there, but how they got there is purely faith. We are not making fossils.

Perhaps the question is better dealt with in this question:

If God is real, can science show that he is real?

If by experiment you mean observation, then my statement stands. Science is grounded in
empirical evidence, so creationism is by definition a failed hypothesis.

Originally posted by Eladar
If God is real, can science show that he is real?

You say "if", that makes your faith in him low.

Originally posted by C Hess
Science is grounded in empirical evidence, so creationism is by default a failed hypothesis
as far as science is concerned, whatever philosophical view creationists hold.

No, creationism is only a failure for positivism, which is a philosophy of science. In earlier ages it was believed that you could come to correct conclusions about nature on the basis of reason alone - this didn't mean that they weren't scientists. Positivism makes some claims to what science is which are at odds with how it is actually practised. There is no empirical evidence for String Theory whatsoever and there is little chance of any evidence soon as the energy scales you need to reach are too high - despite this it is regarded as a scientific theory.