I know, I know - 'Creation Science' is an oxymoron; or is it?  I feel like I've been left out of the loop a bit because I just discovered that there really is such a thing as 'creation science'.  I expect a lot of flack for even suggesting such a thing but I should point out that emotional reactions to any suggestion of validity to 'creation science' are really on par with the dogmatic rebuttals of theists.


Like all scientists, creation scientists start out with an hypothesis and then go out and test it.  I guess the only difference is that they don't really have hypothesis 'b' (or c,d,e,f...) waiting in the wings like reality scientists.  Where reality science can drop an hypothesis and move on, creation science needs to get more rigorous, to say the least.


It seems that creation scientists use classical mutlidimensional scaling to group fossils into baramins - a creationist version of evolutionary taxonomy.  The multidimensional scaling identifies gaps in the fossil record that leave the remaining fossils in 'groups' they call baramins, which they say were created in exactly that form by a god.  Interestingly, this is the most technical definition of a 'god of the gaps' I've ever encountered.


So, the topic to discuss here is; 'IF' creation scientists could actually prove their baramin hypothesis AND reality scientists couldn't falsify it, would you be prepared to accept/admit that macro-evolution did NOT actually occur?

Views: 252

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Could you apply that sort of psuedo-scientific reasoning to other topics? Unicorns, dragons, Gandolf, the Force etc....? Anything you "wanted" to be taken seriously could be classified as science. The concepts that these so called scientists are using are not real.
The concepts being used by the scientists in the article are very real - so real in fact that they are coming dangerously close to conclusively proving macro-evolution as a mathematical certainty through statistical analysis of fossil attributes.

"they are coming dangerously close to conclusively proving macro-evolution as a mathematical certainty through statistical analysis of fossil attributes." - Wouldn't that mean they are coming dangerously close to proving Darwinian evolution? isn't that what we want?


On a side note, if these creation scientists  find evidence that macro evolution did in fact occur, do you think they would accept it?

It does in fact seem that perhaps the strongest evidence tying the entire fossil record (in and of itself) to a single common ancestor is coming from this very creation science statistical analysis of fossil attributes.  Whether or not they will accept it is the very question the article poses in closing.  My question is based on whether or not we would accept the opposite if that was the way the study went.

Most of the Creationists that I have met are what I call “creation apologists”. They try to deduce “scientific facts” from their version of the bible. An example is Jehovah Witnesses claiming that the Nitrogen cycle was known in BC times or they knew the world was round when everyone else “knew” it was flat. As modern science progresses rapidly they are desperately trying to inject as much science into their religion (or is it vice versa?). They generally only vaguely understand the Theory of Evolution. They say that it is wrong because it do not explain how life started on Earth. However that is a different subject -Abiogenesis.

The Theory of Evolution is true. Science has proven it to the point where there is no doubt. The evidence for it is beyond question. Therefore it is justified, in the philosophical sense, to call it a Truth. Therefore ID and creationism in general can be – and should be – treated as complete pseudoscience. If it had any validity brought about by evidence verified by the Scientific Method then, to eventually answer your question, I would consider it.

And on the eight day god hid all the fossils……

I realize it's pseudo-science, but did you even look at the article?  These are not doorknockers or fossil deniers - they are actually engaging the fossil evidence and trying to prove multiple sources; of course they have to ignore DNA, and as the gaps close they are getting too few sources for their liking - but they are actually engaged in scientific observation.
Just a point of argument but Evolution in and of itself does not disprove the existence of a god. In particular, some ID people argue that God "guided" evolution... Personally I think it's rubbish but we need to be careful about this sort of thing when talking to creationists.
Not only does Evolution fail to prove there is no god, but even a success in the baraminology study to establish hundreds of open ended ancestral lines wouldn't prove that gods exist.  It's actually a rather moot point - the only real question is whether or not we are all truly prepared to follow the evidence.

And 'IF' pigs could fly. . .


How do you go from magic is correct to macro-evolution is wrong?


You do know that micro and macro evolution are the same thing, right? It's the same process operating at different scales.

Did you read the article?  They are mathematically analyzing fossil attributes to locate gaps between 'baramins'.  It's the most incredible god of the gaps definition to date - but their own statistical analysis is closing in on them.  But if it weren't, well that would be another story and micro and macro would NOT, statistically speaking, be the same thing.

I read it. But why bother with all this 'IF stuff? It's clearly all nonsense. This kind of IF will never happen as the evidence for evolution is too strong.


Because it's a discussion forum and I was interested in seeing just how dogmatic Atheists could be.


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service