A question for creationists, especially young earthers?

Let's get this straight. The history of science is littered with discarded theories. Believing that a particular theory is incorrect is not a rejection of the scientific method.

There are different areas of science, operational science that can be tested and verified by repeated observations and experiments, and historical/origins science that examine unrepeatable events in the past based on current evidence. The example you give are all operational science while the competing theories of evolution and creation are historical science.

So far the observational evidence for life on earth is more consistent with the creation theory. All creatures reproduce after their own kind. Do you know of an exception to this prediction? I will admit this is a big ask because even Linnaeus recognised that "kind" was at a higher taxonomic level than species. However centuries of breeding dogs has produced only dogs.

What sort of experiments could provide evidence for the Young Earth Creation model? One would be to test carbon containing specimens for 14C. The detection limit with modern equipment is about 100,000 years old, so detection of ANY 14C would mean an age of less than 100,000 years. This has been done multiple times and 14C has been detected in several dinosaur fossils, coal, and diamonds, indicating all of these cannot be millions of years old.

A team of researchers gave a presentation at the 2012 Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting in Singapore, August 13–17, at which they gave 14C dating results from many bone samples from eight dinosaur specimens. All gave dates ranging from 22,000 to 39,000 years, right in the ‘ballpark’ predicted by creationists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbdH3l1UjPQ

When we are talking about "why organisms display such a diversity or where the stars came from", we are not dealing with operational science. Common Ancestry and the General Cosmology model (along with creationism) are fundamentally unfalsifiable. They are claims regarding the unobserved past. These claims are not available for direct scientific scrutiny. We cannot travel back in time to make the observations necessary to warrant legitimate scientific confidence. By contrast, "the structures of an atom, how viruses replicate, how an cuddlefish camouflages itself, how hurricanes form, etc." are all available for direct scientific scrutiny.

We do not "abandon the scientific method". The scientific method explicitly affords us the right to scrutinize any scientific claim. All legitimate science incorporates uncertainty.

"every time I look, I see plenty of experiments and tests done that could potentially falsify things like big bang cosmology and evolution"

No you don't. There is no weight of evidence that could categorically falsify any claim regarding the General Cosmology or Common Ancestry models. Even apparently inconsistent evidence could be set aside as; "we haven't figured out how this evidence fits yet". And to be fair, there is a logical possibility that later research will reveal a way to reconcile the evidence with the theory. But it's that very possibility which allows us to ignore current inconsistencies.

The Cosmology model is a good example.

* The discovery of uniform background radiation did not fit the original "Big Bang" model - the model was not rejected. After a few years, someone proposed an "Inflation" event (without any proposed cause or stop). So Inflation is now incorporated into the model.

* Then the discovery that there is not enough matter in the universe to hold galaxies together did not fit the model. Then someone proposed that 96% of the universal matter is actually "dark matter" (which has still not been observed). So dark matter is now incorporated into the model.

* Then we observed that the universe is expanding at increased velocity, contrary to the model. So now the model incorporates "dark energy".

So in reality, the current model is composed primarily of conjecture designed to reconcile the evidence with the theory. The mathematical model can be tweaked to suite any evidence we find. We just need a grace period so we can come up with a solution that fits. It may all be true, and it may all be false. There is no experimental way to determine the truth with any legitimate scientific confidence.

You prefer a model formulated to conform to a naturalistic reality. I prefer a model formulated to conform to a theistic reality. I have the very same evidence. I just interpret it differently.

That's because creationism (and by that I mean the belief that an intelligent agent created life forms on earth) is not falsifiable as such. It isn't a scientific theory, and as a creationists, I do not understand why so many of my Christian brothers are trying to push it into our school system. It's just not worth the trouble. The fact is God is an agent, not a mechanism unlike the theory of evolution. That's why can't falsify it using the scientific method.

Now as far as young earthers Go (which I am not one of them) I believe they are falsified everyday aren't they?

I'm not going to address the motives of the lab rats (cough/GRANTmoney).

I will draw your attention to a few important facts:

The heavens and the earth were created before time was. Go verify that yourself (Gen.1.1).

Fish rot or get eaten. They don't turn into fossils.

The silica in the mudflows compressed under water @ 5900 lbs per sq. inch for a year, created all fossils. All fossils and sedimentary layers were formed at the exact same time - 4500 yrs ago.

There are stories of the flood in every culture worldwide - a memory handed down by those who were dispersed after the Tower of Babel incident.

The bible is NOT a science book. It's a story about a rescuer. Trying to make it into something else is a red herring. Shame on you.

Churches are lousy at teaching science.

Christians aren't necessarily disciples of Christ.

Most Christians are so involved with spending their free time learning about God (a FULL TIME PURSUIT) they really don't care about anything else because they KNOW what's really important.... and it's not the things that will turn to dust.

So I challenge YOU: what information do you think you'll need to die happy? Hmmmm?

Don't be so suspicious. Put your bias aside. Don't be a lazy historian. Your life depends on it. If you do not act on the instinct of self preservation and you go on with your life with blinders on, no one.... NO ONE .... not even Jesus himself can rescue you.

PS. The scientific community has an internal policing system with a policy that states that once a theory has been addressed by the community at large (even if it's a hundred years old) no one is allowed to revisit it. This is to save face. I know this from looking into the inner workings of the 1.1 billion in grants they receive in Canada alone.

Creationism in a lot of ways is the exact reverse of science. Science observes the universe, comes up with proposed explanations, then tests those explanations through experiment or prediction to see if they are correct.

Creationism looks at the answer (Goddidit), then tries to fit the observations to that existing conclusion. There is, and in fact can BE no experiment, because they have approached the situation exactly reversed.

Creationists are so extreme that they have to abandon logic & reason to 'justify' their claims...

@ believe what..., I just read the first part of your diatribe and it is ridiculous.

First, lab rats aren't motivated by money.

Besides, a lab rat has nothing to do with dating fossils or various objects in time anyway.

About fish not having bones...first, some did in ancient times (and still today) but many of the fossils are from indention's in mud that eventually turned into rock

I didn't read any more but already it is clear to see you haven't actually looked into the process and the science that supports it.

They don't want to accept anything that is contrary to their religious views, or that would make them reconsider their views.

Yup, you have it right.