User talk:Wfward

Welcome!

Hello, Wfward, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Guettarda 13:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creationist Cosmologies

Yes, I know that you didn't put this on my talk page, but I will respond anyway.

Is it reasonable to state that Creationism is Pseudo Science? While is is not the only theory and while it is not the majority view, it is held by a significant number of people in the scientific community.

In the interest of being objective and not coming from a single point of view or bias, I believe classifying creationism as Pseudo Science is to discredit the theory that has not been disproven.

'A theory that has not been disproven' is a meaningless statement. A theory is defined as an idea that has been tested, and has passed the tests. The creationist cosmologies article describes only things that have either failed obvious tests or are untestable. That is part of the definition of pseudoscience. I think you are confusing creationism, which is not a theory (because it is not testable), with creationist cosmologies, many of which are testable and which fail. A significant number of scientists believe in creationism to some extent, but roughly zero believe in creationist cosmologies. That is why the standard cosmological models are standard: they hold up to the tests. You may wish to review my user page. Michaelbusch 16:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add content to my user page. That is what a talk page is for. With regards to your message: evolution is science, because it has been tested: evolutionary theory predates genetics, and predicted that something like DNA should exist. There is the classic examples of Darwin's finches and microbial evolution. Then there is the massive fossil record, and the recovery of genetic material from million-year old fossils (e.g. the recent Nature and Science papers). A test doesn't imply experimentation. It implies that additional observations are in agreement with the theory with no major modifications. Evolution has tracked all observations for the last century and a half. Creationist cosmologies are constantly mutating and ignore existing and later contradictory evidence. Creationism and intelligent design are not theories or even hypotheses, because they are (to paraphrase Pauli) 'not even wrong'. They cannot be tested or disproven. Creationist cosmologies, like saying polonium dates differ from the rest of radiochronology, are testable and falsifiable. I can disproven polonium dating by dating a rock as old with the techniqu, then heating it in a microwave and thereby resetting the polonium dates of the rock to zero. But I cannot disprove God taking all the rocks on the Earth and setting the uranium-thorium isotope ratios to what they should be five billion years after a supernova. If someone choses to believe this, I will not try to stop them. But if they present such as science without the evidence to back it up, I will object. When I find such material on Wikipedia, I will delete it. Michaelbusch 21:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]