|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creation science II | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Kelly writes: I guess you can make that become whatever you want to, hm? No, the transitional fossils I linked to clearly show it becoming a horse.If I could make it whatever I wanted, I'd probably make it a dragon. Dragon's are much more interesting. Why do science textbooks continue to use the horse as a prime example of evolution, when the whole schema is demonstrably false? Great! Then you should have no problem demonstrating what it is about the transitional fossils I actually linked to that is "false." (Hint: I didn't link to a textbook, it's a webpage)
Quote deleted because of copywrite in order to "respect the legal rights of owners to control their creative works." Of course he didn't. Do you see a connection between that picture I showed and the modern-day horse? How does this demonstrate that the transitional fossils I linked to are false?
Quote deleted because of copywrite in order to "respect the legal rights of owners to control their creative works." ...and? How did he do? Did he fail? If he failed, why did he fail? Perhaps he did not have all the transitional fossils that I linked to.
Quote deleted because of copywrite in order to "respect the legal rights of owners to control their creative works." But... I didn't link to any public lecture that Huxley and OC Marsh gave in New York. This is very interesting, but how does it demonstrate that the transitional fossils that I actually did link to are false?
Quote deleted because of copywrite in order to "respect the legal rights of owners to control their creative works." The simple answer is "who cares?"
I didn't link to any scheme proposed by Huxley and Marsh. I linked to transitional fossils showing the evolution of the horse. You said it is demonstrably false. When are you going to start demonstrating that what I actually showed you is false?
Quote deleted because of copywrite in order to "respect the legal rights of owners to control their creative works." Okay... maybe you're onto something new here, let's see what you say: Quote deleted because of copywrite in order to "respect the legal rights of owners to control their creative works." What? Why would this be true? Simply the "lowest" rock strata isn't always "the oldest" rock strata. Perhaps you didn't look at the link I provided for the transitional fossils? All the transitional fossils in that link are in chronological order. So this seems to be another thing that you merely say when I have already shown it to be false.
And, if we actually look at what I linked to, we see that these pictures do progress from oldest to youngest. Quote deleted because of copywrite in order to "respect the legal rights of owners to control their creative works." What "assumption of evolutionary progress" was made? What different continents? Which fossils or fragments? Are you actually trying to claim that it's impossible for roaming creatures to move around? Really? That doesn't sound very honest. If we make the "assumption" that creatures with legs were actually able to move around... how is that circular reasoning? Even if the transitional fossils are found on different continents, How would that demostrate that the transitional fossils are false? Wouldn't that still show that they exist?
Quote deleted because of copywrite in order to "respect the legal rights of owners to control their creative works." Again, where are you getting this? I gave you a site with transitional fossils. That's all it had on it. Where does anything I showed you "assume that the horse has grown progressively in size over millions of years?" Again, I'll ask you about your honesty. Are you going to be honest and focus on this topic, to whatever honest truth it leads to? Or are you going to be like a creation scientist and jump all over, pulling whatever confusion you can into the issue? From this last post of yours, you have shown that you: 1. Refuse to acknowledge the transitional fossils I linked for you.2. Start talking about other people and other fossils that no one has mentioned in order to demonstrate something to be false that no one claimed to be true in the first place. After thinking about all this copyright stuff, I think I'll just give you another chance. Try to stay focused on the information I've actually provided to you. I don't want to talk about stuff that may or may not deal with the actual issue. That's what creation scientists do... they grab whatever information they can to confuse the issue. Let's forget about that previous post. Let's wipe the slate clean again. Perhaps you just jumped to conclusions without actually reading my post. Here it is again if you missed it:
Message 168 And the transitional fossils that I'm claiming to exist:
Little Dogs to Big Horses Now, let's try again. While being honest can you tell me why these transitional fossils are "demonstrably false?" These fossils exist. Their progression is obvious to anyone who actually clicks on the website and looks at the pictures. They are in chronological order. I may very well be wrong (I really don't know much about this stuff). But in order for you to show that I am wrong, you have to show that what I've presented is wrong. You can't show that I'm wrong by showing that other people are wrong... that doesn't make any sense. That's what honest exploration is about. Showing things to be correct or wrong. Creation Scientists don't show things, they simply say them. Anyone can say things. Are you going to be honest and show how what I have provided is false?Or are you going to act like a Creation Scientist and simply say that what I have provided is false and move onto other areas? Edited by Stile, : Deleted portions of text... completey, did not just hide... that quoted some material from Kelly's post that are apparently under a copyright system covering "creative work" :I did, however, simply hide my responses that only made sense to those remarks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
This kinda is the topic... as long as we stress the methodology.
The difference between Creation Science and Science is the difference between just saying something and actually showing it. When Kelly's just talking about anything... she's just doing Creation Science. It's only if she ever shows something that it will actually be Science. Obviously Kelly doesn't understand this by telling it to her, that's why we need to show it to her. (It's quite possible that this method will fail as well, but I'm hoping against that). Showing Kelly that the proper way to convince someone is to show them and not to simply say it to them is exactly the topic. It is kinda confusing that what we're using "to show" is other evolutionary data... but, well, it's readily available at this site
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminModulous Administrator Posts: 897 Joined: |
Avoid lengthy cut-n-pastes. Introduce the point in your own words and provide a link to your source as a reference. If your source is not on-line you may contact the Site Administrator to have it made available on-line.
From the site this material comes from:
quote: I am deleting your material.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminModulous Administrator Posts: 897 Joined: |
In light of the copyright issue, could you please edit your post so that it falls comfortably within fair use? I haven't the time to check how much you of the total page you ended up quoting, but I suspect it might be a significant percentage of the total work.
Thank you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
shalamabobbi Member (Idle past 2879 days) Posts: 397 Joined: |
I am interested in settling the misconception that creation science is not a science The Institute for creation researchThe Institute for Creation Research | The Institute for Creation Research Departments -> employment
The Institute for Creation Research has a long history of hiring the best and brightest for our work in the fields of scientific research, education, publishing, and other areas vital to the successful communication of our message. Please review the jobs listed below. All candidates must agree to ICR doctrinal statements and tenets. All positions will be filled at our Dallas headquarters. Local candidates are preferred. For inquiries or to submit your resume, please email jobline@icr.org. Look at hotlink:ICR doctrinal statements and tenets The Bible, consisting of the thirty-nine canonical books of the Old Testament and the twenty-seven canonical books of the New Testament, is the divinely-inspired revelation of the Creator to man. Its unique, plenary, verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological. This is a small excerpt of the list posted there. I was going to post the whole list but did not because of the admins last post. To be employed by the ICR you have to sign off on the their model first. So they are only looking to shoehorn evidence into their model. They start with the conclusion, then look for ways to support it. By DEFINITION that is not science. Edited by shalamabobbi, : spelling
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Let me give you an example. I'll go back to the fossil record. If evolutionists and creationists are honest, we all know that the whole record is sparse at best and that transitional fossils do not exist. "Evolutionists". Could you please provide a definition of that term? And describe what it's supposed to mean? And what an "evolutionist" is supposed to believe (since Dr. Morris in his other writings has not been reluctant to describe an "evolutionist's" beliefs). You see, it's a term almost universally used by creationists and yet they almost universally refuse to define it or to discuss that definition. Care to break that long creationist tradition? Anyway, for the large part "evolutionists" are honest about transitionals, while creationists are almost universally dishonest about them. As a matter of fact, that is one of the first things I learned about creationists. Here is my description of that which I had posted on my old web site (no longer hosted):
quote: If transitional fossils don't exist, then why are there so many of them? From a reply I had posted on CompuServe back on 08 July 1989:
quote: I had given you a link to that court decision. Have you read it yet? What about Chapter 3 of The Blind Watchmaker? Also on that same forum on CompuServe, though a few years later in 1993, I met a remarkable creationist, Merle Hertzler. He was the first honest creationist I had encountered -- and I think the only one. He would honestly try to respond to questions and honestly engage in discussion. He was one of "creation science's" better and more coherent advocates. But honesty can have its price. He found his position to be indefensible and within a year went over to the side of evolution. This appears to be why we find so few honest creationists, because they eventually find that they cannot defend something as dishonest as "creation science". Merle's site is at No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.geocities.com/questioningpage/index.html. He's no longer a Christian, but it's far more the fault of "creation science" than of evolution. On his "Did We Evolve?" page at No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.geocities.com/questioningpage/Evolve2.html, he describes how his creationist position kept evaporating as he actually examined the evidence. In much abridged form, so as to not create a massive post, here's what he wrote about transitional fossils:
quote: Kelly, "creation science" is lying to you about transitional fossils. In many testimonials given by atheists, I found the most common reason for their having become atheists was discovering that their religion and religious leaders had lied to them. It's not evolution that turns people into atheists; for many it's the teachings of "creation science".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
It doesn't prove a thing, though. There is no proof that these fossils are stages from one to another. Just placing them as so is not proof. These are not [necessarily] transitional forms. Sorry. To me, a transitional fossil must contain incipient developing or transitional structures--such as half-scales,/half-feathers, or half-legs/half-wings..etc. No such fossils are known. This is not true. Why didn't you find out if it was true before repeating it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Creationists then add in the additional information from their world view to skew their findings into a particular conclusion. Evolutionists do the same thing. It is the nature of the beast, really, since none of us were there in the begining.
Science doesn't do that. I am not sure who you mean by this? Evolution scientists? They certainly do. The nature of operational science is the only kind of science where we do not need to use any kind of guesswork. . . .
That's what "science" means... that everyone comes to the same answer. World views do not enter into the picture. Ideally, yes, that would be great. However, in historical or origins science, we really can't help it. Guesswork is a criteria.
Therefore it is very misleading to say the two are "on equal footing." Because they're not. They're very different, one is science and the other is not. I do not believe that you have shown me how evolution is different from creation in the study of origins. Both sciences are based on their particular worldviews of what might have occured in the begining.
You may wonder why creation scientists do not come to the same conclusions that all other scientists (across the entire world) come to. And the answer is very simple... creation scientists are not doing science, they are allowing their world-view to corrupt their conclusions. Actually, creation scientists study in all different scientific fields and when it comes to things observable, there is little disagreement. The argument will usually stem not from what is observed, but what it means--the interpretation? Or, as leading creationist writers have stated (Gish, I'm pretty sure of, though I think also H. Morris), of course they're biased, but at least they admit it whereas "evolutionists" are just as biased but don't admit it. You're just repeating that recurring creationist rant, so let's take a look at it. There is an element of truth that the scientific world-view does come into play. We have been stressing that scientific work is based on the evidence. But Kelly and other creationists see us as starting off with certain "assumptions". As Sir Isaac Newton wrote:
quote:Scientists don't start at the very beginning in every experiment, but rather build upon what others have done. For one thing, this is what demands the high standards of scholarship in science, because everybody else's work depends on yours so everybody wants to make sure you get it right. That is why shoddy work or perpetrating a hoax is such a career-stopper, unlike the situation in "creation science". Also, more practically, you don't want to have to start from scratch every time you conduct research. It would be like having to re-derive the Quadratic Formula every single time you want to use it -- well, actually, I have done that, though for fun as well as from being too lazy to go look it up. Or like having to write a C compiler from scratch every time you want to compile a C program. So this "bias" of scientists, the scientific world-view, is something that has been developed over the centuries. It has been built up from observation and experimentation and tested and verified and improved over and over again by countless scientists. The more fundamental and foundational experiments are studied and repeated by most all science students. The history of each facet of the scientific world-view has been written and studied and the reasoning behind each facet has been studied and is available for anybody to read and examine. The scientific world-view has been built up based on the evidence and through the use of the scientific method. It serves to direct research by giving us an idea of what still needs to be discovered, some idea of what we can expect it to be like and where to look for it. And it does provide us with a starting-point to proceed from as we continue to develop and improve it in accordance with the evidence that we find. In contrast, the "creation science" world-view is derived not from the evidence, but rather directly from a narrow religious interpretation of a religious text -- and very common one particular version of that text as translated to a non-biblical language. And it remains unresponsive to the evidence, seeking only to use some of the evidence which can be twisted into appearing to support its a priori conclusions and ignoring the rest of the evidence, even to the point of denying that evidence's existence. To the charge of bias, we find that the "bias" in the scientific world-view is in favor of the evidence, whereas the self-admitted bias of the "creation science" world-view is against the evidence and based solely on religious dogma. The scientific world-view is indeed scientific. And the "creation science" world-view is the antithesis of science. Edited by dwise1, : added second-to-last paragraph
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
It doesn't prove a thing, though. Then how can you say that the fossil record supports creation science if you can not tell from the morphology of a fossil what it's ancestors or descendants looked like? How can you state that there are NO transitional fossils when you can't even tell us what one would look like?
To me, a transitional fossil must contain incipient developing or transitional structures--such as half-scales,/half-feathers, or half-legs/half-wings..etc. No such fossils are known. Half legs: Tiktaalik roseae: Meet Tiktaalik Half wings: Blogsome Upper torso is chimp-like, lower torso is human-like: Australopithecus afarensis - Wikipedia A complete series with a half-mammalian and half-reptillian jaw at the half way point:
Link Need I go on?
Established species are developing so slowly that major transitions between genera and higher taxa must be occuring within small rapidly evolving populations that leave no legible fossil record. You are a bit off. The quick transitions are occuring between SPECIES, not larger groups. "Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationistswhether through design or stupidity, I do not knowas admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."--Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
Hi Stile,
Stile writes: Two people can start with the same information (2+2) and end up with differing conclusions (4 or say... 5). But one of them is wrong. They could both be wrong also.
Stile writes: So you are saying these scientist who believe in creation do scientific experiments studying and testing. Just like the real scientist. You really got this from what I said? That's pretty much the opposite of what I said. Well yes. But you concluded their experiments were tainted with their world view. I don't know how you could determine that without being a mind reader.
Stile writes: But on the other hand the scientist that does not believe in creation is immune to his/her world view affecting his/her conclusions. Where do you get this stuff?That's not what I said. I said that "doing science" is when you control and ensure that your world view does not affect your conclusions. You said in Message 181 Stile writes: And, yes, creationists do experiments, testing and studying. But that's where the similarities end. Creationists then add in the additional information from their world view to skew their findings into a particular conclusion. Science doesn't do that. You said they do experiments, testing and studying. Then you asserted they add in the additional information from their world view which taints their conclusion. Then you assert science does not do that. The only man that does not let his world view effect his thinking and findings is a dead man. In Message 168 you state: "Little Dogs to Big Horses" How about little horses to BIG horses as in my avatar? God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kelly Member (Idle past 5526 days) Posts: 217 Joined: |
I added AIG credit to the end of my post. So I don't believe there was any copyright infringement. I creditied Answers in Genesis for the article. The only reason I didn't link you directly was because this article was copy and pasted in my folder and I didn't feel like searching it out. I thought writing AIG was fine.
The second thing is that you found the wrong link. Here it is:
What’s Happened to the Horse?
| Answers in Genesis
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Capt Stormfield Member Posts: 429 From: Vancouver Island Joined: |
You said they do experiments, testing and studying. Then you asserted they add in the additional information from their world view which taints their conclusion. As evidenced by Morris' statement posted earlier. Repost for the forgetfull:
It is no good to say, as one evangelical leader said recently: "Well, I believe that God could create in six days or six billion years--it makes no difference." Yes it does, because it has to do with God's truthfulness! It is not a matter of what God could do. The question is what God says that He did! And what He said in writing was this, recorded with His own finger on a table of stone: "In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day" Could that be more clear?
The only man that does not let his world view effect his thinking and findings is a dead man. Precisely why peer review is essential. And why CS avoids it like herpes. Capt.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kelly Member (Idle past 5526 days) Posts: 217 Joined: |
All I had to do was check on one: Australopithecus afarensis, remembering that from some time ago and also knowing that at best, you have an ape.
Lucy’s Child, Selam, from Ethiopia
| Answers in Genesis
And the walking fish:
Tiktaalik and the Fishy Story of Walking Fish, Part 2
| Answers in Genesis
This is the problem, because we can play volley ball about all these claims back and forth. But all I really wanted to acheive was a better understanding of just what creation science is. I think I have done that because of the eagerness by all here to debate or debunk creationist findings. In fact, I sense a huge level of intolerance and anger over it. That's not very spirited in the way that would encourage anyone to want to engage any of you. Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminModulous Administrator Posts: 897 Joined: |
Unless you have the permission of the author or whoever the copyright holder happens to be, which presumably both AiG and Christian Answers do have, reproducing the copyrighted work of somebody else is a copyright infringement. It doesn't matter if you tell us whose copyright you were infringing upon when you do it. Here is AiG's written policy:
quote: Emphasis in original. For completeness, the original article is Creation magazine Volume 17, Issue 4, pages 14—16, Peter Hastie reproduced with permission at Aig and Christian Answers etc etc.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.1 |
quote: I'm sorry Kelly, but that is most ridiculous thing you have said yet. You only need discredit A. Aferensis and then you will have proved that there are no transitional fossils? Is that really what you are saying? I am amazed. Even if we accept your view that aferensis is only an ape (and by the way, humans are only apes), that still leaves every other proposed transitional fossil for you to debunk. Even if aferensis is not a transitional, Tiktaalik still might be. Do you see where I'm coming from? To claim that no transitional fossil has been found requires that you address every fossil. It's an unenviable task, but I'm afraid that debunking one fossil just doesn't cut it. Besides, you're wrong. A. Aferensis is a transitional fossil. A simple comparison of its cranial capacity compared to that of earlier apes and then to humankind should demonstrate this, along with its appearance at exactly the point in the fossil record where we would expect to see a transitional hominid. Remember, that the existence of hominids was not known to Darwin. They were predicted by evolutionary theory and they were subsequently found. To my mind, that is extremely powerful evidence in favour of evolution. I note that you link to an AiG page. Isn't that the same AiG that you described thus "AIG is not a Creation Science study..it is a biblical creation organization"? Mutate and Survive "The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024