Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8846 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-21-2018 7:40 AM
258 online now:
jar, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Percy (Admin), RAZD, Tangle (6 members, 252 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MrTim
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 835,411 Year: 10,234/29,783 Month: 898/1,583 Week: 367/291 Day: 16/59 Hour: 3/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
91011
12
1314Next
Author Topic:   Creation science II
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16025
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 166 of 207 (502397)
03-11-2009 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Kelly
03-11-2009 12:08 PM


Re: Is it Science?
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.

You see, this is what I'm talking about.

Creationists need thumping huge great falsehoods like that one.

Scientists compare their predictions of the existence and nature of intermediate forms with the intermediate forms that they find in the fossil record, and they observe that their predictions are correct. This is science.

Creationists lie to you and pretend that intermediate forms don't exist, because they're too frightened and dishonest to face reality. This is not science.

You see the difference?

We don't have two views of the same facts. We have one bunch of people acknowledging the facts and another bunch of people lying to you.

Evolutionists also agree that there are missing links, but instead of dealing with the fossil record, they have had to basically abandon their dependence upon it. They now say, in order to override the painful truth about missing links, that evolution occurs in quick sudden bursts and therefore there shouldn't be transitional fossils at all.

This is also untrue.

Before you decided to go around reciting dumb creationist lies, why didn't you find out whether or not they were true?

Now...whose allowing their worldview to get in the way of the obvious results of their findings?

The creationists who told you these dumb lies; and you for believing them without a moment's investigation.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Kelly, posted 03-11-2009 12:08 PM Kelly has not yet responded

Kelly
Member (Idle past 3328 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 167 of 207 (502400)
03-11-2009 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Jester4kicks
03-11-2009 12:20 PM


That's a good question
Actually, that's a bit at the heart of the debate between evolution and creation, isn't it?

In answer to your question, let's go with billions of years...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Jester4kicks, posted 03-11-2009 12:20 PM Jester4kicks has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-11-2009 12:32 PM Kelly has not yet responded
 Message 179 by Jester4kicks, posted 03-11-2009 1:46 PM Kelly has not yet responded

Stile
Member
Posts: 3193
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 168 of 207 (502403)
03-11-2009 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Kelly
03-11-2009 12:08 PM


Very Nice!
Kelly writes:

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.

But, if we're honest, this is ridiculous.

Here's an example of Horse evolution:

(Not even remotely sorry to steal this from here: Message 1)

RAZD writes:

So what would you like this to become?

Would a horse be enough? Would you dispute that a horse is clearly not a dog?

And here are all the transitional fossils required to make such a jump:

Little Dogs to Big Horses

So, we see that there are transitional fossils.

So, what now?

Now the things that you just say have been actually shown to be false. What are you going to do?

You can act in an honest manner and accept that your previous ideas were somewhat incorrect.

Or you can act in a creation scientist manner and simply continue to keep merely saying the same words that have been shown to be wrong. And just jump into something else entirely.

What are you going to do? Can you show that you are honest and focus on this topic and follow it to the honest truth, whatever that is? Or is your proposed "honesty" only more mere words from your mouth and you'll move quickly on to something else?

Can you be honest, or do you have higher priorities?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Kelly, posted 03-11-2009 12:08 PM Kelly has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Kelly, posted 03-11-2009 1:06 PM Stile has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16025
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 169 of 207 (502405)
03-11-2009 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Kelly
03-11-2009 12:27 PM


Re: That's a good question
In answer to your question, let's go with billions of years...

So you'd be fine with accepting the evolution of amphibians from fish, the evolution of reptiles and modern amphibians from basal amphibians, the evolution of mammal, birds, and modern reptiles from basal reptiles, and the evolution of humans from basal primates?

Good. Welcome to reality. Have a look around.

Or would you like to redraw your arbitrary line?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Kelly, posted 03-11-2009 12:27 PM Kelly has not yet responded

dwise1
Member
Posts: 3161
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 170 of 207 (502407)
03-11-2009 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by ICANT
03-11-2009 11:46 AM


Re: Is it Science?
No, what stiles was saying is that scientists, when they are doing science, must not allow their own personal world-view to corrupt their conclusions. Regardless of what their world-view is. Even those who do believe in creation. That was his primary point.

His secondary point was that what the evidence leads to is evolution. I would myself point out here that evolution does not contradict creation, only certain narrow beliefs about creation.

What we find is that "creation science" is built upon the practice of having one's personal world-view (eg, YEC) dictate one's conclusions. This is completely contrary to his primary point and verifies that "creation science" is not science, since one must abandon "doing science" in order to do "creation science".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by ICANT, posted 03-11-2009 11:46 AM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Kelly
Member (Idle past 3328 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 171 of 207 (502410)
03-11-2009 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Stile
03-11-2009 12:28 PM


lol! nice artistict rendition
I guess you can make that become whatever you want to, hm?

LINK

here's the actual link:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/horse.asp

Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Stile, posted 03-11-2009 12:28 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-11-2009 1:26 PM Kelly has not yet responded
 Message 181 by Stile, posted 03-11-2009 1:47 PM Kelly has not yet responded
 Message 183 by AdminModulous, posted 03-11-2009 1:59 PM Kelly has responded

Coyote
Member
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 172 of 207 (502412)
03-11-2009 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Kelly
03-11-2009 12:08 PM


Re: Is it Science?
If evolutionists and creationists are honest, we all know that the whole record is sparse at best and that transitional fossils do not exist.

That's a creationist falsehood. They have dictated, because of religious belief, that there shall be no transitionals. Poof! No transitionals! But that doesn't make it true.

Here is a transitional (one of many). Note its position in the chart which follows (hint--in the right center):


Fossil: KNM-ER 3733

Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)

Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)

Species Name:
Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8),
Homo erectus (3, 4, 7),
Homo erectus ergaster (25)

Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)

Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)

Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)

Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)

See original source for notes:

Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=33


Source


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Kelly, posted 03-11-2009 12:08 PM Kelly has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Kelly, posted 03-11-2009 1:29 PM Coyote has responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 7465
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 173 of 207 (502414)
03-11-2009 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Kelly
03-11-2009 12:08 PM


Re: Is it Science?
Evolutionists [add in the additional information from their world view to skew their findings into a particular conclusion]. It is the nature of the beast, really, since none of us were there in the begining.

Not true at all. Using the theory of evolution scientists are able to PREDICT what one should see in the fossil record and in the genomes of living species. They then test for these predictions in a way that is independent of their world view. For example, the theory of evolution predicts that endogenous retroviruses (ERV's) that are found at the same genomic location between species should fall into a nested hierarchy. Also, a genetic comparison of the DNA in these ERV's should produce the same nested hierarchy. They then test to see if this is true, and as it turns out it is.

So what predictions about the pattern and comparison of ERV's does creation science make? None.

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.

If creationists were honest they could give us the criteria by which we could determine if a fossil is transitional or not. Evolutionists have done this. Evolutionists define a transitional fossil as a fossil having characteristics of two divergent taxa. For example, transitional hominids have features from both humans and chimps. This makes them transitional. So how does a creation scientist determine if a fossil is transitional or not? Let's make this specific. What morphological features must a fossil have in order to be transitional between humans and a hypothetical common ancestor with chimps?

IOW, how can creationists claim that there are no transitional fossils when they don't even know what a transitional fossil would look like?

Also, radiometric dating does not always reveal the same exact results--even when testing the same evidence with the same method. It is unreliable.

This is false. Not only does radiometric dating give the same results, but it also works with rocks of known ages:

Link

When we can see that the tests can't even acuratelly determine the age of things that we actually do know the age of, like rocks formed at Mt. St. Helen, why would we trust these same tests on rocks we don't know the age of?

You falsely assume that the rocks they tested were produced by the recent eruption. They weren't. Their samples contained xenoliths, rocks that formed prior to the eruption deep in the magma chamber of the volcano.

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?

The argument is that the creationist interpretation is not consistent with the evidence, and that the interpretation inserts mechanisms that are unobserved, untestable, and unfalsifiable. IOW, it is a non-scientific interpretation.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Kelly, posted 03-11-2009 12:08 PM Kelly has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16025
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 174 of 207 (502418)
03-11-2009 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Kelly
03-11-2009 1:06 PM


Re: lol! nice artistict rendition
I guess you can make that become whatever you want to, hm?

Why do science textbooks continue to use the horse as a prime example of evolution, when the whole schema is demonstrably false?

In 1841, the earliest so-called 'horse' fossil was discovered in clay around London. The scientist who unearthed it, Richard Owen, found a complete skull that looked like a fox's head with multiple back-teeth as in hoofed animals. He called it Hyracotherium. He saw no connection between it and the modern-day horse.
...
Finally, when evolutionists assume that the horse has grown progressively in size over millions of years, what they forget is that modern horses vary enormously in size. The largest horse today is the Clydesdale; the smallest is the Fallabella, which stands at 43 centimetres (17 inches) tall. Both are members of the same species, and neither has evolved from the other.

Well, thanks for copying and pasting creationist crap for us, 'cos we've never seen any creationist crap before and we're really impressed.

And the great benefit for you, of course, is that you never, ever have to learn anything about the evolution of the horse. Not only do you run no risk of being right, you don't even have to make your own mistakes!

Edited by AdminModulous, : deleted lengthy copy/paste of copyrighted material. I have since deleted the copy/paste in the original post due to copyright violations.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Kelly, posted 03-11-2009 1:06 PM Kelly has not yet responded

Kelly
Member (Idle past 3328 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 175 of 207 (502420)
03-11-2009 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Coyote
03-11-2009 1:08 PM


Nice arrangement
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.

The reason given?

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Coyote, posted 03-11-2009 1:08 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Coyote, posted 03-11-2009 1:36 PM Kelly has not yet responded
 Message 178 by Son, posted 03-11-2009 1:37 PM Kelly has not yet responded
 Message 187 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-11-2009 2:43 PM Kelly has not yet responded
 Message 189 by Taq, posted 03-11-2009 4:25 PM Kelly has responded

Son
Member (Idle past 1662 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 176 of 207 (502423)
03-11-2009 1:33 PM


back to the topic
Guys, let's go back to the topic,K? I think the original topic said he didnt want another creation vs evo thread so let's go back to creation's definition i think.

Kelly, this thread was for you to tell us how creation science is science. In order to do that you need to tell us what are the observation that leads to it, describe the hypothesis that creation scientist formed from it and what experiences they did to FALSIFY it. I think it would be a good (re)start , wouldn't it?


Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Stile, posted 03-11-2009 1:55 PM Son has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 177 of 207 (502425)
03-11-2009 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Kelly
03-11-2009 1:29 PM


I've had enough witnessing
Kelly, your understanding of evolution and what it posits is so flawed that it is not even worth trying to discuss this with you. You are like a programmed robot, always parroting what you have been programmed to say. The evidence presented by others is ignored if it doesn't fit with your programming. You just keep repeating the same mantra over and over as if that made it factual. It doesn't.

But you have made one significant contribution: you have demonstrated to all here what creation science really is. And you have shown, as I posted way back at the beginning, that it is the exact opposite of science.

Bye for now.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Kelly, posted 03-11-2009 1:29 PM Kelly has not yet responded

Son
Member (Idle past 1662 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 178 of 207 (502427)
03-11-2009 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Kelly
03-11-2009 1:29 PM


Re: Nice arrangement
Btw what do flying squirrels have? Wings or legs?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_squirrel

Edited by Son, : link


This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Kelly, posted 03-11-2009 1:29 PM Kelly has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Jester4kicks, posted 03-11-2009 1:47 PM Son has not yet responded

  
Jester4kicks
Junior Member (Idle past 3328 days)
Posts: 33
Joined: 06-17-2008


Message 179 of 207 (502429)
03-11-2009 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Kelly
03-11-2009 12:27 PM


Re: That's a good question
Actually, that's a bit at the heart of the debate between evolution and creation, isn't it?
In answer to your question, let's go with billions of years...

Ok, so how many billions? Can we understand what happened 1 billion years ago, but not 3 billion years ago? Can we understand what happened 1.8 billion years ago, but not 2.1 billion years ago?

Where do you draw the line, and what criteria do you use for drawing that line?

Also, if you are saying that we CAN understand what happened in the past (in the time since your alleged point of inability to do so), does that mean that you accept those scientific explanations?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Kelly, posted 03-11-2009 12:27 PM Kelly has not yet responded

  
Jester4kicks
Junior Member (Idle past 3328 days)
Posts: 33
Joined: 06-17-2008


Message 180 of 207 (502431)
03-11-2009 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Son
03-11-2009 1:37 PM


Re: Nice arrangement
Btw what do flying squirrels have? Wings or legs?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_squirrel

You beat me to it! I was about to cite that exact example! LOL!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Son, posted 03-11-2009 1:37 PM Son has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
91011
12
1314Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018