Creation science II

Which interpretation is supported by those results? A "Realist" would say that they were made by humans, not a supernatural deity.

Just as God made two marbles disappear so that 2 marbles plus 2 marbles is actually six.

Then why don't creationists go to the same rock formations and measure the isotope ratios of the same samples? If geologists are truly fudging their data then it would seem to be pretty easy to discover. For example, use K/Ar dating to measure the K/T tektites. Use Ar/Ar dating to measure the same historically dated lava flows that Dalrymple dated*.I think we all know why this doesn't happen. Creationists know that no one is fudging the data, so they have to cast doubt on the methodology. The sad thing is that they do so by misusing the methodology.* Dalrymple, G. Brent, 1969. 40Ar/36Ar analyses of historic lava flows. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 6: 47-55.

The evidence is here, right now. All evidence is created in the past, be it seconds or millenia. How were they proven wrong? Ok, that's fine.But I am still curious as to how you would pick between the four marble and the six marble conclusions. What criteria would you use to determine which is correct? Both are consistent with the evidence, are they not?

Of course you won't have 4 quarts. You will have 6 quarts, and God makes the other two disappear to make it seem like there are 4 quarts of volume in the gallon jug. This is a proper conclusion, is it not? So you are arguing for a post-modernistic, everything goes mentality? So you agree that the 6 quart conclusion above is just as legitimate as the 4 quart conclusion above? You would also agree that it is just as legitimate to claim that the universe was created Last Tuesday by an omnipotent deity who included false memories and a false history into the universe?

I am saying that everything put forward as fact is explained by theories. Facts and theories are separate things. Facts do not become theories, and theories do not become facts. Without theories our facts would resemble a stamp collection. Each fact would exist in it's own universe without us being able to relate them to other facts.

I find it strange that you use a materialistic explanation for the disappearance of water. I conclude that God is taking water as you pour it, in addition to the 2 quarts he takes away at the end. Therefore, 2 quarts + 2 quarts = 6 quarts.This is a valid interpretation, is it not?

I think we all know why young earth creationists do not remeasure rocks that have already been sampled. They know the results are solid. That is why they date samples that contain xenoliths, without telling their readers. If they have read up on radiometric dating they already know that rocks with xenoliths will not give accurate results for known reasons, but they do it anyway. This is exactly what happened with the Mt. St. Helens dacites and the andesite flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe.If you want to focus on guys who fudge their data, look no further than the RATE group.

Hardly. At NCBI I count over 1,000 eukaryotic genomes that have been sequenced. There are thousands and thousands of fossils known. That's a lot of evidence. I have yet to see creationists explain this data through a testable theory in the same way that evolution does. Perhaps you can be the first. Hardly. Just to cite one specific example, there are tons of papers on ERV's. They are used by hundreds of scientists to construct phylogenies using the theory of evolution. ERV's are perfect tests of the theory, and the theory of evolution has predicted the pattern of both placement and identity among ERV's. I have yet to see creationists propose a testable hypothesis that attempts to explain the placement and identity of ERV's. All they seem to be able to do is exactly what I have done above. Propose that ERV's were put there by magic. That doesn't explain the evidence. There is more than enough evidence to test the theory of evolution. So why aren't creationists constructing hypotheses and testing them?

That's exactly what we see in both the fossil record and in extant species. We are talking about biological organisms that replicate imperfectly and compete for limited resources. Even if we didn't have a single fossil the genetic evidence would be more than enough to point to the theory of evolution.

We observe natural selection in action. From these observations we are able to predict what we should see in the genomes of living species. We then test these predictions, and they have passed with flying colors.So what predictions does creation science make when it comes to specific comparisons of DNA between species? Any? How are these predictions testable?

The point is that there is enough variation that the populations at one side of the ring are actually separate species. A new species is "some other creature". How does one test for these limits?Also, if you compare the chimp and human genome could you tell us which differences are due to mindless mutations and which are not? How would you do so?It would appear that the limit of mutations is the diversity we see in all extant species and in the fossil record, plus those species that will evolve in the future. Look up phylogenomics and comparative genomics at No webpage found at provided URL: www.pubmed.com. A whole lot of papers that directly apply the theory of evolution to produce very useful information.So what has Creation Science produced that is useful?

Of those geneticists, how many have offered testable hypotheses for their beliefs? Where can I read these papers?

How does one test this prediction? What genetic evidence, if found, would throw out the evolutionary relationships currently supported by these genetic comparisons? That's not a prediction of DNA comparisons. Comparisons of wagons and cars does not produce a single nested hierarchy, so this prediction has already failed. The tetrapod forelimb is used as a leg, arm, wing, and flipper. That prediction fails as well.

The production of new species has been observed both in the wild and in the lab. Also, the evolutionary relationship between species is used in the fields of comparative genomics and phylogenomics to figure out protein function and possible causes of genetic diseases.What scientific discoveries and uses has been produced through creation science where DNA is concerned? You mean that you are not a multicellular organism that ingests food and moves about? Really? Are you a plant? A fungus?