Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation science II
grandfather raven
Junior Member (Idle past 5445 days)
Posts: 27
From: Alaska, USA
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 271 of 312 (502652)
03-12-2009 4:32 PM


false dichotomy
meanwhile, can someone explain why we limited to 2 "choices" with the marbles?
it's not just "2+2=4 vs 2+2=6 (but God vanished 2)" -- this is a false dichotomy
because, clearly, we would also have to consider "2+2=2 (but Satan delivered 2 more to tempt us away from salvation)"
and "2+2=3 (with an extra to glorify Thor)"
and "2+2=0 (and scientists just WANT to see 4)"
and "2+2=infinity (but Cthulhu's hunger is insatiable so all but 4 were eaten)"
etc, etc
Edited by grandfather raven, : No reason given.

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 272 of 312 (502653)
03-12-2009 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Taq
03-12-2009 4:25 PM


Re: The on-topic stuff
Hi Taq,
Taq writes:
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?
Scientifically you will have 4 quarts of water minus the amount of water that evaporated while you was pouring the water.
The longer the jug is open the more water will evaporate.
Thus proving scientifically that 2 +2 does not always equal 4.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Taq, posted 03-12-2009 4:25 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Taq, posted 03-12-2009 4:38 PM ICANT has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 273 of 312 (502654)
03-12-2009 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by ICANT
03-12-2009 4:25 PM


Re: Show it, don't say it.
Or are you saying everything that is put forth as theory is fact?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by ICANT, posted 03-12-2009 4:25 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by ICANT, posted 03-12-2009 4:41 PM Taq has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 274 of 312 (502655)
03-12-2009 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Sky-Writing
03-12-2009 4:13 PM


Re: Accomplished What?
The real argument here should be "Why aren't 99.5 percent of all fossils clearly transitional?"
Most fossils are. Then again, most fossils don't interest most people. If you want to look at row after row of molluscs and teeth I'm sure you can do. You said so yourself earlier, soft tissue stuff tends to "get eaten and digested." So we find lots and lots and lots and lots (billions probably more in fact) of microfossils, usually of things with hard parts like shells.
That kind of stuff doesn't tend to interest us squishy apes.
Even Science admits that sharks and turtles east Darwin theories for breakfast.
Who is Science and what institute does he work for? Is his first name Creation? Do you know anything about what he says, I'm keen to learn more about Dr Creation Science and whether he admits or plays or denies or does anything interesting at all?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-12-2009 4:13 PM Sky-Writing has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 275 of 312 (502656)
03-12-2009 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by ICANT
03-12-2009 4:33 PM


Re: The on-topic stuff
Scientifically you will have 4 quarts of water minus the amount of water that evaporated while you was pouring the water.
The longer the jug is open the more water will evaporate.
Thus proving scientifically that 2 +2 does not always equal 4.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by ICANT, posted 03-12-2009 4:33 PM ICANT has not replied

Capt Stormfield
Member (Idle past 456 days)
Posts: 428
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


Message 276 of 312 (502657)
03-12-2009 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Sky-Writing
03-12-2009 4:13 PM


Re: Accomplished What?
The real argument here should be "Why aren't 99.5 percent of all fossils clearly transitional?"
What makes you think they aren't? How would you go about determining if they were or not?
KP

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-12-2009 4:13 PM Sky-Writing has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 277 of 312 (502658)
03-12-2009 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by Taq
03-12-2009 4:34 PM


Re: Show it, don't say it.
Hi Taq,
Taq writes:
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.
But when it comes to evolution and creation there are very few facts.
There are a lot of hypothesis that have been called theories but very few facts to back up anything.
That is the reason the creation scientist and the non creation scientist come to different conclusion looking at the same evidence.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Taq, posted 03-12-2009 4:34 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by Taq, posted 03-12-2009 4:48 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 280 by Modulous, posted 03-12-2009 5:06 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 281 by Coyote, posted 03-12-2009 5:09 PM ICANT has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 278 of 312 (502659)
03-12-2009 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by Sky-Writing
03-12-2009 4:03 PM


Re: This is so exhausting
"Then why don't creationists go to the same rock formations and measure the isotope ratios of the same samples?"
Let's not argue based on your lack-of-knowledge about said activities.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-12-2009 4:03 PM Sky-Writing has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 279 of 312 (502660)
03-12-2009 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by ICANT
03-12-2009 4:41 PM


Re: Show it, don't say it.
But when it comes to evolution and creation there are very few facts.
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.
There are a lot of hypothesis that have been called theories but very few facts to back up anything.
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.
That is the reason the creation scientist and the non creation scientist come to different conclusion looking at the same evidence.
There is more than enough evidence to test the theory of evolution. So why aren't creationists constructing hypotheses and testing them?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by ICANT, posted 03-12-2009 4:41 PM ICANT has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 280 of 312 (502667)
03-12-2009 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by ICANT
03-12-2009 4:41 PM


Re: Show it, don't say it.
But when it comes to evolution and creation there are very few facts.
There are no land animals that have been found fossilised in rocks dated to older than 400 million years old. That's a pretty stark fact. There are lots more. Denial of these facts doesn't make them go away.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by ICANT, posted 03-12-2009 4:41 PM ICANT has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 281 of 312 (502668)
03-12-2009 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by ICANT
03-12-2009 4:41 PM


Creation "science" is not science
There are a lot of hypothesis that have been called theories but very few facts to back up anything.
Theories explain facts. (I don't know how many times we've tried to explain this, but for some reason it doesn't sink in.)
That is the reason the creation scientist and the non creation scientist come to different conclusion looking at the same evidence.
Nonsense. The reason the creation "scientist" comes up with his conclusion is its in the bible. There is nothing else they can come up with. If the facts don't point in that direction they are ignored, misrepresented, or distorted until the conclusion comes out the way the bible says it has to.
That's not science. That's the exact opposite of science.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by ICANT, posted 03-12-2009 4:41 PM ICANT has not replied

Stagamancer
Member (Idle past 4915 days)
Posts: 174
From: Oregon
Joined: 12-28-2008


Message 282 of 312 (502672)
03-12-2009 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Sky-Writing
03-12-2009 4:13 PM


Re: Accomplished What?
-Sky- writes:
The answer is that ANY theory so foundational to the development of life should have BILLIONS of trees and fossil series. Horse Series, Fish series, whale series, shark series, turtle series,,,etc, etc.
Except for the whole part about how fossils form. Because the conditions required for the formation of fossils are quite specific, the types of fossils we find are quite skewed to mostly just the hard parts of marine organisms. So, because we understand the process of fossilization, we can predict that fossils are going to be hard to come by, but of course, not impossible.
Skip those last two. Even Science admits that sharks and turtles east Darwin theories for breakfast.
Um, who's ever admitted that? Are you going to use sponges, hagfish, and bacteria against the theory of evolution too? Some strategies work, and there's nothing driving them to change. That doesn't mean evolution is not happening.
I have 2 decades of firsthand experience in scientific research. Seen with eyes, felt with hands, burn marks, watched people die kind of experience. I know what goes on in R&D. Whatever the boss wants or/and the customer is paying for.
And how much of this R&D has been in the academic realm? Because, I assure you, there's absolutely no benefit to conforming to the "norm", and there's no consumer to satisfy. In fact, according to your "scheming, results driven scientist" view, you would expect these tinkering researchers to fudge their results so that they disprove evolution. Because anyone who could present solid evidence refuting evolution by natural selection would receive incredible acclaim. In fact, when Darwin first came out with his theory, that's exactly what they did. For a long time, researchers tried to show that it was some other process besides natural selection that drove the evolution of adaptations. But in the end, they had to conclude, based on independent results (not a conspiracy) that Darwin was correct.
Scientists are not defending evolution because they hate creationists or because they think Darwin was a swell guy. In the same vein, physicists are finding that Einstein was wrong about the locality of the universe, but they're not changing their results just because Einstein was a revolutionary and well respected scientist. The only people who feel they have something to lose by changing their world views are the creationists (note this is creationists specifically, and not all religious types).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-12-2009 4:13 PM Sky-Writing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-12-2009 5:35 PM Stagamancer has not replied
 Message 286 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-12-2009 5:49 PM Stagamancer has replied

Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 5151 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 283 of 312 (502673)
03-12-2009 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by Capt Stormfield
03-12-2009 4:31 PM


Re: Show it, don't say it.
"No, the realist suggests marbles are imperfect replicators and that there is a selective advantage to rounder marbles. You're not really very good at this analogy thing, are you?"
But there isn't a selective advantage. Nature prefers diversity for survival. Thanks for the put-down. Do you Evo's all get the same put-down training? Odd that it's always the same format.
Edited by -Sky-, : Don't have the hang of the Quote thing yet.

- Sky-

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Capt Stormfield, posted 03-12-2009 4:31 PM Capt Stormfield has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Dr Jack, posted 03-12-2009 5:41 PM Sky-Writing has replied

Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 5151 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 284 of 312 (502676)
03-12-2009 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by Stagamancer
03-12-2009 5:17 PM


Re: Accomplished What?
"Except for the whole part about how fossils form. Because the conditions required for the formation of fossils are quite specific, the types of fossils we find are quite skewed to mostly just the hard parts of marine organisms. So, because we understand the process of fossilization, we can predict that fossils are going to be hard to come by, but of course, not impossible."
That's blatantly ridiculous. My point being that the entire body, bone, soft, all structure of every type, both fossilized and current, living structure should be wildly diverse and in a state of flux from one form to another....and your response being that only bones show in the fossil record. Besides being a lie, it avoids the issue.
Physical laws of nature exist on the electron level, show at the planetary level, and extrapolate to the formation of spiral galaxies in the universe.
Any evidence that electrons mutate & evolve? Or that ANYTHING else in the known Cosmos Mutates and Evolves?
You're making excuses that the Evo-Theory isn't blatantly clear because soft tissue decays too quick to preserve fossils. Hardly accurate. And AAaaack!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Stagamancer, posted 03-12-2009 5:17 PM Stagamancer has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by Coyote, posted 03-12-2009 5:56 PM Sky-Writing has replied
 Message 289 by Taq, posted 03-12-2009 6:11 PM Sky-Writing has replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 285 of 312 (502678)
03-12-2009 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by Sky-Writing
03-12-2009 5:18 PM


Re: Show it, don't say it.
Hello and welcome, -Sky-. If you look in the corner of everyone's post you'll see a 'peek' button - this will show you the markup they used to make their post.
Here, we mostly use [ qs ] to make quotes, like this:
[ qs ]This is a quote[ /qs ] (without the spaces around the qs) to get this:
This is a quote

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-12-2009 5:18 PM Sky-Writing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-12-2009 5:56 PM Dr Jack has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024