|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,766 Year: 4,023/9,624 Month: 894/974 Week: 221/286 Day: 28/109 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: "Creation Science" experiments. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Be fair, Behe is an ex-creationist. Now he just peddles the idea that God does a bit of genetic tinkering to help evolution out. Excepting that issue he now accepts universal common descent. Which rather raises the question of how this could happen if the evidence really supported creationism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3669 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Hi Slev - concerning your list of PhDs, just have to ask this: how many PhDs do you think there are in the world that recognise that the earth is only several Ka in age, but do not profess a faith in an Abrahamic deity?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3669 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Ok, so I took a look down Slev's list looking for someone related to my own field. Not many theoretical physicists there, nor cosmologists, but I did find an astronomer/astrophysicist in Ron Samec, who is currently at Bob Jones University...
Popping over to CreationWiki to find some of his articles (deliberately not hot-linking here), I find these:
quote: Here, Ron picks up on a single paper: On the absence of gravitational lensing of the cosmic microwave background and uses it to claim:
quote: Ok, I give him credit for his "may not be" uncertainty, but he is using his position as an astrophysicist to write the usual desperate "see, look how secular science is falling apart" article. Pathetic. Oh, sorry. How valid was the paper he referenced? You judge. Here's the relevant papers from the arxive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Given that the list includes Jack Cuozzo (a crazy dentist) I do have to wonder just how many of the entries are pure padding...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3961 days) Posts: 369 Joined: |
It is not necessary to know who designed a car to know how cars work. This is true. But I'll bet you're a lot more confident driving family and friends in the car, with the knowledge it was designed... ...rather than blown together by a chance wind storm and lightning strikes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3961 days) Posts: 369 Joined: |
I simply question the validity of such interpretations because they have never demonstrated themselves as reliable in terms of prediction and discovery. But you apparently are about to change all that for me. So let's hear it? Again, post 155 third paragraph.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3961 days) Posts: 369 Joined: |
You are missing the OP's point, he wasn't asking for you to show him proof of creation/ID from someone else's work. He was asking for an experiment (so to speak) that we all can do that will show us proof that creationism or ID is scientific. And all of my posts since I started commenting, have been explaining why the question is not valid. For anyone to attempt such a feat would be similar to the wisdom of putting braille on the sign in this link.Forbidden The blind will never see it until its too late and hits em square in the face.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3961 days) Posts: 369 Joined: |
We observe that time is a property of the universe. Actually time is a human invention and therefore only relevant within the construct of human thought. Therefore for humans to "think" about what was before there was a universe is completely logical. We observe the effects of decay, rust, erosion, and particle break down and call it "aging" but in truth, our invention of time has nothing to do with those effects. In this way time is similar to a number line a teacher has drawn on the board before her students. Though it ends at each edge of the board, the arrows signify it continuing on. We can imagine it carrying on infinitely in both directions. Since we "drew" the time line we can also conceive of time infinitely in both directions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3961 days) Posts: 369 Joined: |
All theories start out as an untested hypothesis which is very different than a myth. A hypothesis is, by definition, testable. I said a myth "of sorts," meaning a concept explaining the occurrence of a specific phenomena. Isn't that what the definition of a hypothesis is?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 760 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
...rather than blown together by a chance wind storm and lightning strikes. Your point being...? If you are referring to, say, human life, remember that you are the product of many billions of generations of organisms that all survived long enough to reproduce. And the did so despite chance wind storms and lightning strikes.
Actually time is a human invention and therefore only relevant within the construct of human thought. Bologna. Are you telling me a bear in the woods doesn't age unless a human is nearby with a calendar? That a smallish star doesn't start as a cloud of gas and end up as a white dwarf even if nobody is timing it? "The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3669 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Actually time is a human invention and therefore only relevant within the construct of human thought. Therefore for humans to "think" about what was before there was a universe is completely logical. We observe the effects of decay, rust, erosion, and particle break down and call it "aging" but in truth, our invention of time has nothing to do with those effects. No, you are completely wrong about this. I can think of four separate concepts that are referred to by the word time, only one of which has anything to do with human "thought". I think you need to learn quite a bit more before you start making blanket proclamations like this. It helps prevent you look quite so stupid.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
This is true. But I'll bet you're a lot more confident driving family and friends in the car, with the knowledge it was designed... ...rather than blown together by a chance wind storm and lightning strikes. In fact I would have far more confidence in a vehicle that evolved biologically than in one designed by a human. I would have to be very foolish not to. But you are also just showing that you have no clue what the Theory of Evolution says. That is also why it is likely that no Creationist has been able to present a "Creation Science" experiment. So here is an experiment for you. In your own words, try to explain why I would have far more confidence in a vehicle that evolved biologically than in one designed by a human. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8551 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Again, post 155 third paragraph. quote: Wiggle, wiggle, squirm, squirm. Hiding behind a cloud of semantical BS. "Science," "research," "peer review," have quite well accepted definitions in scientific disciplines. Your "creationism" cannot play the game because you insist on violating all the rules. You want special dispensation because you have nothing to offer to society. One of the planks of Discover Institute's "Wedge" document is to change the definition of "science" so their majikal musings are included, along with astrology, alchemy, phrenology, homeopathy, perpetual motion. You are on that crusade, aren't you. You're a shill for DI. You have nothing to offer society. You just want to control it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3961 days) Posts: 369 Joined: |
If you are referring to, say, human life, remember that you are the product of many billions of generations of organisms that all survived long enough to reproduce. And the did so despite chance wind storms and lightning strikes. Lets say hypothetically I accept that. How did the first organism complete with reproductive capabilities form? Didn't Miller suggest a random lighting strike?
Bologna. Are you telling me a bear in the woods doesn't age unless a human is nearby with a calendar? That a smallish star doesn't start as a cloud of gas and end up as a white dwarf even if nobody is timing it? I am saying the concept of "aging" is a human invention. Not the current process of things wearing out. We call it aging but things were not originally designed to wear out. And there will come a day when our physical bodies take on an incorruptible nature and no longer wear out. When this occurs "time" as we know it will have no real meaning to us.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3961 days) Posts: 369 Joined: |
No, you are completely wrong about this. I can think of four separate concepts that are referred to by the word time, only one of which has anything to do with human "thought". I think you need to learn quite a bit more before you start making blanket proclamations like this. It helps prevent you look quite so stupid. Note that you referred to all of them as "concepts" and not laws or phenomena with physical properties. Time is a human "concept."
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024