quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
As it stands today there is no way to objectively test the premise that humans and primates shared a common ancestor. If you want to believe humans and primates did share a common ancestor that's fine. Just don't call it science unless you are ready to call the Common Creator hypothesis science, also.
Peter:
Show me how the common creator hypothesis can be tested AT ALL
please.
John Paul:
The same way today's ToE is tested- inference of the evidence.
Jeff:
Displaying your ignorance of the subject again in addition to your fondness for non-answers to direct questions. In the same vein as yeah, so’s your old man come backs.
Do you have anything of substance to offer us in the way of HOW you test for this common creator hypothesis — OTHER THAN your feeble one-line comebacks ?
Perhaps you’d rather avoid this direct question AGAIN from May 24th, above:
quote:
Jeff:
I was hoping you could demonstrate the logic behind the claim that genetic similarity between humans and apes is indicative of a common creator ?
Does this mean another gawd/designer is responsible for arthropods ?
See, science demonstrates the genetic similarity of apes & humans as compared to other organisms.
We share 98%+ of our genes with Chimps
We might share only 11% or 17% of our genes with a Lobster, but you claim both scenarios indicate a common creator.
HOW ?
Jeff:
Your lack of response is telling.
quote:
Peter:
Evolutionary theory came about BECAUSE of observations in
the natural world. It was not put forward, and then evidence
sought. It was put forward as an explanation of observations
already made.
John Paul:
But it was put forward before we knew what life was made of. Now that we know the ToE does not follow observations.
Jeff:
No, we don’t know this. Only crack-crazed morons and creationists ‘KNOW’ this — so speak for yourself, thank you.
quote:
John Paul:
Also ID was put forward about 200 years ago based on the observed evidence. Go figure.
Jeff:
What observed evidence ? Can you list this for us ? Or can we conclude you’re making this up too ?
quote:
Peter:
The common creator hypothesis comes from the stated common
creator in the Bible, and then data has been interpreted to
fit (although I'm not sure what data + interpretations there
are in relation to this).
John Paul:
Science is basically the search for truth through our never-ending quest for knowledge.
Jeff:
Swing and a miss !!
You loathe science so much, you redefine it subconsciously now without even noticing.
Science is a methodology to explore nature and the material universe for explanations of naturally occurring phenomena. It isn’t a ‘search for the truth’ — it is a search for the facts.
Truth is subjective, depending on with outdated sacred text you subscribe to.
I challenge you to present ANY scientific journal that describes science using the word ‘truth’.
Scientists don’t use it, must be an ‘enginerror’ thing.
quote:
John Paul:
If the Bible is indicative of reality science should be able to help us make that determination. BTW, evidence doesn't talk, it has to be interpretted.
Jeff:
But science has already weighed in heavily that the Bible ISN’T an accurate historical document.
There was no flood.or at least no global flood that left evidence.
There is no evidence of a creation week either. No interpretation needed. Well, maybe by engineers, but not scientists.
quote:
Peter:
That is why evolution is scientific and common creatorism
isn't.
John Paul:
The Creation model of biological evolution is as scientific as the ToE.
Jeff:
Or, more accurately,
The Creation model of biological evolution is as scientific as Scooby-Doo’s TOE.
Here’s your chance to actually support your claim:
How is this Creation model of biological evolution tested & falsified ?
quote:
Peter:
Evolution is a theory created to explain observed facts.
John Paul:
It fails to do so.
Jeff:
No, it only fails to address the supernatural and you wanna know why ?
Because
you continually refuse to tell us HOW science evaluates the supernatural.
quote:
John Paul:
Explaining someting and being able to demonstrate it are two different elements.
Jeff:
So when the formation of volcanoes is ‘explained’, there is no need for a demonstration to understand the underlying concept ?
Agreed.
quote:
John Paul:
If explanations counted for something I would have aced all of my scholastic tests.
Jeff:
Yeah, Right ! I DOUBT that !!
quote:
Peter:
Common creatorism is a belief, founded in the judeo-christian
religions, for which evidence is sought.
John Paul:
Same evidence, different conclusions based on one's worldview.
Jeff:
Or, more accurately:
Same evidence, different conclusions based on one's myopic biases & fear.
Got Science ? ya think so ?
Got evidence ?
See if you can answer just the ONE question:
HOW does science evaluate the supernatural ?
If you can’t answer this, your whole ‘model’ is a non-starter.
regards,
jeff
------------------
"I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
Adolf Hitler 1923 - Creationist, Man of God
™ Version 4.2
