Rapid Adaptation

[Alate_One]

If you believe that you don't know your history nor the scientific method. Did Francis Bacon use the scientific method? Kepler? Newton? Did Robert Boyle, Faraday or Pasteur use the scientific method? Do modern scientists such as John Sanford or Raymond Damadian use the scientific method? As Kepler said science is thinking God's thoughts after Him."
Alate wouldn't answer those questions... Will you?

I DID answer that question. Maybe you can get it through your head this time.

A person *may* use the scientific method in one area of their life. That does not make creationism scientific any more than a doctor selling a diet pill makes that diet pill safe or effective. (See Dr. Oz)

People are not uni-dimensional. They are not either scientific or not scientific. Many traditional scientists have promoted pseudoscience for a variety of reasons. See Linus Pauling (Nobel Prize winner) and high dose vitamin C treatments for cancer (which do not work btw).

Nobody gets to be put on a pedestal and say "everything this guy says is right." Science isn't about that. Science is about lots of people, all flawed working together to try and figure out the workings of our world. Science as a field is only interested in what works. If evolution wasn't a functional explanation - didn't make predictions etc. nobody would bother with it. Creationism offers no useful understanding of the world around us.

Fine, God made the universe and everything in it. That's nice but funny thing is that can still be true and evolution can be true as well.

 

[The Barbarian]

Stipe tries a different deception:

Evolutionism is unscientific for one simple reason. Its foundational claim is "evolution did it"

Nope. Just so we can see, Stipe, tell us what the four foundational claims of Darwinism are. Prediction; not only does Stipe not know what they are, he doesn't even know how to find out.

and as everyone should agree, evolution is not subject to testing or any sort of investigation.

Haldane's rabbit in Cambrian deposits would do it. So would showing that any feature of an organism appeared for the exclusive benefit of another organism.

Showing that there is no such thing as natural selection would do it. There are many, many more. Anyone with normal intelligence should be able to come up with a good number of them.

So in order for evolutionism to be scientific, it must either 1) drop evolution, or 2) provide a means by which evolution can be scientifically investigated.

For example, we could test predictions to see if they are true. Huxley, based on anatomical data, predicted that there would birdlike dinosaurs. His prediction was confirmed.

Based on genetic and anatomical data, it was predicted that there would be fish with functional legs. And so there were.

Based on observed variation, Darwin predicted that there must be a way for new traits to be preserved in a population without being diluted by crossbreeding. And Mendel confirmed that prediction.

Based on observed natural selection, Sir Alexander Flemming predicted the evolution of antibiotic resistance, which was later confirmed.

Based on embryological, anatomical, and genetic data, it was predicted that there would have been transitionals between frogs and other amphibians. And that has been confirmed.

Based on a few anatomical similarities Huxley predicted that there would be transitionals between Hyracotherium and modern horses. That prediction has been tested and confirmed.

Based on metabolic needs for a large, highly active reptile, it was hypothesized that advanced theropod dinosaurs must have had a more efficient respiratory system than other reptiles. And evidence showing the presence of birdlike respiratory systems in them has confirmed that prediction.

There's much, much, much more. All of this evidence shows evolution to be a fact.

Barring that, evolutionism cannot be scientific.

If your supposition depends on denying all those facts, isn't that a pretty good clue that it's a bad one?

 

[6days]

If you believe that you don't know your history nor the scientific method. Did Francis Bacon use the scientific method? Kepler? Newton? Did Robert Boyle, Faraday or Pasteur use the scientific method? Do modern scientists such as John Sanford or Raymond Damadian use the scientific method? As Kepler said science is thinking God's thoughts after Him."
Alate wouldn't answer those questions... Will you?

I DID answer that question. Maybe you can get it through your head this time.

No... you keep avoiding the question.

REMINDER.....

Creationists don't use the scientific method.

So..... Do Biblical creationist scientists (past and present) use the scientific method?

 

[Alate_One]

No... you keep avoiding the question.

REMINDER.....


So..... Do Biblical creationist scientists (past and present) use the scientific method?

As I said when asked in that context, some did at times. Others may not have at all. Depends on the situation.

If you're trying to get a yes or no to the kind of question you're asking. You're not going to get one. As originally stated, and implied I meant in the promotion of creationism. And more specifically those that have rejected Darwin's theory well after plenty of supporting data was around (which includes nobody on the first half of the list you just posted).

What you're trying to do is play a game to score points, which adds no value to the discussion.

It's like this. Someone says "Doctors help the sick get better". Then you say "What about Dr. Jack Kevorkian? That means doctors will kill people too!" Well I'm sure he helped a few sick people in his time, but as a profession doctors are to help sick people, not kill them. The fact that some individuals may break this rule doesn't make the statement invalid.

Creationism is an inflexible belief system that's not subject to testing or revision. Creationism doesn't fit into the scientific method. Anyone can do the scientific method on occasion if they so choose, but a young earth creationist sets up boundaries for themselves they can't cross (The earth cannot be older than 10,000 yrs and the flood must be global). This makes young earth creationism antithetical to the scientific method. Just as killing people should be antithetical to a doctor. But human beings can believe two (or more) contradictory ideas just fine.

The point I was making when I said "creationists" was to speak to creationism, not to single out the actions of individuals. Harping on this topic gets you nowhere.

Another Strawman.
Creationism and evolutionism are not science.
They are beliefs about the past

Wrong.

Evolutionary theory is based on the natural evidence left behind by events in the past: Geology, fossils, biogeography, developmental biology and genetics among others.

Creationism is based on beliefs about a particular section of ancient text. Interestingly enough most creationist ideas stray quite far from the actual text anyway.

 

[George Affleck]

I want a testable ice cream.

:darwinsm:

My ice cream must conform to the following:

1. Consistency: Smooth and without self-contradiction.

2. Observability: Seeing is believing.

3. Natural: All natural ingredients.

4. Predictability: I will want to repeat it soon and want the same result.

5. Testability: Fat content.

6. Tentativeness: Favourite flavour may change from time to time.

 

[The Barbarian]

One of my former clients was Blue Bell, a small company out of Brenham, TX. The CFO told me that the best marker of quality ice cream was the amount of butterfat in it.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian predicts:
So far no creationist has ever been able to provide a testable defiinition of "kind." "Prediction: Stipe will never produce a testable definition of "kind", because there isn't one.

Stipe verifies Barbarian's prediction:

This is why evolutionists are mocked.

Stipe dodges the question, because he's well aware that he can't come up with a testable definition of "kind" that won't immediately refute his new religion.

Everyone knows it, Stipe. No one really expects you to step up and answer the question; and we all know why you won't.

I'm just making sure people don't forget.

 

[way 2 go]

It is correct to say that creationists do not use the scientific method.

a lie

As I said when asked in that context, some did at times. Others may not have at all. Depends on the situation.
If you're trying to get a yes or no to the kind of question you're asking. You're not going to get one

an evolutionist saying its a lie with backpedaling .

If you believe that you don't know your history nor the scientific method. Did Francis Bacon use the scientific method? Kepler? Newton? Did Robert Boyle, Faraday or Pasteur use the scientific method? Do modern scientists such as John Sanford or Raymond Damadian use the scientific method? As Kepler said science is thinking God's thoughts after Him."
Alate wouldn't answer those questions... Will you?

a creationist proving its a lie
:thumb:6days
evolutionist are consistently being proven wrong

If a particular model is proposed - say the earth is 6000 years old, to some degree it can. .

young earth

link

dinosaur soft tissue
"6,000 year-old" Mitochondrial Eve
Even Younger Y-Chromosomal Adam
Earth's Magnetic Field Rapid Decay
{Earth's Rapid Magnetic Reversals: Do not confuse the field's decay with its reversals}
Polystrate Fossils
Helium Found Everywhere It's Not Supposed to Be


'Neanderthal' Remains Actually Medieval Human -link

 

[Jose Fly]

Strawman

Do you have an example of a potential find that "God made it that way" can't apply to?

Another Strawman.
Creationism and evolutionism are not science.

Then why are Christians like Clete arguing that creationism is scientific? And if creationism isn't science, why didn't you just say that when I kept asking for examples of a contribution to science from creationism in the last 50 years? It would have been much easier for you to...

Jose: Name one thing creationism has contributed to science in the last 50 years.

6days: That's an invalid question, since creationism is not science.​

And we would have been done. Man, I wish you guys would make up your minds on these things.

 

[Alate_One]

a lie

an evolutionist saying its a lie with backpedaling .

a creationist proving its a lie
:thumb:6days
evolutionist are consistently being proven wrong

It's no more a lie than saying doctors help the sick get better.

young earth

link

ahh the old list of things Bob Enyart doesn't understand, doesnt' keep up with or cherry picks.

dinosaur soft tissue

Soft tissue that isn't soft and doesn't necessarily have any bearing on age. But hey wishful thinking here we come!

"6,000 year-old" Mitochondrial Eve
Even Younger Y-Chromosomal Adam

It's too bad Bob doesn't bother keeping up with the science.

Science Paper from 2013 on both the Mitochondrial eve and Y-Chromosomal Adam.

Sequencing Y Chromosomes Resolves Discrepancy in Time to Common Ancestor of Males Versus Females
G. David Poznik1,2, Brenna M. Henn3,4, Muh-Ching Yee3, Elzbieta Sliwerska5, Ghia M. Euskirchen3, Alice A. Lin6, Michael Snyder3, Lluis Quintana-Murci7,8, Jeffrey M. Kidd3,5, Peter A. Underhill3, Carlos D. Bustamante3,*

Science 2 August 2013:
Vol. 341 no. 6145 pp. 562-565

The Y chromosome and the mitochondrial genome have been used to estimate when the common patrilineal and matrilineal ancestors of humans lived. We sequenced the genomes of 69 males from nine populations, including two in which we find basal branches of the Y-chromosome tree. We identify ancient phylogenetic structure within African haplogroups and resolve a long-standing ambiguity deep within the tree. Applying equivalent methodologies to the Y chromosome and the mitochondrial genome, we estimate the time to the most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) of the Y chromosome to be 120 to 156 thousand years and the mitochondrial genome TMRCA to be 99 to 148 thousand years. Our findings suggest that, contrary to previous claims, male lineages do not coalesce significantly more recently than female lineages.

And they are both a LOT older than 6000 years . . .oops!

Earth's Magnetic Field Rapid Decay
{Earth's Rapid Magnetic Reversals: Do not confuse the field's decay with its reversals}

Because everything apparently operates in a linear fashion - according to creationists anyway.

Polystrate Fossils

Um, not all layers of sediment accumulate slowly. Not a new revelation.

Helium Found Everywhere It's Not Supposed to Be

Grasping at straws much?

'Neanderthal' Remains Actually Medieval Human -link

So one misidentified Neanderthal (handful of teeth) means what?

You realize there have been genome sequences of neanderthals done right? And news flash . . . they don't overlap with modern humans!

source

So your list overall.

1. None of it is positive evidence for young earth creationism. It's all see scientists were surprised by (insert event), therefore creationism. Uhh right.

2. All of it is cherry picking of examples, the other portion is actually outdated (cherry picking old data).

 

[Alate_One]

My ice cream must conform to the following:

Ice cream is not a statement or an idea.

Which of the following are scientific statements?

1. Green plants will grow towards a light source.

2. If the herbicide glyphosate is sprayed on fields, some plants that have mutations conferring resistance will begin to multiply and become more common.

3. The world is 6000 years old and nothing will ever change that fact.

 

[way 2 go]

It's no more a lie than saying doctors help the sick get better.

It is a lie to say that creationists do not use the scientific method.

Soft tissue that isn't soft and doesn't necessarily have any bearing on age. But hey wishful thinking here we come!

evolutionist wished they had not found any

:think: Soft tissue denier

Because everything apparently operates in a linear fashion - according to creationists anyway.

Earth's Magnetic Field Rapid Decay
:think: observation denier

Um, not all layers of sediment accumulate slowly. Not a new revelation.

unless you using the layers as chronology

So one misidentified Neanderthal (handful of teeth) means what?

just one more misidentified



Alate_One is rodocetus fake ?
link

 

[BOLCATS]

*

If you believe that you don't know your history nor the scientific method. Did Francis Bacon use the scientific method? Kepler? Newton? Did Robert Boyle, Faraday or Pasteur use the scientific method? Do modern scientists such as John Sanford or Raymond Damadian use the scientific method? As Kepler said science is thinking God's thoughts after Him.*

Yes, they all followed the scientific method. They were all creationists as well. If they were presented with modern evidence, they would reject the idea that the earth is 6,000 years old.

 

[The Barbarian]

Actually, Pasteur acknowledged evolution, although being French, he probably was more of a Lamarkist than a Darwinist.

 

[George Affleck]

Barbarian predicts:
So far no creationist has ever been able to provide a testable defiinition of "kind." "Prediction: Stipe will never produce a testable definition of "kind", because there isn't one.

Stipe verifies Barbarian's prediction:


Stipe dodges the question, because he's well aware that he can't come up with a testable definition of "kind" that won't immediately refute his new religion.

Everyone knows it, Stipe. No one really expects you to step up and answer the question; and we all know why you won't.

I'm just making sure people don't forget.

Define testable.

 

[The Barbarian]

Define testable.

In the sense that "every hypothesis must be testable." There must be a set of objective criteria that can be applied to determine whether or not different groups are a kind or not.

 

[George Affleck]

This will undoubtedly be incomplete but let me take a stab at a definition of "kind". Stripe and 6days will let me know if I have missed anything.

A biblical 'kind' was an, originally created, variety of plant or animal which could, prior to the fall, produce viable offspring of the same variety but not with other varieties.

The result of genetic degeneration over many generations after the fall, mainly from mutations, is that the original 'kinds' have deteriorated and broken into groups we now call species.

What evolutionists call speciation is actually the acquired inability of some to reproduce with some of their own due to genetic mistakes. This observable fact is evidence that certain similar species were, in the past, able to breed successfully. eg. all types of cats.

 

[6days]

Yes, they all followed the scientific method. They were all creationists as well. If they were presented with modern evidence, they would reject the idea that the earth is 6,000 years old.

You must have missed something....
Sanford is a modern day geneticist.
Raymond Damadian invented MRI technology...
They understand science and used the scientific method.
They and thousands of other modern day scientists believe God created in six, 24 hour days.

 

[6days]

This will undoubtedly be incomplete but let me take a stab at a definition of "kind". Stripe and 6days will let me know if I have missed anything.

A biblical 'kind' was an, originally created, variety of plant or animal which could, prior to the fall, produce viable offspring of the same variety but not with other varieties.

The result of genetic degeneration over many generations after the fall, mainly from mutations, is that the original 'kinds' have deteriorated and broken into groups we now call species.

What evolutionists call speciation is actually the acquired inability of some to reproduce with some of their own due to genetic mistakes. This observable fact is evidence that certain similar species were, in the past, able to breed successfully. eg. all types of cats.

And.... Although evolutionists demand precise definitions of 'kind', they can't provide a definition of 'species' that all evolutionists agree on.

 

[George Affleck]

Yes, they all followed the scientific method. They were all creationists as well. If they were presented with modern evidence, they would reject the idea that the earth is 6,000 years old.

No, they would be too smart not to see through the smoke and mirrors.