Rapid Adaptation

[George Affleck]

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.

Hey 6days,

Did you know there are some scientists and engineers at NASA that are creationists?

Check this out: http://creation.com/exploring-the-heavens-michael-tigges-nasa-interview

 

[George Affleck]

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.

That's what I thought. Testable means what satisfies you. You don't get to set the rules of engagement or what "must be". Back onto ignore you go.

 

[Alate_One]

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

Most creationists do not use the scientific method in any way. A few, who happen to also be scientists, may do so.

The vast majority of people in the employ of the major creationist organizations do not. AiG and the Discovery institute treasure their handful of scientists, because they don't have many. The vast majority of the individuals holding the creationist position do not.

evolutionist wished they had not found any

:think: Soft tissue denier

Eh no I didn't deny anything. But the science isn't settled on the issue. Jumping to, "this means the earth is 6000 years old" is not remotely warranted.

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

Not denying the observation, denying the conclusion (that the magnetic field is disappearing), which is contrary to the available evidence (magnetic striping).

unless you using the layers as chronology

You think scientists date layers based only on how many there are? :doh:

just one more misidentified

Normal part of science. Things get corrected. Creationists generally don't correct themselves or anyone else.

Alate_One is rodocetus fake ?
link

No. Scientists make hypotheses all the time. And you know what they do when the hypothesis is shown to be wrong? They CHANGE it. That's one of the properties of science, Tentative. That's a GOOD thing. That's what happened with Rodhocetus. When better fossils were found, the reconstructions were made more accurate. That doesn't make the fossil fake in any way.

Scientists respond to new data, creationists as a general rule ignore data that contradicts their positions.

 

[BOLCATS]

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.

For those people (don't know them) , they do not use the scientific method in determining the age of the earth. They reject evidence and believe 6,000 years out of religious dogma.

 

[6days]

Hey 6days,

Did you know there are some scientists and engineers at NASA that are creationists?

Check this out: http://creation.com/exploring-the-heavens-michael-tigges-nasa-interview

I wasn't familiar with that one.
But, there are thousands of Biblical creationist scientists such as him who are not on the list in post#147.

Speaking of NASA creationist scientists... Here is one from thepast...
Wernher von Braun ... He headed up the Apollo moon landing program.
Von Braun was a strong critic of the modern tendency to teach science from an evolutionary standpoint only, without examining the creationist alternative as well. He believed that such an approach was totally unscientific. ‘To be forced to believe only one conclusion—that everything in the universe happened by chance—would violate the very objectivity of science itself.
https://answersingenesis.org/creation-scientists/profiles/wernher-von-braun-1912-1977/

 

[6days]

For those people (don't know them) , they do not use the scientific method in determining the age of the earth. They reject evidence and believe 6,000 years out of religious dogma.

You may not know what 'evidence' is?
Everyone examines the exact same evidence. (fossils, DNA, mutation rates, geological layers etc) Scientists don't "reject evidence".
But... come to think of it... Biblical creationist scientists actually DO have evidence evolutionists reject. We have God's Word.

 

[Stripe]

Evolution has been tested multiple times and continues to be tested.Let's remember that evolution was proposed in a time before the understanding of DNA or genetics.Darwin proposed that all life shared a common ancestor. DNA and genetics *could* have shown that not to be the case. There were many possibilitiesThere could have been entirely different genetic codes used in different organisms or entirely different genetic material, TNA or PNA instead of DNA. There could have been almost identical genes in every organism that encoded the exact same protein - say actin or tubulin. The idea that life had been around for millions of years and shared a common ancestor would have been destroyed by this last option since a gene couldn't have been around for billions of years with mutation and selection and stayed the exact same.But we observed none of those things. Instead, relationships predicted by careful phylogenetic analysis were largely supported by genetics. Organisms that shared a common ancestor longer ago have more genetic differences, while organisms sharing a common ancestor more recently have fewer genetic differences.For example, Mice and rats are far more different from one another at the genetic level than humans are to macaques or whales are to cows.There's also patterns of multiple pseudogenes, endogenous retroviruses and the like. All of these could have been organized differently to give evidence of a recent de-novo creation, but they're not.

And in this thread we have a new test, which you are studiously avoiding.

Creationism would never predict such a pattern. But they can try to "explain" it by saying "God just made it that way, because". That's what makes creationism unscientific.

Nope. Perhaps you'd like to accurately represent what has been told to you many times. :up:

Fossils too can be used to test evolution, find us a fossil of something BEFORE it could have possibly evolved. The classic "rabbit in the cambrian" is a well known example.

Begging the question is a logical fallacy. And with :Clete: around, you're going to find your fallacious arguments exposed even more.

 

[George Affleck]

...creationists as a general rule ignore data that contradicts their positions.

No, creationists do not ignore data. They will, however, disagree with conclusions that some make about data or whether or not the data has arisen from an incorrect supposition but they will never ignore it.

Your statement is completely inaccurate and designed to fool others into thinking that more than half of evolutionary information is simply passed by. Please identify significant data that has been ignored by creationists or apologize and re-frame your statement honestly.

 

[Stripe]

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.

Definitions should be concise. Check mine out early in the thread. :up:

 

[6days]

a lie

an evolutionist saying its a lie with backpedaling .

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

What is kind of mind boggling is that atheists such as DavisBJ can argue logically and honestly.....However, Barbarian... and now it seems Alate are dishonest.

 

[Stripe]

Stipe tries a different deception: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.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.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.If your supposition depends on denying all those facts, isn't that a pretty good clue that it's a bad one?

Nope.

And all the while, there is a challenge based on a sensible definition provided by a creationist that the evolutionists are avoiding like a vampire must avoid sunlight.

 

[Stripe]

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.

Moving the goalposts is another logical fallacy. You asked for a definition, not a statement or an idea. One has been provided and a challenge along with it. However, instead of rising to the challenge, you will argue about something — anything — to protect your precious evolutionism from scrutiny.

It is not the creationists who are unscientific as you declare they must be; it is the evolutionists, who will do anything to avoid a rational discussion.

 

[George Affleck]

You're dodging the question. How can God be scientifically investigated?

That's one of the proofs of God. He has decided that none of His creatures can find Him out. And it is so.

 

[Jonahdog]

That's one of the proofs of God. He has decided that none of His creatures can find Him out. And it is so.

So you worship a being you cannot understand. Spock is very confused.

 

[Stripe]

So you worship a being you cannot understand. Spock is very confused.

Try sticking to the topic.

Evolutionists hate sticking to the topic.

 

[George Affleck]

Definitions should be concise. Check mine out early in the thread. :up:

OK - good criticism.

Let's call yours the concise definition and mine filler.

It is important for evolutionists to know that their so-called speciation is the result of genetic deterioration and not perceived as an 'improvement'.

 

[Alate_One]

Nope.

And all the while, there is a challenge based on a sensible definition provided by a creationist that the evolutionists are avoiding like a vampire must avoid sunlight.

Which you've been asked to provide a method by which you could USE your definition numerous times and you've failed to do so over and over.

Years it's been now.

 

[George Affleck]

So you worship a being you cannot understand. Spock is very confused.

For how long would you worship a god who could be fully understood?
You have chosen confusion of which God is not the author. It is the expected condition one who turns his back on Him.

Is 45:16KJV

 

[Stripe]

Which you've been asked to provide a method by which you could USE your definition numerous times and you've failed to do so over and over. Years it's been now.

Therefore... something. :idunno:

The challenge remains ignored.

And you know one way the definition can be used. GA's post would have reminded you of it. So lying won't help you.

 

[Alate_One]

You may not know what 'evidence' is?
Everyone examines the exact same evidence. (fossils, DNA, mutation rates, geological layers etc) Scientists don't "reject evidence".
But... come to think of it... Biblical creationist scientists actually DO have evidence evolutionists reject. We have God's Word.

Science does not accept a written account as evidence, only the results of testing and observation of natural phenomena that can be repeated or observed again.

Your sort refuse to accept evidence of common ancestry all the while promoting hyperevolution to solve the problem of not enough space on the ark to create all of the diversity alive today.

The evidence you ignore is that every species on earth, instead of producing many species should produce none in 6000 years for two reasons - the time is far too short and reducing a species to TWO individuals is a massive genetic bottleneck. There would be next to no variation left after an event like that. And the same would be true in humans. Denying that fact is to deny genetics as a science.

That's the evidence all of you ignore, because if you had any understanding of genetics you'd realize how impossible this idea was. There are so many contradictions in YEC with reality it's amazing anyone with any scientific training can accept it in the modern era.