Rapid Adaptation

[Jose Fly]

The point however *is that both evolutionists and creationists do use the scientific method...you were wrong about that.

No, creationists don't use the scientific method. You've been shown that, but you chose to do the creationist thing...

 

[George Affleck]

Wrong. Their statement is the opposite of the scientific method because under the scientific method you're supposed to follow the evidence wherever it leads. AiG very clearly states that they will not follow the evidence if it leads to anything that conflicts with their religious beliefs.

And evolutionists will not follow the evidence if it leads to anything that conflicts with their evolutionary beliefs.

 

[Jose Fly]

And evolutionists will not follow the evidence if it leads to anything that conflicts with their evolutionary beliefs.

I showed where a major creationist organization stated as a fundamental principle that they will not allow any conclusions that conflict with their religious beliefs.

All you've done here is say "evolutionists do the same", but you've not shown where they do so, or declare so at all. Were you expecting everyone here to just accept your say-so? Do you think things are so just because you say they are?

 

[6days]

creationists don't use the scientific method

If you believe that you don't know your history nor the scientific method. Did Francis Bacon use 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?*

 

[6days]

And evolutionists will not follow the evidence if it leads to anything that conflicts with their evolutionary beliefs.

There are some who have gone from atheist to Biblical creationist. What we also see is some scientists acknowledging Darwin ism is failing, and they hope for a new theory of evolution. .... Anything but following the evidence to our Creator.

 

[Jose Fly]

If you believe that you don't know your history nor the scientific method.

I showed exactly where a major creationist organization operates according to a principle that is the exact opposite of the scientific method.

Did Francis Bacon use scientific method? Kepler? Newton? Did Robert Boyle, Faraday or Pasteur use the scientific method?

None of those people were even alive when the term "creationist" was used as it is today.

Do modern scientists such as John Sanford or Raymond Damadian use the scientific method?*

Not when it comes to creationism.

 

[Alate_One]

Neither is evolutionism open to the scientific method. They are beliefs about the past.

Nope. Based on evidence.

Siccar Point shows the earth is old and was recognized as evidence of an old earth, and uniformitarian geology long before there was any "evolutionism" (1787).

How? We know that layers of rock are laid down over time, horizontal with the earth's surface. Yet the bottom layers are vertical with the earth's surface. This means they must have been:
1. Laid down underwater - deep ocean
2. Solidified into rock
3. Pushed up like an accordion above water
4. Eroded flat
5. Sunk underwater again - though only just - coastline
5. Then had more layers deposited on top in the horizontal plane
6. Then those layers solidified into rock and the whole mess was pushed up above the water's edge again so that we could see it on the coastline

You can't do all of that in 6000 years or in a single flood.

Here's a slightly more detailed diagram.

Source

The point however *is that both evolutionists and creationists do use the scientific method...you were wrong about that.

Creationists do not use the scientific method in their study of creationism. You're playing semantic games thinking it makes you smart.

Let's let Jose remind you again.

Nope. Creationist organizations very clearly explain that they do not follow the scientific method.

Statement of Faith

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. ​

The scientific method means all ideas are open to falsification, including evolution. But you must have good evidence to show why the theory is wrong.

And evolutionists will not follow the evidence if it leads to anything that conflicts with their evolutionary beliefs.

They would follow the evidence, if there were any. Problem for you is, there isn't any.

 

[Stripe]

Wrong. Their statement is the opposite of the scientific method because under the scientific method you're supposed to follow the evidence wherever it leads. AiG very clearly states that they will not follow the evidence if it leads to anything that conflicts with their religious beliefs.

Really? Where's the data showing this trend?

Evolutionists love it when the discussion wanders from the evidence.

How? What specifically do you look at to tell if two populations share a common ancestry?

:idunno:

By what mechanisms?

:idunno:

By all means, let's return to the topic of the OP.

Awesome. So why do we always see changes in organisms responding to a new environment happen swiftly and in similar, repeatable timeframes?

Nope. Based on evidence.

Nope. Based on your assertion of your assumptions as truth.

Siccar Point shows that it was deposited quickly and violently.

However, you are way off topic.

Creationists do not use the scientific method.

In this very thread, in fact. There are competing claims on the nature of the diversication of organisms. Creationists have provided a sensible, understandable and usable definition under which we can test the ideas of the two camps.

However, the evolutionists are desperate to talk about anything but the evidence.

The scientific method means all ideas are open to falsification, including evolution. But you must have good evidence to show why the theory is wrong.

Let's start with the challenge that has been issued then. :up:

They would follow the evidence, if there were any. Problem for you is, there isn't any.

Try OP. :thumb:

 

[Jose Fly]

:idunno:

:idunno:

That's what I thought. Stripe hates answering questions.

So why do we always see changes in organisms responding to a new environment happen swiftly and in similar, repeatable timeframes?

What changes? Do you have a specific example?

 

[6days]

creationists don't use the scientific method

If you believe that you don't know your history nor the scientific method. Did Francis Bacon use 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?

None of those people were even alive (excl. Sanford and Damadian) and *when the term "creationist" was used as it is today.

You didn't answer the question.* If you were to answer, you would prove yourself wrong.

Do modern scientists such as John Sanford or Raymond Damadian use the scientific method?

Not when it comes to creationism.

You didn't answer the question...because if you were to answer, you would contradict yourself. Biblical creationist scientists use the scientific method.*

 

[Jose Fly]

Biblical creationist scientists use the scientific method.*

So let's clarify.

Does believing in creationism preclude one from following the scientific method? No. A person can believe whatever they want. As long as they utilize the scientific method when doing science, their beliefs are irrelevant (that's part of the method...your beliefs don't trump the data).

So yes, I'm quite sure there are creationists who use the scientific method when doing science. The inventor of the MRI is a good example.

However, when it comes to creationism, the scientific method is not followed or utilized by Biblical creationists, as evidenced by their statements of faith where they make it clear that any and all results that conflict with their beliefs are automatically wrong.

That's one of the reasons why creationism has not contributed anything to science for at least a century now (that and the fact that it's wrong).

 

[Alate_One]

Try OP. :thumb:

If ANY of you think the OP is evidence, you're seriously mistaken. Here's the abstract.

Understanding phenotypic diversity requires not only identification of selective factors that favor origins of derived states, but also factors that favor retention of primitive states. Anurans (frogs and toads) exhibit a remarkable diversity of reproductive modes that is unique among terrestrial vertebrates. Here, we analyze the evolution of these modes, using comparative methods on a phylogeny and matched life-history database of 720 species, including most families and modes. As expected, modes with terrestrial eggs and aquatic larvae often precede direct development (terrestrial egg, no tadpole stage), but surprisingly, direct development evolves directly from aquatic breeding nearly as often. Modes with primitive exotrophic larvae (feeding outside the egg) frequently give rise to direct developers, whereas those with nonfeeding larvae (endotrophic) do not. Similarly, modes with eggs and larvae placed in locations protected from aquatic predators evolve frequently but rarely give rise to direct developers. Thus, frogs frequently bypass many seemingly intermediate stages in the evolution of direct development. We also find significant associations between terrestrial reproduction and reduced clutch size, larger egg size, reduced adult size, parental care, and occurrence in wetter and warmer regions. These associations may help explain the widespread retention of aquatic eggs and larvae, and the overall diversity of anuran reproductive modes.

The "rapid" the paper describes is as follows:

Although we cannot rule out this possibility, seemingly direct transitions from aquatic eggs to direct development occurred more rapidly (mean= 27.81 my ± 7.76 SE, based on summed branch lengths) than changes from aquatic eggs to terrestrial eggs to direct development (mean = 53.20 my± 10.02 SE; ANOVA F1,13=4.13, P=0.06).

That's 28 Million years vs. 53 Million years. Far longer than you even think the earth has been around. :chuckle: :loser:

6days apparently thinks 28 million years is one generation. :rotfl:

 

[Jose Fly]

6days apparently thinks 28 million years is one generation. :rotfl:

And is somehow evidence of young earth creationism. :ha:

 

[George Affleck]

Because all the evidence from the earliest geologists till now says at it's most basic: "Earth is far older than 6-10,000 years". Has nothing to do with what is required for anything.

Evidence does not "say at it's most basic" anything. Evidence cannot and does not talk. It must be interpreted before it can prove anything and it cannot be interpreted by assumption.

If you see this:

You say "hmm this clearly cannot have happened in a single global flood or within 6000 years."

And that's exactly what the early Christian geologists realized.
Your "fault pointing" as a rule is cherry picking at best.

Again, (you haven't done this yet) - define "clearly". Does it mean "according to evolutionary timelines only"?

To those who don't know the facts, this gorge "looks old". If we did not know the facts, we would probably make the mistake of leaning on paradigms.

You might say it is clearly millions of years old and I might say it is probably 6000 years old and we would both be wrong.

The Siccar Point rocks could easily have been formed and eroded in short periods. It depends only on the composition (hardness) when formed and the force of the eroding elements (water). These facts are not available to you so you use your opinion as did Hutton.

Yes, you have a presupposition that doesn't rest on data, it rests on your belief. The presupposition in science is merely that nature works in a consistent manner and that the workings of nature can be discovered by careful experimentation and observation.

It comes down to which is more reasonable:

Is it possible that blood cells in some form (or casts of them or biofilms resembling them) could survive for millions of years.

Or is all of the data we've collected concerning the age of the earth: multiple types of radiometric dating (C14 is just one), stratigraphy and the pattern of fossils in rocks all over the earth, tree ring data extending past 6000 years, human historical sites continuing uninterrupted, starlight from distant stars (and supernovae from places much farther than 6000 light years away).

You've got a bigger problem than that. You have to explain how rocks, that you think are billions of years old, turned into people.

 

[George Affleck]

So let's clarify.

I wouldn't trust you to clarify anything!

You still worship the magic that turned rocks into people.

 

[Stripe]

That's what I thought. Stripe hates answering questions.

After answering at least three? I think you'll be wanting to revisit this accusation. :up:

What changes? Do you have a specific example?

Sure. There are the lizards evolutionists claim as an example of their idea.

However, when it comes to creationism, the scientific method is not followed or utilized by Biblical creationists.

Except that in this very thread we have competing assertions and a creationist who has defined his terms and is willing to examine the evidence to determine which, if any, idea is defensible.

So much for your bigoted assertion.

If ANY of you think the OP is evidence, you're seriously mistaken.

Well, as you point out, they are stories by evolutionists.

Meanwhile, the challenge remains avoided.

 

[Alate_One]

Well, as you point out, they are stories by evolutionists.

Which you claimed were evidence for your side.

Meanwhile, the challenge remains avoided.

What challenge? The one put forward by the paper I just explained provides nothing at all for creationism?

 

[Stripe]

Which you claimed were evidence for your side.

Nope.

You inserted evolutionary propaganda without a reference, pretending it was part of OP.

What challenge?

Evolutionists hate to even admit there is a challenge. They would prefer to talk about something — anything — else.

 

[6days]

Neither is evolutionism open to the scientific method. They are beliefs about the past.

Nope. Based on evidence.

Moving the goal posts now.

Creationism and evolutionism both use the same evidence.*

The point however *is that both evolutionists and creationists do use the scientific method...you were wrong about that.

Creationists do not use the scientific method in their study of creationism.

Is that your admission that you were wrong... You had said "Creationists don't use the scientific method.[/quote] That was false.

Creationists use the scientific method performing science....genetics, biology, geology etc

 

[Alate_One]

Evidence does not "say at it's most basic" anything. Evidence cannot and does not talk. It must be interpreted before it can prove anything and it cannot be interpreted by assumption.

Again, (you haven't done this yet) - define "clearly". Does it mean "according to evolutionary timelines only"?

Yes, I did actually. If you'd have read through the thread you would have seen it.

And it's not the solidifcation step, it's the erosion, the two different deposition environments, the folding etc. All of which can now be studied with far more accuracy.

To those who don't know the facts, this gorge "looks old". If we did not know the facts, we would probably make the mistake of leaning on paradigms.

Uhh no. And guess what group of people figured out the Missoula floods? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't creationists.

You've got a bigger problem than that. You have to explain how rocks, that you think are billions of years old, turned into people.

You seem to have some kind of strawman version of evolution. Evolution says nothing about rocks turning into people.