AGREED. I couldn't agree more A_O. That's why whenever I
list the creationist fathers of the physical sciences I go out of my way to stipulate something that TOL evolutionists refuse to accept even as they quote this, that: "This is not an argument from authority, as a typical evolutionist might claim. Rather, this list rebuts the common claim that only uneducated people reject evolution, made by countless atheists."
But *I* didn't make such a claim, and frankly your list doesn't counter the uneducated argument since most of the people on the list were not exposed to Darwinian theory. And none of those that were were exposed to Modern Synthesis as we know it today, with far more evidence than there was in the 1800s.
Plus you never got back to me with a citation for Mendel, plus someone else pointed out that Kelvin isn't really on the list either.
Likewise, my lists of creationists and technologies/inventions is not offered as evidence that their creation view was correct but as a rebuttal to Whorton and Robert's claim and your claim Alate_One that, "Mainstream science is the only science that actually works."
In what I have read from you including the post I'm reply to, I don't believe you have falsified either of these rebuttals.
But it isn't a rebuttal! Did you read what I said?
Mainstream science does not equal ONLY the ideas of old earth and evolution. Hello? Earth to Bob?
As I said before you are STILL taking my words to mean what you want them to mean. You are dishonest.
There are *parts* of mainstream science creationists accept. So your list isn't a rebuttal. What would be a rebuttal is showing us a single technology that comes out of young earth creationism itself. And I note you've simply ignored that challenge because you and I both know that there aren't any.
If they were standard, why are there more than one? And aside from YECs, do adherents of one theory for nuclear decay make atomic clocks differently than adherents to a different theory? If not, your bringing this up seems to be an obfuscation, for no evolutionary view of the universe is required to build atomic clocks.
Oh but it is my dear Bob, since you don't believe radioactive decay to actually be constant or the speed of light to be constant or really anything in the past to be governed by the same processes as the present, why on earth would you make a clock based on the assumption that the movement of atoms is actually constant?
So, you seemed to list the following as requiring either Darwinism or belief in an old earth:
atomic clocks, nuclear reactors, satellites, DNA
sequencing, seismograph, seismometer, sonar
What my main emphasis for some of these was that you don't agree with the data produced by these technologies. . . .
And here you appear to be responding to Fred Williams challenge to you: "Identify any technology or invention for which Darwinism or a belief in an old earth is an enabling prerequisite."
And this is the problem, his question, much like your list, is focused on science producing consumer goods (Seriously, sliced bread?). This is not the only nor is it the major use of science. You both totally ignored the other major use of science, making testable predictions. And most importantly predictions that turn out to be correct. YEC has never done this.
Plus things can be invented without a correct (or any) understanding of how they actually work (see compasses). Only some inventions, and most especially consumer products absolutely require a proper understanding of the underlying science. However, where science strongly underlies a technology, like satellites and cosmology, you'd better have your science straight or you'll miss stellar events or have your satellites crashing to earth or flying off into space. Indeed, GPS technologies must deal with the principles of general relativity (which if memory serves you deny) to maintain their atomic clock accuracy.
A_O, I don't recall any major creationist ministry denying recombinant DNA.
I'm not talking about denying it, I'm talking about INVENTING it. That's the whole point of this conversation! Why would a creationist think it would work? Why would they try it at all?
Because they are building blocks.
You say this now in an attempt to explain the DNA data. Except it isn't actually an appropriate explanation. If organisms actually used virtually identical "building blocks" that all had about the same level of similarity, evolution would be disproved. Instead the "building blocks" are all different and they are more different the farther away in the phylogenetic tree you look, just as evolution would predict and NOT as creationism would predict.
Did creationists PREDICT that all organisms would use the same genetic system? I don't think so. It's a direct implication of common descent. Special creation would not necessarily imply this. It certainly wouldn't assume that you could take a human gene, put it into a bacterium and the bacterium would make an identical protein that is made by the human!
I'd suggest that you view the video below as there is a clear explanation of DNA data. Skip to 4 minutes if you'd like to see a direct rebuttal to your "common design" assertion.
