Science at its worst

[Jose Fly]

You are discussing the Biblical model of rapid adaptation

Exactly where in the Bible is "rapid adaptation" described?

We see rapid adaptation within created kinds. We see bacteria changing into bacteria. We see breeding varieties within created kinds etc.

"Bacteria" is a kind? What methodology did you use to come to that conclusion?

 

[Jose Fly]

You assume a lot, superfly. You can chalk this up to you being inept in poor assumptions.
. You aren't a careful man in your pursuit for the ridiculous.

More dodging, indicative of how you can't 1) point to something wrong I've said about science, and 2) show where geochronologists merely guess and assume in their work.

But obviously you don't have the integrity to admit your accusations were without merit either. So you make false, baseless accusations and also don't have the integrity to admit it either. That's pretty sad.

Again, realize I think it is an imprecise sloppy word. If you had bothered to read AiG, which you didn't, the problem with it is that it elicites all kinds of objections about things even science has left behind in Darwinism. They changed their views but failed to change the terminolog. In addition, it is used for every lazy Jack out there instead of giving better descriptors or even adopting a word that would better suit what is seen. However, I didn't say every time, even in the very sentence you responded to :noway:

So according to "Lon's rules for scientists", when are they allowed to use the word "evolution"? Also, I don't care what the overtly anti-science AiG says about science.

You'd 'think' then, that science wouldn't have a problem with intelligence behind design.

What "intelligence behind design" are you talking about? Be specific.

Yes. Though, again, 'evolution' anything is when explanation gets sloppy.

Which paper did that? Be specific.

It is a gross (large) bin word that means little when other conveyances are better. You even make the point latter on, saying 'that's evolution.' Well great, say that instead then.

?????? You're not making the slightest bit of sense.

Or you with a BAS against a PhD from a AiG? :noway:
Isn't that a Dunning-Kruger faux Pas on your part?

You've not been paying attention. Again, Dunning-Kruger is not about degrees.

It doesn't say Jack, charlatan fly-boy. It says your 100 year imposition is interested in the superficial. "When" isn't as important as the admission 'did' which 100 years certainly concedes. You lost, it doesn't matter after that.

Then you admit that creationism hasn't contributed anything to science in the last 100 years, but you also don't think that matters. Very revealing.

Type in "Darwin evolution chart." It's wrong. I'm a creationist. You are welcome.

Again, your ignorance of evolutionary biology is noted (HINT: Darwin understood the branching, rather than linear, nature of evolution over 150 years ago)

Yes. Why? Because I know how to write a cogent sentence.

Really? You think the only qualifications one needs to be able to critique evolutionary biology is the ability to write a sentence?

I'll just let that speak for itself.

I didn't say I agreed with 'evolution.' I said I agreed with a few points. "...but even this..." should have cued you to the idea that I agreed with something and not all of the link.

And through my psychic powers, I was supposed to figure out which parts you agreed with and which parts you didn't?

If nothing else Lon, you are very entertaining. :chuckle:

 

[Caino]

Well ok, you keep asking for it.



We can start with the reworked versions of Samuel, David and Goliath hoping to achieve their goal of converting the ordinary Israeli people into a "miraculous people."




"Saul had an evil spirit tormenting him 'sent by God'. (1 Samuel 16:14)

Someone recommended David to play the harp, calling him,
"a brave warrior, a mighty man of war." (1 Samuel 16:18) . "David came to Saul and entered his service."

(1 Samuel 16:21)

Saul took a liking to David and told his father,
"'allow David to enter my service,' for, 'he loved him dearly.' " (1 Samuel 16:21)


The second version of their meeting is found at the end of 1 Samuel Chapter 17 . David spoke of killing Goliath, and his words were reported to Saul. (1 Samuel 17:31) Saul did not want to let David fight Goliath, for David was not a trained warrior. David was just a lad and out tending sheep, and his job was to deliver lunch to the soldiers. (1 Samuel 17:18)


"You are not able to go to war against the Philistines. You (David) are just a boy, and Goliath is a man of war."
(1 Samuel 17:33)
Saul relented, and

"clothed David with his armor and said, 'go! May God be with you.'" (1 Samuel 17:37)


David killed Goliath. David took Goliath's head to Jerusalem, but he kept his sword in his tent. (1 Samuel 17:54) Jerusalem was not captured from the Jebusites until after David became King (or was it?) and the sword we are told (in another variant) was kept in a temple at Nob. (1 Samuel 21:1) No sooner had David cut off Goliath's head than Saul asked,

"who is that young man?" (1 Samuel 17:55)

David was introduced to Saul

"with the Philistines head still in his hand,"
(1 Samuel 17:57)

and Saul asked,

"who are you?" and David replied, "the son of Jesse."
(1 Samuel 17:58) "That same day Saul kept David and would not let him return to his father's house."
(1 Samuel 18:1)

Rather than a harp player the young adolescent boy was made

"commander of the fighting forces," (1 Samuel 18:5)

an act which pleased everyone, including Saul and his officials.


A few verses later an editorial comment is inserted in a futile attempt to harmonize the compounding contradictions and multiple inconsistencies.

"David played the harp for Saul, as he had done before," (1 Samuel 18:10)

for an evil spirit was tormenting Saul. In this variant David was removed from Saul's household and


"made a commander" (1 Samuel 18:13) because, "Saul was afraid of David for he saw that God was with him." (1 Samuel 18:12)

Note that David was living at home and tending sheep just before killing Goliath, and was not living with Saul, and 'playing the harp for him as he did before', as this weak editorial excuse would try to suggest. When David killed Goliath, they do not know each other. 'That same day' David entered the service of Saul. It then follows that David could not have 'played the harp for Saul, as he did before.' The comment was inserted by an editor well aware of the inconsistencies between the two stories, in a futile attempt to reconcile the multiple versions of events and fuse them into one (pseudo- consistent) manuscript.
Also note that another editorial comment was included
for the same purpose.
"David occasionally left Saul's house (where he was the resident harp player) to feed his father's sheep in Bethlehem." (1 Samuel 17:15)


This futile excuse is intended to explain why David was not 'living with Saul' and 'playing the harp for him as before' but rather living at home with his father and tending sheep just before killing Goliath.

Note that David is both a 'skilled warrior' and 'a young boy, untrained for war.' David is both 'living at home' and 'living with Saul'. Saul knows David, as his personal harp player, even outfitting him to battle Goliath. Saul does not know who David is, and must be introduced to David after he kills Goliath ("who is that young man?') David enters Saul's service as a harp player, and as 'commander of the fighting forces', on two different occasions."

Source http://www.awitness.org/contrabib/history/jebusite.html

 

[Jose Fly]

No, not because i say so but because Science and eminent men in the field of carbon dating have ADMITTED there are no empirical methods that can date with absolute accuracy that far into the past and thus the accepted methods are largely based on a slew of wild assumptions.

Where can I find these admissions?

Again i repeat NO EMPIRICAL dating methods exist. Science knows this. So why are you unwilling to accept objective Science that doesn't accord with your own proclivity's?

All you've done to this point is argue via your say-so. You've not backed up a single thing with any sort of citation, reference, or data. So it does look like you were expecting people to just accept your unsubstantiated say-so as gospel.

You've effectively accused me of religious bias

I did? Where?

and yet not only is your bias self evident in your post you're also equally unable to present any Science or dating method that can provide empirical dating to 7 decimal places.

?????? Since when is "7 decimal places" the difference between a result being accurate and being worthless? Where did you come up with this?

And just for the record let me be very clear i am absolutely an exponent of objective Sciences, rationale thought/thinking, and Science that which can be repeated, observed, tested and proven via scientific or analytic methods. It is after all the nature of my work.But what I'm not going to accept is Science fiction just because 'someone' or a a 'scientist' simply says so.

Then I'll ask again: What mechanism would cause isotopes that decay via alpha decay to give the same results/dates as isotopes that decay via electron capture?

 

[6days]

Well ok, you keep asking for it.

Yes... I asked several times for your best and clear example of something you consider a contradiction in the Bible. Something that convinces you God's Word can't be trusted.

We can start with the reworked versions of Samuel, David and Goliath hoping to achieve their goal of converting the ordinary Israeli people into a "miraculous people."

Caino...... Your example from 1Samuel 16, 17 and 18 is really an example of you rejecting God and His Word. Its an example of your unwillingness to accept Christ as your Lord and Savior. Its an example of you looking for excuses rather than submitting your life to Him.

I had asked for a clear contradiction.
Here is one possible answer.....
"There is no contradiction. Saul was simply asking David whose son he was. He knew David but probably didn't know who was David's father. Since David has just saved Israel, Saul wanted to know who his father was, probably to show the father proper respect for his son David.
In 1 Samuel 16, the Spirit of the Lord had left Saul (16:14), and an evil spirit came and afflicted Saul (16:23). David came and then played for Saul to sooth him. Chapter 17 begins the well-known story of David and Goliath with no mention of how much time passes between David playing the harp and Goliath's challenge. It may very well have been many months or even years. Nevertheless, David was the youngest of the sons of Jesse (17:14), who was a youth (17:33), and who tended the flocks (17:15). David is then known as a young musician and a sheep herder, not a warrior as were his three oldest brothers (17:13-14). Saul and David have conversations about David doing battle with Goliath, and Saul offers David his armor (17:38). David refuses the armor and goes out to kill Goliath. Saul then asks Abner, "Whose son is this young man?" And Abner said, "By your life, O king, I do not know," (17:55). In verse 58, Saul says, "Whose son are you, young man?" And David answered, "I am the son of your servant Jesse the Bethlehemite."
https://carm.org/bible-difficulties/joshua-esther/did-or-did-not-saul-know-who-david-was

 

[6days]

Exactly where in the Bible is "rapid adaptation" described?

Read this.....
http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?110849-Rapid-Adaptation

"Bacteria" is a kind? What methodology did you use to come to that conclusion?

Re-read the various definitions of 'kind' that you say has been given to you previously.

 

[Caino]

Yes... I asked several times for your best and clear example of something you consider a contradiction in the Bible. Something that convinces you God's Word can't be trusted.

Caino...... Your example from 1Samuel 16, 17 and 18 is really an example of you rejecting God and His Word. Its an example of your unwillingness to accept Christ as your Lord and Savior. Its an example of you looking for excuses rather than submitting your life to Him.

I had asked for a clear contradiction.
Here is one possible answer.....
"There is no contradiction. Saul was simply asking David whose son he was. He knew David but probably didn't know who was David's father. Since David has just saved Israel, Saul wanted to know who his father was, probably to show the father proper respect for his son David.
In 1 Samuel 16, the Spirit of the Lord had left Saul (16:14), and an evil spirit came and afflicted Saul (16:23). David came and then played for Saul to sooth him. Chapter 17 begins the well-known story of David and Goliath with no mention of how much time passes between David playing the harp and Goliath's challenge. It may very well have been many months or even years. Nevertheless, David was the youngest of the sons of Jesse (17:14), who was a youth (17:33), and who tended the flocks (17:15). David is then known as a young musician and a sheep herder, not a warrior as were his three oldest brothers (17:13-14). Saul and David have conversations about David doing battle with Goliath, and Saul offers David his armor (17:38). David refuses the armor and goes out to kill Goliath. Saul then asks Abner, "Whose son is this young man?" And Abner said, "By your life, O king, I do not know," (17:55). In verse 58, Saul says, "Whose son are you, young man?" And David answered, "I am the son of your servant Jesse the Bethlehemite."
https://carm.org/bible-difficulties/joshua-esther/did-or-did-not-saul-know-who-david-was

Yes, as expected I didn't think you would honestly face the obvious reworking of the story of David. Bible worshipers have come up with a number of these sorts of lame excuse making. I'm embarrassed for you 6days, it's just sad.

I do trust Gods true Word, not the writing of biased, flawed holy men. God is the Living Word, but that's beyond your ability at present to do. So instead you take the easy path of conformity to the traditions of the Jews, the very same people who rejected and still reject Jesus based principally on the same scripture that they themselves created and elevated to The Word of God.

I'm already saved through faith, and I have the courage to defend God from the character assassination foisted upon him by the Hebrew redactions.

 

[Jose Fly]

Read this.....
http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?110849-Rapid-Adaptation

I don't see anywhere in that post where you explain where or how the Bible describes rapid adaptation.

So again, exactly where in the Bible is "rapid adaptation" described?

Re-read the various definitions of 'kind' that you say has been given to you previously.

According to Stripe, the only definition of "kind" that is needed is "organisms that share a common ancestry". Since you've stated that bacteria are a kind, the question remains....What methodology did you use to come to that conclusion? IOW, what methodology did you use to determine that all bacteria share a common ancestry?

 

[Lon]

To adhere to a religion that forces people to disregard the evidence of reality in the name of faith is to serve a concept of deity that promotes dishonesty. And since dishonesty is a primary factor in most human suffering, I do not believe it is logical, reasonable, nor healthy for human beings to embrace such a destructive concept of deity.

:nono: Your constant, inept, armchair psychiatry nearly always misses the mark (if not always, I have no memory of you ever actually being correct, none :nono: ). It is odd that you think this highly of yourself when you are consistently incorrect. lain: Such merely questions the veracity of the summations of men. Scientists have been wrong in the past. How'd you get this self-deluded to believe your own garbage??? :think:

Quit projecting your inept armchair conclusions as if they are gold when they are only fit to be flushed.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Id prefer to deal with facts rather than hyperbole and your straw man statements, none of which are true in regards to me or what scientific journals, or source material i frequent.

So putting your hubris to one side and the above qoute which you've twisted and conviniently taken out of the context of what i actually said, matter of fact its clearly NOT what i said, are you actually claiming that radioactive dating techniques are an empircal science? Because the cold reality is they are not. For you to imply that they are is not only fallacious its Science fiction. So if you can point me to a dating technique that is NOT flawed and that can factually, accurately, and repeatedly measure the rate of decay using a 'Scientific' method to 7 decimal places im all ears....

Umm yeah, radio metric dating techniques are all ~90% accurate. So if you get a date of 50 million years, the actual date could be anywhere between 55 million and 45 million years.

It's absolutely empirical so long as proper protocol is followed in regards to proper sample collection and contamination avoidance techniques. Where are you being told differently? Because I've got several professors of geology/biology whose classes I am in who have no problem with stating that radio metric dating is reliable, as would just about all of the scientific community.

I think your confusion may be coming from your synonymization of carbon dating with radiometric dating. Carbon dating is only one type, and it's only effective up to ~70,000 years because of C-14's tiny half-life of 5730 years. Compare that half-life length to that of Uranium-235 with its half-life of 710 million years. That's why only certain methods can be used to date anything older than 70,000 years ago

 

[Greg Jennings]

Exactly where in the Bible is "rapid adaptation" described?



"Bacteria" is a kind? What methodology did you use to come to that conclusion?

Is there a "protist" kind? :chuckle:

 

[Jose Fly]

Is there a protist kind? :chuckle:

I already answered that HERE (channeling my inner creationist).

 

[Lon]

More dodging, indicative of how you can't 1) point to something wrong I've said about science, and 2) show where geochronologists merely guess and assume in their work.

:doh: because I said neither and you are tenaciously wrong and obstinate. Come on, give me another inane comment lain:

But obviously you don't have the integrity to admit your accusations were without merit either. So you make false, baseless accusations and also don't have the integrity to admit it either. That's pretty sad.

Because you jump to the inane and just enjoy banter, you cheapen your degree. Nobody (nobody) looks to you as anything but a parody of the inane, Superfly.
You were wrong. End of story. All I ever have to do is give you rope. Your intelligence, oddly thrives on this garbage. Spend some time with your kids. Mine are grown.

So according to "Lon's rules for scientists", when are they allowed to use the word "evolution"? Also, I don't care what the overtly anti-science AiG says about science.

Here is a thought, why use it much at all when description is better?

What "intelligence behind design" are you talking about? Be specific.

You are caught in details, most often simply looking for a punchline, than something meaningful or intelligent. On this, the point is that description is better than referring to left-overs of Darwinism. Let me ask you, just on this point for a moment of being teachable: Is the idea of Evolution today, pretty much the same as Darwin's or has it left a lot of those ideas and means something different? Why I'm asking: If it is different, why use it? If it is pretty much the same, this continues to fuel dissention. I've seen science distance and show a lot of Darwin's ideas wrong. His ideas influenced Hitler and the Aryan race. How much does credible science want to be associated with Darwin's ideas? If you answer like I expect, why use Darwin's term "evolution" when so much is different and distanced from it today? If I'm wrong, then I accept your educating me here and the friction in the U.S. (and other countries) will just go on. To me, it seems like the problem is because of misplaced tenacity to hold on to a term that has caused so much friction. It is like purposefully or ineptly fueling the problem. That's politics imho, not science. Forgive me for stepping out of banter and trying to tackle something meaningful.

Which paper did that? Be specific.

You aren't paying attention. The 'word' is nearly never needed to express science when the details are what is more important in reporting science findings. Because "through the process of evolution" is so sloppily utilized ("evolution-did-it") in science books, there is no need to be specific. It is grossly prevalent....and indoctrinating. lain:

?????? You're not making the slightest bit of sense.

You 'described' a process. You 'labelled' it "evolution" but it wasn't necessary. You did just fine simply describing a process. It was MUCH better than "Evolution-did-it."

You've not been paying attention. Again, Dunning-Kruger is not about degrees.

Not true. You use it against every person that 'has' had biology in school. What do you have that all others don't? Who knows, you likely argue science in areas that are not your specific study or degree as well, and assert thus abusing the same Dunning-Kruger you try to use against others.

Then you admit that creationism hasn't contributed anything to science in the last 100 years, but you also don't think that matters. Very revealing.

Uhm, psychology is not your degree, Jose. You've no idea, whatsoever, what it reveals. You just like jumping to conclusions. 6-days gave a few quotes that substantiate creationism contributing. I think the ideas so broad that you purposefully use them so you can over-assert. There are many contributions to science by Christians this past century. All of them are creationists. You are wrong to think this doesn't have anything to do with the contributions because the Christian's view of God's universe fuels his/her desire to contribute meaningfully to the world and God, their worldview, is deeply behind the contribution.

Again, your ignorance of evolutionary biology is noted (HINT: Darwin understood the branching, rather than linear, nature of evolution over 150 years ago)

Yet every science class allowed the linear model for a century? :doh:

Creationists were against it, even when 'scientists' were putting it up on their classroom walls lain: Again, you are welcome :noway:

Really? You think the only qualifications one needs to be able to critique evolutionary biology is the ability to write a sentence?

Is that to correct his/her science or his/her 'expression' of that science? :think: "Evolution-did-it" could be rewritten to better express what is seen. Of course, once that is done, the court cases and debate threads like this would dwindle, so we can't have that.

I'll just let that speak for itself.

:wave2:

And through my psychic powers, I was supposed to figure out which parts you agreed with and which parts you didn't?

Er, hardly needed 'psychic powers.' Oddly, you didn't key in on the fact that the website described the finch variation similarly to what I said. You know, the thing you said was the dumbest thing you'd ever read??? Yeah, go figure you'd obfuscate than notice that. Of course you jumped to 'evolution.' All you would have had to say is "That's evolution, Lon."

If nothing else Lon, you are very entertaining. :chuckle:

You are easily amused. Welcome.

 

[Jose Fly]

because I said neither

I accept your retraction.

Here is a thought, why use it much at all when description is better?

Because it would be stupidly inefficient to write out a complete description of a well-known and documented process every single time, rather than just use the term "evolution". It's the same reason why physicists use the term "gravity" rather than writing out a complete description each time...why geologists use the term "erosion" rather than writing out a complete description each time....why pathologists use the term "infection" rather than writing out a complete description each time...

Simply put Lon, your insistence that professionals never use terms to describe processes is just plain ridiculous.

You are caught in details, most often simply looking for a punchline, than something meaningful or intelligent. On this, the point is that description is better than referring to left-overs of Darwinism.

I'm now wondering if you are intentionally dodging questions (in typical creationist fashion) or if you lack basic reading comprehension skills. None of what you wrote has anything to do with the question I asked. Try again...

What "intelligence behind design" are you talking about?

Is the idea of Evolution today, pretty much the same as Darwin's or has it left a lot of those ideas and means something different?

Of course it's changed. You didn't know that?

Why I'm asking: If it is different, why use it? If it is pretty much the same, this continues to fuel dissention.

Why do physicists still use the term "gravity" if the concept has changed since Newton? And let's be perfectly clear here...the source of "dissension" is nothing more than how evolutionary theory conflicts with certain people's religious beliefs. Changing the term won't affect that at all.

I've seen science distance and show a lot of Darwin's ideas wrong. His ideas influenced Hitler and the Aryan race. How much does credible science want to be associated with Darwin's ideas?

Christianity also influenced those things. What's your point?

To me, it seems like the problem is because of misplaced tenacity to hold on to a term that has caused so much friction.

You honestly think if scientists stopped using the term evolution, fundamentalist Christians would suddenly be like "Oh, now we have no problem at all with humans being related to other primates"? Really?

Because "through the process of evolution" is so sloppily utilized ("evolution-did-it") in science books, there is no need to be specific. It is grossly prevalent....and indoctrinating.

Does that also apply to terms like gravity, erosion, infection, evaporation, photosynthesis...?

You did just fine simply describing a process. It was MUCH better than "Evolution-did-it."

Except for that pesky little fact that you've not shown anywhere where anyone has said "evolution did it". But as we've seen, you feel no moral obligation to back up your accusations.

Not true. You use it against every person that 'has' had biology in school.

Another accusation. Are you going to back this one up, or do you not feel a moral obligation to do so?

What do you have that all others don't?

An understanding of the subject being discussed. Your posts OTOH very clearly indicate that you lack such an understanding, yet you declare yourself qualified to critique it. That is the Dunning-Kruger effect; it has nothing to do with degrees.

Who knows, you likely argue science in areas that are not your specific study or degree as well, and assert thus abusing the same Dunning-Kruger you try to use against others.

Your baseless speculation is noted.

6-days gave a few quotes that substantiate creationism contributing.

He did? Where?

There are many contributions to science by Christians this past century. All of them are creationists.

You make the same error you've made before, i.e., conflating "contributions from creationism" with "contributions from creationists". No one is disputing that creationists can and have contributed to science in the last century. The question at hand however is what creationism has contributed to science in the last 100 years.

As is plainly obvious, the answer is "nothing".

Yet every science class allowed the linear model for a century?

They did? Name one. I know for a fact that none of my classes ever did such a thing and were quite clear on the branching nature of evolution.

Oddly, you didn't key in on the fact that the website described the finch variation similarly to what I said.

Um...no it didn't.

 

[Lon]

Because it would be stupidly inefficient to write out a complete description of a well-known and documented process every single time, rather than just use the term "evolution". It's the same reason why physicists use the term "gravity" rather than writing out a complete description each time...why geologists use the term "erosion" rather than writing out a complete description each time....why pathologists use the term "infection" rather than writing out a complete description each time...

Simply put Lon, your insistence that professionals never use terms to describe processes is just plain ridiculous.

:nono: Nobody contests any other scientific term. Like I said, I'm happy with science having to deal with parents and public objections. Let's keep it up :thumb:

I'm now wondering if you are intentionally dodging questions (in typical creationist fashion) or if you lack basic reading comprehension skills. None of what you wrote has anything to do with the question I asked. Try again...

:chuckle: Sure you are, Jose. Sure you are.

Of course it's changed. You didn't know that?

Excellent. You don't have any authority, but perhaps a grassroots movement would help change from that sloppy inaccurate Darwinian word. Oh, that's right, you like the debate over it. Never mind. Let's keep doing the inane, shall we?

Why do physicists still use the term "gravity" if the concept has changed since Newton? And let's be perfectly clear here...the source of "dissension" is nothing more than how evolutionary theory conflicts with certain people's religious beliefs. Changing the term won't affect that at all.

I think it would. :think:

Christianity also influenced those things. What's your point?

:nono: Hitler killed Christians in those camps too. Next you'll be telling me Jews influence him :noway:

You honestly think if scientists stopped using the term evolution, fundamentalist Christians would suddenly be like "Oh, now we have no problem at all with humans being related to other primates"? Really?

It depends on how carefully you describe the relation. Plants have DNA, cells, and are alive so we have related similarity.

Does that also apply to terms like gravity, erosion, infection, evaporation, photosynthesis...?

Show me someone contesting one of those. If it ever happens, and doesn't go away, the 'easiest' way to get away from it is simply to describe after that without using the word. Don't want to? Fine. Here we are. Live with it, then.

Except for that pesky little fact that you've not shown anywhere where anyone has said "evolution did it". But as we've seen, you feel no moral obligation to back up your accusations.

You are being in-genuine. You acknowledge that it is a bin word yourself, and then complain in the next breath as if... lain: I hardly need to prove what you, yourself conceded already.

Another accusation. Are you going to back this one up, or do you not feel a moral obligation to do so?

I didn't bring up Dunning-Kruger. You were guessing that they had no background AND it is not your background. You've a biology BA, right?

An understanding of the subject being discussed. Your posts OTOH very clearly indicate that you lack such an understanding, yet you declare yourself qualified to critique it. That is the Dunning-Kruger effect; it has nothing to do with degrees.

First of all, as I said most employment of this study are pop-psychology and more ironically, display the effect in just citing it. Second, I've likely much more social science and am more familiar with this than you, Mr. Pop-psych. Dunning-Kruger indeed :noway:

Your baseless speculation is noted.

:chuckle: So is your admission.

He did? Where?

Obtuse much? This thread.

You make the same error you've made before, i.e., conflating "contributions from creationism" with "contributions from creationists". No one is disputing that creationists can and have contributed to science in the last century. The question at hand however is what creationism has contributed to science in the last 100 years.

False delineation. The one bringing his beliefs to the table is the contribution. Not only that, I told you that we've complained about the linear Darwin chart before scientists recognized or admitted it. You are welcome.

As is plainly obvious, the answer is "nothing".

They did? Name one. I know for a fact that none of my classes ever did such a thing and were quite clear on the branching nature of evolution.

Where would I have seen them if not in classrooms? :noway:

Um...no it didn't.

Denial much?

 

[6days]

I don't see anywhere in that post where you explain where or how the Bible describes rapid adaptation.

You are being obtuse. Read it slower. It is not hard to understand.

According to Stripe, the only definition of "kind" that is needed is "organisms that share a common ancestry". Since you've stated that bacteria are a kind, the question remains....What methodology did you use to come to that conclusion? IOW, what methodology did you use to determine that all bacteria share a common ancestry?

Again... you are demonstrating obtuseness. Use Stripes definition... and use what I actually said "We see rapid adaptation within created kinds. We see bacteria changing into bacteria. We see breeding varieties within created kinds etc."

 

[6days]

Obtuse much?

Funny..... I had just posted a comment a comment to Jose calling him obtuse then I notice you used the exact word to describe him.

 

[6days]

Carbon dating is only one type, and it's only effective up to ~70,000 years because of C-14's tiny half-life of 5730 years.

70,000 yr is even quite a stretch.... Anyways, its interesting that soft dino tissue dates about 30,000 year which is consistent with expectations in the creation/ flood model. We don't know what the c14 / c12 ratios were before the flood but all plant life being destroyed 4500 year ago would change ratios.

 

[6days]

Yes, as expected I didn't think you would honestly face the obvious reworking of the story of David. Bible worshipers have come up with a number of these sorts of lame excuse making. I'm embarrassed for you 6days, it's just sad.

Caino.... You were asked to provide a clear example of a contradiction. After asking you 4 times for the best example possible..... You did give your best shot at it. Thanks.
However, as I showed you, your very best example is certainly not clear. There is a good logical explanation to the verses you suggested.
As a follower of Christ, I believe His Word is God breathed... divinely inspired.... inerrant. Almost always, as in your example, His Word is not difficult to understand. His Word is not contradictory.

 

[Greg Jennings]

70,000 yr is even quite a stretch.... Anyways, its interesting that soft dino tissue dates about 30,000 year which is consistent with expectations in the creation/ flood model. We don't know what the c14 / c12 ratios were before the flood but all plant life being destroyed 4500 year ago would change ratios.

I agree with you that 70,000 is likely a stretch. Most people would likely tell you not to date objects with that method beyond 50,000 years, though some say up to 70,000.

Explain to me how supposed 30,000 year old dinosaur tissue supports a 6000 year old Earth? Even if there was no explanation for the soft tissue (which there is I trust you know), how does a dinosaur from 24,000 years before the creation of the universe support you?

And why would a flood change C-14 levels?