Why doesnt creationism need any data?

[AV1611VET]

Macroevolution is an unobserved phenomenon, being passed off as a legitimate science.

Leave the science to us... reject it if you like, but don't tell us what is "legitimate" science, thank you very much.

Please feel free to highlight the word(s) in my post that is/are wrong.

 

[Split Rock]

I don't believe life spontaneously generated from nothing.

Neither do I.

I don't believe that all matter in the universe was squeezed into a walnut and then the big bang happened.

Neither do I.

I don't believe the earth is held up by an elephant standing on a turtle.

Neither do I.

Whatever is the point you are trying to make?

People believe the theory of evolution without knowing anything about it.

Probably true.

I disbelieve the theory of evolution, and I know something about it.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

I'm waiting for a better theory.

Hope you're not holding your breath, my friend.

Science is about forming hypotheses, and then testing those hypotheses.
Since the origin of species already happened, by whatever mechanism you accept, the hypothesis can't be tested.

So evolutionism is not science.
It is a belief system.

Wrong. Plenty of hypotheses can be tested concerning the origin of species. We can test them on speciation today, as well as the effects of speciation that occured in the past. A good example is the hypothesis that closely related species will have very similar genetic sequences. This is still being tested today, with more and more genomes being sequenced. Also, I don't know what "evolutionism" is, as I do not myself subscribe to "evolutionism."

 

[Timothew]

Leave the science to us...

So you are saying that christians such as Isaac Newton should just stay out of science?

 

[Loudmouth]

Science is about forming hypotheses, and then testing those hypotheses.
Since the origin of species already happened, by whatever mechanism you accept, the hypothesis can't be tested.

The hypothesis is that Darwinian mechanisms are responsible for the origin of species. To test that theory, you look at evidence in the present that was produced by events in the past. This includes fossils and DNA in modern species that was inherited from previous generations.

So evolutionism is not science.

Really? Then please show me which step is not part of the scientific method.

Hypothesis: Chimps and humans share a common ancestor and the differences in our genome were produced by Darwinian mechanisms.

Test: We compare the genomes of chimps and humans. If we share a common ancestor then we should find tons of ERV's at the same location in each genome. On top of that, we should see divergence of LTR's within those ERV's consistent with random mutations that have filtered through neutral selection (the Darwinian mechanisms).

Findings: Chimps and humans share more than 200,000 ERV's at the same location in our genomes. On top of that, LTR divergence is consistent with the accumulation of random mutations and neutral selection, especially when compared to other ape species.

Conclusion: Humans and chimps share a common ancestor, and there are clear fingerprints of Darwinian mechanisms in the differences between our genomes.

It is a belief system.

Nope. It is a testable scientific theory based on moutains of evidence. No belief is necessary.

 

[Split Rock]

Please feel free to highlight the word(s) in my post that is/are wrong.

Let's play more word games! How about this one:

Christianity is based on an unobserved god and is being passed off as a legitimate religion.

Now you pretend that you agree with that statement, and there are no negative implications.

 

[Split Rock]

So you are saying that christians such as Isaac Newton should just stay out of science?

Are you seriously asking me if a rotted corpse should stay out of science??? Is that really the only response you can come up with to my replies to your posts here?

 

[Loudmouth]

So you are saying that christians such as Isaac Newton should just stay out of science?

Which one of his laws and/or theories requires the direct input of God? Do you have to add in a god factor when calculating the gravitational attraction between two bodies?

 

[Timothew]

Neither do I.



Neither do I.





Neither do I.

Whatever is the point you are trying to make?


Probably true.



A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.


Hope you're not holding your breath, my friend.



Wrong. Plenty of hypotheses can be tested concerning the origin of species. We can test them on speciation today, as well as the effects of speciation that occured in the past. A good example is the hypothesis that closely related species will have very similar genetic sequences. This is still being tested today, with more and more genomes being sequenced. Also, I don't know what "evolutionism" is, as I do not myself subscribe to "evolutionism."

The fact is that I don't care what you believe.
I'm just telling you what I don't believe.
The turtle thing is just one more thing I don't believe without proof.
Anyone can claim "It's turtles all the way down". Until it's proven, let me be.
Anyone can claim the species originated by natural slelection. Don't think I'm ignorant because I'm waiting for proof.

Believe what you want. I don't care. I won't mock you, and I expect that you won't mock me. You say "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". But I'm expected to believe a theory based on very little knowledge. No thanks, don't hold your breath.

 

[Timothew]

Which one of his laws and/or theories requires the direct input of God? Do you have to add in a god factor when calculating the gravitational attraction between two bodies?

No, but he should not be disqualifed from science because he believed in god. You would, because you arrogantly said "Leave the science to us."

Where would we be without gravity?

 

[Timothew]

Is that really the only response you can come up with to my replies to your posts here?

Obviously not! Since that was not my only response.
Are you really sure that you are a scientist? Your thinking seems to be a little muddled.

 

[Loudmouth]

Anyone can claim the species originated by natural slelection. Don't think I'm ignorant because I'm waiting for proof.

We have gone one step further. We have predicted what evidence you should and should not find in the present if species originated through Darwinian mechanisms in the past. That is what makes the theory of evolution scientific, and scientists accept the theory because those predictions have been observed time and again.

But I'm expected to believe a theory based on very little knowledge.

Your lack of knowledge is your problem. Your refusal to accept theories you are ignorant of is also your problem. You even have a serious problem understanding how the scientific method works, and yet you think you are qualified to tell us what is and isn't scientific.

 

[cubinity]

God is not a required addition, but an aesthetic one.

In my wallet, I carry a picture of my wife because, on occasion, I like looking at her.

Her presence in my wallet doesn't serve even the slightest practical purpose related to my wallet.

But, I just wouldn't be comfortable without her being in their staring back at me.

Inserting God into the physical history of the world makes me feel more comfortable, too.

 

[Zoooma]

Interesting looking thread! Wish I could add something now. Mayhaps later

 

[AV1611VET]

Macroevolution is an unobserved phenomenon, being passed off as a legitimate science.

Leave the science to us... reject it if you like, but don't tell us what is "legitimate" science, thank you very much.

Please feel free to highlight the word(s) in my post that is/are wrong.

Christianity is based on an unobserved god and is being passed off as a legitimate religion.

Leave the Christianity to us... reject it if you like, but don't tell us what is "legitimate" Christianity, thank you very much.

(That should complete this palindrome -- )

 

[Loudmouth]

No, but he should not be disqualifed from science because he believed in god.

I agree. When it comes down to it, religious beliefs are completely superfluous to science. They are irrelevant. None of Newton's findings require a belief in God. None of his equations require the input of a supernatural deity. None of his laws involve God whatsoever.

However, as soon as your theory requires an unevidenced supernatural miracle then it isn't science. This is exactly what we see in creationism.

 

[Timothew]

We have gone one step further. We have predicted what evidence you should and should not find in the present if species originated through Darwinian mechanisms in the past. That is what makes the theory of evolution scientific, and scientists accept the theory because those predictions have been observed time and again.



Your lack of knowledge is your problem. Your refusal to accept theories you are ignorant of is also your problem. You even have a serious problem understanding how the scientific method works, and yet you think you are qualified to tell us what is and isn't scientific.

I'm terribly sorry but your claim that I am ignorant about the theory of evolution is false.

I am not saying creationism is true or false.
I reject the theory of evolution because the claims have not been proven, and because I've read falsehoods in the textbooks supporting evolution. Haeckel's Law was proven false, and he falsified the data. But Haeckel's Law was still in the textbooks when I was studying the TOE.
Why should I believe someone who is more than willing to lie to me?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Leave the Christianity to us... reject it if you like, but don't tell us what is "legitimate" Christianity, thank you very much.

(That should complete this palindrome -- )

Ya think
Check out this thread

http://www.christianforums.com/t7591127/#post58515819
Forest Gump

 

[SkyWriting]

Originally Posted by Loudmouth We have gone one step further. We have predicted what evidence you should and should not find in the present if species originated through Darwinian mechanisms in the past. That is what makes the theory of evolution scientific, and scientists accept the theory because those predictions have been observed time and again. Your lack of knowledge is your problem. Your refusal to accept theories you are ignorant of is also your problem. You even have a serious problem understanding how the scientific method works, and yet you think you are qualified to tell us what is and isn't scientific.

I'm terribly sorry but your claim that I am ignorant about the theory of evolution is false. I am not saying creationism is true or false. I reject the theory of evolution because the claims have not been proven, and because I've read falsehoods in the textbooks supporting evolution. Haeckel's Law was proven false, and he falsified the data. But Haeckel's Law was still in the textbooks when I was studying the TOE. Why should I believe someone who is more than willing to lie to me?

My experience as well.

and yet you think you are qualified to tell us what is and isn't scientific.

That task belong to every person. We just need to speak up.
Or look it up.

The steps of the scientific method are to:

• Ask a Question
• Do Background Research
• Construct a Hypothesis
• Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
• Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
• Communicate Your Results

• (Insist that anything else is not Science)
  

Steps of the Scientific Method

 

[SkyWriting]

I agree. When it comes down to it, religious beliefs are completely superfluous to science. They are irrelevant. None of Newton's findings require a belief in God. None of his equations require the input of a supernatural deity. None of his laws involve God whatsoever.

However, as soon as your theory requires an unevidenced supernatural miracle then it isn't science. This is exactly what we see in creationism.

Science has nothing to do with Creation.
Steps of the Scientific Method

 

[lanie_0913]

None has ever been presented to support it.

im curious why the believers dont need any.

They'd surely need some before investing in a get rich scheme.

Or if they are told their kid committed a crime.

Or that the roof needs replacing.

Why not for creationism?

I have not much knowledge in these things but for me there's just one thing...
If you believe what the Bible is saying...
I mean believing without seeing...
believing without hearing...
believing without counting...
You just believe... that's Faith

If you'll know the depths of every little thing in this world, you might also want to know how may hair you have right now, or how many hair you've lost in the past 10 years...

There are things that need no explaining... because your heart will tell you that those things are true...

We do not know How God counts his 7 days... maybe 1 day for Him is 10Gazillion years of ours...
Don't worry dear when I finally see God I'll ask Him and I'll tell Him to whisper to you the answer to your query!