Which came first? plants or animals?

[PsychoSarah]

They do that with science all the time. Are you saying science is illogical?

You would be incorrect, the nature of science isn't to accept anything as fact without a great amount of evidence. And even then, there is always some doubt, the nature of science is to learn, but it isn't to know everything for certain, because in many cases that is impossible.

And just because some people treat it differently doesn't make it so.

 

[AV1611VET]

I wish you would go.

In view of the fact that I am the OP, perhaps if one of us went, it would be you doing the honors?

 

[KWCrazy]

Now you may have not know that you have used a lying source,

Every source that proclaims there is no God is a lying source. Every source that claims man evolved from simpler life forms is a lying source. Every source that proclaims the word of God to be mythology is a lying source. Every source that denies the creation of the universe by God is a lying source. There is only one pure source of truth, and that is NOT talkorigins.org.

 

[Riberra]

Now you may have not know that you have used a lying source, .... I am sure you have been told of this tendency of creationist sites to lie by quote mining in the past.

In the future you just need to represent this simple rule. Any time any creationist quotes a scientist who you would think would support evolution and the quote makes it look like the person said something to the opposite, if there is no link given to the scientist's original unedited statement then until proven otherwise that source did quote mine.

You will find this to be the case over 99% of the time.

What about debunking sites doing this very same thing?
Don't you notice that this debunking site have willingly changed the access to a link to the original article they try to "debunk"?
Young Earth Creationist Weds Three Sisters

Link provided by the debunking site above
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i2/sisters.asp
Page Not Found


Here the original article:
Three Sisters: evidence for Noah's Flood - creation.com

The reply by creation.com about the debunking article:
http://creation.com/the-three-sisters-strong-evidence-for-noahs-flood-in-australia

 

[Subduction Zone]

What about debunking sites doing this very same thing?
Don't you notice that this debunking site have willingly changed the access to a link to the original article they try to "debunk"?
Young Earth Creationist Weds Three Sisters

Link provided by the debunking site above
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i2/sisters.asp
Page Not Found


Here the original article:
Three Sisters: evidence for Noah's Flood - creation.com

The reply by creation.com about the debunking article:
The Three Sisters: strong evidence for Noah's Flood in Australia - creation.com

You have that backwards. The reply article was not to that article that I originally linked. It was a reply to a letter to the editor. I had to link that too.


And your site showed that they were a lying site once again. They did not provide a link to the letter to the editor that they were trying to debunk. That makes their whole post simply quote mining and therefore bogus.

The article that you linked tried to link the article, something went wrong. Perhaps AiG changed its title or moved it. Perhaps the writer of the debunking article made a mistake in his link. Who knows? The AiG people did not even try to link either the original article or the letter to the editor.

 

[Riberra]

You have that backwards. The reply article was not to that article that I originally linked. It was a reply to a letter to the editor. I had to link that too.


And your site showed that they were a lying site once again. They did not provide a link to the letter to the editor that they were trying to debunk. That makes their whole post simply quote mining and therefore bogus.

The reply to the debunking article is words for words about what is written in the debunking article you provided
Debunking article you provided:
Young Earth Creationist Weds Three Sisters

Reply by creation.com to the debunking article you provided:
The Three Sisters: strong evidence for Noah's Flood in Australia - creation.com

 

[Subduction Zone]

The reply to the debunking article is words for words about what is written in the debunking article you provided
Debunking article you provided:
Young Earth Creationist Weds Three Sisters

Reply by creation.com to the debunking article you provided:
The Three Sisters: strong evidence for Noah's Flood in Australia - creation.com

Here, let's look at your creation.com site and see what they got wrong.

Tell me if I got anything wrong.

They start out with:

An article in the journal of the Australian Skeptics has sought to refute a creationist claim that the Three Sisters formed during Noah’s Flood.

It was not an article. It was simply a letter to the editor. I don't think letters to the editor can have links so we will let the letter writer off the hook for that one, agreed?

 

[Riberra]

Here, let's look at your creation.com site and see what they got wrong.

Tell me if I got anything wrong.

They start out with:



It was not an article. It was simply a letter to the editor. I don't think letters to the editor can have links so we will let the letter writer off the hook for that one, agreed?

Agreed, but obviously this is [FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times][FONT=book antiqua, times new roman, times]Paul Blake[/FONT][/FONT]'s article which creation.com is talking about.And this is that article by Paul Blake that your debunking site have presented.
Agreed?
Debunking site:
Young Earth Creationist Weds Three Sisters

creation.com reply to Paul Blake's article presented in the debunking site...
The Three Sisters: strong evidence for Noah's Flood in Australia - creation.com

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hmmm, I am getting very suspicious.

Originally in the AiG article I used the credits to help me search and I found a letter to the editor using their description. Now it seems the description is changed and I am coming up with a link to the original article.

I will have to look into this some more.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Agreed, but obviously this is [FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times][FONT=book antiqua, times new roman, times]Paul Blake[/FONT][/FONT]'s article which creation.com is talking about.And this is that article by Paul Blake that your debunking site have presented.
Agreed?
Debunking site:
Young Earth Creationist Weds Three Sisters

Not quite yet. Seem my previous post.

 

[Riberra]

Hmmm, I am getting very suspicious.

Originally in the AiG article

Creation.com is not AiG.

Here the original article:
Three Sisters: evidence for Noah's Flood - creation.com

 

[EternalDragon]

You would be incorrect, the nature of science isn't to accept anything as fact without a great amount of evidence. And even then, there is always some doubt, the nature of science is to learn, but it isn't to know everything for certain, because in many cases that is impossible.

And just because some people treat it differently doesn't make it so.

I disagree. There is an awful lot of science that involves hypothetical ideas that get treated as fact on scant evidence. Much of the so called evidence is actually an interpretation of said evidence.

Like the flagellum. You can talk about how it may have come about naturally, all day long but until you actually have evidence that it can do so, the idea that it was designed by an ID is an equally valid conclusion based on current evidence. This also applies to many, many things that we can't observe or repeat anymore.

 

[Sayre]

I disagree. There is an awful lot of science that involves hypothetical ideas that get treated as fact on scant evidence. Much of the so called evidence is actually an interpretation of said evidence.

Like the flagellum. You can talk about how it may have come about naturally, all day long but until you actually have evidence that it can do so, the idea that it was designed by an ID is an equally valid conclusion based on current evidence. This also applies to many, many things that we can't observe or repeat anymore.

God of the gaps, then? "In the absence of evidence to the contrary, God did it".

 

[USincognito]

Creation.com is not AiG.

There really isn't that much of a difference between the two. Creation.com articles tend to be a little longer, that's all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I disagree. There is an awful lot of science that involves hypothetical ideas that get treated as fact on scant evidence. Much of the so called evidence is actually an interpretation of said evidence.

Like the flagellum. You can talk about how it may have come about naturally, all day long but until you actually have evidence that it can do so, the idea that it was designed by an ID is an equally valid conclusion based on current evidence. This also applies to many, many things that we can't observe or repeat anymore.

As usual you have no idea what you are talking about.

The bacterial flagellum is old news. It is very well understood now. Behe had a false claim that its evolution could not be explained.

This video simplifies the evolution grossly:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w&list=PLF626DD5B2C1F0A87

It is still correct.

If that is not good enough for you it was based upon this paper:

It is just a tad bit longer, and it is supported by over 200 peer reviewed scientific articles about 2/3 of which have links.

Have fun:

Evolution of the bacterial flagellum

 

[PsychoSarah]

I disagree. There is an awful lot of science that involves hypothetical ideas that get treated as fact on scant evidence. Much of the so called evidence is actually an interpretation of said evidence.

Like the flagellum. You can talk about how it may have come about naturally, all day long but until you actually have evidence that it can do so, the idea that it was designed by an ID is an equally valid conclusion based on current evidence. This also applies to many, many things that we can't observe or repeat anymore.

It gets treated as fact in comparison to claims that have no evidence or extremely limited evidence to back them. In science, the theory with the most and best evidence to support it will be viewed as more likely than one with far less evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

It gets treated as fact in comparison to claims that have no evidence or extremely limited evidence to back them. In science, the theory with the most and best evidence to support it will be viewed as more likely than one with far less evidence.

What about weight of evidence?

Can one model of something be supported by less evidence, but that evidence carries more weight than some other model?

 

[PsychoSarah]

What about weight of evidence?

Can one model of something be supported by less evidence, but that evidence carries more weight than some other model?

It can indeed AV, but the bible wouldn't be considered evidence with that kind of weight when it clashes so much with the observed world. Both quality and quantity of evidence matters.

 

[EternalDragon]

It gets treated as fact in comparison to claims that have no evidence or extremely limited evidence to back them. In science, the theory with the most and best evidence to support it will be viewed as more likely than one with far less evidence.

Well then, take some parts of the evolution theory then that are supported only by similarities. Yet are touted by scientists and others here on this forum as being solid fact.

The creationist would contend that ID theory or creationism has direct eyewitness evidence, direct from the creating force. (As well as scientific evidence.) It would be like me being the sole witness to a car crash. You could try to recreate what happened and get some of it right but my report would be the most accurate, combined with the aftermath evidence.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Well then, take some parts of the evolution theory then that are supported only by similarities. Yet are touted by scientists and others here on this forum as being solid fact.

The creationist would contend that ID theory or creationism has direct eyewitness evidence, direct from the creating force. (As well as scientific evidence.) It would be like me being the sole witness to a car crash. You could try to recreate what happened and get some of it right but my report would be the most accurate, combined with the aftermath evidence.

Eyewitness testimony, especially when it is from way back in the past, is some of the least reliable evidence for anything you can get. And you can't even prove that eyewitnesses to any biblical even wrote in the bible, and only one book of the bible is a decent candidate for that claim (in a ghost writing sort of way), so you don't actually have even eyewitness testimony.