What is the positive evidence FOR creationism?

[Subduction Zone]

please study this. Think about it. It'll help you understand scientific evidence.

Yes, I understand that. You don't. I can help you with your lack.

 

[justlookinla]

Yes, I understand that. You don't. I can help you with your lack.

If you understood it, you wouldn't keep going on about evidence. Take what evidence you think you have (unseen so far), filter it through the scientific method (refer back to the graph if needed) and then post it here.

 

[Black Dog]

That's certainly one view of evolution but it's not the only view of evolution. There's view of evolution which produced pine trees and humanity through a theistic process and then there's a view of evolution which produced pine trees and humans through an entirely naturalistic process. Some views of evolution are based on the scientific method, other views of evolution are based on guesses and suppositions (Darwinism).

Yes there is the view that evolution was produced through magic, or a magic man, or a magic turtle, or a magic bird, or magic something, or Santa Claus. These have no evidence. The Theory of Evolution on the other hand has overwhelming evidential support. Again, you clearly lack even a rudimentary knowledge of the TOE.

It is rather pointless having this discussion about the TOE when you clearly don't understand it. Until you can show at least a basic understanding, I don't see the point of continuing this conversation.

 

[justlookinla]

Yes there is the view that evolution was produced through magic, or a magic man, or a magic turtle, or a magic bird, or magic something, or Santa Claus. These have no evidence. The Theory of Evolution on the other hand has overwhelming evidential support. Again, you clearly lack even a rudimentary knowledge of the TOE.

No, there is no evidence, based on the scientific method, for the faith-based view of Darwinist evolution producing pine trees and humans from the same life form by only naturalistic processes acting on this alleged (unknown) life form of long ago.

It is rather pointless having this discussion about the TOE when you clearly don't understand it. Until you can show at least a basic understanding, I don't see the point of continuing this conversation.

You're still not identifying which of the several views of evolution you're attempting to present as a valid view. So far, you've attempted to equate medical experimentation with the Darwinist faith-based evolutionary view, but you've completely failed to offer anything of substance to support that view.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you understood it, you wouldn't keep going on about evidence. Take what evidence you think you have (unseen so far), filter it through the scientific method (refer back to the graph if needed) and then post it here.

The evidence that exists for the theory of evolution has been thoroughly sifted through the scientific method. You sadly have no clue as to what is and what is not evidence. I have offered to help you countless times, but the mere thought of evidence seems to scare the pants off of you. Do you have any other explanation for your fearful running away?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, there is no evidence, based on the scientific method, for the faith-based view of Darwinist evolution producing pine trees and humans from the same life form by only naturalistic processes acting on this alleged (unknown) life form of long ago.



You're still not identifying which of the several views of evolution you're attempting to present as a valid view. So far, you've attempted to equate medical experimentation with the Darwinist faith-based evolutionary view, but you've completely failed to offer anything of substance to support that view.

Poor justlook. All he has is that one line.

 

[justlookinla]

The evidence that exists for the theory of evolution has been thoroughly sifted through the scientific method.

No evidence, based on the scientific method, exists for the form of evolution which claims that pine trees and humans were produced by entirely naturalistic processes acting on an alleged single life form of long ago.

You sadly have no clue as to what is and what is not evidence.

Filter the alleged evidence through this process. See if it passes the scientific method test.

I have offered to help you countless times, but the mere thought of evidence seems to scare the pants off of you. Do you have any other explanation for your fearful running away?

I'm giving you a simple graphic, a picture to study, of the scientific method. Have you compared your evidence (hereunto invisible) to see if it passes the scientific method test or are you simply making your usual baseless claims?

Give us just one example of the evidence you claim to have which passes the scientific method test. Just one.

 

[justlookinla]

Poor justlook. All he has is that one line.

Poor Darwinism, that one line is an insurmountable problem for their faith-based views.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No evidence, based on the scientific method, exists for the form of evolution which claims that pine trees and humans were produced by entirely naturalistic processes acting on an alleged single life form of long ago.



Filter the alleged evidence through this process. See if it passes the scientific method test.

I'm giving you a simple graphic, a picture to study, of the scientific method. Have you compared your evidence (hereunto invisible) to see if it passes the scientific method test or are you simply making your usual baseless claims?

Give us just one example of the evidence you claim to have which passes the scientific method test. Just one.

It already has been. And once you learn what evidence is I will gladly follow through with your request. I brought up your inability to understand evidence long before you put any demands upon me. So are you just full of hot air? I am betting on that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Poor Darwinism, that one line is an insurmountable problem for their faith-based views.

Nope, no matter how many times you repeat this foolish claim you will not be right. Why do you think that judges, experts on evidence, can all see that evolution is supported by evidence and your poor beliefs are not? That is why it is illegal to teach creationism in schools and perfectly legal to teach evolution.

 

[justlookinla]

It already has been.

When? Where? Post number?

And once you learn what evidence is I will gladly follow through with your request. I brought up your inability to understand evidence long before you put any demands upon me. So are you just full of hot air? I am betting on that.

I'm betting you're not going to offer the evidence you claim to have and confirmed, or dismissed, by the scientific method. That's because it doesn't exist, you simply say that you have it but never reveal it. Nobody takes you seriously anymore.

 

[justlookinla]

Nope, no matter how many times you repeat this foolish claim you will not be right. Why do you think that judges, experts on evidence, can all see that evolution is supported by evidence and your poor beliefs are not? That is why it is illegal to teach creationism in schools and perfectly legal to teach evolution.

Why doesn't anyone offer the evidence, based on the scientific method, for the process?

 

[Subduction Zone]

When? Where? Post number?

Years ago. I am not going to go mining for you.

I'm betting you're not going to offer the evidence you claim to have and confirmed, or dismissed, by the scientific method. That's because it doesn't exist, you simply say that you have it but never reveal it. Nobody takes you seriously anymore.

How would you know? You have been scared to death from the start. And no, even you take me seriously. If you didn't you would not be so afraid.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why doesn't anyone offer the evidence, based on the scientific method, for the process?

It has been offered. You have denied it. Either through your ignorance or dishonesty. Sadly creationists will keep themselves from learning. It is the only defense mechanism that most of them have.

 

[justlookinla]

Years ago. I am not going to go mining for you.

You don't have it handy? Your claim is totally meaningless without you actually offering evidence......based on the scientific method.

Anyone can make any claim....that's not evidence....based on the scientific method.

How would you know? You have been scared to death from the start. And no, even you take me seriously. If you didn't you would not be so afraid.

I'm trying to help you. Simply study the graphic about the scientific process. Compare it to your evidence and see if it passes the scientific evidence test for you.

Tell you what, I'm willing to help you determine if your alleged evidence (invisible so far) passes the test. Post it and we'll go through the validation process together.

Deal?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You don't have it handy? Your claim is totally meaningless without you actually offering evidence......based on the scientific method.

Anyone can make any claim....that's not evidence....based on the scientific method.

[

Yes, but I know what is true, I don't have to lie since I am not a creationist.

I'm trying to help you. Simply study the graphic about the scientific process. Compare it to your evidence and see if it passes the scientific evidence test for you.

Tell you what, I'm willing to help you determine if your alleged evidence (invisible so far) passes the test. Post it and we'll go through the validation process together.

Deal?

Please don't be a rude fool. I politely offered to help you so that others would not laugh at you so much and instead all you return is ignorance, cowardice and rudeness.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

[

Yes, but I know what is true, I don't have to lie since I am not a creationist.

Been down the rabbit hole with this poster before. All you'll get is argument ad-nauseam about the scientific method without them demonstrating they know how it works. I'm guessing but they may know they are deliberately being dishonest and think if they repeat what they hope is true over and over that it will become true and you'll be convinced. You politely offered to help them understand. Nothing more you can really do if they are unwilling to learn.

 

[AV1611VET]

Been down the rabbit hole with this poster before. All you'll get is argument ad-nauseam about the scientific method without them demonstrating they know how it works. I'm guessing but they may know they are deliberately being dishonest and think if they repeat what they hope is true over and over that it will become true and you'll be convinced. You politely offered to help them understand. Nothing more you can really do if they are unwilling to learn.

QV please:

There is no single list called "The Scientific Method." It is a myth.


The rules of a science-fair typically require that students follow THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, or in other words, hypothesis-experiment-conclusion. The students must propose a hypothesis and test it by experiment. This supposedly is the "Scientific Method" used by all scientists. Supposedly, if you don't follow the rigidly defined "Scientific Method" listed in K-6 textbooks, then you're not doing science. (Some science fairs even ban astronomy and paleontology projects. After all, where's the "experiment" in these?)

Unfortunately this is wrong, and there is no single "Scientific Method" as such. Scientists don't follow a rigid procedure-list called "The Scientific Method" in their daily work. The procedure-list is a myth spread by K-6 texts. It is an extremely widespread myth, and even some scientists have been taken in by it, but this doesn't make it any more real. "The Scientific Method" is part of school and school books, and is not how science in general is done. Real scientists use a large variety of methods (perhaps call them methods of science rather than "The Scientific Method.") Hypothesis / experiment / conclusion is one of these, and it's very important in experimental science such as physics and chemistry, but it's certainly not the only method. It would be a mistake to elevate it above all others. We shouldn't force children to memorize any such procedure list. And we shouldn't use it to exclude certain types of projects from science fairs! If "The Scientific Method" listed in a grade school textbook proves that Astronomy is not a science, then it's the textbook which is wrong, not Astronomy.

"Ask a scientist what he conceives the scientific method to be and he adopts an expression that is at once solemn and shifty-eyed: solemn, because he feels he ought to declare an opinion; shifty-eyed because he is wondering how to conceal the fact that he has no opinion to declare." - Sir Peter Medawar
There are many parts of science that cannot easily be forced into the mold of "hypothesis-experiment-conclusion." Astronomy is not an experimental science, and Paleontologists don't perform Paleontology experiments... so is it not proper Science if you study stars or classify extinct creatures?


Or, if a scientist has a good idea for designing a brand new kind of measurement instrument (e.g. Newton and the reflecting telescope) ...that certainly is "doing science." Humphrey Davy says "Nothing tends so much to the advancement of knowledge as the application of a new instrument." But where is The Hypothesis? Where is The Experiment? The Atomic Force Microscope (STM/AFM) revolutionized science. Yet if a student invented the very first reflector telescope or the very first AFM, wouldn't such a device be rejected from many school science fairs? After all, it's not an experiment, and the lists called "Scientific Method" say nothing about exploratory observation. Some science teachers would reject the STM as science; calling it 'mere engineering,' yet like the Newtonian reflector, the tunneling microscope is a revolution that opened up an entire new branch of science. Since it's instrument-inventing, not hypothesis-testing, should we exclude it as science? Were the creators of the STM not doing science when they came up with that device? In defining Science, the Nobel prize committee disagrees with the science teachers and science fair judges. The researchers who created the STM won the 1986 Nobel prize in physics. I'd say that if someone wins a Nobel prize in physics, it's a good bet that their work qualifies as "science."

Forcing kids to follow a caricature of scientific research distorts science, and it really isn't necessary in the first place.

Another example: great discoveries often come about when scientists notice anomalies. They see something inexplicable during older research, and that triggers some new research. Or sometimes they notice something weird out in Nature; something not covered by modern theory. Isaac Asimov said it well:
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny...' "
This suggests that lots of important science comes NOT from proposing hypotheses or even from performing experiments, but instead comes from unguided observation and curiosity-driven exploration: from sniffing about while learning to see what nobody else can see. Scientific discovery comes from something resembling "informed messing around," or unguided play. Yet the "Scientific Method" listed in textbooks says nothing about this, their lists start out with "form a hypothesis." As a result, educators treat science as deadly serious business, and "messing around" is sometimes dealt with harshly.

74

 

[Subduction Zone]

Been down the rabbit hole with this poster before. All you'll get is argument ad-nauseam about the scientific method without them demonstrating they know how it works. I'm guessing but they may know they are deliberately being dishonest and think if they repeat what they hope is true over and over that it will become true and you'll be convinced. You politely offered to help them understand. Nothing more you can really do if they are unwilling to learn.

Same here. I took a break from here and he has not changed on iota in the time that I was gone.

 

[Subduction Zone]

QV please:74

Yes, there is no one single "scientific method". But scientific evidence is well defined. justlook knows that he is wrong, but for some reason he seems to think that misleading people about the fact that evolution is a fact will somehow make Christianity safe from evolution. Christianity does not need the false stories of Genesis. It get's along fine if those are merely treated as morality tales.