Can Creationism Interpret Evidence?

[PsychoSarah]

As viewed by creationists, creationism is unfalsifiable. It can't be wrong, no matter what the evidence is. That's why it isn't an interpretation.



It is the creationists who are saying that evolution is incompatible with creationism.

I already named a way that biblical creationism couldn't be reconciled: if humans weren't the most intelligent creature on earth. So, there are definitely observations so incompatible with it as to not be reconcilable.

Not all creationists say that. What of moderates that disagree with abiogenesis but not evolution?

 

[Loudmouth]

I already named a way that biblical creationism couldn't be reconciled: if humans weren't the most intelligent creature on earth. So, there are definitely observations so incompatible with it as to not be reconcilable.

As we have seen elsewhere, we would have creationists claiming that they were angels or other such nonsense. There are a myriad of ways of finding agreement between any observation and creationism.

Not all creationists say that.

The ones who say that evolution is false, and that creationism is just another interpretation of the data, do say those things. That is who I am addressing with this topic (which we should get back to).

What of moderates that disagree with abiogenesis but not evolution?

They wouldn't be creationists.

 

[PsychoSarah]

They wouldn't be creationists.

Sure they would: deity creates life; the process of evolution shapes that life.

 

[PsychoSarah]

and you know I am just doing this as a personal whim and that I am defending a position I disagree with.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yes - let us see who is right. Let's see who accepts the empirical data and who ignores it.

Asian mates with Asian and produces only Asian. African mates with African and produces only African.

Husky mates with Husky and produces only Husky. Mastiff mates with Mastiff and produces only Mastiff.

Yet when Asian mates with African we observe variation in the species (Afro-Asian). When Husky mates with Mastiff we observe variation within the species (Chinook).

Now evolutionist's want us to believe that the Asian or the African evolved into the Afro-Asian and the Husky or the Mastiff evolved into the Chinook far in the past with other species. They want us to believe in direct opposition to the empirical data that one thing became two new things - when all observational evidence shows it takes two separate things to create something new.

I now predict that not one single piece of scientific data will be presented to refute this - but only unsubstantiated claims that it happened differently in the past and ad-hominem attacks will begin because not one single evolutionist can refute the empirical observations with scientific evidence or empirical observations.

The ignoring of the data in favor of ad-hoc hypothesis will now begin. This is what I predict. And I have confidence my prediction will be validated in every post in response by every single evolutionist.

 

[bhsmte]

Ah, but as I said, the ignorance of the person using the theory doesn't make the theory wrong, it makes it used incorrectly. It wouldn't matter if everyone that used the theory was using it wrong; it wouldn't make the theory wrong.

Don't act like evolution as a theory is not prone to misuse, even by those that advocate it

What do you think is required to make a theory likely to be correct?

 

[AV1611VET]

We often hear that creationism is just a different interpretation of the evidence. It is my contention that creationists don't interpret the data at all.

What data?

Let's see who is right.

Sounds to me like you're both wrong.

Creationism didn't leave any evidence behind, because creationism didn't generate any evidence.

 

[sfs]

Yes - let us see who is right. Let's see who accepts the empirical data and who ignores it.

Asian mates with Asian and produces only Asian. African mates with African and produces only African.

Husky mates with Husky and produces only Husky. Mastiff mates with Mastiff and produces only Mastiff.

Yet when Asian mates with African we observe variation in the species (Afro-Asian). When Husky mates with Mastiff we observe variation within the species (Chinook).

Now evolutionist's want us to believe that the Asian or the African evolved into the Afro-Asian and the Husky or the Mastiff evolved into the Chinook far in the past with other species. They want us to believe in direct opposition to the empirical data that one thing became two new things - when all observational evidence shows it takes two separate things to create something new.

I now predict that not one single piece of scientific data will be presented to refute this - but only unsubstantiated claims that it happened differently in the past and ad-hominem attacks will begin because not one single evolutionist can refute the empirical observations with scientific evidence or empirical observations.

The ignoring of the data in favor of ad-hoc hypothesis will now begin. This is what I predict. And I have confidence my prediction will be validated in every post in response by every single evolutionist.

Hey Justa, what scientists won the Nobel Prize for showing that the Milky Way was the entire universe? I predict you won't be able to name one, even though you said they did.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Yes - let us see who is right. Let's see who accepts the empirical data and who ignores it.

Asian mates with Asian and produces only Asian. African mates with African and produces only African.

Husky mates with Husky and produces only Husky. Mastiff mates with Mastiff and produces only Mastiff.

Yet when Asian mates with African we observe variation in the species (Afro-Asian). When Husky mates with Mastiff we observe variation within the species (Chinook).

Now evolutionist's want us to believe that the Asian or the African evolved into the Afro-Asian and the Husky or the Mastiff evolved into the Chinook far in the past with other species. They want us to believe in direct opposition to the empirical data that one thing became two new things - when all observational evidence shows it takes two separate things to create something new.

I now predict that not one single piece of scientific data will be presented to refute this - but only unsubstantiated claims that it happened differently in the past and ad-hominem attacks will begin because not one single evolutionist can refute the empirical observations with scientific evidence or empirical observations.

The ignoring of the data in favor of ad-hoc hypothesis will now begin. This is what I predict. And I have confidence my prediction will be validated in every post in response by every single evolutionist.

Sir, I would like to inform you that people associated with different races and regions have so little genetic difference between them, that to suggest that Asian people and African people are somehow different subspecies of human is indisputably incorrect. Be careful not to bring up 1920's ideas like that, least you unintentionally sound racist.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Sir, I would like to inform you that people associated with different races and regions have so little genetic difference between them, that to suggest that Asian people and African people are somehow different subspecies of human is indisputably incorrect. Be careful not to bring up 1920's ideas like that, least you unintentionally sound racist.

And sir - I would like to inform you that dogs associated with different breeds and regions have so little genetic difference between them, that to suggest that Husky dogs and Mastiff dogs are somehow different subspecies of canine is indisputably incorrect. Be careful not to bring up 1920's ideas like that, least you unintentionally sound racist.

Ahhh - but it's ok to be raciest as long as it isn't humans we are discussing right? Even if we are just animals????? Your argument is a two-way street - not a on-way boulevard.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Hey Justa, what scientists won the Nobel Prize for showing that the Milky Way was the entire universe? I predict you won't be able to name one, even though you said they did.

Strawman - since E neither received a Nobel for Special Relativity nor General Relativity, yet you accept them. So we can discard them since no Nobel was awarded according to your strawman??? Oh, now suddenly it's different, right????

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Let me repeat since avoidance is the strawman of the day.

Yes - let us see who is right. Let's see who accepts the empirical data and who ignores it.

Asian mates with Asian and produces only Asian. African mates with African and produces only African.

Husky mates with Husky and produces only Husky. Mastiff mates with Mastiff and produces only Mastiff.

Yet when Asian mates with African we observe variation in the species (Afro-Asian). When Husky mates with Mastiff we observe variation within the species (Chinook).

Now evolutionist's want us to believe that the Asian or the African evolved into the Afro-Asian and the Husky or the Mastiff evolved into the Chinook far in the past with other species. They want us to believe in direct opposition to the empirical data that one thing became two new things - when all observational evidence shows it takes two separate things to create something new.

I now predict that not one single piece of scientific data will be presented to refute this - but only unsubstantiated claims that it happened differently in the past and ad-hominem attacks will begin because not one single evolutionist can refute the empirical observations with scientific evidence or empirical observations.

The ignoring of the data in favor of ad-hoc hypothesis will now begin. This is what I predict. And I have confidence my prediction will be validated in every post in response by every single evolutionist.

So far my prediction has been validated.

 

[PsychoSarah]

And sir - I would like to inform you that dogs associated with different breeds and regions have so little genetic difference between them, that to suggest that Husky dogs and Mastiff dogs are somehow different subspecies of canine is indisputably incorrect. Be careful not to bring up 1920's ideas like that, least you unintentionally sound racist.

Ahhh - but it's ok to be raciest as long as it isn't humans we are discussing right? Even if we are just animals????? Your argument is a two-way street - not a on-way boulevard.

No, you are actually right, given that breeds of dogs are pretty subjective. It is comparable to racism. Thankfully, the canines do not mind the labels, but to favor a "purebreed" over a "mutt" is not only the dog version of favoring one color of skin over another, but unlike with humans, it enforces harmful amounts of inbreeding and genetic risk to the dogs, which is why "mutts" tend to be healthier than "purebred" dogs.

So yeah, probably shouldn't label dogs, since it damages their well-being.

Also, given the fact that mutation is a thing, and humans notice the tiniest differences in appearance, and that people from Africa have the greatest genetic variation of any continent, you could have two people from Africa have kids that have features associated more with India or Saudi Arabia. Heck, a combination of albinism and other minor features, and a person with two very dark parents from Africa can end up looking European. The genetic variation between the groups is that insignificant.

 

[sfs]

Strawman

You made a claim: Nobel Prizes were awarded for showing that the Milky Way was the entire universe. I've asked you to substantiate that claim. You can't, because it's false. You seem to be convinced of things about science that just aren't true.

- since E neither received a Nobel for Special Relativity nor General Relativity, yet you accept them. So we can discard them since no Nobel was awarded according to your strawman??? Oh, now suddenly it's different, right????

I can't figure out why you think this is a logical argument. Who suggested that only ideas endorsed by the Nobel committee should be accepted? What does this have to do with your fictional story about the Milky Way?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You made a claim: Nobel Prizes were awarded for showing that the Milky Way was the entire universe. I've asked you to substantiate that claim. You can't, because it's false. You seem to be convinced of things about science that just aren't true.

Show me where I made the claim Nobel Prizes were awarded for showing the Milky-Way was the entire universe?????? Go ahead show us??? I think your adding and putting words in my mouth in your pathetic strawman. Let's see what I said, find that post and post it here. I think you'll find it says nothing of the sort - just a strawman by you.

I live in Oklahoma not Missouri - but "show me" anyways. Or admit your strawman for what it is, avoidance of the subject at hand. Your search for that strawman that I ever said that will be as fruitful as your search for a plasma experiment that uses anything but particle physics and electromagnetic theory to describe plasma in any laboratory. And I have been waiting two years for that one.

But back to the subject at hand you attempted to divert with your strawman.

Asian mates with Asian and produces only Asian. African mates with African and produces only African.

Husky mates with Husky and produces only Husky. Mastiff mates with Mastiff and produces only Mastiff.

Yet when Asian mates with African we observe variation in the species (Afro-Asian). When Husky mates with Mastiff we observe variation within the species (Chinook).

Now evolutionist's want us to believe that the Asian or the African evolved into the Afro-Asian and the Husky or the Mastiff evolved into the Chinook far in the past with other species. They want us to believe in direct opposition to the empirical data that one thing became two new things - when all observational evidence shows it takes two separate things to create something new.

And you only validated my prediction btw.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Good try tho. It's only too bad we were talking about your reliance on majority opinion as being correct. We addressed that fallacy when it came to the majority of scientists believeing the Milky-way to be the entire universe. The earnestness nor belief that they were right - did not make it so. Of course - you then decided to add the requirement for Nobel prizes to a clearly logical fallacy of might makes right - or majority is always correct.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

"is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

You proposed the Big Bang was correct because the majority of cosmologists believe it. You presented no scientific evidence to back up your assumptions, claiming only that the majority believed - so it must be correct. No - it needs not be correct because people ernestly believe it is. Every 100 years the people that thought that had to redo their entire belief system. Unlike them (who were real scientists and accepted the data even though it falsified their beliefs) you reject the science and have delayed this paradigm shift by appealing to Fairie Dust to save you.

 

[RickG]

We often hear that creationism is just a different interpretation of the evidence. It is my contention that creationists don't interpret the data at all.

Frankly, I think creationists themselves present the best argument against the existence of God than any non-believer could ever present.

 

[AV1611VET]

Frankly, I think creationists themselves present the best argument against the existence of God than any non-believer could ever present.

Interesting comment in view of the fact that every single one of us believe: IN THE BEGINNING, GOD.

And I'm supposed to believe scientists run on consensus of opinion?

Ya ... right.

 

[: D]

a protein that carries an electron and is present in moulds through to the plants and ends up with humans using this building block of life proves the OPs a monkeys uncle XD

 

[RickG]

Interesting comment in view of the fact that every single one of us believe: IN THE BEGINNING, GOD.

I don't think you understand the context of my comment. Think about it.

And I'm supposed to believe scientists run on consensus of opinion?

Absolutely not, that would be the wrong thing to do. A scientific consensus is based on agreement with the data and what it shows, not opinion.