Do creationists not know their own Bibles?

[pitabread]

She has a real degree so she may have a few.

From what I can remember, I think she had maybe three publications tops. And I seem to recall those were joint publications (e.g. where she wasn't necessarily the lead author).

At any rate, she's not some big-name credible geneticist. She's certainly no Francis Collins.

What is even more surprising are some of the creationists that may be creationists for the money.

Oh absolutely. Orgs like AiG rake in millions in donations each year, plus merchandising and now tourism. There is definitely money to be made for sure.

I have a similar suspicion that a lot of professional Flat Earthers do it for the same reason. Watching the documentary Behind the Curve, it was fascinating to learn there is a real business created out of Flat Earth beliefs.

 

[SelfSim]

...

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.​

I think the scientific process can still be used.
​

The problem lies with the going-in assumption that the scriptural record represents 'scientific truth'. Scientific truth is nothing better than the last best tested theory, which means that the scriptural record itself, is then subject to the same process of objective testing.
If those tests cannot be objectively performed (due to a lack of objectivity in its definitions, etc), then there is no alternative other than to put the scriptural record aside and treat it with neutrality. The constraining role implied in the above dictum, (ie: 'by definition'), is then rendered neutral (and thus moot).
Where the scriptural record can be demonstrated as contradicting itself, or other objective test results, then the next best tested theory derived from such results, would be preferred as the basis for further research.

 

[SelfSim]

Further to my previous post: the important aspect is to notice that science deals with objectively obtained results .. and not 'evidence'.

Highlighting that distinction then exposes the source of the exclusion stated in the Creationist quote (and its not coming from the scientific process .. therefore the process would be permissable .. and thus can be used).

 

[LoricaLady]

An excellent article here:
https://letstalkscience.ca/educational-resources/stem-in-context/ringwoodite-and-deep-water-cycle

Well, I have to come back, but just for you JackRT. Maybe I am missing something but it seems your post is talking about water trapped deep underground, not like a sea beneath an ocean.

Here is what I was talking about:
Scientists have discovered a sea of fresh water under the ocean

 

[LoricaLady]

P.S. Here is more info on You Tube. Scientists have discovered a sea of fresh water under the ocean

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, I have to come back, but just for you JackRT. Maybe I am missing something but it seems your post is talking about water trapped deep underground, not like a sea beneath an ocean.

Here is what I was talking about:
Scientists have discovered a sea of fresh water under the ocean

Hardly a "sea". By volume that is only about twice the volume of Lake Ontario according to the article:

"about twice the volume of Lake Ontario"

See? It would not come even close to helping for the Noah's Ark story.

By the way, the water in @JackRT 's link is a massive quantity of water, but it is trapped. That is what I thought that you were referring to. Not to what amounts to be a mere puddle.

 

[LoricaLady]

Hardly a "sea". By volume that is only about twice the volume of Lake Ontario according to the article:

"about twice the volume of Lake Ontario"

See? It would not come even close to helping for the Noah's Ark story.

In the video they say that scientists wonder how many other such seas there are. The one shown was not known all this time. You don't know how many others there might be, do you? Do you know how the underwater topography was thousands of years ago? Got any data on that? Well, no.

No one's salvation will be based on whatever - with incomplete knowledge - is under our oceans. I am not even saying that is where the waters "broke forth" from. It is interesting to ponder, though.

The big question is Do you know the Lord? He says "Whoever comes to me I will no way cast out."

 

[Subduction Zone]

In the video they say that scientists wonder how many other such seas there are. The one shown was not known all this time. You don't know how many others there might be, do you? Do you know how the underwater topography was thousands of years ago? Got any data on that? Well, no.

No one's salvation will be based on whatever - with incomplete knowledge - is under our oceans. I am not even saying that is where the waters "broke forth" from. It is interesting to ponder, though.

The big question is do you know the Lord? He says "Whoever comes to me I will no way cast out."

So what? It would still not help. It is ground water. Ground water is not a supply of new water. It may flow out, but only because new water is flowing in from the recharging area. Your claim is like that of believers that say "the water came from the ocean" while forgetting that water flows down into the ocean. It does not stand up on land like super thick pancake syrup.

And every science tells us that the flood did not happen Archaeology tells us that the flood did not happen. We have endless evidence that the flood did not happen and no evidence for he flood.

In fact one of my favorite bits of evidence against the flood is that the fact that there is no risk of you waking up in bathtub filled with ice in a hotel in the seedy part of town missing a kidney is also evidence that the flood never happened.

The flood of Noah, in case you are curious, was first refuted by early Christian geologists looking for evidence of the flood. They refuted it instead. And it has only gotten worse since then for those that believe this story.

 

[LoricaLady]

So what? It would still not help. It is ground water. Ground water is not a supply of new water. It may flow out, but only because new water is flowing in from the recharging area. Your claim is like that of believers that say "the water came from the ocean" while forgetting that water flows down into the ocean. It does not stand up on land like super thick pancake syrup.

And every science tells us that the flood did not happen Archaeology tells us that the flood did not happen. We have endless evidence that the flood did not happen and no evidence for he flood.

In fact one of my favorite bits of evidence against the flood is that the fact that there is no risk of you waking up in bathtub filled with ice in a hotel in the seedy part of town missing a kidney is also evidence that the flood never happened.

The flood of Noah, in case you are curious, was first refuted by early Christian geologists looking for evidence of the flood. They refuted it instead. And it has only gotten worse since then for those that believe this story.

People here, as is common in the world, keep quoting this "expert" and that "expert." I have found the experts that give clear data which I find credible. You pick your own. That is all I have to say. Bye!

 

[Subduction Zone]

People here, as is common in the world, keep quoting this "expert" and that "expert." I have found the experts that give clear data which I find credible. You pick your own. That is all I have to say. Bye!

But they are demonstrably liars and even fools at times.

Why are you afraid to learn how science is done and what is and what is not evidence? Is it because it is freely offered and must be a trap (in a way it is since all of the evidence supports evolution).

If you understood the concept of evidence, and the concept of scientific evidence forces people to be honest. The questions that one needs to ask if something is scientific evidence or not are simple and clear. The only way to deny evidence once one understands it is to lie.

 

[LoricaLady]

So what? It would still not help. It is ground water. Ground water is not a supply of new water. It may flow out, but only because new water is flowing in from the recharging area. Your claim is like that of believers that say "the water came from the ocean" while forgetting that water flows down into the ocean. It does not stand up on land like super thick pancake syrup.

And every science tells us that the flood did not happen Archaeology tells us that the flood did not happen. We have endless evidence that the flood did not happen and no evidence for he flood.

In fact one of my favorite bits of evidence against the flood is that the fact that there is no risk of you waking up in bathtub filled with ice in a hotel in the seedy part of town missing a kidney is also evidence that the flood never happened.

The flood of Noah, in case you are curious, was first refuted by early Christian geologists looking for evidence of the flood. They refuted it instead. And it has only gotten worse since then for those that believe this story.

P.S. Speaking of people picking their experts, I decided to include a favorite example. Above someone said Dr. Georgia Purdom, my choice of expert, was no Francis Collins, i.e. the poster's choice of expert.

Now Francis Collins helped much with the discovery of RNA. He admitted it was too complex to come about by the random processes of evolution. So he did the usual. He presented a theory for which there is exactly zero data. Basically he claimed aliens did it! He called that Directed Panspermia. It's important in evolution to use big words when you come up with wild theories, like Punctuated Equilibrium (which is basically an excuse with no data for why there is no data.)

But Dr. Purdom just presents the facts, on taxonomy, geology, well you name it. No made up big fancy words. No theories presented as facts. If something is not backed up by data, she will let you know. No wild postulates that have zero evidence whatsoever.

Again, you pick your experts and I'll pick mine.

 

[LoricaLady]

But they are demonstrably liars and even fools at times.

Why are you afraid to learn how science is done and what is and what is not evidence? Is it because it is freely offered and must be a trap (in a way it is since all of the evidence supports evolution).

If you understood the concept of evidence, and the concept of scientific evidence forces people to be honest. The questions that one needs to ask if something is scientific evidence or not are simple and clear. The only way to deny evidence once one understands it is to lie.

Bye!

 

[Subduction Zone]

P.S. Speaking of people picking their experts, I decided to include a favorite example. Above someone said Dr. Georgia Purdom, my choice of expert, was no Francis Collins, i.e. the poster's choice of expert.

Now Francis Collins helped much with the discovery of RNA. He admitted it was too complex to come about by the random processes of evolution. So he did the usual. He presented a theory for which there is exactly zero data. Basically he claimed aliens did it! He called that Directed Panspermia. It's important in evolution to use big words when you come up with wild theories, like Punctuated Equilibrium (which is basically an excuse with no data for why there is no data.)

But Dr. Purdom just presents the facts, on taxonomy, geology, well you name it. No made up big fancy words. No theories presented as facts. If something is not backed up by data, she will let you know. No wild postulates that have zero evidence whatsoever.

Again, you pick your experts and I'll pick mine.

Come one now. He did no such thing. You do realize that even if you believe what you claim, that if you make a claim against someone that turns out to be false that is a Bearing of False Witness Against Your Neighbor.

At the time he made his discovery how it came about was unknown. Do you think that means that it would always be unknown? Do you know how many times that creationists have made the claim "You don't know how this happened, therefore evolution is false". That is merely an argument from ignorance. And when scientists do solve that problem they move the goalposts to another one or pretend that the answer was never found.

For example have you heard of "Irreducible Complexity"?

 

[SelfSim]

... If you understood the concept of evidence, and the concept of scientific evidence forces people to be honest. The questions that one needs to ask if something is scientific evidence or not are simple and clear. The only way to deny evidence once one understands it is to lie.

Presumably, the most honest claim derived from something being used as 'scientific evidence', is a claim of consistency? (The basis of argument then centres around the tolerances of 'consistency').

 

[Subduction Zone]

Bye!

I know that it irritates you that you do follow liars and fools, you really should try to learn how we know that those claims are true about those people.

 

[pitabread]

P.S. Speaking of people picking their experts, I decided to include a favorite example. Above someone said Dr. Georgia Purdom, my choice of expert, was no Francis Collins, i.e. the poster's choice of expert.

I was just pointing out that when it comes to scientific credibility, publication track record is an indication of this. In the case of Dr. Purdom, she appears to have made little to no contribution to her field.

You might like her because she tells you what you want to hear, but that doesn't necessarily make her a credible scientific source. And certainly not if she's an employee of AiG.

Now Francis Collins helped much with the discovery of RNA. He admitted it was too complex to come about by the random processes of evolution. So he did the usual. He presented a theory for which there is exactly zero data. Basically he claimed aliens did it! He called that Directed Panspermia.

You appear to be mixing up Dr. Collins with someone else.

Dr. Francis Collins is the former director of the National Human Genome Research Institute and he oversaw the Human Genome Project. He's made considerable contributions to human understanding of genetics and genomics, and has a publication record a mile long.

He's also an evangelical Christian and founded Biologos, a site which marries up understanding of science with Christianity: BioLogos - God's Word. God's World.

It's important in evolution to use big words when you come up with wild theories, like Punctuated Equilibrium (which is basically an excuse with no data for why there is no data.)

If you're seriously going to criticize science because they use "big words", then you're really grasping at straws here.

 

[LoricaLady]

ANYONE: I'm not reading any more of these posts. They have not uncommonly been insulting, cyber bullying, and filled with troll talk.
That's not how science or the mind was designed to operate. Very distasteful. Very unscientific.

The posts often seemed to be by people who think they are big time science experts, but that isn't how it seems to me at all.

.
May we all come in to all truth - and it ain't in evolution or trashing the Bible.

 

[LoricaLady]

I was just pointing out that when it comes to scientific credibility, publication track record is an indication of this. In the case of Dr. Purdom, she appears to have made little to no contribution to her field.

You might like her because she tells you what you want to hear, but that doesn't necessarily make her a credible scientific source. And certainly not if she's an employee of AiG.



You sound confused; you're mixing up Dr. Collins with someone else.

Dr. Francis Collins is the former director of the National Human Genome Research Institute and he oversaw the Human Genome Project. He's made considerable contributions to human understanding of genetics and genomics, and has a publication record a mile long.

He's also an evangelical Christian and founded Biologos, a site which marries up understanding of science with Christianity: BioLogos - God's Word. God's World.



If you're seriously going to criticize science because they use "big words", then you're really grasping at straws here.

I did not read your post and will not read any of your posts ever again. You were rude and personally insulting on another string. I have better things to do than swap posts with cyberbullies.

 

[JackRT]

P.S. Speaking of people picking their experts, I decided to include a favorite example. Above someone said Dr. Georgia Purdom, my choice of expert, was no Francis Collins, i.e. the poster's choice of expert.

Now Francis Collins helped much with the discovery of RNA. He admitted it was too complex to come about by the random processes of evolution. So he did the usual. He presented a theory for which there is exactly zero data. Basically he claimed aliens did it! He called that Directed Panspermia. It's important in evolution to use big words when you come up with wild theories, like Punctuated Equilibrium (which is basically an excuse with no data for why there is no data.)

But Dr. Purdom just presents the facts, on taxonomy, geology, well you name it. No made up big fancy words. No theories presented as facts. If something is not backed up by data, she will let you know. No wild postulates that have zero evidence whatsoever.

Again, you pick your experts and I'll pick mine.

Directed Panspermia is not a theory it is a hypothesis for which little if any evidence has yet been presented. On the other hand Punctuated Equilibrium has sufficient evidence to be regarded as a theory. Keep in mind that theories are provisional. There is no such thing as "proof" in science. Darwin's other theory was shot down pretty darn quickly.

 

[pitabread]

I did not read your post and will not read any of your posts ever again. You were rude and personally insulting on another string. I have better things to do than swap posts with cyberbullies.

You do seem a bit sensitive for these discussions so it's probably for the best. I wish you well, and good luck with your endeavors.

Note that I will still reply to your posts to correct things as I see fit. Your posts have contained a lot of misinformation about evolution, scientists and science in general.