Is the fundamental gap between creationists and non-creationists...

[SelfSim]

"Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young Earth, I am a young age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate."
...
But what we actually get is an excruciatingly honest admission that he will (please pay close attention to this bit) ignore the science if it contradicts the word of God!

He obviously distinguishes what he chooses to believe, from: actually 'doing science'.
I don't see a conflict there, as long as he maintains that distinction while he follows the scientific method.

However, this would get very tricky for him when he's asked for his 'opinions' .. (and even trickier for the person asking for them).

 

[Bradskii]

He obviously distinguishes what he chooses to believe, from: actually 'doing science'.
I don't see a conflict there, as long as he maintains that distinction while he follows the scientific method.

However, this would get very tricky for him when he's asked for his 'opinions' .. (and even trickier for the person asking for them).

It has me nonplussed. I read his quote some time ago and it took a while to find it this morning. It's like someone qualifying in orbital mechanics who declares himself to be a flat earther.

It's the classic definition of cognitive dissonance.

 

[Gene2memE]

That’s a hit job on the movie, which was made to show the bias and censorship against anyone daring to challenge evolution at any level.

'Expelled' is a challenge to evolution in the same way that vomiting on the ground is a challenge to the earth.

 

[AV1611VET]

'Expelled' is a challenge to evolution in the same way that vomiting on the ground is a challenge to the earth.

Leviticus 18:25 And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Leviticus 18:25 And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.

Okay, "Expelled" was terrible, but it was not that bad.

 

[chad kincham]

Sorry, presuppositionalism is the purest of nonsense. It is not the scientific method. You keep refuting your claim to understand the scientific method.

There is a very good reason that creationists always lose in court. Judges have to understand the nature of evidence. They can see that there is no reliable evidence for creationism.

They lose in court because the judges buy into the false narrative that evidence for creation, which has led non creationist scientists such as Paul Davies to say the evidence of design is overwhelming, can’t be science, because science presumes naturalism.

Anyone denying that evolutionary science is completely biased towards atheistic naturalism, doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

 

[Gene2memE]

That’s a completely wrong claim.

They don’t use the presupposition of naturalistic materialism to interpret the data.

There's a difference between methodological naturalism - which is a necessary limitation in the sciences - and ontological/metaphysical naturalism. When studying the natural world, it is pointless to consider supernatural causation. Otherwise you throw out some of the fundamental elements of the scientific process (testability, repeatability/replication and verification, to begin with).

And there are some honest evolutionists who admit science today indeed uses biased interpretation of the facts.

All people have biases. These biases become implicit in our systems (of which the sciences are one).

However, some of these biases are NECESSARY. So, when the sciences reject supernatural causation as a point for consideration, it is done so because the alternative is to render any and all parts of the process useless.

I can prove by using a presupposition of naturalism to interpret the facts, that bicycles and motorcycles weren’t created, they evolved

No, you cant.

Bicycles and motorcycles don't reproduce with variation. They also aren't subject to any selective pressures on reproduction and survival rates, which would favour one set of characteristics over another within populations.

Your hypothetical, to coin a phrase, is immensely dumb.

And that’s exactly how evolutionists interpret the data, with the bias of naturalism and materialism.
A common creator fits the facts better than evolving from a common ancestor.

Nah. What happened was that a bunch of smart people observed what was happening in nature. Wrote that down. Hypothesized about it. Tested those ideas. Accepted the results, and then refined their ideas.

The result is an edifice built on evidence.

The only thing that's going to tear that down is an idea that provides better explanatory power that the existing theory. And guess what, a "common creator" isn't even an idea that the sciences can consider, let alone observe, test or verify.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They lose in court because the judges buy into the false narrative that evidence for creation, which has led non creationist scientists such as Paul Davies to say the evidence of design is overwhelming, can’t be science, because science presumes naturalism.

Anyone denying that evolutionary science is completely biased towards atheistic naturalism, doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

No, no no. There is no "false narrative". You cannot show that such a narrative exists. They lose in court because judges understand the concept of evidence. Would you like to learn? It is really not that hard to understand.

And creationists say idiotic and unjustified things all of the time. Tell me, why can't Davies show any of this supposed evidence?

Lastly you need to watch your terminology. "Creation scientist" is an oxymoron.

 

[chad kincham]

Common descent.

Similarities between animals are always assumed to be evidence of evolving from a common ancestor, going back to a single celled organism, instead of similarity coming from a common creator.

Vestigial organs.

The appendix and other organs such as the tonsils, that had no obvious understood purpose, were assumed to be evolutionary leftovers, and so they were surgically removed if they had even minor inflammation or infection.

Junk DNA.

Another evolutionary assumption - because it had no understood function, it was called junk DNA, a leftover from evolution.

Endogenous retroviruses - because some DNA had no obvious apparent function it was assumed to be a viral insertion, instead of having an important function.

 

[chad kincham]

There's a difference between methodological naturalism - which is a necessary limitation in the sciences - and ontological/metaphysical naturalism. When studying the natural world, it is pointless to consider supernatural causation. Otherwise you throw out some of the fundamental elements of the scientific process (testability, repeatability/replication and verification, to begin with).



All people have biases. These biases become implicit in our systems (of which the sciences are one).

However, some of these biases are NECESSARY. So, when the sciences reject supernatural causation as a point for consideration, it is done so because the alternative is to render any and all parts of the process useless.



No, you cant.

Bicycles and motorcycles don't reproduce with variation. They also aren't subject to any selective pressures on reproduction and survival rates, which would favour one set of characteristics over another within populations.

Your hypothetical, to coin a phrase, is immensely dumb.




Nah. What happened was that a bunch of smart people observed what was happening in nature. Wrote that down. Hypothesized about it. Tested those ideas. Accepted the results, and then refined their ideas.

The result is an edifice built on evidence.

The only thing that's going to tear that down is an idea that provides better explanatory power that the existing theory. And guess what, a "common creator" isn't even an idea that the sciences can consider, let alone observe, test or verify.

Wrong.

Evolution is now an institution that protects itself at all costs.

They have no interest in any facts that falsify abiogenesis, or phyletic gradualism, or any other part of ToE.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Common descent.

Similarities between animals are always assumed to be evidence of evolving from a common ancestor, going back to a single celled organism, instead of similarity coming from a common creator.

No, the evidence supports common descent. There is no scientific evidence for a "common creator". This is why you should learn what scientific evidence is.

Vestigial organs.

The appendix and other organs such as the tonsils, that had no obvious understood purpose, were assumed to be evolutionary leftovers, and so they were surgically removed if they had even minor inflammation or infection.

Oops, you do not understand what vestigial organs are. That is the creationist strawman. A vestigial organ is one that does not have the same use that it had in an ancestor. It does not mean worthless. The appendix is still a vestigial organ.

Junk DNA.

Another evolutionary assumption - because it had no understood function, it was called junk DNA, a leftover from evolution.

Wrong again. Some can be shown to be junk. For example the broken vitamin C gene that you and other apes share. Humans can no longer produce vitamin C, but we have a broken version of the gene that would allow us to do so. This is not an "assumption".

Endogenous retroviruses - because some DNA had no obvious apparent function it was assumed to be a viral insertion, instead of having an important function.

No, no, no. Again, not an assumption. It appears that any time that you do not understand soemthing that you call it an assumption. Virologists can recognize a virus in a genome. Not only that, but one of the more recent ones was reactivated in the lab. It was a virus. The viruses in our DNA are all inactivated. That is a good thing.

How many failures is that? Four. I count four.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wrong.

Evolution is now an institution that protects itself at all costs.

They have no interest in any facts that falsify abiogenesis, or phyletic gradualism, or any other part of ToE.

No one has found any "facts that falsify abiogenesis". Nor are there any other failures to the theory. Only strawman arguments and outright lies by creationists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@chad kincham , you probably won't watch this, but here is a video by a chemist that refutes the claims of James Tour in his anti abiogenesis rants:

 

[Astrid]

He obviously distinguishes what he chooses to believe, from: actually 'doing science'.
I don't see a conflict there, as long as he maintains that distinction while he follows the scientific method.

However, this would get very tricky for him when he's asked for his 'opinions' .. (and even trickier for the person asking for them).

This is like a guy honestly admits ro being a back robber.
But won't rob yours?

Open about being intellectually dishonest, how
could you trust anything he says. Anyway if he has
gone to work for a creationist boiler room, all traces
of professionsl integrity are gone.

With God, the angels and all creation
on their side it's just weird the creationists
have only such as that to support their claims.

 

[Astrid]

They lose in court because the judges buy into the false narrative that evidence for creation, which has led non creationist scientists such as Paul Davies to say the evidence of design is overwhelming, can’t be science, because science presumes naturalism.

Anyone denying that evolutionary science is completely biased towards atheistic naturalism, doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

Right. Make up a claim of dishonesty.
Bearing false witness!

 

[chad kincham]

You didn't understands the article or you would have known that the scientists learned how a cell divides .

You didn’t understand the article because you presented it as evidence abiogenesis is proven to the point of creating a living cell - the cell is an already existing and dividing bacterium.

They didn’t, and couldn’t create a living cell from scratch, and never will be able to.

All they can do is reprogram one gene from an existing cell, by removing a short section from DNA and inserting a rewritten 4 letter programming code.

Ten years ago those who believed the hype declared confidentiality that a living cell would very soon be made from scratch.

That possibility gets further away each year, not closer, because the more learned about how incredibly complex a single cell is, the more they realize they are light years away from creating one, instead of merely reprogramming a single function in an existing cell.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You didn’t understand the article because you presented it as evidence abiogenesis is proven to the point of creating a living cell - the cell is an already existing and dividing bacterium.

'

It still supports what they were testing for so by definition it is evidence for abiogenesis.

They didn’t, and couldn’t create a living cell from scratch, and never will be able to.

How do you know? I do not make the claim that they will be able to do this some day because frankly I do not know. All that you have is unsupported belief. Worse yet all that you have is a belief that runs contrary to the evidence.

All they can do is reprogram one gene from an existing cell, by removing a short section from DNA and inserting a rewritten 4 letter programming code.

Not a "code" in the sense that you appear to be tryin to use it. But you just supported the argument.

Ten years ago those who believed the hype declared confidentiality that a living cell would very soon be made from scratch.

That possibility gets further away each year, not closer, because the more learned about how incredibly complex a single cell is, the more they realize they are light years away from creating one, instead of merely reprogramming a single function in an existing cell.

And they are getting close. I am betting that you cannot state in your own words what they were trying to do with this experiment.

 

[chad kincham]

This is like a guy honestly admits ro being a back robber.
But won't rob yours?

Open about being intellectually dishonest, how
could you trust anything he says. Anyway if he has
gone to work for a creationist boiler room, all traces
of professionsl integrity are gone.

With God, the angels and all creation
on their side it's just weird the creationists
have only such as that to support their claims.

The dishonesty is blatantly with the evangelists for evolution promoting it as proven fact.

The dishonesty is in not admitting that the Cambrian explosion falsifies the phyletic gradualism of Darwinism, as complex life with eyes very similar to the human eye, and vertebrates appear, with zero precursors in the fossil record.

The dishonesty is in not admitting the known fact that organic compounds and amino acids that appear naturally in every conceivable prebiotic environment, are too weak to bond together - researchers have to use concentrations 100 times stronger than appear in nature.

Or that in every possible prebiotic scenario the weak amino acids always consist of equal amounts of L and R handed molecules, and even one R handed molecule in a protein of amino acids, would inactivate the protein.

The dishonesty is in telling the public that the fossil evidence is well developed, instead of the truth that transitional fossils are missing in all the important places, and promoting fossils such as Lucy as being anything more than an unusual tree climbing chimpanzee.

 

[Speedwell]

Wrong.

Evolution is now an institution that protects itself at all costs.

They have no interest in any facts that falsify abiogenesis, or phyletic gradualism, or any other part of ToE.

Why?

 

[Shemjaza]

That’s a completely wrong claim.

I'll try to demonstrate why you are mistaken.

They don’t use the presupposition of naturalistic materialism to interpret the data.

There isn't actually a presupposition of naturalistic materialism.

What there is only relying on testable evidence. The problem with supernatural evidence is that it can't be checked or falsified.

Literally anything is possible with miracles... which means that literally any evidence can be from a miracle... which means that you can't demonstrate that anything is, or is not from a miracles.

And there are some honest evolutionists who admit science today indeed uses biased interpretation of the facts.

I'm pretty sure you are misinterpreting a need for verifyable evidence as an unjustified rejection of supernatural claims.

I can prove by using a presupposition of naturalism to interpret the facts, that bicycles and motorcycles weren’t created, they evolved
The unicycle is the common ancestor, then it branches out from there to the two wheeled bicycles with the pedal on the front wheel, with another branch adding a third wheel to become a tricycle- then branching out to the modern two wheel bicycle with the pedal in the middle of the bike and adding a driver chain - then the simple one cylinder engine evolved, and replaced the pedals, while keeping the drive chain, and continued branching out with bigger motorcycles with more complex multi cylinder engines.
I can build an entire evolutionary tree that proves bicycles and motorcycles evolved from the common ancestor of the single wheel unicycle - the equivalent of a single cell - by using the same presupposition that there is no creator that built them but they arrived by completely natural processes.
And that’s exactly how evolutionists interpret the data, with the bias of naturalism and materialism.
A common creator fits the facts better than evolving from a common ancestor.

This is blatantly wrong.

The first problem is that bicycles do not in anyway reproduce and pass on genetic material, so there's not even a mechanism for your story.

The second problem is that bicycles do not form a nested hierarchy based on material use and structure.

For every supposed branch of your tree traits from changing makeup and construction techniques can appear and disappear on any particular branch, not permanently independent variations like we find of the trees of life.


So, given that your defense of the idea that creationists actually understand science involved you demonstrating that you fundamentally don't understand science.... I think you should really do a little more study.