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

[Bradskii]

The problem with that is I found it hard to believe...

Well, what else can we say. Chad has difficulty in believing something. Guess we're all wrong.

But hang on...a few posts back you were proposing PE as a means of denying gradualism. And now you say that PE is wrong. How can you use something you claim to be wrong as a means to prove something else isn't right?

I'll add this to your attempt to work out the odds of something happening that you said was impossible in the first instance.

Your problem, Chad, is that the only references you'll be able to use to further your claims are those from creationsists. Use anyone else and I guarantee that there will something in what they have said or written which will directly counter your position. And we have already seen what happens when you rely on creationists. They admit to ignoring evidence and they lie to you.

Something of a quandry, isn't it.

 

[Shemjaza]

My analogy works just fine.

Evolutionists make the exact assumption in my example, that homologous similarities prove common ancestry, and ignore the fact that a common designer would obviously use economy of design, which is common sense, resulting in what you label as nested hierarchies

Which does not explain the nested hierarchy of traits that you would expect in a family tree and not in instances of common design.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And the deception is in not acknowledging that finding soft tissue and cells in dinosaur bones claimed to be 70 million years old, falsifies their claimed age, since soft tissue would last a few thousand years at best.

Nope. You do not even know what was found or how the Christian paleontologist that found them, and is not a creationist, also figured out how they were preserved for so long.

Sorry, you have nothing. You cannot have anything until you learn the basics.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So the evolutionist honest enough to admit the Cambrian explosion is incredibly problematic, don’t understand science either?

You evolutionists really need a new and improved reason why there are many with graduate degrees in the sciences, who don’t buy into the metaphysical philosophy of naturalistic materialism masquerading as actual science.

Why do you think that it is problematic? It is only dishonest and ignorant creationists that think it is problematic. Do you know why there were very few fossils of complex life before the Cambrian? This is an easy question and I bet that you get the answer wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My analogy works just fine.

Evolutionists make the exact assumption in my example, that homologous similarities prove common ancestry, and ignore the fact that a common designer would obviously use economy of design, which is common sense, resulting in what you label as nested hierarchies

Nope, you only have an ad hoc explanation that is constantly refuted. Too bad that you do not understand what it takes so that you could claim to have evidence.

 

[SelfSim]

@chad kincham - More Abiogensis hypothesis evidence:

Spontaneous formation of autocatalytic sets with self-replicating inorganic metal oxide clusters, (published 2021):

Significance:

Self-replication is an important property of life, yet no one knows how it arose, and the machinery found in modern cells is far too complex to have formed by chance. One suggestion is that simple networks may become able to cooperate and hence replicate together forming autocatalytic sets, but no simple systems have been found. Here we present an inorganic autocatalytic, based on molybdenum blue, that is formed spontaneously when a simple inorganic salt of sodium molybdate is reduced under acidic conditions. This study demonstrates how autocatalytic sets, based on simple inorganic salts, can lead to the spontaneous emergence of self-replicating systems and solves the mystery of how gigantic molecular nanostructures of molybdenum blue can form in the first place.

Conclusions:
The results presented here show that the formation of an autocatalytic set which embeds molecular template transfer processes can form with a simple inorganic system. We demonstrate that the autocatalytic formation of {Mo154} rings exhibits a critical transition in response to the reduction potential and pH of the solution, ...
...
Thus, we hypothesize that the formation of molybdenum nanostructures represents a unique class of self-organized criticality. All previous autocatalytic sets known are derived from known biology but this study shows how autocatalytic sets, based on simple inorganic salts, can spontaneously emerge which are capable of collective self-reproduction outside of biology.

 

[Astrid]

Is the term 'fundamentalist' considered acceptable in these parts? In some forums it's considered an insult. There's an implied sneer when it's used (much like when the term 'evolutionist' is used). And the definition is considered to be akin to 'Someone with limited intelligence such that they cannot grasp basic scientific principles'. So I tend to work around it and might suggest that someone is reading scripture in 'a fundamental manner'.

Creationism isn't an intelligence issue per se.
There are plenty of well educated creationists
They just don't know anything g about biology or
earth science.
Like I know nothing of sports.

I'd expect a smart well educated creationist to know
his limitations re science and not play the fool,
anymore than I'd go blather about sports or Egyptology.

None of the creationists here show any sign of knowing
more than half forgotten high school biology, and
some brag about having learned nothing.

In matters of character it's unlikely that creationists
rank above or below anyone else.
In education they tend to rank below average.

I doubt there are many lacking the intelligence tp
understand basic science.
I'm sure I've the inherent physical and mental
wherewithal to learn rock climbing. But I've a mental
block, fear of heights.
Our creationists have their own mental block.

 

[Astrid]

Way to go, Chad. Without any formal education in genetics you proved those pesky scientists wrong.

That ain't so special. Every creationist here knows
more than any scientist on earth.

 

[Frank Robert]

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.

A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism

After more than a decade of effort the Discovery Institute proudly announced in 2007 that it had got some 700 doctoral-level scientists and engineers to sign "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism." Though the number may strike some observers as rather large, it represented less than 0.023 percent of the world's scientists. On the scientific front of the much ballyhooed "Evolution Wars", the Darwinists were winning handily. The ideological struggle between (methodological) naturalism and supernaturalism continued largely in the fantasies of the faithful and the hyperbole of the press.[38]

Emphasis added...
​

 

[Frank Robert]

Not at all
.
Gould invents PE to explain away what he said is the absence of transitional fossils in all the important areas, by hypothesizing that evolution goes long periods with nothing happening, punctuated by periods of intense evolution that leaves behind no fossil evidence.

The problem with that is I found it hard to believe that isolated populations increase genetic information at all.

Gould is a paleontologist, so is his co author Eldridge, not a biologist, so I did some investigation and it wasn’t difficult to determine that wildlife biologists who work with endangered species - definitely isolated populations- state that isolated populations lose diversity and genetic information, they do not gain it - which is exactly what I expected to be the case.

Every time I come across a creationist trying to explain Gould and PE, the "quote mining" bell rings.

The Quote Mine Project
Or, Lies, Damned Lies and Quote Mines
Gould, Eldredge and Punctuated Equilibria Quotes​

 

[Astrid]

A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism

After more than a decade of effort the Discovery Institute proudly announced in 2007 that it had got some 700 doctoral-level scientists and engineers to sign "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism." Though the number may strike some observers as rather large, it represented less than 0.023 percent of the world's scientists. On the scientific front of the much ballyhooed "Evolution Wars", the Darwinists were winning handily. The ideological struggle between (methodological) naturalism and supernaturalism continued largely in the fantasies of the faithful and the hyperbole of the press.[38]

Emphasis added...
​

We will be impressed if even one among the handful from the
List who may actually doing research has any data to offer.

 

[Job 33:6]

My analogy works just fine.

Evolutionists make the exact assumption in my example, that homologous similarities prove common ancestry, and ignore the fact that a common designer would obviously use economy of design, which is common sense, resulting in what you label as nested hierarchies

This response doesn't take into account that these nested hierarchies are not just observed in present day homologies, but are also observed temporally throughout earth history. Fish to amphibian to reptile to bird/mammal, from the Cambrian to present times. The phylogenetic trees observed in dna of modern species is a 1 to 1 match with the phylogenetic trees of the fossil succession, biogeographic distributions and morphology throughout the rock record.

What explanation for this could there be but common descent?

God creates, says no no, this isn't good enough, deletes creation, restarts with something similar, say no no, still not good enough, deletes creation again, creates something similar yet slightly different, still not good enough, deletes it, creates, deletes, creates, deletes, creates, delete, countless times over and over and over again?

Or there is the more simple and reasonable conclusion that life lived, gave birth to something similar to itself but slightly different, just as a father gives birth to a son that is slightly different to himself, and that life had lived for a very long time.

 

[AV1611VET]

Every creationist here knows more than any scientist on earth.

Eyes barn ignit, eyes die ignit.

 

[Hans Blaster]

So the evolutionist honest enough to admit the Cambrian explosion is incredibly problematic, don’t understand science either?

You evolutionists really need a new and improved reason why there are many with graduate degrees in the sciences, who don’t buy into the metaphysical philosophy of naturalistic materialism masquerading as actual science.

You keep using that term. I do not think it means what you think it does.

You seem to either think that we are all evolutionary biologists (I'm not sure there is a single one here) and they should be called "evolutionists".

--or--

You think that evolution is a dogma with believers or followers and those believers are called "evolutionists". The problem with this is that evolution is *not* a dogma, but rather a science. Science and sciences don't have "adherents" and there doesn't seem to be a name for those who accept the results of scientific endeavor rather than a non-scientific dogma that intrudes into the same space.

The first of these seems to be an odd usage; the second is just plain wrong.

 

[Bradskii]

You keep using that term. I do not think it means what you think it does.

You seem to either think that we are all evolutionary biologists (I'm not sure there is a single one here) and they should be called "evolutionists".

--or--

You think that evolution is a dogma with believers or followers and those believers are called "evolutionists". The problem with this is that evolution is *not* a dogma, but rather a science. Science and sciences don't have "adherents" and there doesn't seem to be a name for those who accept the results of scientific endeavor rather than a non-scientific dogma that intrudes into the same space.

The first of these seems to be an odd usage; the second is just plain wrong.

It was pointed out to me earlier today in another thread by someone who shall remain nameless, that one couldn't demonstrate gravity. In all seriousness. Maybe he thought I was a dogmatic gravitationalist.

 

[Job 33:6]

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.

The fossil record and Cambrian explosion as a part of the fossil record, do not contradict phyletic gradualism, no more than a photo album contradicts that people gradually grow old between times in which photos are taken.

Your post makes it sound like you think that a photo album demonstrates that people don't grow day by day, but rather skip years of life just because that's what you see in the album.

Just as the geologic succession doesn't have layers for every single minute of time throughout all of earth history, just as a photo album doesn't have photos of every single second throughout someone's life, and so we shouldn't expect to see every single moment of that life throughout time in that geologic succession just as we wouldn't expect such from a photo album.

 

[driewerf]

You keep using that term. I do not think it means what you think it does.

You seem to either think that we are all evolutionary biologists (I'm not sure there is a single one here) and they should be called "evolutionists".

--or--

You think that evolution is a dogma with believers or followers and those believers are called "evolutionists". The problem with this is that evolution is *not* a dogma, but rather a science. Science and sciences don't have "adherents" and there doesn't seem to be a name for those who accept the results of scientific endeavor rather than a non-scientific dogma that intrudes into the same space.

The first of these seems to be an odd usage; the second is just plain wrong.

Creationists have come to their conclusions first (the Earth is 6000 years old and all is created), and try to shoehorn reality into their worldview. By labeling the science minded, empirical oriented people as "evolutionist" they try to drag us to their own level. As if the scientific community is doing what they do, formulate the conclusion first and look for confirmation there after. That's why I was not amused when Pitabread also used that word and I objected with the following.post
Poll: Does the Theory of Evolution have practical applications?

I object to call myself an evolutionist. Creationists may call themselves creationists. they have decided a position and are shoehorning reality into their preconceived "conclusion".
I didn't. I studied sciences (that brighter people than me gathered) and reached a conclusion after study. The ToE is the conclusion after empirical investigation, not a position in which reality needs to be forced.
"Empiricist" doesn't cover it completely, but comes closer than evolutionist.

We, science minded people, should object every time we are called "evolutionists". It is completely idiotic to use that we self call us that way.

So @Hans Blaster, I agree with you entirely.

 

[Job 33:6]

And the deception is in not acknowledging that finding soft tissue and cells in dinosaur bones claimed to be 70 million years old, falsifies their claimed age, since soft tissue would last a few thousand years at best.

Studies have shown that dna can last millions of years under conditions conducive to preservation.

Boston Strangler Case: How Long Does DNA Last? | Live Science

And animal bones and permineralized tissue can likewise last millions of years.

In a more broad sense, perhaps young earthers should be pondering why we haven't sequenced dna from dinosaurs if they really just died a few thousand years ago.

Such a question will never be answered for them.

 

[chad kincham]

Way to go, Chad. Without any formal education in genetics you proved those pesky scientists wrong. And those scientists who could find no purpose in a lot of dna and suggested that it appeared to be junk...what do they say now that other scientists have investigated further and discovered that some of it is actually usefull? I'll tell you. They say 'Gosh darn it guys. It IS useful. We're making progress!' Or words to that effect.

Now back to the Wise one at the creation lab (the creation lab? A flash of lightening. A roll of thunder. Maniacal laughter. The villagers march on to the castle with torches and pitchforks!). What does he say when presented with solid evidence that he was incorrect. Apologise? Reapraise his position? Adjust his thinking. Admit his mistakes?

Nah. He said he will ignore any evidence even if it is shown to be true if it contradicts scripture.

Whaddya think of people who admit that they will lie to you? This is one of the guys you rely on to put forward your position. And he's telling you that he will not tell you the truth because you won't want to hear it.

Honestly, what do you think of someone like that?

Same thing as the quotes from evolutionist that include they will ignore any data pointing towards creation, “ because we cannot allow a divine foot in the door”

Given how many times they’ve had to backtrack about claims they made, why would anyone be in any hurry to immediately accept the latest claimed evidence?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Same thing as the quotes from evolutionist that include they will ignore any data pointing towards creation, “ because we cannot allow a divine foot in the door”

Given how many times they’ve had to backtrack about claims they made, why would anyone be in any hurry to immediately accept the latest claimed evidence?

Remember how I pointed out that you do not understand the basics of science? This confirms my claim. What are these supposed "data points". What testable hypothesis points to a creator? You appear to be once again accusing others of your sins.

Follow the rules of science and people will allow for the a "divine foot in the door". Creationists have a strange aversion to forming a proper hypothesis.