Evolution happens

[AV1611VET]

No, creationist scientists, an oxymoron,

That sounds familiar.

I may have said that once or twice myself.

There is no such thing as "creationist science".

"Creationist science" is a contradiction in terms.

If you disagree, show me science in Genesis 1.

... is a contradiction in terms.

Creation science is a contradiction in terms.

"Creation science" is a contradiction in terms.

It's a contradiction in terms, that's what it is.

And I don't need to resort to minced oaths to explain it.

One has nothing to do with the other.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Tell that to Frances Kelsey who, despite being provided evidence that Thalidomide was a legitimate prenatal wonder drug, refused to sanction it in the United States until further tests were performed.

(In fact, that's probably what all the other scientists thought among themselves: "I despair. We've presented evidence to her consistently and persistently, and still she wants more. I'm literally sitting here on the verge of crying.")

The fact that no such evidence was ever presented, should give you pause.
The fact that Ms Kelsey COULD NOT GET evidence that Thalidomide was PROPERLY TESTED, should give you even more pause.
Ms Kelsey exposed the chicanery of ADVERTISERS, who tried to present an inadequately tested drug, as a "wonder drug".
And the INVESTORS who were expecting profit on their investment, were able to bully the scientists into silence, by sole virtue of every one of those scientist having worked with one Dr J Mengele at some point between 1940, and 1943. Either directly or indirectly. And as such they were eligible for a quick trip to Spandau Prison. And a possible date with a noose.
The INVESTORS paid the ADVERTIZERS to sing praises of Thalidomide. And the ADVERTIZERS did their job.
But Dr Kelsey was also a scientist. And was NOT an ex-Nazi. So the investors could not intimidate her.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Half right, half wrong.


Whether you like it or not, the research on evolution is definitely science.

You can reject the results. You can reject all science as useless. You can decide you prefer you bible-based answer. But...

None of those makes the study of evolution not scientific.

(Note that I am not talking about the conclusions or discoveries of science about evolution, only the process of the study of evolution by science.)

I'm not convinced that studying something that does not exist is scientific.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm not convinced that studying something that does not exist is scientific.

They are studying biological organisms, fossils, etc. Those things definitely exist.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Ah, fossils are interesting. Their study began in the 18th and 19th Centuries when mining, canal building and railways were being developed. Engineers wanted a way of predicting what lay under the terrain where they were planning canals, tunnels and cuttings for for their projects. Fossil studies provided a reliable guide.

Evolution goes a long way in explaining the sequences of fossil remains and strongly confirms patterns of development from simple to complex in the biological sciences.

For Creationists - Young Earth or other - they must have been placed in the earth in the first six days of Genesis. But why?

There are a couple of possible explanations. The one that makes most sense to me is Old Earth/pre-Adamic creation. It is possible to derive that from the Genesis account.

I believe the alternate reading of "The earth was formless and empty and darkness covered the deep (waters)". In the alternate reading, "was" is translated "became". (The same word translated "was" is used of Lot's wife when she became a pillar of salt. That's not how she started out!)

If this is so, then Noah's flood was the second, not the first. It is not stated how long the earth had been covered in water and in darkness. It is not able to be determined how old the earth was at the time of Genesis 1.

If the pre-Adamic creation theory is correct, it overcomes a lot of the objections raised by evolutionists. The pre-Adamic creation theory predates Darwin, geology, and fossil research. It was not made up to counter evolutionist arguments.

On the age of the earth, I cannot accept the age proposed by evolutionists. The moon is moving away from the earth at a measurable rate, 40 mm per year. The tidal energy generated by the moon slows down the rotation of the earth. The moon loses energy which is dissipated in the oceans. Eventually, the moon and earth will be in balance and there will be no tides. Working backwards from the moon/earth relationship, there is no way that the earth can be 4.5 billion years old. The maths (so the "unscientific" mathematicians tell me) is complex and some of the equation values have to be assumed. However, whatever reasonable values are used, the earth cannot be as old as evolutionists assert.

 

[Aussie Pete]

They are studying biological organisms, fossils, etc. Those things definitely exist.

Sure, that is not the issue. It is the underlying assumptions that I (and many much smarter people) dispute.

 

[Bradskii]

I'm not convinced that studying something that does not exist is scientific.

Pete, why don't you actually play the cards you are holding and we skip all this bluff. Let's say that we divide Christians up into two groups. The first - the majority, hold that Genesis is a metaphor describing how God created everything. The second - certainly a minority in Australia (but perhaps not in the US), take Genesis literally.

Now members of both groups obviously believe in God and that He sent His son to die for our sins and rise from tbe dead to return to heaven. That's really the definition of 'a Christian'. So that's you and all the other Christians on this site. And if members of the first group have decided that God used a process which we have determined to be evolution to create everything, that doesn't mean that they don't believe in God. It doesn't mean that they reject God. It doesn't mean that they think God has deceived us. It doesn't mean that they think the bible is wrong. It simply means that they interpret Genesis as being metaphorical. It's still true. But not to be taken literally.

Now if there were no atheists in the world, that wouldn't change. There'd still be these two groups and you'd still be in the one that interprets certain parts of scripture literally. And both groups would still believe in God. And being in one group or another wouldn't change that.

So nobody is trying to deny God here. Nobody is saying that one group is 'more Christian' than the other. Nobody is questioning your faith. What is being said is that there is a gargantuan amount of evidence for the evolutionary process and none for a creation event as described in Genesis.

And the important fact here is that your belief is based on what you have been taught about scripture and what you have personally determined to be true. So trying to use science to back up your position is a non starter. Because it's not based on science. And likewise trying to denigrate the alternate position using science is also going to fail. Because that is supported by the aforementioned gargantuan amount of evidence. And your admission that you have no interest in learning anything about it.

It surely shouldn't need me to tell you that it's not a great idea trying to reject something about which you know nothing.

 

[Bradskii]

On the age of the earth, I cannot accept the age proposed by evolutionists. The moon is moving away from the earth at a measurable rate, 40 mm per year. The tidal energy generated by the moon slows down the rotation of the earth. The moon loses energy which is dissipated in the oceans. Eventually, the moon and earth will be in balance and there will be no tides. Working backwards from the moon/earth relationship, there is no way that the earth can be 4.5 billion years old. The maths (so the "unscientific" mathematicians tell me) is complex and some of the equation values have to be assumed. However, whatever reasonable values are used, the earth cannot be as old as evolutionists assert.

You don't seem to me to be the scientific type, Pete. But here you are denigrating science when it counters that which you believe and then using it when you think it proves it (it doesn't).

Some consistency would be appreciated.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here's another remarkable quote:

“One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, was … it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That’s quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. …so for the last few weeks I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people. Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, ‘I do know one thing — it ought not to be taught in high school’.” (Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist; British Museum of Natural History)

Quote mining is almost always a form of lying. If one has to lie to supports one's beliefs that is a very very good sign that one is wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not convinced that studying something that does not exist is scientific.

Perhaps you should try to learn the basics of science. I would gladly help.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You don't seem to me to be the scientific type, Pete. But here you are denigrating science when it counters that which you believe and then using it when you think it proves it (it doesn't).

Some consistency would be appreciated.

One cannot be consistent and be a creationist.

 

[AV1611VET]

One cannot be consistent and be a creationist.

Ya ... nothing in science changes, does it?

Pluto is still our ninth planet, Thalidomide is still a prenatal wonder drug, O-rings were not redesigned, Nebraska Man is still Nebraska Man, we have only one (not some seven) hypothesis as to how we got our moon, etc and so on?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ya ... nothing in science changes, does it?

Pluto is still our ninth planet, Thalidomide is still a prenatal wonder drug, O-rings were not redesigned, Nebraska Man is still Nebraska Man, we have only one (not some seven) hypothesis as to how we got our moon, etc and so on?

No, science changes all of the time. That is its strength.

By the way you just admitted that you are wrong again by bringing up all of those false claims of yours.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, science changes all of the time.

But truth doesn't.

By the way you just admitted that you are wrong again by bringing up all of those false claims of yours.

What false claims?

1. That Pluto is no longer our ninth planet?
2. Thalidomide is no longer a wonder drug?
3. O-rings were redesigned?
4. Nebraska Man was decommissioned?
5. We have some seven different hypotheses as to how we got our moon?
6. There are more examples on the books?

Those false claims?

 

[Subduction Zone]

But truth doesn't.What false claims?

1. That Pluto is no longer our ninth planet?
2. Thalidomide is no longer a wonder drug?
3. O-rings were redesigned?
4. Nebraska Man was decommissioned?
5. We have some seven different hypotheses as to how we got our moon?
6. There are more examples on the books?

Those false claims?

You do not appear to understand the concept of truth. Perhaps it is time to learn.

 

[Shemjaza]

Sure, that is not the issue. It is the underlying assumptions that I (and many much smarter people) dispute.

Any specifics?

That studying evidence of the physical world is an effective way to learn about the physical world.

Bluster doesn't make evidence disappear and vague accusations of unwarranted assumptions, conspiracy or dishonesty are unjustified.

 

[Mr Laurier]

But truth doesn't.What false claims?

1. That Pluto is no longer our ninth planet?
2. Thalidomide is no longer a wonder drug?
3. O-rings were redesigned?
4. Nebraska Man was decommissioned?
5. We have some seven different hypotheses as to how we got our moon?
6. There are more examples on the books?

Those false claims?

1 The definition of "Planet" was refined. After the definition was amended, it was noticed that Pluto no longer qualified as a planet. But you already know this.
2 It never was a "wonder drug". But you already know this.
3 O rings are redesigned all the time. But you already know this.
4 Nebraska man was never commissioned in the first place. It was made up by tabloid newspapers, to sell copy. But you already know this.
5 Its down to one credible model. And has been for a whole. I'll grant that you are not actually aware of this, since your preferred sources tend to be a few decades out of date.

 

[AV1611VET]

Its down to one credible model.

The others aside, I don't believe this at all.

What's this from National Geographic then?

Earth had Two Moons, New Model Suggests

And has been for a whole.

For a whole what? week? month? year?

That article is from 2011, so is it a whole decade?

Do you think they'll come out with a new one tomorrow?

I'll grant that you are not actually aware of this,

You're right. I'm not.

And I'm still not, since I don't believe you.

 

[Mr Laurier]

The others aside, I don't believe this at all.

Reality does not care what you believe.

What's this from National Geographic then?

Earth had Two Moons, New Model Suggests

Server not found
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/110803-earth-two-moons-collision-space-science

For a whole what? week? month? year?

"While"
"For a while"

 

[AV1611VET]

Server not found.

Then go by its title.