Another thing I don't understand about the creationist position...

[Hammster]

In scientific research, excluding data is a big no-no.
Once an equipment piece is calibrated and the control tests have been done and are within acceptance range, all produced data is considered valid. And excluding valid data is a big no-no. Scientific research is meant to discover new things, to expand our understanding of physical world. So outliers, unexpected results and anomalies are not be swept under the carpet. They are to be investigated. Because they might point to something to be explored and yet to understand. So what data to use: the data that the observation, measurement or experiment provides.
Do you remember this post of mine:

Another thing I don't understand about the creationist position...

They really don’t need dating. The rocks don't need dating? Why not? How else shall we known the geological history of a place? (In this case eastern Washington and Oregon.)

www.christianforums.com

in which I gave some examples of stuff we see with an age that lies way out of the range of 6.000 to 10.000 years. You just dismissed it as wrong (Another thing I don't understand about the creationist position...).
Again, dismissing valid data denotes an anti-scientific attitude. These measurements don’t go away because creationists don’t like them, or because they show creationists wrong. They are valid. They tell us something about the world, about the physical reality.

So you’ve gone from data to valid data. I guess I’ll just have to keep going. How do you determine what data isn’t valid?

 

[driewerf]

So you’ve gone from data to valid data. I guess I’ll just have to keep going. How do you determine what data isn’t valid?

I wrote: “Once an equipment piece is calibrated and the control tests have been done and are within acceptance range, all produced data is considered valid.”
To give a real life example, I have measured in my professional career total protein content in aqueous solutions via Biuret method. As a control a blank sample was run and a certified standard of known value. If the blank sample gave indeed a zero result and the standard gave a result within acceptance limits, the equipment was calibrated and all data gathered considered valid.
Does this explain the switch from data to valid data to your satisfaction?

Biuret - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

www.sciencedirect.com

 

[Hammster]

I wrote: “Once an equipment piece is calibrated and the control tests have been done and are within acceptance range, all produced data is considered valid.”
To give a real life example, I have measured in my professional career total protein content in aqueous solutions via Biuret method. As a control a blank sample was run and a certified standard of known value. If the blank sample gave indeed a zero result and the standard gave a result within acceptance limits, the equipment was calibrated and all data gathered considered valid.
Does this explain the switch from data to valid data to your satisfaction?

Biuret - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

www.sciencedirect.com

So true science didn’t start with data, as you claimed earlier.

 

[Frank Robert]

Another non sequitur. Why do you keep doing that?

Claiming it is a non sequitur does not make it so.

Why do you think scientists should include god in their work? Which god they include? Would it make them better scientists?

When you make ridiculous statements people are going to interpret it in ways you don't like and don't understand. I don't see any problem with a scientist saying that god inspired me but he/she should not include gods in his work for the simple fact that science deals with the natual world not the supernatural.

I tool you claim as it would make them a better scientist but the proper way to do one's job is to give their best effort.

 

[driewerf]

So true science didn’t start with data, as you claimed earlier.

Yes it does.
I don't see how you come to that conclusion.

 

[Frank Robert]

IF science applies to the passage in question.

Genesis and its passages are interpreted in numerous ways. For example when abiogenesis is mentioned some people are reminded of the Bible.

"The Bible in Genesis 1:12 (NASB 1995) says, “The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind . . .” Genesis 1:24 says, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind." Thus, the Bible clearly teaches that the earth [i.e., non-living material] produced both plants and animal life. That sure sounds like abiogenesis to me."​

​

Source: Allen Witmer Miller, Biblical Linguist, Professor & Minister​

​

 

[Hammster]

Claiming it is a non sequitur does not make it so.

I never made that claim.

Why do you think scientists should include god in their work?

It would help them get accurate results in certain fields.

Which god they include?

The God of the Bible.

Would it make them better scientists?

If results are the determining factor for “better”, then yes.

When you make ridiculous statements people are going to interpret it in ways you don't like and don't understand. I don't see any problem with a scientist saying that god inspired me but he/she should not include gods in his work for the simple fact that science deals with the natural world not the supernatural.

God created the natural world.

I tool you claim as it would make them a better scientist but the proper way to do one's job is to give their best effort.

I agree. I’m not arguing against that.

 

[Hammster]

Yes it does.
I don't see how you come to that conclusion.

What data gave you the reason for your experiment?

 

[Frank Robert]

Evolutionists have no answers for things like symbiosis, instinct, the fact that some birds are able to fly vast distances with inbuilt guidance systems that humans have trouble emulating. The development of human languages defies evolution also. And the question of "why?" is unanswered. A male peacock is a ridiculous creature from an evolutionary viewpoint. That's just one example.

God of the gaps is not the solution to what evolutionists do not yet know.

If fact it is marvelous that scientists do not know every thing, if they did what would be left to investigate.

 

[Frank Robert]

I never made that claim.

You claimed my response was. a not sequetor

It would help them get accurate results in certain fields.

If you think so you need to tell us how, when and were.

Ho

The God of the Bible.

Do you have any evidence that there is a god or gods and that god is the god of the bible?

If results are the determining factor for “better”, then yes.

Belief is not evidence that gods exist.

God created the natural world.

Even if that is true it would why wouldn't a god create the world as the natural world that we now experience?

 

[Hammster]

You claimed my response was. a not sequetor

It was. What I didn’t claim was just because I claimed it, it was so.

If you think so you need to tell us how, when and were.

I have been doing so throughout this thread.

Do you have any evidence that there is a god or gods and that god is the god of the bible?

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
— Romans 1:18-20

Belief is not evidence that gods exist.

I have never made that claim.

Even if that is true it would why wouldn't a god create the world as the natural world that we now experience?

He did.

 

[driewerf]

What data gave you the reason for your experiment?

Maybe it is useful to correct some misunderstanding. I have a science education, but I am not a scientist. I don’t do research. The example of the Biuret test on an aqueous protein solution was just to explain how to distinguish valid data from invalid data, i.e. to check if the used equipment generates good measurements. The Biuret test can be used in a wide variety of settings, like scientific research, quality control (not scientific research) or as a tool for medical diagnosis (not scientific research), maybe even in forensic investigations (which is again no scientific research).

But I will explain how scientific research starts with data. Now, for reasons of discretion I will use a fictional example, but close enough to a real research project to be useful.
Milk of dairy cows can vary in protein content. The higher the protein content the higher the nutritional and commercial value of the milk. Hence the motivation to research what influences the protein content of the milk. So here we have data: variation in protein content in milk from dairy cows. The hypothesis is put forward that variation in the content of trace elements – and mainly selenium – in the animal feed causes the variation in protein content. So an experiment is set up: some cows get feed totally depleted of selenium, other groups get feed with gradually more selenium. After a while the protein content is measured, and based on the data an optimal selenium content in feed is established. The biuret test is the measurement of the experiment and provide the data.
Another misunderstanding to be corrected: the measuring can be only one tiny small part of a whole experiment. In the previous example, the validity of the biuret test wasn’t investigated, what was investigated was what influences the protein content in milk.

 

[Hammster]

Maybe it is useful to correct some misunderstanding. I have a science education, but I am not a scientist. I don’t do research. The example of the Biuret test on an aqueous protein solution was just to explain how to distinguish valid data from invalid data, i.e. to check if the used equipment generates good measurements. The Biuret test can be used in a wide variety of settings, like scientific research, quality control (not scientific research) or as a tool for medical diagnosis (not scientific research), maybe even in forensic investigations (which is again no scientific research).

But I will explain how scientific research starts with data. Now, for reasons of discretion I will use a fictional example, but close enough to a real research project to be useful.
Milk of dairy cows can vary in protein content. The higher the protein content the higher the nutritional and commercial value of the milk. Hence the motivation to research what influences the protein content of the milk. So here we have data: variation in protein content in milk from dairy cows. The hypothesis is put forward that variation in the content of trace elements – and mainly selenium – in the animal feed causes the variation in protein content. So an experiment is set up: some cows get feed totally depleted of selenium, other groups get feed with gradually more selenium. After a while the protein content is measured, and based on the data an optimal selenium content in feed is established. The biuret test is the measurement of the experiment and provide the data.
Another misunderstanding to be corrected: the measuring can be only one tiny small part of a whole experiment. In the previous example, the validity of the biuret test wasn’t investigated, what was investigated was what influences the protein content in milk.

So it’s not the data that gives the reason. It’s the desire to know something which is the reason. Desire for knowledge is the start of science.

 

[Frank Robert]

It was. What I didn’t claim was just because I claimed it, it was so.

We can play this game all day. Based the fact that you are unable to answer how and why my comment is a non sequtor we can conclude you are unable to do so.

You need to stop making things up.

I have been doing so throughout this thread.

No you have not.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
— Romans 1:18-20

You are entitled to your beliefs in bible verses but just like you are just adding more nonsense to your other claims and denials.

I have never made that claim.

You have yet to produce anything other than your belief that god did it as evidence by your next response.

He did.

I am done wasting time with you. If I respond to you again it will likely contain the words "produce the evidence claims or they will rightfully be disregarded as nonsense."

 

[Hammster]

We can play this game all day. Based the fact that you are unable to answer how and why my comment is a non sequtor we can conclude you are unable to do so.

You never asked.

You need to stop making things up.

I’m not

No you have not.

I have.

You are entitled to your beliefs in bible verses but just like you are just adding more nonsense to your other claims and denials.

The words of God are not nonsense.

You have yet to produce anything other than your belief that god did it as evidence by your next response.

I have produced the scripture to support my claim.

I am done wasting time with you. If I respond to you again it will likely contain the words "produce the evidence claims or they will rightfully be disregarded as nonsense."

Okie dokie

 

[sjastro]

I’ll try it this way. Are you born again? Are you regenerate? If so, you are a Christian.

And yet you can't answer a simple question, we both know the answer to that don't we.
It doesn't look good for a moderator and you have painted yourself into a corner having to resort to nonsensical responses.

 

[Bradskii]

No.

I'm afraid that you appear not to know enough about it to realise what you actually want. Which these one word answers indicate. There is nothing there to back them up so many of your posts reduce to 'yes it is' or 'no it isn't'.

Go back and look at the list of scientific disciplines I gave. There are many more. And you are literally saying, and I mean quite literally, that they can't be trusted. That the theories which explain them and the data that confirms them are wrong. In which case, the very foundation's on which they are built cease to exist. There is nothing left to support them.

 

[Hammster]

And yet you can't answer a simple question, we both know the answer to that don't we.
It doesn't look good for a moderator and you have painted yourself into a corner having to resort to nonsensical responses.

I answered directly. How is it nonsensical? Are you regenerate? If so, you are a Christian who is a scientist.

 

[Hammster]

I'm afraid that you appear not to know enough about it to realise what you actually want. Which these one word answers indicate. There is nothing there to back them up so many of your posts reduce to 'yes it is' or 'no it isn't'.

Go back and look at the list of scientific disciplines I gave. There are many more. And you are literally saying, and I mean quite literally, that they can't be trusted. That the theories which explain them and the data that confirms them are wrong. In which case, the very foundation's on which they are built cease to exist. There is nothing left to support them.

Once again, no I’m not saying that.

 

[Bradskii]

Once again, no I’m not saying that.

Indeed you are. You are saying that any science that does not align with your interpretation of biblical creation is wrong. If it is wrong then it is worthless. That would be all those disciplines I mentioned. You have rejected all of them. Your position results in the end of science. Nothing can be trusted.

And yet again, we have the simplistic schoolyard-type response. It's no more than 'Oh no I didn't.' How about you actually address what I have said and explain exactly why what I have said wouldn't happen?

How about we start looking at examples? There's a thread recently started about the type of universes that the Webb telescope has discovered. And their age. Which you say would be wrong. So do we stop all experiments that the Webb is doing? Plus all the radio telescopes we have? Do we stop communication with the Voyager crafts? Do we cease to do astronomy?