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

[pitabread]

No, creation boils down to trusting that God did it the way He said He did it.

Which is written into His Creation. Odd that you would choose to ignore that.

I’m called to proclaim the gospel and urge unbelievers to repent and trust Christ for salvation.

By requiring said individuals to turn their back on God's Creation in the process? How very strange.

 

[klutedavid]

Speaking as someone who's been in a court of law, they're evidence but they're never good evidence. They're heavily suspect and also incredibly hard to properly validate (I should know, I was on a jury for a murder trial a few years back).

What did you think of the trial. I worked with a girl that did jury duty in an assault case. She loved the experience and wanted to become a lawyer.

 

[pitabread]

The bottom line is I see no reason to trust your god nor the people that claim to write its "message".

Especially when they resort to cheap gaslighting (e.g. claiming things like evolution are a satanic plot or some such). It comes across as overly desperate.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Was that a question?

It was an observation.

 

[Hammster]

And I'm looking at what the Creator Created with His own hands and signed off with His signature. I think that's a more direct connection.

At least you have the admiration of the atheists.

 

[Hammster]

The bottom line is I see no reason to trust your god nor the people that claim to write its "message".

(I'm not a pagan, and I doubt pitabread is either.)

I know.


But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
— 1 Corinthians 2:14

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What did you think of the trial. I worked with a girl that did jury duty in an assault case. She loved the experience and wanted to become a lawyer.

Very interesting, though it was unnerving, to say the least, to be sat directly across from a man who was considered a clinical psychopath and had brutally stabbed a man over a dozen times in the head, shoulders and torso.

 

[Ophiolite]

I can do whatever I like.

If you choose not to argue in good faith this is certainly the case. However, with that approach don't expect your thoughts to be respected, or people to bother to take the time to refute your cynical cherry picking.

 

[driewerf]

You can go over papers on evolution with a divining rod and never find how the changes occur at the level that they must happen for the process to work. There are only giant leaps, leaps that would require thousands of minute changes at the molecular or even atomic level. These changes are nowhere to be found in these writings. Truly the devil is in the details, or lack thereof.

Wrong. Here is an example:

A simple and elegant way to show evolution in action was set up by professor Kishony and his team. A gigantic petri dish was divided in lanes with increasing concentration of antibiotics, from (0 , no antibiotics: 1 just enough to kill all bacteria, gradually up to 1000 x the concentration of 1). Different strains of Escherichia Coli were spotted in the 0 lane. As this lane got filled and the places for new bacteria got depleted the bacteria were pushing against the boundary of the 10 lane. Only those bacteria and their descendants that got the suitable mutations for surviving in a higher concentration of antibiotics made it to the next lane. The experiment filmed over 11 days shows clearly that bacteria can evolve a resistance to a 1000 fold stronger concentration of antibiotics than the wild type bacteria.

Here you have the same experiment, but with professor Kishony explaining the experiment.
The experiment performed by Roy Kishony and his team in which bacteria (Escherichia coli) were gradually exposed to increasing concentrations of antibiotics; and the bacteria evolved a growing resistance to these antibiotics. There is a practical application to this experiment. The administration of medication to patients, and especially the administration of different drugs together.

The experiment as described in the OP confronted E coli with gradually increasing concentrations of antibiotics. Kishony et al tested the reaction of a bacteria population when confronted with a 2000 fold concentration in one single step. There the population wasn't able to evolve the resistance against the antibiotics. The adaptation had to be gradually.

It shows that evolution is cumulative. Each mutation increases the resistance to the antibiotics in an incremental way (see how the growth of the culture pauses at every boundary and how the growth always start at one tiny spot).

a few technical papers published by the team

Spatiotemporal microbial evolution on antibiotic landscapes
Accelerated evolution of resistance in multidrug environments
Spatiotemporal microbial evolution on antibiotic landscapes
https://www.researchgate.net/public...nning_Title_The_Kishony_Mega-Plate_Experiment


the website of Roy Kishony's research institue:

Home - Kishony lab

 

[pitabread]

You can go over papers on evolution with a divining rod and never find how the changes occur at the level that they must happen for the process to work. There are only giant leaps, leaps that would require thousands of minute changes at the molecular or even atomic level. These changes are nowhere to be found in these writings. Truly the devil is in the details, or lack thereof.

There are loads of papers that deal with evolution at the molecular level and include detailing the specific mutations that occur. If you know what you are looking for, these are easy to find.

Here is an example detailing the origins of opsins (light-sensitive receptors) where they talk about the specific mutations involved: Metazoan opsin evolution reveals a simple route to animal vision

 

[klutedavid]

If you choose not to argue in good faith this is certainly the case. However, with that approach don't expect your thoughts to be respected, or people to bother to take the time to refute your cynical cherry picking.

Actually, the truth is that there are a number of different estimates for parameters such as the Hubble constant. It is not really a precise science due to these assumptions.

Value of the Hubble Constant.
The value of the Hubble constant is estimated by measuring the redshift of distant galaxies and then determining the distances to them by some other method than Hubble's law. This approach forms part of the cosmic distance ladder for measuring distances to extragalactic objects. Uncertainties in the physical assumptions used to determine these distances have caused varying estimates of the Hubble constant. (wiki.Hubblelaw.Cosmological.constant.abandoned)

Now that is an understatement.

I am not cherry picking because there are different estimates based on the variables.

 

[Ophiolite]

Actually, the truth is that there are a number of different estimates for parameters such as the Hubble constant. It is not really a precise science due to these assumptions.

Value of the Hubble Constant.
The value of the Hubble constant is estimated by measuring the redshift of distant galaxies and then determining the distances to them by some other method than Hubble's law. This approach forms part of the cosmic distance ladder for measuring distances to extragalactic objects. Uncertainties in the physical assumptions used to determine these distances have caused varying estimates of the Hubble constant. (wiki.Hubblelaw.Cosmological.constant.abandoned)

Now that is an understatement.

I am not cherry picking because there are different estimates based on the variables.

Please don't dissemble. In your posts you clearly shift position, omit information and cherry pick. The evidence is there. So either you are posting incompetently, or insincerely. (The only other possibility I can think of is that I am hallucinating, but the pink elephant assures me I'm not.)

 

[klutedavid]

Please don't dissemble. In your posts you clearly shift position, omit information and cherry pick. The evidence is there. So either you are posting incompetently, or insincerely. (The only other possibility I can think of is that I am hallucinating, but the pink elephant assures me I'm not.)

Astronomy shifts its position over time.

You must resist making accusations (insincerely).

 

[Subduction Zone]

Astronomy shifts its position over time.

You must resist making accusations (insincerely).

All sciences shift there positions over time. You were caught cherry picking. There were no insincere accusations.

 

[klutedavid]

All sciences shift there positions over time. You were caught cherry picking. There were no insincere accusations.

There are alternate views and research in the scientific world, it has always been that way. In cosmology, there are competing fields of research involving the different interpretations of the parameters.

In October 2018, scientists presented a new third way (two earlier methods, one based on redshifts and another on the cosmic distance ladder, gave results that do not agree), using information from gravitational wave events (especially those involving the merger of neutron stars, like GW170817), of determining the Hubble constant.[49][50]

In July 2019, astronomers reported that a new method to determine the Hubble constant, and resolve the discrepancy of earlier methods, has been proposed based on the mergers of pairs of neutron stars, following the detection of the neutron star merger of GW170817.[51][52] Their measurement of the Hubble constant is 70.3+5.3
−5.0 (km/s)/Mpc.[53]

Also in July 2019, astronomers reported another new method, using data from the Hubble Space Telescope and based on distances to red giant stars calculated using the tip of the red-giant branch (TRGB) distance indicator. Their measurement of the Hubble constant is 69.8+1.9
−1.9 (km/s)/Mpc.[54][55][56]

In March 2020, Lucas Lombriser, physicist at the University of Geneva, presented a possible way of reconciling the two significantly different determinations of the Hubble constant by proposing the notion of a nearby vast "bubble", 250 million light years in diameter, that is half the density of the rest of the universe.
(wiki. hubblelaw)

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are alternate views and research in the scientific world, it has always been that way. In cosmology, there are competing fields of research involving the different interpretations of the parameters.

In October 2018, scientists presented a new third way (two earlier methods, one based on redshifts and another on the cosmic distance ladder, gave results that do not agree), using information from gravitational wave events (especially those involving the merger of neutron stars, like GW170817), of determining the Hubble constant.[49][50]

In July 2019, astronomers reported that a new method to determine the Hubble constant, and resolve the discrepancy of earlier methods, has been proposed based on the mergers of pairs of neutron stars, following the detection of the neutron star merger of GW170817.[51][52] Their measurement of the Hubble constant is 70.3+5.3
−5.0 (km/s)/Mpc.[53]

Also in July 2019, astronomers reported another new method, using data from the Hubble Space Telescope and based on distances to red giant stars calculated using the tip of the red-giant branch (TRGB) distance indicator. Their measurement of the Hubble constant is 69.8+1.9
−1.9 (km/s)/Mpc.[54][55][56]

In March 2020, Lucas Lombriser, physicist at the University of Geneva, presented a possible way of reconciling the two significantly different determinations of the Hubble constant by proposing the notion of a nearby vast "bubble", 250 million light years in diameter, that is half the density of the rest of the universe.
(wiki. hubblelaw)

It appears that you still do not understand your error.

 

[klutedavid]

It appears that you still do not understand your error.

Astronomy does the cherry picking.

 

[klutedavid]

It appears that you still do not understand your error.

Are you infallible?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Astronomy does the cherry picking.

Nope, just because one does not understand the sciences does not mean that they are guilty of the sins of the person making rather poor claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you infallible?

Of course not. But I do not need to be infallible to see your error. I was wondering you saw it yet.