Can Creationism Interpret Evidence?

joshua 1 9 · Nov 20, 2015

bhsmte said:
Tell us about his presentation. What was stupid that you told him to bury?

He was doing research on the lungs in regard to premature births. On the very front page he put that he was injecting acid down into the lungs of bunny rabbits to observe the effect. He was actually from Sweden and he had to come to America to do his research because they would not allow him to abuse animals that way in Sweden.

This is one of those questions. Is it ok to abuse animals if you are working on developing a more cost effective treatment plan for preemies that do not have fully developed lungs. The current program works for people in developed nations but is not cost effective for poor people. So he was working on a treatment plan that did not cost a lot of money.

joshua 1 9 · Nov 20, 2015

bhsmte said:
Specifics?

Why don't I just answer the question for you. It is because people spend a huge amount of time JUST to specialize in a very small area of understanding. So to normal people they seem stupid and uneducated because they often lack the general knowledge that most people have. Also they are indoctrinated or brainwashed into a way of doing things that sometimes defies logic and common sense. Of course they accuse Christians of being brainwashed also. So maybe they are the same in that regard. Also they tend NOT to want to talk to people outside of their inner circle so this makes them seem like social recluses at times.

bhsmte · Nov 20, 2015

joshua 1 9 said:
He was doing research on the lungs in regard to premature births. On the very front page he put that he was injecting acid down into the lungs of bunny rabbits to observe the effect. He was actually from Sweden and he had to come to America to do his research because they would not allow him to abuse animals that way in Sweden.

This is one of those questions. Is it ok to abuse animals if you are working on developing a more cost effective treatment plan for preemies that do not have fully developed lungs. The current program works for people in developed nations but is not cost effective for poor people. So he was working on a treatment plan that did not cost a lot of money.

What was the conclusion of his research?

bhsmte · Nov 20, 2015

joshua 1 9 said:
Why don't I just answer the question for you. It is because people spend a huge amount of time JUST to specialize in a very small area of understanding. So to normal people they seem stupid and uneducated because they often lack the general knowledge that most people have. Also they are indoctrinated or brainwashed into a way of doing things that sometimes defies logic and common sense. Of course they accuse Christians of being brainwashed also. So maybe they are the same in that regard. Also they tend NOT to want to talk to people outside of their inner circle so this makes them seem like social recluses at times.

Seems like your personal perceptions and opinions.

Let's take a cardiologist who specializes in valve replacement and nothing else. They have studied and focused on this specialty for years and have become adept at their work. Are you claiming they go about their work in a way that defies logic and common sense?

joshua 1 9 · Nov 20, 2015

bhsmte said:
Seems like your personal perceptions and opinions.

Let's take a cardiologist who specializes in valve replacement and nothing else. They have studied and focused on this specialty for years and have become adept at their work. Are you claiming they go about their work in a way that defies logic and common sense?

I am talking about how well they function in the world outside of their work. How well they do in their area of specialty is different. A lot of them are so dysfunctional that they are not even able to function well in the area they are highly trained in. But you would think they could at least do their job. I would hope that everyone everywhere can perform well at their chosen profession.

Just what do they do with the heart valve? Either they put in a very crude man made valve. The one on your washing machine is most likely more advanced because they do not want the water from your dirty clothing to back up into the drinking water in your kitchen. Or they can put a pig valve into your heart. Is that pretty much the option? So that is ALL they do, that is ALL they are trained to do is to install a pig valve into a human heart. The average survival rate without surgical intervention is only 50 percent after two years and only 20 percent after five years. So because of the results they are able to get, even with the crude way they go about it, they still can make pretty good money for themselves.

The point is, even if they are able to get as good of results at the other heart valve doctors get, that does not make them proficient at anything else in life. What would make you think that they are competent or capable in other areas of life just because they can do their job as effectively as other people do that same job?

joshua 1 9 · Nov 20, 2015

bhsmte said:
What was the conclusion of his research?

I don't know, he died from lung disease. I see his son every now and then. He is getting ready to start high school. So we try to help him. As far as I know his son plans to be a doctor. Because of his dad's job his education is paid for all the way through medical school.

bhsmte · Nov 20, 2015

joshua 1 9 said:
I am talking about how well they function in the world outside of their work. How well they do in their area of specialty is different. A lot of them are so dysfunctional that they are not even able to function well in the area they are highly trained in. But you would think they could at least do their job. I would hope that everyone everywhere can perform well at their chosen profession.

Just what do they do with the heart valve? Either they put in a very crude man made valve. The one on your washing machine is most likely more advanced because they do not want the water from your dirty clothing to back up into the drinking water in your kitchen. Or they can put a pig valve into your heart. Is that pretty much the option? So that is ALL they do, that is ALL they are trained to do is to install a pig valve into a human heart. The average survival rate without surgical intervention is only 50 percent after two years and only 20 percent after five years. So because of the results they are able to get, even with the crude way they go about it, they still can make pretty good money for themselves.

The point is, even if they are able to get as good of results at the other heart valve doctors get, that does not make them proficient at anything else in life. What would make you think that they are competent or capable in other areas of life just because they can do their job as effectively as other people do that same job?

This makes no sense.

Justatruthseeker · Nov 29, 2015

bhsmte said:
Seems like your personal perceptions and opinions.

Let's take a cardiologist who specializes in valve replacement and nothing else. They have studied and focused on this specialty for years and have become adept at their work. Are you claiming they go about their work in a way that defies logic and common sense?

That's a two-way street. If I needed a valve replacement I would be smart enough to go see such a person or take advice from such a person.

So why do cosmologist and you ignore every single plasma physicist when it comes to the behavior of plasma - 99% of the universe? Should we not go to the experts on plasma behavior when we are discussing a universe 99% plasma?

But for some reason all of you want me to go to non-experts in the field of plasma physics when it comes to your cosmological beliefs.

So if I have a heart problem is it ok if I go to a podiatrist? Which is exactly what supporters of mainstream cosmology ask me to do. To ignore the plasma experts in a universe 99% plasma and accept instead someone with barely the basic knowledge of it's behavior. No more knowledge than a podiatrist has concerning the heart.

Suddenly you no longer support your argument when it comes to cosmology, right?

Loudmouth · Nov 30, 2015

SkyWriting said:
I notice that you don't look for any.
This makes you look like a poor researcher.

Download Superfaults and Pseudotachylytes: Evidence of Catastrophic Earth Movements PDF

Not a peer reviewed journal.

Download The Chasm Between the Human and Chimpanzee Genomes: A Review of the Evolutionary Literature PDF

A review paper is not original research.

Download New Research Evaluating Similarities Between Human and Chimpanzee DNA PDF

Not a peer reviewed journal.

Want to try again?

Loudmouth · Nov 30, 2015

Justatruthseeker said:
I propose it is evolutionists that are unable to interpret the evidence correctly.

Asian mates with Asian and produces only Asian. African mates with African and produces only African.

Asians are direct descendants of Africans. Your claims have been refuted.

Justatruthseeker · Nov 30, 2015

Loudmouth said:
Not a peer reviewed journal.

A review paper is not original research.

Not a peer reviewed journal.

Want to try again?

So what is your excuse going to be this time???

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?...ic+earth+movements&btnG=&as_sdt=1,37&as_sdtp=

Loudmouth · Nov 30, 2015

Justatruthseeker said:
I still say it is evolutionists that can't interpret the evidence correctly.

This thread is about creationists. If you want to discuss the evolutionary interpretation of the evidence, please go here:
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/endogenous-retroviruses-and-human-evolution-v-2.7911273/

Loudmouth · Nov 30, 2015

Justatruthseeker said:
So what is your excuse going to be this time???

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=evidence+of+catastrophic+earth+movements&btnG=&as_sdt=1,37&as_sdtp=

What is your excuse for not citing a single peer reviewed original research paper?

Justatruthseeker · Nov 30, 2015

Loudmouth said:
Asians are direct descendants of Africans. Your claims have been refuted.

Says who, you? So fit that to the observational evidence, what infraspecific taxa did the African mate with to produce the Asian????? No one is arguing Asians did not come from African's, just that Africans are still Africans and did not evolve into Asians. Again - you ask me to ignore all observational evidence of how life propagates. But that's nothing new for you - you always ignore all observational evidence when it comes to your religious beliefs of evolution.

We agree - Asians are descended from Africans - I just refuse to ignore that Africans had to mate with another infraspecific taxa within the human species to produce the Asian. Just as it takes noth an Asian and an African to make an Afro-Asian.

What's your next strawman going to be?

Justatruthseeker · Nov 30, 2015

Loudmouth said:
What is your excuse for not citing a single peer reviewed original research paper?

I just cited you about 10,000 peer reviewed articles. Don't blame me because you didn't read them.

Loudmouth · Nov 30, 2015

Justatruthseeker said:
Says who, you?

Says all the genetic evidence. Asians are direct descendants of Africans. Africans became Asians over time.

Loudmouth · Nov 30, 2015

Justatruthseeker said:
I just cited you about 10,000 peer reviewed articles. Don't blame me because you didn't read them.

You didn't cite one. A link to a google search is not a citation.

farout · Nov 30, 2015

Loudmouth said:
We often hear that creationism is just a different interpretation of the evidence. It is my contention that creationists don't interpret the data at all. Let's see who is right.

I went to Homologene and found the pairwise comparisons for the cytochrome c gene, cycs. The pairwise comparison shows the differences between model organisms. Here are the results for the differences between the human gene and the model organisms:

View attachment 165695

Let's focus on three species: human (H. sapiens), mouse (M. musculus), and chicken (G. gallus). Let's also use the DNA comparison to negate the effect of synonymous mutations in the protein sequence.

The similarity between the human and mouse gene is 90.5%. The similarity between the human and chicken gene is 81.6%.

Now comes the hard part. What does creationism predict will be the difference between the chicken and mouse cycs gene sequence, and why?

So pardon me for jumping in here. I gather your point is that we can't trust the Biblical account of creation, correct? If so, than the next logical thing might be to assume there is no God?

Loudmouth · Nov 30, 2015

farout said:
So pardon me for jumping in here. I gather your point is that we can't trust the Biblical account of creation, correct? If so, than the next logical thing might be to assume there is no God?

First, Moses wrote Genesis, not God. Perhaps Moses got it wrong. Second, your interpretation of Genesis could also be wrong. Third, God could exist but did not inspire the Bible. For those reasons, nothing in the opening post is trying to insinuate that there is no God.

What I am saying is that you can't use the Bible or modern creationism to predict observations in the field of genetics. I am saying that creationists don't interpret data. They just project their dogmatic beliefs onto science. Care to prove me wrong?

Loudmouth · Nov 30, 2015

As the poster above mentioned, there is a challenge in the opening post. Any creationists want to take it on?

Let's focus on three species: human (H. sapiens), mouse (M. musculus), and chicken (G. gallus). Let's also use the DNA comparison to negate the effect of synonymous mutations in the protein sequence.

The similarity between the human and mouse gene is 90.5%. The similarity between the human and chicken gene is 81.6%.

Now comes the hard part. What does creationism predict will be the difference between the chicken and mouse cycs gene sequence, and why?

Can Creationism Interpret Evidence?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

Contributor

Contributor

Newbie

Contributor

Contributor

Newbie

Newbie

Contributor

Contributor

Standing firm for Christ

Contributor

Contributor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency