Charles Robert Darwin

[Tone]

with creationists attacking it 24/7. That is a strong indicator that it is correct.

So a creationist and an evolutionist has much to gain by falsifying evolution, but neither of them have anything to gain by falsifying creationism?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have to read the slide at 14:30 of the video I posted at my post #147. What do you think about Feyerabend?

Okay, scientists may not be perfect, they are human after all, but he appears to overstate the case.

Once again science always has to be falsifiable. This is a very important concept to understand. Most creationists are creationists because they cannot deal with that standard. If the theory of evolution was miraculously shown to be wrong there would be some resistance since it is so incredibly well supported. It is seriously better supported than gravity. But scientists would come around. They always do. Creationists do not follow the scientific method. That is why it is thought to be pseudoscience. If you could come up with an honest creationist there might (though I seriously doubt it) be some support found for the idea.

 

[Tone]

A picture for any who are curious.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So a creationist and an evolutionist has much to gain by falsifying evolution, but neither of them have anything to gain by falsifying creationism?

Creationism was falsified over one hundred years ago. There is no reward for reinventing the wheel.

 

[Tone]

This clip is also interesting and if you listen from 9:00-10:00, he makes a really good point that much of science is driven by pseudoscience.

 

[46AND2]

So,economically speaking, it is more profitable for secular scientists to attempt to disprove theories (except for Darwinism), but less profitable for creation scientists to attempt to disprove creationism?

Oh, absolutely. And that includes "darwinism". Indeed, that would be the most profitable of all.

The reason this is not the case for creation researchers, is that the money is in apologetics.

 

[USincognito]

So, creation scientists don't try to disprove creationism?

They sign an oath never to do so.
Statement of Faith

• By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

 

[Jimmy D]

This clip is also interesting and if you listen from 9:00-10:00, he makes a really good point that much of science is driven by pseudoscience.

Such as?

 

[Tone]

And no, hypotheses are not "based on imagination". Clearly you do not understand the scientific method. Perhaps we should discuss that first.

That means a scientist observes nature for a while, thinks, and come up with an idea that explains what we see.

What's the difference?

 

[Tone]

Such as?

He gives the example Chemistry "growing" out of Alchemy, for one.

 

[Ophiolite]

What's the difference?

Observation precedes imagination.

This contrasts with creationism, where imagination precedes obfuscation.

 

[Tone]

So, it sounds to me like all this intentional second guessing of everything would only heighten the anticipation to find it to be true, thereby, consciously/unconsciously increasing observer bias.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What's the difference?

Coming up with an idea is the first step. For example a scientist might investigate how animals appear to be similar to each other and have an idea that they are all related. That is just an idea. Once he figures out how to test his idea it becomes a hypothesis. And a proper test must have the possibility of showing that idea to be wrong. Then he has a hypothesis and his idea has become scientific.


That is why I ask creationists what reasonable test could show that they are wrong. If they can't come up with a reasonable test that shows that their idea is not scientific at best it is a WAG (Wild Donkeyed Guess).

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, it sounds to me like all this intentional second guessing of everything would only heighten the anticipation to find it to be true, thereby, consciously/unconsciously increasing observer bias.

But there is no "guessing" that is what creationists do. One creates a formal idea and tests it. Not only that, other people will also test those formal ideas and they can find their own tests for it. That is why when someone tells me that they believe the Flood myth I ask for details on their version of the Flood since individual beliefs vary widely. Those clear beliefs can be used to set up a test for that belief and quite often show that it is wrong.

Science does not "prove" ideas in the mathematical sense. There is always a chance that they could be wrong. They could be said to "prove" ideas in the much laxer legal sense. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The theory of evolution has been proven far beyond a reasonable doubt. Those that oppose the idea almost always have a very flawed understanding of it, making their objections unreasonable by definition. Others that do understand it have to go so far as to lie to oppose it, once again making their opposition unreasonable.

 

[Tone]

That is why when someone tells me that they believe the Flood myth I ask for details on their version of the Flood since individual beliefs vary widely. Those clear beliefs can be used to set up a test for that belief and quite often show that it is wrong.

But, are the results just so, because you are looking for them to prove it wrong? How can you be certain?

 

[Tone]

"When interviewed about Cosmos: A SpaceTime Odyssey, which we reviewed earlier this week, the host of the new miniseries, astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, said this:

If you start using your scripture, your religious text as a source of your science, that’s where you run into problems, and there is no example of someone reading their scripture and saying “I have a prediction about the world that no one knows yet because this gave me insight let’s go test this prediction and have that theory turn out to be correct.”1

During the recent Nye-Ham Debate Ken Ham addressed this issue and gave several examples of scientifically confirmed predictions based on the Bible. One of these is the fact that animals only vary and reproduce within their created kinds. Ken cited a January 2014 study “supporting a single origin for dogs,”2 which is exactly what creation scientists have long said was true. The many species of dogs we see today developed from the pair of dogs Noah took aboard the Ark.

To show our readers how misinformed Tyson is about this issue, I decided to ask creation scientists from several disciplines, all with doctoral degrees and experience in their professions, to share their favorite examples of Bible-based predictions that led to demonstrably true scientific discoveries. Space does not permit including all their answers here, but those I include should readily disabuse any interested reader of such a false position.

Kinds and Species and Lack of Transitional Forms
The more we learn about speciation, the more we see that animals reproduce and vary only within their created kinds and do not evolve into new kinds. Microbiologist Dr. Andrew Fabich pointed out the newest discovery about finches, just published in Nature (“Evolutionary biology: Speciation undone,” which we will discuss in next week’s News to Know), demonstrates this principle. He says, “Darwin’s finches are widely accepted as being within the same kind. Their variation within a kind is based on the fact that there were droughts and rainy seasons. It is no surprise to creationists that the finches can still interbreed.”3

And while animals vary within their created kinds, the fossil record has failed to produce the transitional forms Darwin predicted would be found. Dr. Terry Mortenson, a historian of geology, points out that early nineteenth century “scriptural geologists” correctly argued that “the original created ‘kinds’ of Genesis 1were not the same as what modern scientists classify as species or genus, but were bigger biological categories and that while variation is produced within each kind, the kinds stay distinct. Writing before Darwin published his theory in 1859, they rejected as unscientific the idea of biological microbe-to-manevolution being proposed by Jean Lamarck and others. Darwin admitted in The Origin of Species that the fossil record did not provide any evidence to confirm his theory and he had no supporting evidence from the study of living creatures. He predicted however that the fossils in confirmation of his theory would be found. History shows that Darwin was wrong.”4" (Emphasis mine)
Can Bible-Based Predictions Lead to Scientific Discoveries?

 

[Subduction Zone]

But, are the results just so, because you are looking for them to prove it wrong? How can you be certain?

No, "just so" stories are what the creationists have. And there is no way of being absolutely sure, but tell me this:

How sure are you that if you jump off of a cliff that you will fall?

 

[Tone]

No, "just so" stories are what the creationists have. And there is no way of being absolutely sure, but tell me this:

How sure are you that if you jump off of a cliff that you will fall?

There are many other things that have to be considered to answer that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"When interviewed about Cosmos: A SpaceTime Odyssey, which we reviewed earlier this week, the host of the new miniseries, astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, said this:

If you start using your scripture, your religious text as a source of your science, that’s where you run into problems, and there is no example of someone reading their scripture and saying “I have a prediction about the world that no one knows yet because this gave me insight let’s go test this prediction and have that theory turn out to be correct.”1

During the recent Nye-Ham Debate Ken Ham addressed this issue and gave several examples of scientifically confirmed predictions based on the Bible. One of these is the fact that animals only vary and reproduce within their created kinds. Ken cited a January 2014 study “supporting a single origin for dogs,”2 which is exactly what creation scientists have long said was true. The many species of dogs we see today developed from the pair of dogs Noah took aboard the Ark.

Nope. Ken lied. What he gave were examples that where the Bible could be reinterpreted after the fact. What is needed is something that was done before the discovery and base it upon the Bible. That has not been done.

To show our readers how misinformed Tyson is about this issue, I decided to ask creation scientists

Sorry, I hate to cut you off midthought, it is rather rude. but there is no such thing as "creation scientists" to be a scientist one must follow the scientific method and I am willing to be I can show that the people that you site swore not to do so, meaning that by definition there are not scientists.

Carry on . . .

from several disciplines, all with doctoral degrees and experience in their professions, to share their favorite examples of Bible-based predictions that led to demonstrably true scientific discoveries. Space does not permit including all their answers here, but those I include should readily disabuse any interested reader of such a false position.

Kinds and Species and Lack of Transitional Forms
The more we learn about speciation, the more we see that animals reproduce and vary only within their created kinds and do not evolve into new kinds. Microbiologist Dr. Andrew Fabich pointed out the newest discovery about finches, just published in Nature (“Evolutionary biology: Speciation undone,” which we will discuss in next week’s News to Know), demonstrates this principle. He says, “Darwin’s finches are widely accepted as being within the same kind. Their variation within a kind is based on the fact that there were droughts and rainy seasons. It is no surprise to creationists that the finches can still interbreed.”3

You can't keep bringing up creationist strawmen. This only shows a lack of understanding of the idea that you are opposing. Creationists cannot find a "created kind" They all fail at Aron Ra's phylogeny challenge.

And while animals vary within their created kinds, the fossil record has failed to produce the transitional forms Darwin predicted would be found. Dr. Terry Mortenson, a historian of geology, points out that early nineteenth century “scriptural geologists” correctly argued that “the original created ‘kinds’ of Genesis 1were not the same as what modern scientists classify as species or genus, but were bigger biological categories and that while variation is produced within each kind, the kinds stay distinct. Writing before Darwin published his theory in 1859, they rejected as unscientific the idea of biological microbe-to-manevolution being proposed by Jean Lamarck and others. Darwin admitted in The Origin of Species that the fossil record did not provide any evidence to confirm his theory and he had no supporting evidence from the study of living creatures. He predicted however that the fossils in confirmation of his theory would be found. History shows that Darwin was wrong.”4" (Emphasis mine)
Can Bible-Based Predictions Lead to Scientific Discoveries?

And this is a lie. When you rely on lying sources it tends to make you look like a liar. Countless transitional forms have been found. But we will probably have to start at the beginning.

When you refer to lying sources, such as Answers in Genesis, which does require their workers to swear not to use the scientific method, you will be mostly laughed at.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are many other things that have to be considered to answer that.

Not really. But lets clarify. It is a steep cliff. Nothing to grab onto on the way down. No 120 mph updraft or other ridiculous conditions. No passing balloons or helicopters etc. Just a high cliff, nothing else. You jump off, will you fall? Are you willing to test your claim if you say yes?