Creationism=religious philosophy, evolution=science

[Astridhere]

While I am sure you would like your questions answered.

I do feel you are being alittle unreasonable in the last section.

A unanswered question does not mean evolution would suddenly go from science to philosophy. It may indicate a field to study, before conclusions can be drawn. That is how science works after all to find questions and work to answer them, Gravity is not a philosophy if we cannot explain why electrons arent effected.
Well, as you see there is no reasonableness in the thread topic which is clearly ridiculing creation and refering to it as a philosophy. I am not saying the biblical creation is proven. I am saying the biblical creation stands on as good a theoretical base that is backed by science as evolution does.

You do not have to answer the questions, yet they are so obviously in contradiction of evolutionary assertions that I am surprised. In particular why does Lucy have no eyebrow ridging when Erectus does. This should not be hard to answer.
Secondly,
Even if you were willing to personally say that the default answer is god and that refuting evolution would be good enough for you. That would still not change the standards for the scientific methode so it would still be incorrect to say creation is a science. (But it would convince you personally, fair enough.)
No, you will notice that misrepresentation and a base made of straw is not science. I have provided science to back my claims, pictures of Turkana Boy, rudolfensis, links to show Ardi in dispute, humans 400,000ya in Isreal. That is science also. Evolution is unfalsifiable..
when saying creation is scientificly robust. I think you will find that it is merely based on a false dichotomy between 'evolution vs creation' where they believe that if evolution is false creation MUST be true, and feel that they require no further evidence. (the notion that if we do not currently know the answer god is the default answer.)
No, I actually think to say evolution and creation are on par is being gracious and the evidence is more parsinomous with creation.
Both of these are untrue however. The germ theory of disease did not become accepted science simply because disease-demons were dismissed it had to stand on its own research.
There is non I currently know for creation that does not fall into the missunderstanding I mentioned.
No, actually I have spoken clearly to evidence of creation. Apes and humans in the fossil record. Evolution has falsified itself many times and is held together by ever changing theories. eg LUCA is dead with HGT, knucklewalking ancestry gone, Ardi gone, and Lucy gone
I am not saying the questions should not be adressed. Just that the conclusion you tied into them was alittle unreasonable would you agree?

No actually my questions about Lucy are very apt. Lucy does not have eye brow ridging. Erectus very much so. Where is the graduation? I have posted Orangutans that look more like humans than some of your Homo specimens. These are serious issues. If you do not have Ardi or Lucy, if I can show erectus to be nothing more than apes that you cannot deny the evidence and science supports creation. My theory is as good as yours.

Here is a rattle in Lucys bones and speaking to her gorilla like anatomy and non ancestry to humans...
Gorilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis mandibles suggests Au. afarensis link to robust australopiths

This is science. See I have produced 'evidence' that supports my assertion Lucy is an ape. I have provided links supporting Ardi to be an ape. I have shown side views and pictres of Homo Erectus demonstrating the side view of ape morphology and shown orangs that look more human than some erectus. So my theoretical base is at least as good as any evolutionary one and is backed by science and research.

Similarly any evidence of genetic similarity, nested heirarchies, ervs, other organisms and their intermediates, dating methods and all the rest can be just as easily refuted or challenged with science to back creationists assertions. Neither side has to have all the answers.

I feel very strongly that the community has been seriously mislead by being presented the glossy side of evolution with little regard for huge discrepencies. They have not been made aware there is a sound base to creationist theories.

 

[Astridhere]

So what is your reason for not responding to my questions?

Chalnoth has not asked any questions he has just avoided ours, from what I can see. The last thing he spoke about was wombs, in an argument that appeared to be making no point.

Do please repost these pressing questions of yours, Chalnoth, and try answering a few of ours, while you are at it.

 

[Chalnoth]

So what is your reason for not responding to my questions?

I have answered many of your questions clearly and concisely. And yet you continue to evade those answers. I am simply not interested in bothering with the continuous barrage of nonsense you and your co-creationists have proffered in this thread.

 

[AV1611VET]

I have answered many of your questions clearly and concisely. And yet you continue to evade those answers. I am simply not interested in bothering with the continuous barrage of nonsense you and your co-creationists have proffered in this thread.

-- But you're the second highest poster in this thread, with 40 posts!

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

This is science. See I have produced 'evidence' that supports my assertion Lucy is an ape. I have provided links supporting Ardi to be an ape. I have shown side views and pictres of Homo Erectus demonstrating the side view of ape morphology and shown orangs that look more human than some erectus. So my theoretical base is at least as good as any evolutionary one and is backed by science and research.

Similarly any evidence of genetic similarity, nested heirarchies, ervs, other organisms and their intermediates, dating methods and all the rest can be just as easily refuted or challenged with science to back creationists assertions. Neither side has to have all the answers.

I feel very strongly that the community has been seriously mislead by being presented the glossy side of evolution with little regard for huge discrepencies. They have not been made aware there is a sound base to creationist theories.

Do you notice how all the evidence you present is only focusing on refuting evolution?
Where is the evidence that is confirming creation?

That is what I was pointing out.
It is that false dichotomy which often leads people to think they have evidence for creation.

I believe I could assert the fsm made everything as is yesterday and be on equal ground with creationism evidence wise.

However, by all means go ahead and tell me about this sound base of creationist theories. I'm interested, if it does not rely on a false dichotomy.

 

[Chalnoth]

I believe I could assert the fsm made everything as is yesterday and be on equal ground with creationism evidence wise.

I think you're being a bit overly-skeptical here. The idea that the FSM made everything is absolutely on equal ground with Christian creationism evidence wise.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

I think you're being a bit overly-skeptical here. The idea that the FSM made everything is absolutely on equal ground with Christian creationism evidence wise.

Fair enough.

 

[James Wilson]

Nostromo said, "It's not up for debate as science is based on gathering empirical evidence. Neither God nor miracles could be empirically tested due to their nature, so they cannot be included in science.

"If science included non-empirical methods and data it wouldn't be science, and if miracles were explainable by natural and empirical means they wouldn't be miracles."

In a sense I agree with you. You perhaps have seen the cartoon where a scientist scribbled some equations on the board and then, instead of an equal sign, he wrote, "A miracle happened".

However, it's interesting that in their exuberance to outlaw Christians from the practice of Science, the founding geologists set themselves up to impede Science for 10 years in postulating the cause for the end of dinosaurs.

New topic: Where Science currently allows Christian thought

Science has some rules it must follow, but many of the scientists who pulled us out of the Medieval times were Christian and bold about declaring their faith. Nowadays, such boldness will get the incautious believer tossed out of the halls of Science. ("A mind is a terrible thing to waste" is normally applied in the area of racial discrimination, but it can also be applied to religious discrimination).

I'd like to explore an area where Science has not (and I hope never will) forbid religion.... The greatest progress made in Science has always been when a new paradigm is discovered. When we began to transition between Newtonian physics to Einsteinian physics, no new facts had to be added to man's 'truth box'... just a new model.

The process of adding a new model can be stated as two laws: Law 1 -- postulation of a model, and Law 2 -- proof of that model using the scientific method.

Law 1 is free from any bias in Science... so far. Friedrich Kekulé dreamed up the Benzene-ring model, foundational to Chemistry, as he stared into a fire place. Science does not yet forbid 'fire-staring'.
Your idea for any scientific model can come from pretending you’re God (Einstein paraphrase, "If you are stumped, imagine how you would do it if you were God... then check and see if He did it that way"), from the Bible itself, or from a dream. You never need to document where you got the idea.
The only requirement in Science is that you use the full scientific method in the second step, verifying the model you created (in other words, how well does it fit the data? At present, you don't have to reveal the source of the model).
This is the first publication and description of this First Law of Science.
Yet the way Science is taught in our culture, our diversity and freedom is being limited (based upon my own experience of 26 years working as a government scientist). All other mental and physical activities in our culture strive for diversity, but in scientific education and employment, we carelessly toss aside the biblically-oriented mind. I don't think we can afford such careless disregard).

 

[Oncedeceived]

-- But you're the second highest poster in this thread, with 40 posts!

Very good point.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Nostromo said, "It's not up for debate as science is based on gathering empirical evidence. Neither God nor miracles could be empirically tested due to their nature, so they cannot be included in science.

"If science included non-empirical methods and data it wouldn't be science, and if miracles were explainable by natural and empirical means they wouldn't be miracles."

In a sense I agree with you. You perhaps have seen the cartoon where a scientist scribbled some equations on the board and then, instead of an equal sign, he wrote, "A miracle happened".

However, it's interesting that in their exuberance to outlaw Christians from the practice of Science, the founding geologists set themselves up to impede Science for 10 years in postulating the cause for the end of dinosaurs.

New topic: Where Science currently allows Christian thought

Science has some rules it must follow, but many of the scientists who pulled us out of the Medieval times were Christian and bold about declaring their faith. Nowadays, such boldness will get the incautious believer tossed out of the halls of Science. ("A mind is a terrible thing to waste" is normally applied in the area of racial discrimination, but it can also be applied to religious discrimination).

I'd like to explore an area where Science has not (and I hope never will) forbid religion.... The greatest progress made in Science has always been when a new paradigm is discovered. When we began to transition between Newtonian physics to Einsteinian physics, no new facts had to be added to man's 'truth box'... just a new model.

The process of adding a new model can be stated as two laws: Law 1 -- postulation of a model, and Law 2 -- proof of that model using the scientific method.

Law 1 is free from any bias in Science... so far. FriedrichKekulédreamed up the Benzene-ring model, foundational to Chemistry, as he stared into a fire place. Science does not yet forbid 'fire-staring'.
Your idea for any scientific model can come from pretending you’re God (Einstein paraphrase, "If you are stumped, imagine how you would do it if you were God... then check and see if He did it that way"), from the Bible itself, or from a dream. You never need to document where you got the idea.
The only requirement in Science is that you use the full scientific method in the second step, verifying the model you created (in other words, how well does it fit the data? At present, you don't have to reveal the source of the model).
This is the first publication and description of this First Law of Science.
Yet the way Science is taught in our culture, our diversity and freedom is being limited (based upon my own experience of 26 years working as a government scientist). All other mental and physical activities in our culture strive for diversity, but in scientific education and employment, we carelessly toss aside the biblically-oriented mind. I don't think we can afford such careless disregard).

Excellent and eloquent post.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I have answered many of your questions clearly and concisely. And yet you continue to evade those answers. I am simply not interested in bothering with the continuous barrage of nonsense you and your co-creationists have proffered in this thread.

I would think that if they are nonsense you should be able to respond and show that they are indeed nonsensical. I haven't seen that.

 

[Chalnoth]

Very good point.

Why is it a good point? You're expecting me to write more?

 

[sandwiches]

I would think that if they are nonsense you should be able to respond and show that they are indeed nonsensical. I haven't seen that.

If you want to believe the nonsense, no amount of explanation will ever convince you otherwise. Take the trinity, problem of suffering, or problem of free will as a good examples. No amount of explanations will ever be sufficient for you to accept that the defenses for these issues are nonsense.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Nostromo said, "It's not up for debate as science is based on gathering empirical evidence. Neither God nor miracles could be empirically tested due to their nature, so they cannot be included in science.

"If science included non-empirical methods and data it wouldn't be science, and if miracles were explainable by natural and empirical means they wouldn't be miracles."

In a sense I agree with you. You perhaps have seen the cartoon where a scientist scribbled some equations on the board and then, instead of an equal sign, he wrote, "A miracle happened".

However, it's interesting that in their exuberance to outlaw Christians from the practice of Science, the founding geologists set themselves up to impede Science for 10 years in postulating the cause for the end of dinosaurs.

Excuse me but what? When have geologists ever attempted to outlaw christians from the practise of science? The vast majority of them were christians.

New topic: Where Science currently allows Christian thought

Science has some rules it must follow, but many of the scientists who pulled us out of the Medieval times were Christian and bold about declaring their faith. Nowadays, such boldness will get the incautious believer tossed out of the halls of Science. ("A mind is a terrible thing to waste" is normally applied in the area of racial discrimination, but it can also be applied to religious discrimination).

Certainly,They may have worked under the idea of discovering gods methodes but they never included "And then a miracle happend" into their scientific ideas, That is why they were good scientists their religion was not part of their theories.

I'd like to explore an area where Science has not (and I hope never will) forbid religion.... The greatest progress made in Science has always been when a new paradigm is discovered. When we began to transition between Newtonian physics to Einsteinian physics, no new facts had to be added to man's 'truth box'... just a new model.

The process of adding a new model can be stated as two laws: Law 1 -- postulation of a model, and Law 2 -- proof of that model using the scientific method.

Law 1 is free from any bias in Science... so far. FriedrichKekulédreamed up the Benzene-ring model, foundational to Chemistry, as he stared into a fire place. Science does not yet forbid 'fire-staring'.
Your idea for any scientific model can come from pretending you’re God (Einstein paraphrase, "If you are stumped, imagine how you would do it if you were God... then check and see if He did it that way"), from the Bible itself, or from a dream. You never need to document where you got the idea.
The only requirement in Science is that you use the full scientific method in the second step, verifying the model you created (in other words, how well does it fit the data? At present, you don't have to reveal the source of the model).
This is the first publication and description of this First Law of Science.

I agree with this.
Though I do not understand the tone you say it in, as though you think scientists are trying to ban fire-staring, christianity, dreams and strokes of inspiration from step 1.
It does not matter where the idea is said to have come from so long as it holds up under examination.
(Though I suspect I probably should not include my alien abduction that led me to come to my idea in the paper. Thats simply private.)

Yet the way Science is taught in our culture, our diversity and freedom is being limited (based upon my own experience of 26 years working as a government scientist). All other mental and physical activities in our culture strive for diversity, but in scientific education and employment, we carelessly toss aside the biblically-oriented mind. I don't think we can afford such careless disregard).

This is what confuses me.

You seem to mixup between people disregarded for their personal believes (But there are many scientists of all faiths perfectly accepted.)
and people disregarded for letting those believes seep into their explainations unfounded.

The first group does not exist, the second group you seem to agree are in the wrong.

 

[Astridhere]

Exiledoomsayer said

"Do you notice how all the evidence you present is only focusing on refuting evolution?
Where is the evidence that is confirming creation?

That is what I was pointing out.
It is that false dichotomy which often leads people to think they have evidence for creation.

I believe I could assert the fsm made everything as is yesterday and be on equal ground with creationism evidence wise.

However, by all means go ahead and tell me about this sound base of creationist theories. I'm interested, if it does not rely on a false dichotomy."


If you actually look at my posts every single assertion I made is backed by science. I have not said Lucy and Ardi are apes out of the sky. I have posted research from your own evolutionists that back my claims and asssertions.

I have also provided posts and pictures demonstrating Homo Erectus to be nothing more than an ape. All I have got in response is nonsence and persons such as yourself that totally ignore that I have actually used RESEARCH to back my claims.

YOU HAVE REFUTED NOTHING I HAVE SAID, YOU AND OTHERS HAVE ONLY IGNORED MY EXCELLENT EVIDENCEAND QUESTIONS.

You go ahead and refute my evidence if you can. As for now I have won my debate as this is the calibre of reply I get. Total ignorance,



I do not thinK you have any idea what backing ones claims with research actually looks like. I think evolutionists on this thread are so used to convoluted nonsense they are unable to discern what is evidence and what remains theory.

You tell me why your good science has put an eyebrow ridgeless ape named Lucy in the human line when erectus has strong eyebrow ridging? This is just one question that highlights an extaordinany descrepency in your fossil record and totaly destroys it and shows it to be rubbish. All I have recieved is ignorance and pretend refutes and woffle.

YOU absolutely cannot answer this because evolution is nonsense and no more a science than Alice in Wonderland.

I have used science to not only discredit evolution but also to back my claims that the fossil record demonstrates apes and mankind as separate kinds and no intermediate in the middle. Therefore science supports creation and is more robust than evolution and fits the evidence much better...you should try using science sometime instead of baseless allegations!!!

If you and others are unable to refute me and reinstate your fossil evidence for the human line then

I WIN AND YOU LOOSE .....AND CREATION=SCIENCE AND EVOLUTION=PHILOSOPHY.

 

[Chalnoth]

YOU HAVE REFUTED NOTHING I HAVE SAID, YOU AND OTHERS HAVE ONLY IGNORED MY EXCELLENT EVIDENCEAND QUESTIONS.

Hahahahaha.

I don't believe you ever did answer which skull denotes the boundary between human and ape here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg

You went off on a bunch of off-topic stuff, but never answered that question.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

If you actually look at my posts every single assertion I made is backed by science. I have not said Lucy and Ardi are apes out of the sky. I have posted research from your own evolutionists that back my claims and asssertions.

No relax you missunderstand what I am trying to say, you see..

I have no problem believing that everything you pointed out is backed up by scientific evidence, that lucy and ardi are thought to be apes. I am NOT rejecting your evidence for that.

I'm going to assume the evidence you provide conclusively proofs evolution wrong.

I now officially do not know how it is that we have different species. A blank slate you might say.

I hear you say there is this scientific theory called creation. I'm only asking what evidence you have that creation theory is true.

How would you go about filling this blank slate with evidence that the creation theory is true?

 

[Incariol]

YOU absolutely cannot answer this because evolution is nonsense and no more a science than Alice in Wonderland.

Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli

"After ≈33,127 generations, one population, designated Ara-3, displayed significantly elevated turbidity that continued to rise for several days (Fig. 1). A number of Cit+ clones were isolated from the population and checked for phenotypic markers characteristic of the ancestral E. coli strain used to start the LTEE: all were Ara−, T5-sensitive, and T6-resistant, as expected (2). DNA sequencing also showed that Cit+ clones have the same mutations in the pykF and nadR genes as do clones from earlier generations of the Ara-3 population, and each of these mutations distinguishes this population from all of the others (30). Therefore, the Cit+ variant arose within the LTEE and is not a contaminant."

 

[Oncedeceived]

Do you notice how all the evidence you present is only focusing on refuting evolution?
Where is the evidence that is confirming creation?

Why do you feel that we have to be the ones always defending our worldview? It seems that when it comes to you all needing to defend your worldview you seem to give it privileged status. We have every right to ask you to defend your worldview.

I don't see the atheist side presenting evidence for evolution when they are asking creationists to defend their worldview.

 

[Incariol]

Why do you feel that we have to be the ones always defending our worldview? It seems that when it comes to you all needing to defend your worldview you seem to give it privileged status. We have every right to ask you to defend your worldview.

I don't see the atheist side presenting evidence for evolution when they are asking creationists to defend their worldview.

Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli

"After ≈33,127 generations, one population, designated Ara-3, displayed significantly elevated turbidity that continued to rise for several days (Fig. 1). A number of Cit+ clones were isolated from the population and checked for phenotypic markers characteristic of the ancestral E. coli strain used to start the LTEE: all were Ara−, T5-sensitive, and T6-resistant, as expected (2). DNA sequencing also showed that Cit+ clones have the same mutations in the pykF and nadR genes as do clones from earlier generations of the Ara-3 population, and each of these mutations distinguishes this population from all of the others (30). Therefore, the Cit+ variant arose within the LTEE and is not a contaminant."