Creationist/ID research

[TBDude65]

In the "proving evolution as just a 'theory' " thread, I offered to help ID proponents design a replicate experiment to disprove evolution; this was met with red herrings and no serious consideration of the offer. I thought of offering the same here, but decided instead to retool the offer as my suspicion is that no one wants to devote the time to actually doing a replicate study of a scientific paper that demonstrates evolution in an attempt to disprove it. So I'll ask for something different but related. What research do you have that concludes creationism/ID as probable explanatory mechanisms for observed phenomena and data/evidence? (and I am assuming here that ID/creationism is a valid scientific idea as some ID/creationist proponents claim)

I don't particularly care what the source is, but I would prefer that sources/articles that are offered be capable of being examined from a critical perspective. Meaning that a source that offers citations and references, enables me to read more deeply into the research. Sources with methods and descriptions of how they collected and analyzed data, allow me to replicate the studies if I choose (or to compare with similar studies if methods are similar).

If sources/links/articles are offered in support of ID/Creationism that are not sourced (or not sourced well) and do not offer evidence or a means by which to replicate their data/evidence collection, then I am without a way of assessing the validity of the argument myself through my own collection means or through comparison with published literature.

 

[Ajflyguy7]

In the "proving evolution as just a 'theory' " thread, I offered to help ID proponents design a replicate experiment to disprove evolution; this was met with red herrings and no serious consideration of the offer. I thought of offering the same here, but decided instead to retool the offer as my suspicion is that no one wants to devote the time to actually doing a replicate study of a scientific paper that demonstrates evolution in an attempt to disprove it. So I'll ask for something different but related. What research do you have that concludes creationism/ID as probable explanatory mechanisms for observed phenomena and data/evidence? (and I am assuming here that ID/creationism is a valid scientific idea as some ID/creationist proponents claim)

I don't particularly care what the source is, but I would prefer that sources/articles that are offered be capable of being examined from a critical perspective. Meaning that a source that offers citations and references, enables me to read more deeply into the research. Sources with methods and descriptions of how they collected and analyzed data, allow me to replicate the studies if I choose (or to compare with similar studies if methods are similar).

If sources/links/articles are offered in support of ID/Creationism that are not sourced (or not sourced well) and do not offer evidence or a means by which to replicate their data/evidence collection, then I am without a way of assessing the validity of the argument myself through my own collection means or through comparison with published literature.

Good luck, ID/Creationism has zero scientific support while Evolution has a mountain of scientific evidence backing it. Evolution is a scientific theory while ID/Creationism are ideas in fundamentalist Christians' heads.

 

[AV1611VET]

In the "proving evolution as just a 'theory' " thread, I offered to help ID proponents design a replicate experiment to disprove evolution;

Whether they can or not, evolution is still just a theory.

You might as well tell them to design a replicate experiment to disprove gravity.

Gravity is ... in the eyes of science ... still just a theory.

 

[Ajflyguy7]

Whether they can or not, evolution is still just a theory.

You might as well tell them to design a replicate experiment to disprove gravity.

Gravity is ... in the eyes of science ... still just a theory.

You do understand what a scientific theory is, right? A scientific theory is much different than a hypothesis or idea. ID/creationism aren't even scientific ideas, they are religious ideas. Theories have mountains of evidence backing them up, religious ideas have zero evidence backing them up. I guess being "just a theory" is way better than being a fairy tale.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you expecting me to reply to Ajflyguy7?

You know exactly what I'd say, don't you?

I've only said it some 40 times now.

Creationism isn't science: it's a series of miracles that occurred over a six day period.

Expecting evidence of creationism shows you don't understand it.

 

[HitchSlap]

[QUOTE="AV1611VET, post: 71801718, member: 152669]

Expecting evidence of creationism shows you don't understand it.[/QUOTE]
I don't expect a myth to leave evidence. Why would it?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Are you expecting me to reply to Ajflyguy7?

You know exactly what I'd say, don't you?

I've only said it some 40 times now.

Creationism isn't science: it's a series of miracles that occurred over a six day period.

Expecting evidence of creationism shows you don't understand it.

It wasn't aimed specifically at you. We all know that creationists/IDers have nothing to offer by way of evidence. This thread will be empty of anything even vaguely resembling the source material requested in the OP.

 

[AV1611VET]

It wasn't aimed specifically at you. We all know that creationists/IDers have nothing to offer by way of evidence. This thread will be empty of anything even vaguely resembling the source material requested in the OP.

I don't think the OP fully understands creationism in general ... specifically creatio ex nihilo.

I could be wrong though.

 

[Strathos]

Expecting evidence of creationism shows you don't understand it.

Then the majority of creationists who try to come up with evidence to support it don't understand it.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

....creationists who try to come up with evidence to support [creationism].

I've never come across one of those. Where do I find one? Can you invite one to participate in this thread?

 

[Strathos]

I've never come across one of those. Where do I find one? Can you invite one to participate in this thread?

I never specified that it was valid evidence. But they do try.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then the majority of creationists who try to come up with evidence to support it don't understand it.

That's right.

 

[AV1611VET]

I never specified that it was valid evidence. But they do try.

QV please:

I agree with you.

And in my opinion, creationists get what they deserve when they get their evidence Veg-o-maticked.

The Theory of Evolution is going to be alive and well, right through the Tribulation.

That's what happens when a theologian tries to bring science into the picture.

They get what they deserve, I guess.

In my opinion, they need to stick to the miraculous, and science can take a hike.

I couldn't care less how any Christian organization backs up their claims. If they don't use the Bible to do it --- the talk is just talk --- and they get what they deserve if some "scientist" pwns them with their own medicine.

 

[xianghua]

You do understand what a scientific theory is, right? A scientific theory is much different than a hypothesis or idea. ID/creationism aren't even scientific ideas, they are religious ideas. Theories have mountains of evidence backing them up, religious ideas have zero evidence backing them up. I guess being "just a theory" is way better than being a fairy tale.

there are many papers supporting id. here are few of them:

Evidence Of Design In Bird Feathers And Avian Respiration

Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds. - PubMed - NCBI

Gauger

Construction of a minimum-size functional flagellin of Escherichia coli.
.

 

[pitabread]

there are many papers supporting id. here are few of them:

Evidence Of Design In Bird Feathers And Avian Respiration

This paper doesn't support ID.

It is just a long-winded screed against evolution, and then the author concludes 'designerdidit'. It's laughably terrible scholarship.

 

[TBDude65]

there are many papers supporting id. here are few of them:

Evidence Of Design In Bird Feathers And Avian Respiration

Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds. - PubMed - NCBI

Gauger

Construction of a minimum-size functional flagellin of Escherichia coli.
.

I'll look through these, but after a quick read of abstracts and conclusions, it looks like only the first link is actually trying to draw any conclusions that would be about ID/Creationism. The other 3 links appear to be the sorts of work that creationists try to reinterpret to be compatible with ID/Creationism, which isn't anywhere near the same thing as the science actually supporting it.

 

[xianghua]

This paper doesn't support ID.

so why the paper called : "evidence of design In bird feathers and avian respiration"?

 

[sfs]

I'll look through these, but after a quick read of abstracts and conclusions, it looks like only the first link is actually trying to draw any conclusions that would be about ID/Creationism.

Axe and Gauger (two papers) are probably trying to draw conclusions friendly to some kind of creationism, since that's pretty much their thing.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Whether they can or not, evolution is still just a theory.

You might as well tell them to design a replicate experiment to disprove gravity.

Gravity is ... in the eyes of science ... still just a theory.

...."just a theory"! You crack me up AV!

You do understand what a scientific theory is, right? A scientific theory is much different than a hypothesis or idea. ID/creationism aren't even scientific ideas, they are religious ideas. Theories have mountains of evidence backing them up, religious ideas have zero evidence backing them up. I guess being "just a theory" is way better than being a fairy tale.

AV knows all this to be sure, he just wants to Troll everyone who hasn't learnt the futility of engaging with him... and speaking of ppl who haven't learnt the futility of engaging him....

I don't think the OP fully understands creationism in general ... specifically creatio ex nihilo.

I could be wrong though.

No evidence of anything ever creating anything ex-nihilo, let alone a thing with an entire history that never occurred...