Human & Ape Inquiry

[pitabread]

The guy that doesn't know the difference in observational and historical science, is lecturing me on scientific meanings??? Yes, here we are.

Dividing science into "observational and historical" categories is a creationist invention. So yes I am lecturing you because you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

And now that I know where you are getting all of your knowledge of science from, it makes perfect sense.

 

[inquiring mind]

It's just that it makes sense why you're making the remarks you are about how you think science works. You're cribbing from dubious sources.

Of course they're dubious to you... much of what you repeat is dubious to me, as I've shown many times.

 

[Speedwell]

The guy that doesn't know the difference in observational and historical science, is lecturing me on scientific meanings??? Yes, here we are.

The so-called difference between observational and historical science is a creationist fantasy. Anyone who is taken in by it really does need a lecture on scientific meanings.

 

[inquiring mind]

Dividing science into "observational and historical" categories is a creationist invention. So yes I am lecturing you because you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

And now that I know where you are getting all of your knowledge of science from, it makes perfect sense.

You're just firing shots in the dark, as always.

 

[pitabread]

Of course they're dubious to you...

When you have organizations whose sole purpose is to cast down on findings in science that contradict their religious beliefs, yeah, they're dubious all right.

much of what you repeat is dubious to me, as I've shown many times.

Sure. But who cares?

You can reject as much science as you want, it really doesn't matter.

 

[pitabread]

You're just firing shots in the dark, as always.

Oh, I've hit the nail squarely on the head here. That much is obvious.

I can easily Google up a bunch of AiG articles that present all the same arguments you're presenting here.

In fact, I'd even wager I know more about creationist arguments than you do.

 

[SLP]

Maybe you'd do better trying to interpret science books???

Right - I forgot that all Scripture is a straightforward read... unless it i snot, then it must be interpreted a certain way...

But yes, it is true that I can understand science books much better then you can - even creation science, it seems.

 

[SLP]

I would think God's foresight, and whether or not He chooses to act on it, is two different things. But look away!

So no rational answer, just some phony-baloney apologetics and equivocation.

Got it!

I mean - are you implying that Jehovah actually works out which mutations will sneak by His special error correction mechanisms?

Yet stands by mutely watching children starve or get mowed down in schools?

 

[Speedwell]

You're just firing shots in the dark, as always.

No, we are probably as familiar with creationist sources as you are.

 

[SLP]

You didn't say under "situations". You said as a result of mutations.

The definition you have presented could include all life on Earth starting from a single common ancestor. Without realizing it, you've described the very evolution you reject.

He has also rendered the work of the creationist Baraminology Study Group moot - we are dealing with a super-scientist in a poor-spelling apologist disguise! Brilliant!

 

[SLP]

And, every comment or idea I present has to be original, when you're continually regurgitating 150 years of evolutionary stuff.

Right...
You implied earlier that you have a science background - so do go into some detail as to why your agree with Georgia and Bodie's tall tales, I mean, science.
Use as much technical detail as you need to.

 

[pitabread]

No, we are probably as familiar with creationist sources as you are.

I'd say even moreso given that inquiring mind hasn't started regurgitating other arguments from AiG (e.g. loss of genetic information, etc).

I was kind of expecting that as a follow up the attempt at defining "kinds", but perhaps he hasn't gotten to those articles yet.

 

[inquiring mind]

The so-called difference between observational and historical science is a creationist fantasy. Anyone who is taken in by it really does need a lecture on scientific meanings.

Then show me how you can test something macro-related (historical) without relying on micro-mechanisms (observational) to help with your explanation? You are only comparing something you know with something you have absolutely no clue about... the definition of silly.

 

[SLP]

Aren't mutations the result of situations..

Such science...
Mutations are usually the result of replication error - you know, Jehovah made those error correcting mechanisms to combat the imperfection of His Creation... which he then doomed us to suffer from.. mutation.... Somehow...

. and what difference does it make?

Right, exactly.

Just like how creationists have been misrepresenting "macroevolution" for decades. Ain't no thang.

 

[inquiring mind]

Right...
You implied earlier that you have a science background - so do go into some detail as to why your agree with Georgia and Bodie's tall tales, I mean, science.
Use as much technical detail as you need to.

But not enough that you can't understand, right?

 

[inquiring mind]

In fact, I'd even wager I know more about creationist arguments than you do.

That puts me back at being more scientifically knowledgable doesn't it?

 

[SLP]

Then show me how you can test something macro-related (historical) without relying on micro-mechanisms (observational) to help with your explanation? You are only comparing something you know with something you have absolutely no clue about... the definition of silly.

I sense a great deal of projection in you.

Have you ignored my refutation of the creationist dishonesty/ignorance re: macroevolution?

From a reliable source, we see that 'macroevolution' is:

"One of the most important tenets of the theory forged during the Evolutionary Synthesis of the 1930s and 1940s was that "macroevolutionary" differences among organisms - those that distinguish higher taxa - arise from the accumulation of the same kinds of genetic differences that are found within species."​

- "Evolutionary Biology, 3rd Ed." 1998, p. 477. D. Futuyma.

That is, macroevolution is produced via multiple rounds of speciation. Or put another way, macroevolution is a pattern created by multiple rounds of speciation.
Macroevolution is NOT 'an event' that needs to be 're-created.' It is an observed pattern.​

How do Georgia and Bodie test for macro-creationary events?

 

[SLP]

But not enough that you can't understand, right?

Go for it. Stop beating around the bush and let's see you SCIENTIFIC acumen in action!

If you can, that is.

You can start by explaining Georgia's means of testing historical creation-macroevolution.

 

[pitabread]

That puts me back at being more scientifically knowledgable doesn't it?

Knowledgeable is not the same as acceptance. I know a lot about creationism, but I reject it on the basis of knowledge of how science really works (and consequently why creationism doesn't).

 

[Speedwell]

Then show me how you can test something macro-related (historical) without relying on micro-mechanisms (observational) to help with your explanation? You are only comparing something you know with something you have absolutely no clue about... the definition of silly.

All science is about examining and evaluating evidence. It's the same whether the evidence was produced in an experiment last week or in a volcanic eruption 500 years ago. If the physical laws are known not to have changed, what makes the one observational science and not the other?