Is the fundamental gap between creationists and non-creationists...

[Subduction Zone]

The dishonesty is blatantly with the evangelists for evolution promoting it as proven fact.

The dishonesty is in not admitting that the Cambrian explosion falsifies the phyletic gradualism of Darwinism, as complex life with eyes very similar to the human eye, and vertebrates appear, with zero precursors in the fossil record.

The dishonesty is in not admitting the known fact that organic compounds and amino acids that appear naturally in every conceivable prebiotic environment, are too weak to bond together - researchers have to use concentrations 100 times stronger than appear in nature.

Or that in every possible prebiotic scenario the weak amino acids always consist of equal amounts of L and R handed molecules, and even one R handed molecule in a protein of amino acids, would inactivate the protein.

The dishonesty is in telling the public that the fossil evidence is well developed, instead of the truth that transitional fossils are missing in all the important places, and promoting fossils such as Lucy as being anything more than an unusual tree climbing chimpanzee.

Same old failed arguments. You really should try to learn a thing or two.

 

[SelfSim]

This is like a guy honestly admits ro being a back robber. But won't rob yours?

No.
Philosophically held beliefs are part of who we are.
The aim in science is to keep them visible throughout the process so they don't 'clutter things up'.
This dude may be capable of doing that .. I don't know anything about him .. (Just demonstrating benefit of doubt here).

Open about being intellectually dishonest, how could you trust anything he says. Anyway if he has gone to work for a creationist boiler room, all traces of professionsl integrity are gone.

No trust is needed .. if he injects his beliefs in his work, the method will highlight them and side-step them/him.

With God, the angels and all creation on their side it's just weird the creationists
have only such as that to support their claims.

Not 'weird' to them though ..

 

[Bradskii]

The dishonesty...

I'm still waiting for a comment from you in regard to a highly placed and well-qualified creationists who has admitted that he will ignore the science if it doesn't align with his beliefs.

Here we have the very director of the Research Centre for creationism itself telling you explicitly that he will not accept any science that contradicts his version of scripture.

And these are the people you rely on for what you think are genuine arguments. I mean, the guy just admitted that he would lie to you. What is the point in presenting scientific arguments that refute what you say when one of creationist's head honchos tells you to discount it even if it is proved to be true.

This needs a response, Chad. Your credibility is on the line.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm still waiting for a comment from you in regard to a highly placed and well-qualified creationists who has admitted that he will ignore the science if it doesn't align with his beliefs.

Here we have the very director of the Research Centre for creationism itself telling you explicitly that he will not accept any science that contradicts his version of scripture.

And these are the people you rely on for what you think are genuine arguments. I mean, the guy just admitted that he would lie to you. What is the point in presenting scientific arguments that refute what you say when one of creationist's head honchos tells you to discount it even if it is proved to be true.

This needs a response, Chad. Your credibility is on the line.

I am always amazed that creationists constantly accuse others of the wrongs that they are guilty of.

 

[Astrid]

No.
Philosophically held beliefs are part of who we are.
The aim in science is to keep them visible throughout the process so they don't 'clutter things up'.
This dude may be capable of doing that .. I don't know anything about him .. (Just demonstrating benefit of doubt here).

No trust is needed .. if he injects his beliefs in his work, the method will highlight them and side-step them/him.

Not 'weird' to them though ..

I suppose he can tell an ammonite from
a eurypterid well enough.

Choosing a preselected conclusion
over all the evidence in the universe
is pretty much the definition of Intellectual
dishonesty.

I'd not go to him as an authority on anything,
tho he might well get some things right.
Why would I want to try to sort out what
was what, any more than with any common liar.

 

[Astrid]

Deleted as over general

 

[AV1611VET]

They are withal an uneducated and
unsophisticated lot.
Their use of fallacious, illogical and childish
arguments is to be expected.
Psychological projection such as you mention,
what else would you expect? That they are so
clueless of how embarrassingly revealing it is
Is tho consistent with the general lack of
sophistication.

We are amused by the outrage when it is suggested
that creationism is the religion of the low rungs
of society, in education and income. Even as they
proudly announce their disdain for book learnin'.

Pew or other resesrch on the negative correlation..
betseen education and creationism is denounced
as false and bigoted.

Anyway, yeah, of course they try to put
their faults onto others.

Wow!

I'm glad you stopped when you did!

Any further and you would have us taking candy from babies!

 

[Bradskii]

They are withal an uneducated and
unsophisticated lot.
Their use of fallacious, illogical and childish
arguments is to be expected.
Psychological projection such as you mention,
what else would you expect? That they are so
clueless of how embarrassingly revealing it is
Is tho consistent with the general lack of
sophistication.

We are amused by the outrage when it is suggested
that creationism is the religion of the low rungs
of society, in education and income. Even as they
proudly announce their disdain for book learnin'.

Pew or other resesrch on the negative correlation..
betseen education and creationism is denounced
as false and bigoted.

Anyway, yeah, of course they try to put
their faults onto others.

Is the term 'fundamentalist' considered acceptable in these parts? In some forums it's considered an insult. There's an implied sneer when it's used (much like when the term 'evolutionist' is used). And the definition is considered to be akin to 'Someone with limited intelligence such that they cannot grasp basic scientific principles'. So I tend to work around it and might suggest that someone is reading scripture in 'a fundamental manner'.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is the term 'fundamentalist' considered acceptable in these parts?

I hope so.

I'm an Independent Fundamental Baptist.

 

[Gene2memE]

the Cambrian explosion falsifies the phyletic gradualism of Darwinism,

Kinda, sorta. But not really.

Here's the thing though - Darwin's writing about evolution isn't some kind of holy writ. He was wrong about HEAPS of stuff concerning evolutionary biology. (As is to be expected - this was bleeding edge theoretical science at the time.)

Here's a pop science article on some of his mistakes: Fantastically Wrong: What Darwin Really Screwed Up About Evolution

Also, being wrong about phylectic gradualism doesn't falisfy evolution - it just falsifies one concept of the process of speciation. Thus, the development of the hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium.

Additionally, the Cambrian Explosion doesn't falsify phyletic gradualism. Adaptive radiations - of which the Cambrian Explosion is just one example - just demonstrate that phyletic gradualism is not the sole model of speciation. It turns out that BOTH phyletic gradualism and punctuated equilibrium are correct - its just that one occurs in some conditions and one occurs in others.

as complex life with eyes very similar to the human eye, and vertebrates appear, with zero precursors in the fossil record.

Well, that's just not true.

The earliest vertebrates do appear in the Cambrian. But there are certainly precursors in the fossil record (hemichordates and basal chordates say hi).

Same thing with eye evolution. The earliest known eyes from the Cambrian bear no resemblance to human eyes. The were compound eyes that didn't even have lenses.

 

[chad kincham]

Also, being wrong about phylectic gradualism doesn't falisfy evolution - it just falsifies one concept of the process of speciation. Thus, the development of the hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium.

Additionally, the Cambrian Explosion doesn't falsify phyletic gradualism. Adaptive radiations - of which the Cambrian Explosion is just one example - just demonstrate that phyletic gradualism is not the sole model of speciation. It turns out that BOTH phyletic gradualism and punctuated equilibrium are correct - its just that one occurs in some conditions and one occurs in others.

Not at all
.
Gould invents PE to explain away what he said is the absence of transitional fossils in all the important areas, by hypothesizing that evolution goes long periods with nothing happening, punctuated by periods of intense evolution that leaves behind no fossil evidence.

The problem with that is I found it hard to believe that isolated populations increase genetic information at all.

Gould is a paleontologist, so is his co author Eldridge, not a biologist, so I did some investigation and it wasn’t difficult to determine that wildlife biologists who work with endangered species - definitely isolated populations- state that isolated populations lose diversity and genetic information, they do not gain it - which is exactly what I expected to be the case.

 

[driewerf]

That’s a completely wrong claim.

They don’t use the presupposition of naturalistic materialism to interpret the data.
And there are some honest evolutionists who admit science today indeed uses biased interpretation of the facts.
I can prove by using a presupposition of naturalism to interpret the facts, that bicycles and motorcycles weren’t created, they evolved

No you can't. And again this is a meme that creationists use many times, that fails every time.
And that creationists fail to understand why it fails. the part bellow will not prove what you think it proves. It will be just one more data point that confirms my point a few pages ago: creationism is a self perpetuating stupidity.

The unicycle is the common ancestor, then it branches out from there to the two wheeled bicycles with the pedal on the front wheel, with another branch adding a third wheel to become a tricycle- then branching out to the modern two wheel bicycle with the pedal in the middle of the bike and adding a driver chain - then the simple one cylinder engine evolved, and replaced the pedals, while keeping the drive chain, and continued branching out with bigger motorcycles with more complex multi cylinder engines.
I can build an entire evolutionary tree that proves bicycles and motorcycles evolved from the common ancestor of the single wheel unicycle - the equivalent of a single cell - by using the same presupposition that there is no creator that built them but they arrived by completely natural processes.
And that’s exactly how evolutionists interpret the data, with the bias of naturalism and materialism.
A common creator fits the facts better than evolving from a common ancestor.

 

[chad kincham]

I'm still waiting for a comment from you in regard to a highly placed and well-qualified creationists who has admitted that he will ignore the science if it doesn't align with his beliefs.

Here we have the very director of the Research Centre for creationism itself telling you explicitly that he will not accept any science that contradicts his version of scripture.

And these are the people you rely on for what you think are genuine arguments. I mean, the guy just admitted that he would lie to you. What is the point in presenting scientific arguments that refute what you say when one of creationist's head honchos tells you to discount it even if it is proved to be true.

This needs a response, Chad. Your credibility is on the line.

You mean like when the science claimed there was junk DNA because the function of those segments of DNA were not readily apparent, and I stated from the get go that their evolutionary assumptions were wrong, and would eventually be found to have a function, and I was right, and the science was wrong - because I know life and DNA was created and did not evolve and leave vestigial DNA segments behind?

 

[chad kincham]

Same old failed arguments. You really should try to learn a thing or two.

And the deception is in not acknowledging that finding soft tissue and cells in dinosaur bones claimed to be 70 million years old, falsifies their claimed age, since soft tissue would last a few thousand years at best.

 

[chad kincham]

Same old failed arguments. You really should try to learn a thing or two.

So the evolutionist honest enough to admit the Cambrian explosion is incredibly problematic, don’t understand science either?

You evolutionists really need a new and improved reason why there are many with graduate degrees in the sciences, who don’t buy into the metaphysical philosophy of naturalistic materialism masquerading as actual science.

 

[chad kincham]

I'll try to demonstrate why you are mistaken.



There isn't actually a presupposition of naturalistic materialism.

What there is only relying on testable evidence. The problem with supernatural evidence is that it can't be checked or falsified.

Literally anything is possible with miracles... which means that literally any evidence can be from a miracle... which means that you can't demonstrate that anything is, or is not from a miracles.



I'm pretty sure you are misinterpreting a need for verifyable evidence as an unjustified rejection of supernatural claims.



This is blatantly wrong.

The first problem is that bicycles do not in anyway reproduce and pass on genetic material, so there's not even a mechanism for your story.

The second problem is that bicycles do not form a nested hierarchy based on material use and structure.

For every supposed branch of your tree traits from changing makeup and construction techniques can appear and disappear on any particular branch, not permanently independent variations like we find of the trees of life.


So, given that your defense of the idea that creationists actually understand science involved you demonstrating that you fundamentally don't understand science.... I think you should really do a little more study.

Yes, you’re right - they just hand out PhDs in the sciences like candy, they don’t have to understand science att all.

 

[driewerf]

Gee, could it be because the claim is constantly made that it’s all been proven by science, when it’s light years away from being proven.

What exactly has "been proven by science"? And who makes that claim? Go come with some specifics.

The truth is it’s all been falsified, but that fact is ignored.

What exactly has been falsified? Show us that faslification? Don't be shy on specifics, don't be shy on details.

Per Darwin’s first book, the fossil record has falsified phyletic gradualism: the many fine gradations of transitional fossils Darwin admitted must exist for His theory to be proven, are non existent.

You mean, "the Voyage of the Beagle"? Which was way before "On the Origin of Species"?

Transitional fossils remain lacking in the all most important places.

But that doesn't negate all the ones found. Which is an embarrassment to your ilk.

 

[Bradskii]

You mean like when the science claimed there was junk DNA because the function of those segments of DNA were not readily apparent, and I stated from the get go that their evolutionary assumptions were wrong, and would eventually be found to have a function, and I was right, and the science was wrong - because I know life and DNA was created and did not evolve and leave vestigial DNA segments behind?

Way to go, Chad. Without any formal education in genetics you proved those pesky scientists wrong. And those scientists who could find no purpose in a lot of dna and suggested that it appeared to be junk...what do they say now that other scientists have investigated further and discovered that some of it is actually usefull? I'll tell you. They say 'Gosh darn it guys. It IS useful. We're making progress!' Or words to that effect.

Now back to the Wise one at the creation lab (the creation lab? A flash of lightening. A roll of thunder. Maniacal laughter. The villagers march on to the castle with torches and pitchforks!). What does he say when presented with solid evidence that he was incorrect. Apologise? Reapraise his position? Adjust his thinking. Admit his mistakes?

Nah. He said he will ignore any evidence even if it is shown to be true if it contradicts scripture.

Whaddya think of people who admit that they will lie to you? This is one of the guys you rely on to put forward your position. And he's telling you that he will not tell you the truth because you won't want to hear it.

Honestly, what do you think of someone like that?

 

[Shemjaza]

Yes, you’re right - they just hand out PhDs in the sciences like candy, they don’t have to understand science att all.

Forgive me. There's another option, they are deliberately misleading their ignorant audience about science.

The point is regardless of what they may have completed using the scientific method in the past, I've never seen a Creationist argument presented that made use of it.

Feel free to present one, but I'm pretty dubious given your miserable track record.

 

[chad kincham]

I'll try to demonstrate why you are mistaken.



There isn't actually a presupposition of naturalistic materialism.

What there is only relying on testable evidence. The problem with supernatural evidence is that it can't be checked or falsified.

Literally anything is possible with miracles... which means that literally any evidence can be from a miracle... which means that you can't demonstrate that anything is, or is not from a miracles.



I'm pretty sure you are misinterpreting a need for verifyable evidence as an unjustified rejection of supernatural claims.



This is blatantly wrong.

The first problem is that bicycles do not in anyway reproduce and pass on genetic material, so there's not even a mechanism for your story.

The second problem is that bicycles do not form a nested hierarchy based on material use and structure.

For every supposed branch of your tree traits from changing makeup and construction techniques can appear and disappear on any particular branch, not permanently independent variations like we find of the trees of life.


So, given that your defense of the idea that creationists actually understand science involved you demonstrating that you fundamentally don't understand science.... I think you should really do a little more study.

My analogy works just fine.

Evolutionists make the exact assumption in my example, that homologous similarities prove common ancestry, and ignore the fact that a common designer would obviously use economy of design, which is common sense, resulting in what you label as nested hierarchies