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

[chad kincham]

This is why I am very sure that you do not understand the basics of science. Creationists do not use the scientific method. In fact at practically all creationist sites one must swear not to use it. Creationists also do not seem to understand the concept of scientific evidence. No one has ever posted any that I have seen. So it is not my understanding that is wrong. It is that of creationists. I constantly offer to go over the basics, but since creationists know that in reality they do not understand no one has taken me up on my offer.

Gary Parker is nowhere near being an expert in the field. He is an engineer and though he understands some geology, even that is outside his area of expertise. Where are his peer reviewed papers in support of creationism? And pretend creationist "journals" do not count.

Dean Kenyon may have been a biologist, he is also a loon. He was supposed to testify in the creation vs. evolution court case of McLean vs. Arkansas, but when it was clear that the McLean team knew what they were doing he turned tail and ran:

"Dean Kenyon, a biologist from San Francisco State University, fled town after watching the demolition of four of the state's witnesses on day 1 of the second week. And Henry Voss, a computer scientist from California, was rapidly withdrawn at the last minute when, in pretrial deposition, he too began to expound on things satanic and demonical.[8]"

Dean H. Kenyon - Wikipedia

See if you can find any real science that supports your beliefs and people will take you seriously. That means real peer reviewed science from well respected professional journals. Not journals where one has to swear not to use the scientific method.

.. in other words: "I've never directly experienced the principles of Applied or Theoretical Physics, Biology or Chemistry in action, first hand'.
Having the qualifications means zip once one has acquired them.
Walking the talk is a life-long post-grad committment, regardless of the qualifications phase.
The most useful experience follows but still requires the fundamentals as a prerequisite for actually practicing (and recognising) scientific thinking.

Gary Parker is Professor Gary Parker, who not only taught evolution in college, he wrote a textbook on biology that was pro evolution.

Dean Kenyon is Professor of biology from a San Francisco university.

To claim they don’t understand science, is pretty laughable, but then so is the claim that evolutionary theory has been in any way proven by science.

 

[Frank Robert]

Gary Parker is Professor Gary Parker, who not only taught evolution in college, he wrote a textbook on biology that was pro evolution.

Dean Kenyon is Professor of biology from a San Francisco university.

To claim they don’t understand science, is pretty laughable, but then so is the claim that evolutionary theory has been in any way proven by science.

Biologist Dr Gary Parker was the head of the science department at Clearwater Christian College (CCC) in Florida. For twelve years, he served on the science faculty of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) in the San Diego area. He is a popular and gifted speaker.

Dean H. Kenyon is Professor Emeritus of Biology at San Francisco State University, a young Earth creationist, and one of the originators of the intelligent design movement. He is the author of Biochemical Predestination.

He became a creationist around 1976, and gave testimony defending creation science at the McLean v. Arkansas and Edwards v. Aguillard court cases.

Damn, that is the second keyboard today.

 

[chad kincham]

That is the best example of projection that I have seen in long time. I need to stop drinking coffee when I read your remarks, I just blew out another key board.

You need to look at your links that you keep posting, like the one that laughably purports that they’ve created a living cell, when all they can do is hijack an already existing bacterium, snip out one gene in the very long and complex DNA programming code that runs the cell, and insert a modified gene.
But then that’s all evolutionary claims consist of, from A to Z - exaggeration, hyperbole, and disingenuous claims, that deceive as many as possible into believing it’s all been proven - and the pseudo-intellectual wanna-be’s believe the exaggerations and false claims, and repeat them, in attempting to be considered learned and intellectuall.

 

[Speedwell]

You need to look at your links that you keep posting, like the one that laughably purports that they’ve created a living cell, when all they can do is hijack an already existing bacterium, snip out one gene in the very long and complex DNA programming code that runs the cell, and insert a modified gene.
But then that’s all evolutionary claims consist of, from A to Z - exaggeration, hyperbole, and disingenuous claims, that deceive as many as possible into believing it’s all been proven - and the pseudo-intellectual wanna-be’s believe the exaggerations and false claims, and repeat them, in attempting to be considered learned and intellectuall.

If you have been deceived into believing that abiogenesis has been "proven" then you are pretty gullible, because no one is even trying to deceive.

 

[Astrid]

That is the best example of projection that I have seen in long time. I need to stop drinking coffee when I read your remarks, I just blew out another key board.

Guess I couldn't even find it funny, but yeah.
A glimpse into what is that, the purple dimension
pethaps.

 

[Frank Robert]

If you have been deceived into believing that abiogenesis has been "proven" then you are pretty gullible, because no one is even trying to deceive.

Thank you for your concern, but you can rest assured that I have not been deceived.

 

[Speedwell]

Thank you for your concern, but you can rest assured that I have not been deceived.

And no grounds to believe that the scientific community is attempting to do so.

 

[Frank Robert]

You need to look at your links that you keep posting, like the one that laughably purports that they’ve created a living cell, when all they can do is hijack an already existing bacterium, snip out one gene in the very long and complex DNA programming code that runs the cell, and insert a modified gene.
But then that’s all evolutionary claims consist of, from A to Z - exaggeration, hyperbole, and disingenuous claims, that deceive as many as possible into believing it’s all been proven - and the pseudo-intellectual wanna-be’s believe the exaggerations and false claims, and repeat them, in attempting to be considered learned and intellectuall.

To me it appears that you are grasping at straws. The article I quoted said "built a perfectly working cell."

 

[Subduction Zone]

Gary Parker is Professor Gary Parker, who not only taught evolution in college, he wrote a textbook on biology that was pro evolution.

Dean Kenyon is Professor of biology from a San Francisco university.

To claim they don’t understand science, is pretty laughable, but then so is the claim that evolutionary theory has been in any way proven by science.

You are not paying attention. I did not say that they do not understand all science. They simply do not understand the science that they oppose and they are not experts in the field. I doubt if Gary Parker wrote a textbook on biology. You need to support that claim. That is not his area of expertise.

Do you know how to support your claims? You need to do more than to drop names of ignorant people.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Biologist Dr Gary Parker was the head of the science department at Clearwater Christian College (CCC) in Florida. For twelve years, he served on the science faculty of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) in the San Diego area. He is a popular and gifted speaker.

Dean H. Kenyon is Professor Emeritus of Biology at San Francisco State University, a young Earth creationist, and one of the originators of the intelligent design movement. He is the author of Biochemical Predestination.

He became a creationist around 1976, and gave testimony defending creation science at the McLean v. Arkansas and Edwards v. Aguillard court cases.

Damn, that is the second keyboard today.

Correction, Dean Kenyon was slated to testify at McLean vs. Arkansas, but he turned tail and ran when he saw how the evolution side tore up the previous expert. A few posts back you can find my link to that. He did no testify live at Edwards v. Aquillard but he did supply a sworn deposition.

 

[Frank Robert]

Correction, Dean Kenyon was slated to testify at McLean vs. Arkansas, but he turned tail and ran when he saw how the evolution side tore up the previous expert. A few posts back you can find my link to that. He did no testify live at Edwards v. Aquillard but he did supply a sworn deposition.

Thanks for the correction. I got the information from Dean H. Kenyon - Wikipedia which is not always reliable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Aha! There is more than one "Professor Gary Parker"s. The one that I found is not the same as the creationist one. I should have gone to Answers in Genesis first. The creationist Gary Parker appears to have been a very minor instructor in the real world where he had a masters degree but not a PhD. He can add "Dr." to his name because he got an EdD degree. That is an education degree. He is not a doctor of biology or chemistry.

 

[chad kincham]

Then why do you attribute to us a greater degree of certainty about scientific conclusions than we actually possess? You said,

as if it was some kind of a refutation. Why is that?

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.

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

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.

Transitional fossils remain lacking in the all most important places.

Homochirality and the fact that organic compounds and amino acids are far too weak to be able to bond together and form complex molecules and protein chains in all prebiotic environments, falsifies abiogenesis.

Researchers have to use purified amino acids and compounds that are 100 times more concentrated than they are found in nature.

The Cambrian explosion also falsifies Darwinian evolution - complex life appears suddenly in the fossil record with eyes in the octopus that are very similar to the human eye, with no precursors, as well as vertebrate animals.

The strata below the Cambrian only contains worm-like life forms.

These are real facts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks for the correction. I got the information from Dean H. Kenyon - Wikipedia which is not always reliable.

Except that was in your link too:

"The attorney general presented six science witnesses, two more than had testified for the ACLU, presumably on the grounds that quantity made up for evident lack of quality. There would have been more had not a serious case of disappearing witnesses set in as the second week wore on. Dean Kenyon, a biologist from San Francisco State University, fled town after watching the demolition of four of the state's witnesses on day 1 of the second week. And Henry Voss, a computer scientist from California, was rapidly withdrawn at the last minute when, in pretrial deposition, he too began to expound on things satanic and demonical.[8"

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

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

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.

Transitional fossils remain lacking in the all most important places.

Homochirality and the fact that organic compounds and amino acids are far too weak to be able to bond together and form complex molecules and protein chains in all prebiotic environments, falsifies abiogenesis.

Researchers have to use purified amino acids and compounds that are 100 times more concentrated than they are found in nature.

The Cambrian explosion also falsifies Darwinian evolution - complex life appears suddenly in the fossil record with eyes in the octopus that are very similar to the human eye, with no precursors, as well as vertebrate animals.

The strata below the Cambrian only contains worm-like life forms.

These are real facts.

I do not think that Darwin ever said that there would be fine gradation in the fossil record. You would need to support that claim. What he did claim is that transitional forms should be found and they were. In fact during his lifetime the first clear bird transitional fossil was found Archaeopteryx. It had both "bird traits" and "dinosaur traits".

Archaeopteryx - Wikipedia.

Nor do you understand the Cambrian explosion. A period of over 20 million years is not "suddenly".

 

[SelfSim]

Gary Parker is Professor Gary Parker, who not only taught evolution in college, he wrote a textbook on biology that was pro evolution.

Dean Kenyon is Professor of biology from a San Francisco university.

To claim they don’t understand science, is pretty laughable, but then so is the claim that evolutionary theory has been in any way proven by science.

I was referring to you .. based on your claims about yourself.

 

[SelfSim]

You need to look at your links that you keep posting, like the one that laughably purports that they’ve created a living cell, when all they can do is hijack an already existing bacterium, snip out one gene in the very long and complex DNA programming code that runs the cell, and insert a modified gene.
But then that’s all evolutionary claims consist of, from A to Z - exaggeration, hyperbole, and disingenuous claims, that deceive as many as possible into believing it’s all been proven - and the pseudo-intellectual wanna-be’s believe the exaggerations and false claims, and repeat them, in attempting to be considered learned and intellectuall.

Being able to recreate 'living' cell functions, by whatever means, demonstrates progress in understanding how life may have arisen .. all courtesy of the field of molecular evolution, which is the empirical arm of Abiogenesis hypotheses.

No-one said there is no more to understand. Abiogenesis hypotheses lead the way to deeper understanding of possible OOL .. (as distinct from physically impossible ' so-called miracles').

 

[SelfSim]

Homochirality and the fact that organic compounds and amino acids are far too weak to be able to bond together and form complex molecules and protein chains in all prebiotic environments, falsifies abiogenesis.

What? Abiogenesis hypotheses pose the questions needed to be posed, in order to figure how all those objective observations and inferences can make objective sense!

In fact, even your misconceptions there, would never have come about if Abiogenesis hypothesis didn't drive the entire research field.

Researchers have to use purified amino acids and compounds that are 100 times more concentrated than they are found in nature.

Straw-man, ill-informed misconceptions there about molecular evolution research findings.

 

[Speedwell]

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.

The claim is not being made by scientists, which is all that matters. And, of course, scientific theories are never proven, only confirmed and accepted provisionally.

 

[Bradskii]

Even though there are thousands of creationists with PhDs, it doesn’t matter - they don’t understand the science - even those who are former evolution proponents such as Dean Kenyon, or Professor Gary Parker who are creationists based ON the science, they don’t understand it, or they’d still be evolutionists

Here's a creationist with a phd. In paleontology, which is as good as any for coming to conclusions about the age of the earth. And it wasn't some back street university in Palookerville either. It was (drum roll) Harvard! But wait. There's more. He also has an M.A. in geology from Harvard University and a B.A. in geology from the University of Chicago. I don't know about you, but I'm impressed. The guy obviously knows his science. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Mr. Kurt Wise!

Kurt is currently the director of the Creation Research Centre in Georgia and is obviously fully qualified in relevant areas of expertise for us to treat his comments on creationism with the respect they deserve. Over to you, Kurt:

"Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young Earth, I am a young age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate."

Whoops. Well...that wasn't what I expected. I don't know about you but I thought we might get a bullet proof, water tight, rock solid refutation of any and all old earth theories and a confirmation that this dismantling of science is only determined by the science (of which he is fully qualified).

But what we actually get is an excruciatingly honest admission that he will (please pay close attention to this bit) ignore the science if it contradicts the word of God!

I am now nonplussed as to how he actually became qualified at Harvard or the Uni of Chicago. Because what he would have learned and what he would have needed to write papers and thesis on would have undoubtedly contradicted scripture. One can only assume that he got his qualifications by being less than truthful about his interpretation of the science.

So Chad. Here's one of your fully qualified creationists. One you'd readily point to as an example as an honest scientist, going wherever the science takes him. And he lied to get qualified. But you want us to trust him and others like him.

What a farce...

And you didn't answer my earlier question: If abiogenesis is literally impossible, what was the point of working out the odds of it not happening?