MY Darwin Challenge.

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm going to have this thread closed down. Mountainmike has made it all about himself again.

 

[Astrid]

I'm going to have this thread closed down. Mountainmike has made it all about himself again.

There's a couple of people here like that.

 

[Frank Robert]

There's a couple of people here like that.

Best way to treat such people is to frustrate them. They can be getting their jollies through verbal diarrhea but you can frustrate them by handling them tp.

 

[Frank Robert]

Aka you cannot answer.

There is a world of difference and choosing not read or responding to nonsense.

The points I made were valid, as was my statement of the limitations of science.

I don't know how many times it has been repeated, likely over billions, but here goes again.
When creationists provide testable hypotheses they will be treated with respect worthy of legitimate science.

The same result being agnostic / atheist scientific realists failing to grasp that science is a model of the universe, not the universe itself.

I believe you will find an 8th grade book on the nature of science helpful.

 

[AV1611VET]

When creationists provide testable hypotheses they will be treated with respect worthy of legitimate science.

There's nothing like watching academians demand over and over and over again for evidence for events that didn't generate any.

Who was it that said: INSANITY IS BEGGING FOR EVIDENCE OVER AND OVER AGAIN & EXPECTING A RESULT?

 

[Frank Robert]

There's nothing like watching academians demand over and over and over again for evidence for events that didn't generate any.

Who was it that said: INSANITY IS BEGGING FOR EVIDENCE OVER AND OVER AGAIN & EXPECTING A RESULT?

You misunderstood. There are potential testable hypotheses for some creationists' claims. For example common accessory vs common descent.

EvoultionNews talks of

"One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be tested for by reverse-engineering biological structures through genetic knockout experiments to determine if they require all of their parts to function."​

The DI, Uncommon Descent, AIG, RTB raise a plenty of money and have legitimate scientists on their payroll yet fail to do any science. The are good in finding faults with the ToE yet fail miserably in doing anything constructive. Well finding faults with existing hypotheses at times does serve a purpose for keeping working scientists on their toes. It also helps them obtain grants for new research. My negativity for the creationists organizations is not with their religious beliefs but rather with knowingly confusion of religious beliefs and evolutionary science which is dishonest and immoral.

As I have said before that I admire your upfront belief that "The Bible says it, that settles it."

​

 

[Astrid]

You misunderstood. There are potential testable hypotheses for some creationists' claims. For example common accessory vs common descent.

EvoultionNews talks of

"One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be tested for by reverse-engineering biological structures through genetic knockout experiments to determine if they require all of their parts to function."​

The DI, Uncommon Descent, AIG, RTB raise a plenty of money and have legitimate scientists on their payroll yet fail to do any science. The are good in finding faults with the ToE yet fail miserably in doing anything constructive. Well finding faults with existing hypotheses at times does serve a purpose for keeping working scientists on their toes. It also helps them obtain grants for new research. My negativity for the creationists organizations is not with their religious beliefs but rather with knowingly confusion of religious beliefs and evolutionary science which is dishonest and immoral.

As I have said before that I admire your upfront belief that "The Bible says it, that settles it."

​

What on earth is there to admire in that?

 

[AV1611VET]

You misunderstood.

No, I didn't misunderstood, chief.

You did.

There are potential testable hypotheses for some creationists' claims.

Good.

Then apply one to this challenge: My Day One Challenge

Let me know how it works out.

That "Irreducible Complexity" nonsense is ... well ... science.

I submit that ontological reduction is the correct way to argue this.

 

[AV1611VET]

What on earth is there to admire in that?

Nothing.

I can understand academia's desire to use DI and AiG arguments for [easy] target practice, but truth be told, they can't see the forest for the trees.

 

[Frank Robert]

What on earth is there to admire in that?

Honesty. @AV181VET and I may disagree on many things but his is a religious belief and he makes no pretense on it pitting creation science as an alternative to evolution. For him its belief that trumps evolution not science. Most scientists I have come in contact with at Peaceful Science, Panda's Thumb and Sandwalk make no bones about viewing and labeling AIG, DI etc scientists as dishonest.

 

[Frank Robert]

Nothing.

I can understand academia's desire to use DI and AiG arguments for [easy] target practice, but truth be told, they can't see the forest for the trees.

The target practice is against their lack of honesty about science and spreading their version as a must for salvation. I doubt (I could be wrong) that you believe the Christian God would damn people to eternal suffering and torture for not holding to a literal interpretation of the Bible which includes many more Christian souls than atheist and agnostic souls.

 

[Frank Robert]

deleted

 

[Frank Robert]

No, I didn't misunderstood, chief.

You did.Good.

Then apply one to this challenge: My Day One Challenge

Let me know how it works out.

That "Irreducible Complexity" nonsense is ... well ... science.

I submit that ontological reduction is the correct way to argue this.

You didn't even make me work for that.

Kenneth Raymond Miller (born July 14, 1948) is an American cell biologist, molecular biologist, and former biology professor.[2][3] Miller's primary research focus is the structure and function of cell membranes, especially chloroplast thylakoid membranes.[2] Miller is a co-author of a major introductory college and high school biology textbook published by Prentice Hall since 1990.[4] Miller, who is Roman Catholic, is opposed to creationism, including the intelligent design (ID) movement. He has written three books on the subject: Finding Darwin's God, Only a Theory, and The Human Instinct. Miller has received the Laetare Medal at the University of Notre Dame. In 2017, he received the inaugural St. Albert Award from the Society of Catholic Scientists.[5]

Irreducible Complexity (Kenneth R. Miller cross-examines Michael J. Behe)

 

[AV1611VET]

Kenneth Raymond Miller (born July 14, 1948) is an American cell biologist, molecular biologist, and former biology professor.

I would ask Mr. Miller to show me one human cell on Day One of the Creation Week.

His molecular biology can't explain Earth coming into existence.

Why? because science can take a hike.

 

[Frank Robert]

I would ask Mr. Miller to show me one human cell on Day One of the Creation Week.

His molecular biology can't explain Earth coming into existence.

Why? because science can take a hike.

This is exactly what I have claiming is your honesty. "The Bible says it, that settles it."

It is dishonest for DI, AIG, Uncommon Descent, RTB to move the goal posts by insisting that science accept that abiogenesis as part of evolutionary science. The creation of the Universe and abiogenesis is irrelevant to evolution.

Dr. Miller agrees with creationists that the Christian God was responsible for the creation of the Universe, abiogenesis and for all life on earth. Creationists are nitpicking on how God did it which is a minority Christian denomination belief. I am not suggesting you give up your beliefs, only that you understand, which I previously thought you did, that belief and science are different forms of knowledge.

I am sure that Dr. Miller, being a devout Christian, would say that God is the creator of the universe, evolution and the all life on earth. Even creationists have capitulated on micro evolution by insisting that evolution ends at the micro level. Their rationale is that science can not explain everything so God must have done it in the exact way that creationists believe he did.

Jeremiah 33:3“ This is God’s Message, the God who made earth, made it livable and lasting, known everywhere as God: ‘Call to me and I will answer you. I’ll tell you marvelous and wondrous things that you could never figure out on your own.’​

I believe Dr. Miller would say he was called to listen to God and to teach the marvelous and wondrous things that God taught him.

 

[Frank Robert]

deleted

 

[Astrid]

Honesty. @AV181VET and I may disagree on many things but his is a religious belief and he makes no pretense on it pitting creation science as an alternative to evolution. For him its belief that trumps evolution not science. Most scientists I have come in contact with at Peaceful Science, Panda's Thumb and Sandwalk make no bones about viewing and labeling AIG, DI etc scientists as dishonest.

I've quoted a Dr. K Wise, who some reason got a PhD in paleontology.

A quote:. "....even if all the evidence in the universe
turns against yec, I will still be yec as that is what
the bible seems to indicate".

I've cited this as a type specimen of intellectual
dishonesty.
The creationists, who it appears knoweth not
what the term even means, praise his honesty
for saying he is yec. Perhaps too, they note the
supposed virtue of holding fast the faith.

Now, his admission that evidence means nothing
to his calculations is dictionary intellectual
dishonesty.

Where he is honest is akin to the honesty
of a bank robber who brags about his crimes.

My respect is withheld from that kind of honesty.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is dishonest for DI, AIG, Uncommon Descent, RTB to move the goal posts by insisting that science accept that abiogenesis as part of evolutionary science. The creation of the Universe and abiogenesis is irrelevant to evolution.

Since you brought this up, I feel compelled to make a point that I have made here many times before:

Although abiogenesis and evolution are not in the same category with each other, they are under the same umbrella.

There is a chart on Harvard university's website that I post here from time to time, that even evolutionists deny is accurate (yes, they'll shoot themselves in the foot if it will keep them from being shown wrong by a creationist).

That chart is called "Cosmic Evolution," and I'll post it again.

So while abiogenesis is not a part of biological evolution, it is a part of chemical evolution.

Something academians don't like to hear.

 

[Astrid]

There is a world of difference and choosing not read or responding to nonsense. View attachment 319912


I don't know how many times it has been repeated, likely over billions, but here goes again.
When creationists provide testable hypotheses they will be treated with respect worthy of legitimate science.
I believe you will find an 8th grade book on the nature of science helpful.

" don't call him a cowboy till
ya seen him ride"

 

[AV1611VET]

A quote: "....even if all the evidence in the universe
turns against yec, I will still be yec as that is what the bible seems to indicate".

...

My respect is withheld from that kind of honesty.

Interesting.

So if all the evidence in the universe turns against YEC, what should Dr. Wise become?

I suggest he become an Embedded Ager; but I have a feeling your respect would be withheld from that kind of honesty as well.

So what should Dr. Wise, et alii, become that would garner your respect?