The Creation Museum

[Speedwell]

Then why am I asked for evidence as well?

You do occasionally make falsifiable claims.

 

[AV1611VET]

You do occasionally make falsifiable claims.

I'm not sure what you mean, but I'm having a hard time accepting Post 159.

 

[driewerf]

I'm not sure what you mean, but I'm having a hard time accepting Post 159.

Post 159 was a broad general statement and aimed at you specifically. As far as I can recall you haven't been asked for any evidence in this thread, but BobRyan

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... just imagine if the "gold standard" of evolutionists (A world class well-accepted atheist evolutionist) were to do something of that sort!! Imagine the uproar! Imagine the shouts of "well surely they could not have been serious! Possibly they corrected what they said negatively about evolution ten years later.. surely some explanation can be found for such a frank statement exposing a flaw".

It happens all the time - that's the way science works. Evolution biologists of all religions (and atheists) are always arguing about the details of how evolution proceeds in the world. The basic principles of evolution are indisputable, being effectively algorithmic, but the details of their expression in various circumstances are grounds for regular disputes and differences that lead to new hypotheses, new predictions and tests, the collection of new data, and eventually a new consensus understanding.

 

[BobRyan]

It happens all the time - that's the way science works. Evolution biologists of all religions (and atheists) are always arguing about the details of how evolution proceeds in the world.

So then no one complains at all about quoting them as they expose some of the key flaws... unless...you do it... outside of one of my favorite forums. then of course you would be on your own.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So then no one complains at all about quoting them as they expose some of the key flaws... unless...you do it... outside of one of my favorite forums. then of course you would be on your own.

I'm afraid I couldn't follow that - who doesn't complain about whom quoting what? Which key flaws of what are exposed? why don't they complain if I do it outside one of your favourite forums (which is what?)

 

[BobRyan]

admittedly it is a bit confusing...

 

[BobRyan]

What do you like or dislike about the Creation Museum in Kentucky?

I like that you a free to believe in Creation while attending that museum and pretty much have no restrictions. Including finding actual evidence supporting creation as science fact. Its amazing how many people there share that same POV.

Because creationists pretend 200 years long that they have said evidence but always fail to deliver. The last example is BobRyan in this very thread.

As the saying goes:"Empty barrels make the most noise".

If that is a quote of me... I missed it.

fail to deliver what?

the fact that observations "in nature" over 50,000 generations show that bacteria do not turn into horses over time?

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
How do you test the belief that a bacteria will turn into horse given enough time and chance ... scientifically?

You scrupulously and repeatedly examine and analyse and review and dissect and synthesise and contest and explore and resolve the data available from palaeontology, microbiology, genetics, comparative anatomy, biochemistry, organic chemistry, geochemistry, stratigraphy, developmental biology and a host of other specialities.

Or just observed 50,000 generations in real life and see what happens as opposed to what one world class evolutionist calls "stories easy enough to make up - but they are not science".

 

[Ophiolite]

Or just observed 50,000 generations in real life and see what happens as opposed to what one world class evolutionist calls "stories easy enough to make up - but they are not science".

If you have a point, please make it. Imagine I'm of restricted mental reach and require things to expressed with clarity, not passive-aggressive ambiguity.

 

[driewerf]

If that is a quote of me... I missed it.

Refreshing your memory:
The Creation Museum

 

[BobRyan]

Refreshing your memory:
The Creation Museum

Thanks... I updated that post ..

It now says this --
=========================================

What do you like or dislike about the Creation Museum in Kentucky?

I like that you a free to believe in Creation while attending that museum and pretty much have no restrictions. Including finding actual evidence supporting creation as science fact. Its amazing how many people there share that same POV.

Because creationists pretend 200 years long that they have said evidence but always fail to deliver. The last example is BobRyan in this very thread.

As the saying goes:"Empty barrels make the most noise".

If that is a quote of me... I missed it.

fail to deliver what?

the fact that observations "in nature" over 50,000 generations show that bacteria do not turn into horses over time?

or... "observations" that Genesis 1 says the Earth starts out as a water planet and observations in nature show pretty much the same thing?

 

[Speedwell]

Thanks... I updated that post ..

It now says this --
=========================================






If that is a quote of me... I missed it.

fail to deliver what?

the fact that observations "in nature" over 50,000 generations show that bacteria do not turn into horses over time?

or... "observations" that Genesis 1 says the Earth starts out as a water planet and observations in nature show pretty much the same thing?

Were those bacteria being cultured in an environment which was more hospitable to horse-like creatures than to bacteria?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

the fact that observations "in nature" over 50,000 generations show that bacteria do not turn into horses over time?

Why would you even suggest that? Even for slow-growing modern bacteria taking ~12hrs per generation, that's only 70-odd years; it's taken 3.5 billion years to get to horses - 50 million times longer than you suggest.

 

[pitabread]

Why would you even suggest that? Even for slow-growing modern bacteria taking ~12hrs per generation, that's only 70-odd years; it's taken 3.5 billion years to get to horses - 50 million times longer than you suggest.

I've noticed that when creationists try to use the long-running E.coli experiment to refute evolution, the concepts of relative time and scale goes right out the window.

I recall when another poster tried to argue that said experiment was perfectly equivalent to the Cambrian explosion, despite the latter lasting at least 250,000 times longer and involving an entire ecosystem, not just a handful of bacteria cultures.

 

[driewerf]

If that is a quote of me... I missed it.

fail to deliver what?

the fact that observations "in nature" over 50,000 generations show that bacteria do not turn into horses over time?

You failed to deliver the scientific evidence for creation, that you pretended to be provided by the Creation Museum.
In post nr 3 you claimed that the Creation Museum provided scientific evidence for creation. Your words were:
I like that you a free to believe in Creation while attending that museum and pretty much have no restrictions. Including finding actual evidence supporting creation as science fact.
The Creation Museum

In post nr 45 I replied
Now I am very curious for that evidence.
Now, before you even start to hit the keyboard: you said scientific evidence supporting creation. I am not interested interested in "why evolution can't be true". I want scientific evidence supporting creation. Did the museum really deliver in that department?
The Creation Museum

You failed until now to provide said scientific evidence supporting creation.

 

[BobRyan]

Were those bacteria being cultured in an environment which was more hospitable to horse-like creatures than to bacteria?

Humans were all around it - so are you suggesting that the bacteria was more inclined to turn into humans than horses or rabbits??

 

[BobRyan]

What do you like or dislike about the Creation Museum in Kentucky?

I like that you a free to believe in Creation while attending that museum and pretty much have no restrictions. Including finding actual evidence supporting creation as science fact. Its amazing how many people there share that same POV.

Because creationists pretend 200 years long that they have said evidence but always fail to deliver. The last example is BobRyan in this very thread.

As the saying goes:"Empty barrels make the most noise".

If that is a quote of me... I missed it.

fail to deliver what?

the fact that observations "in nature" of over 50,000 generations still show that bacteria do not turn into horses over time?

You failed to deliver the scientific evidence for creation,

Question: How many "never happened in nature" instances are there for evolution stories? Stephen J. Gould has some nice references to that.

Is it true that "never happened in nature" gets classed as "science fact" in the science texts books so near and dear to biology students - according to Gould?

By contrast when God said "After its kind" we see a statement about bacteria not turning into rabbits or horses "given enough time and chance". And when we then look at the "observations in nature" regarding that fact... well it is true... as expected.

 

[driewerf]

Humans were all around it - so are you suggesting that the bacteria was more inclined to turn into humans than horses or rabbits??

To use Speedwell"s words:

It's amazing how much time we spend arguing with creationists in this forum--not about whether the theory of evolution is valid, but about what it claims, which should really be beyond dispute.

Suppose I said, "Christianity is a dumb religion because you have to believe that Jesus was an Olympic figure skater and we're all going to heaven on ice skates, which is really dumb." What would your response be? Probably something like, "That's not what Christians believe; go read the Bible to find out." But creationists don't seem to want to put any effort into finding out what the theory of evolution really claims.

 

[driewerf]

If that is a quote of me... I missed it.

fail to deliver what?

the fact that observations "in nature" of over 50,000 generations still show that bacteria do not turn into horses over time?



Question: How many "never happened in nature" instances are there for evolution stories? Stephen J. Gould has some nice references to that.

Is it true that "never happened in nature" gets classed as "science fact" in the science texts books so near and dear to biology students - according to Gould?

By contrast when God said "After its kind" we see a statement about bacteria not turning into rabbits or horses "given enough time and chance". And when we then look at the "observations in nature" regarding that fact... well it is true... as expected.

FAIL AGAIN.
You claimed evidence FOR CREATION.
I stated clearly (twice already):
Now, before you even start to hit the keyboard: you said scientific evidence supporting creation. I am not interested in "why evolution can't be true". I want scientific evidence supporting creation.