Wherein I catch a professional YEC in a lie

[Speedwell]

One cannot just stick "omni" in front of an adjective describing the mundane and expect the combnation to mean something.

 

[PsychoSarah]

One cannot just stick "omni" in front of an adjective describing the mundane and expect the combnation to mean something.

-_- omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent are all actual words (even though my computer likes to treat the last one as if it isn't and underline it with an angry red scribble).

Omnipotent: all powerful, capable of anything.
Omniscient: all knowing.
Omnibenevolent: all loving or infinitely good.

I am not just putting the prefix "omni" in front of other words to give them some special, made up meaning. I'm using real words and using them in a context that is correct for their definitions.

 

[Resha Caner]

Look, find 1 reason, one single reason, that you would create things, want them to know that they are created, and yet, make it seem like they even could have formed without your intervention.

It doesn't appear to me to have been made without intervention. It doesn't even appear that way to the theistic evolutionists with whom I disagree, and so evolution isn't a good excuse for claiming an appearance of non-intervention. I'm afraid I can't explain why it appears that way to you.

Incorrect; if I can conceive of it, surely an omniscient being must also be able to think of it, and an omnipotent being would be able to make it reality.

My answer to all the points you raised is much the same, so I'll just say it this once. Conceiving something doesn't justify doing it, or even confirm that it's logically possible to do it. That is the point I tried to make in my last post. I can talk about square circles all day long - and claim to conceive of them - but that doesn't give the term any meaning or make it possible to produce a square circle.

So, you can talk all you want about the things you can conceive and the things an omni-being can supposedly do. That doesn't justify those things, give meaning to the phrases you're using, or demonstrate their logical possibility. For example, it is impossible to know something that doesn't exist. So, if the future doesn't exist, insisting an omni-being knows the future is nonsense - a series of words with no meaning. Therefore, if you're going to insist an omni-being knows the future, you will first have to prove to me that the future exists.

 

[Resha Caner]

One cannot just stick "omni" in front of an adjective describing the mundane and expect the combnation to mean something.

Agreed.

 

[Ophiolite]

One cannot just stick "omni" in front of an adjective describing the mundane and expect the combnation to mean something.

It seemed to work for omnibus.

 

[tas8831]

DNA contains the instructions needed for an organism to develop, survive and reproduce. It is essentially the construction manual for living things.
If two living things have 80% of the same DNA, that demonstrates:
A. Common design
B. Common descent
C. Common characteristics.
Think about it for a moment.

Design presumes a designer. Common descent presumes an original progenitor. Neither is proved by the DNA. Both conclusions are based on your world view. The only true conclusion is the observable characteristics. Ancestry is not provable.

Lego.

Neither is proved, but common descent is a statistically supported conclusion of rigorous analyses of large amounts of data using tested methods.

Common design is a just-so story, a contrarian assertion with no value.

 

[tas8831]

Agreed. But what I see most often here is that when someone claims a result that differs from the conventional answer, they are accused of "purposefully rigging" that result.

Yes - pshun2404, creationist, relishes such accusations. In fact, he has impugned an entire field of study just yesterday since this field has been instrumental in the past couple of decades in providing lots of very rigorous science that supports evolutionary hypotheses. Can't have that.

Proving intentional deception is very difficult to do, and I doubt you have evidence that would meet a legal test. Why must we so often assume that those who are different from us have evil intentions?

Track record? Tomkins has been exposed for playing fast and loose with 'facts' in several of his papers in which he attacks evolution (never testing creation hypotheses - do you find that odd?).

Maybe in your science work, it is acceptable to tell analytical programs to ignore search results that do not support your desired outcome, but not in mine. Tomkins wrote a script to constrain BLASTn to only return sequence segments between human and chimp that matched 100%. In practice, this meant that if 2 10-bp segments matched nucleotide for nucleotide in 9 of 10 sites, Tomkins' analysis would report a 0% similarity. This is a person that ran a major university's molecular core facility. You may choose to believe that he didn't know any better, but at some point, one has to 'follow the money'.

The paper you mention may have been poor science. It may have been a game with definitions. Feel free to reject the conclusions and discuss why, but all the other stuff just isn't necessary. In fact, it approaches defamation. So, unless you see a need to press a fraud case against this guy, I'd let it drop.

I am reporting what many people have discovered and documented, and that Tomkins is aware of and chose to respond to by doubling down and calling his critics names. He defames himself. I am content to let his own actions destroy his reputation. But I am not content to stand by and say nothing just because I am not mounting a court case.

I have no intention of letting it drop as Tomkins keeps writing these very technical-sounding papers that purport to have 'disproved' some part of evolution, and his target audience does not understand the material well enough to catch his errors and such - they herald him as the great Darwin-killer. It seems to me that creationists with integrity should be just as disgusted by such antics as non-creationists are.

No, I read your entire post. I didn't want to descend into an argument over chimps.

OK, but the next several sentences explained my position.

IMO YEC needs to give that one up. So we're biologically similar to chimps. Big deal. I knew that when I was 5 years old, so I don't need DNA to "prove" it. I've also been aware for a long time that there are important differences between us and chimps.

Yes, of course there are differences. If there were not, we would be the same. I don't understand why this is so hard a concept to understand.

IMO, the hangup on chimps is a holdover from exceptionalism ideas (white exceptionalism, western exceptionalism, Christian exceptionalism). To be marked as similar to a chimp is taken more as a personal insult than anything to do with evolution.

Similarity does absolutely nothing to establish common ancestry. It's a reasonable trigger to go looking for common ancestry, but it does nothing to establish it. If common ancestry is what you want to argue, evolutionists have much better arguments than similarity.

Yes, I know.

And in fact, the DNA similarity thing is usually misrepresented/misinterpreted by both sides.

When comparing only human and chimp genes or genomes, you are just looking at, well, the similarity.

But including other taxa in the analysis is much more informative - for one can then see the unique shared mutation patterns that are the real evidence for shared ancestry - evidence that I and others have documented on this forum to be founded on tested and reliable methods.

But, as I said, I don't really want to digress into that discussion. I was more interested in hearing you answer my question: Does failure mean a creationist wasn't doing science?

The research in question failed because, IMO, it was fraudulent. Not that it wasn't 'science,' as such, I suppose. That should have been clear. I don't consider 'fake' science to be science.

Look at it this way - if a person stages an event to make himself look like a hero, is he still a hero?
I read something in the news a few years back about a good Samaritan who just happened by a burning house and ended up rescuing someone from it. As it turned out, he and the person he rescued had set the house on fire to collect insurance. Is he still a hero?


Anyway...

Now, about the topic of the OP:

Medical doctor Elizabeth Mitchell writes, in an essay on the 'Answers in Genesis' site in a caption of a Tiktaalik artistic rendition (note the bolding and/or italics I added for emphasis in both quotes):

In fact, the evolutionary imagination accords this fish’s hind-parts so much power, they believe it was ready for “pelvic-propelled locomotion”1 across the terrestrial world and up the evolutionary tree.​

The 1 links to this article:

N. Shubin et al., “Pelvic girdle and fin of Tiktaalik roseae,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (13 January 2014)


wherein one finds this passage - the only passage in which one finds the word "propelled":

Tiktaalik reveals that features contributing to the trend toward pelvic-propelled locomotion in the tetrapodomorph stem began emerging in finned taxa before being enhanced in more derived digited forms. Indeed, this trend has deep roots or parallel trajectories: diverse lungfish, both fossil
and extant, have pectoral and pelvic girdles that are subequal in size (17).​

Was Mitchell lying? Or does she just have horrible reading comprehension? Or is she just incompetent?


What about Menton -

YEC Dr.David Menton had written commentary on the pelvic bones of Tiktaalik, declaring them insufficient for land-based locomotion. Problem - at the time he wrote the article, the pelvic bones had not yet been discovered.

Was he lying? Or does he have mental problems?

The OP was not about whether or not creationists engage in science, it was why do they lie.

 

[AV1611VET]

The OP was ...

... twelve paragraphs.

 

[tas8831]

... twelve paragraphs.

Too long for you?

 

[AV1611VET]

Too long for you?

Affirmative.

 

[Resha Caner]

The research in question failed because, IMO, it was fraudulent. Not that it wasn't 'science,' as such, I suppose. That should have been clear. I don't consider 'fake' science to be science.

Your answer confuses me. I understand you think the particular case mentioned in the OP was fraud, but my question was a general one, not specific to any particular case.

So, I understand you answered for the specific case: you think it was fraud. But I can't tell if you answered the general question I was asking: if a creationist's hypothesis fails a falsification test, does that mean they weren't doing science?

Now, about the topic of the OP:

Yeah, it's your thread. If you don't want to pursue the angle I was discussing, that's your call.

Was Mitchell lying? Or does she just have horrible reading comprehension? Or is she just incompetent?

But I'm not going to engage in this kind of stuff. There is no basis for trying someone in an "Internet court", especially when they are not present to defend themselves. It's not only juvenile, it's unethical. IMO they have grounds to sue you for libel.

If you want to discuss the technical details of what they published, that's different. But if this is just a smear fest for unfounded accusations of fraud, I'm out.

 

[KWCrazy]

If you are going to respond again, I would ask you to respect two things:

• Address what I have said, not what you think I said, or what you would like to think I said.
• Don't try to tell me how I formed my conclusions, unless you are prepared to submit detailed evidence to support your assertions as to how I reached them.

1. You used ID and evolution as the two alternatives to creation. I pointed out that ID has support neither with science nor religion. It is an attempt to combine two mutually exclusive things. It's not that science or religion contradict each other, it's that they address things from a completely different and incompatible world view.

2. I said that "like many, you believe that we live in a world governed by physical laws. That's why you are seeking proof and require physical evidence to support what you believe. You are wrong. The supreme force in the universe is God's will. If He wanted to reverse the spin of the earth today he could do so without consequence. The absolute authority of the Lord is like an author writing, "Looking up, I saw a sky filled with stars." God wanted a sky filled with stars and it happened just that fast. Anyone who met Adam the day after he was created would insist that he was a mature man just as they would insist that the world he lived in was mature. God did not create over millions of years, he did so instantly and it was good.

3. The world was perfect until Adam sinned, and then the world became cursed. Before there was no death, and after there was only death. Nothing died before Adam lived. No fossils predate him. You have been taught a lifetime of untruths based on the world view that everything came about by natural processes. That comes from over 2,000 years of a new covenant where mankind is saved through faith. Previous to that God performed many miracles so that all would know He was the Lord. After Christ was crucified God became secretive and could only be found through faith in Christ. He still performed miracles, but mostly they dealt with things that were unbelievable co-incidences; like a nail finding its way into a tuna fish can which got shipped to Africa and opened by a missionary right after praying to God for a way to demonstrate the crucifixion.

4. I address posts, not posters. I have no delusions that anything i say will resonate with you or in any way impact your world view. I write for those who might otherwise be swayed by the insistence of the evolution proponents who feel the need to preach their beliefs to all the lost Christians who still put their belief in God over the laws of physics. I stand in defense of the truth, and the truth lies with the word of God not the theories of man.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Oh, please. Let's not do this. I make my living using science. Skepticism is a common element, but when that skepticism comes from a particular type of person and regards a particular theory, suddenly it's cast as a lack of trust.

Your scepticism isn't the issue here. Your bias is. It's all but transparent as to the reasons you're applying such barricades of scepticism over this. The unevenness with which you apply your scepticism is as subtle as a kick to the head. For example, have you ever seen an intelligent designer at all, let alone one do anything with life forms? If not, why do you reserve your belief of a process observed in nature that's well documented and well understood which is concordant with all of the evidence and contradicted by none of it, yet your unevidenced 'intelligent designer' seems to be your null hypothesis?

Why not? I listed the generalized form of the scientific method for you. If it's such a great method, why can't you answer the question I asked? Anyone can do it - right?

Of course, and if I had the time to learn something about the topic, I'm sure I probably could, or would be able to justify why it couldn't be done and/or suggest areas of research/clarification to pursue before this experiment you suggest could be done. All well within science and the scientific method(s).

Of course not. But I'll bet you that if we had a fleet of engines with people all working independently, they wouldn't all get the same result. Given that science involves a continual striving for improvement, the solution we have at any particular moment is conceded to be less than perfect - and there are often multiple less-than-perfect solutions that will fit within the defined requirements bands. Picking the one best engine from that pool is a process of debate, concession, and eventual agreement - not a process of reaching the perfect answer.

I agree. This has been the same for all fields of science, the further we progress, the further we refine - rinse and repeat ad-nauseum to get to our current state of play.

If science brought everyone to the same answer, then supposedly we could put a series of those identical engines in identical cars with identical autonomous drivers. They would then face the same conditions on the same track, and races would have no winner.

But if you're willing to entertain the notion that the pool would produce a spectrum of answers, I'll ask you: why did that happen?

Of course there's variability in the process and very few, if any will get exactly the same results in statistical analysis. That said, there's often a very focused bell-curve for individually derived results from experimentation, although still concordant to, or supportive of the one theory (....in this case, that race engines are fast??) - it's generally when outsiders suffering fits of dunning-kreuger involve themselves in the conversation that the fog descends and confusion among the laypeople ensues.

Simple examples can work as long as we avoid simple assumptions and reasoning that lead to a foregone conclusion. You actually can create a null hypothesis for this example. The reason you may have thought there wasn't one is exactly because of the point I'm trying to make about multiple methods. These multiple methods emphasize different facets of the more general method. Those working toward the engineering end of the spectrum are often working with a null hypothesis that was formulated years - decades - centuries ago. What has changed are the boundary conditions, so engineers focus on the testing step. That doesn't mean they're not doing science. At the other extreme are people with bold new questions who spend a lot of time in the observation/definition phase of the method and do little to almost no testing. That doesn't mean they're not doing science. But it is in that observation/definition phase where differences between people make the most obvious differences in the science being done.

Sure, I agree with this - but exactly as I did above, I know scant to nothing about your field of Mechanics so wouldn't presume at any point to try and tell you that these engineers (including you) aren't doing 'science' then claim you all have it wrong and none of it works about the vast quantities of engineering notes, applications and procedures in place to produce the actual working products you do - yet this is exactly what you're propositioning to the scientific community in these fields you are armchair critical of, such as biology, palaeontology, cosmology, geology, etc!

But we also have to be careful that we don't drift into the attitude that everything we do (or that certain enlightened people do) is science. Some people think that way, and that is a fallacy.

Sure. If however you feel you know more about the collective scientists of all backgrounds and beliefs that have devoted their professional lives to the research in a particular field of science coming to the same general conclusions, then it's on you to demonstrate why the science is 'bad'. Everyone else in the scientific community has to do it, you aren't exempt. Until then, don't cry 'foul' claiming bias because your ideas (or representatives of your pet cause) are consigned to that special area marked "irrational" in the mean time.

Don't know why you're repeating this. I already acknowledged there is always a desire to minimize bias. However, it can take a loooooooooong time to get to a point where everything is packaged in a way that allows for a formal description of how that is to be achieved. Biology was once primarily a qualitative science and in danger of going the same wishy-washy route as the social sciences. It's only within my lifetime that I've seen it find a quantitative basis - or at least that quantitative approaches have become more widespread.

Biology has been making progress for quite some time, the field was making discoveries and producing fruitful results (no pun intended) well before any of us were around to see it. Perhaps you didn't really understand it? Your observation regarding the stricter disciplines of the scientific method though is the same for all of the sciences - we've been able to refine the age of the earth to around 4.567 billion years, the universe to around 13.82 billion years, we've witnessed the birth and death of stars, discovered black holes of all shapes and sizes, we've discovered and verified many predictions made by many scientists (who in some cases never thought it'd be observed let alone verified - see Darwin and Einstein for example), we've even peered back in time to see the early universe only hundreds of thousands of years after it began! We understand with much finer fidelity how little we actually know about quantum theory while simultaneously expanding what we do know about it, we continually improve our understanding of our environment and the effect we have on it is being understood with greater certainty (except the Republican party, they're exempt from participating in reality apparently...)and technology and the medical science continues to progress at an almost exponential rate, so on.

Again, let's skip these kinds of comments.

Don't take it personal, sorry if you took it that way. I'm sure you'll understand I was highlighting a point regarding your belief, and not you personally.

It sounds like you're trying to argue that the current data excludes an intelligent designer. If you are, I'll simply note that such an attempt will encounter the same problems as arguing there is data that supports an intelligent designer.

Codons are redundant. A designer would have to make organisms similar to each other on a genetic scale meticulously and on purpose to result in DNA that matches up with evolutionary pattens sans evolution. I have yet to hear a single person justify a designer doing that. Especially considering that the non-functional junk also matches up between organisms (do not derail this into an argument against junk DNA, it's irrelevant if it has a function because clearly, the specific sequences of it aren't relevant to any function it could have, seeing as mutations on it don't do anything unless they turn it into a gene).

The "common trends because common design argument" only works if you think the designer was lazy and decided to reuse genes whenever possible. That doesn't even work if you think the designer was both omniscient and omnipotent (for such a being, they'd have the knowledge available to make the maximum amount of variation in created organisms, and the power to apply that knowledge effortlessly).

or better still, the Theory gets by just fine without the need of any 'intelligent designer'....

 

[Resha Caner]

Your scepticism isn't the issue here. Your bias is. It's all but transparent as to the reasons you're applying such barricades of scepticism over this. The unevenness with which you apply your scepticism is as subtle as a kick to the head. For example, have you ever seen an intelligent designer at all, let alone one do anything with life forms? If not, why do you reserve your belief of a process observed in nature that's well documented and well understood which is concordant with all of the evidence and contradicted by none of it, yet your unevidenced 'intelligent designer' seems to be your null hypothesis?

This is funny. I don't think you've been reading what I wrote. I don't promote ID as scientifically feasible.

or better still, the Theory gets by just fine without the need of any 'intelligent designer'....

Again, if you'll read what I wrote, the point I was making is that this statement can't be established in the positive or negative. ID can't be demonstrated scientifically, but neither can it be excluded. It's a question that can't be answered with science.

it's generally when outsiders suffering fits of dunning-kreuger involve themselves in the conversation that the fog descends and confusion among the laypeople ensues.

You have evidence to justify this is such a common occurence?

Of course, and if I had the time to learn something about the topic, I'm sure I probably could, or would be able to justify why it couldn't be done and/or suggest areas of research/clarification to pursue before this experiment you suggest could be done. All well within science and the scientific method(s).

And evidence to justify that your certainty in the above statement is not Dunning-Kreuger? Oy vey. Let's clarify a bit here. Does everyone have the capability to do all the sciences? If not, why?

Sure, I agree with this - but exactly as I did above, I know scant to nothing about your field of Mechanics so wouldn't presume at any point to try and tell you that these engineers (including you) aren't doing 'science' then claim you all have it wrong and none of it works about the vast quantities of engineering notes, applications and procedures in place to produce the actual working products you do

So a priori knowledge is necessary for science? I don't recall that I've ever seen that included in all the proclamations of "scientific method" that list the magical steps.

... it's on you to demonstrate why the science is 'bad'.

I never claimed otherwise.

Biology has been making progress for quite some time, the field was making discoveries and producing fruitful results (no pun intended) well before any of us were around to see it.

Nor did I claim anything contrary to what you said above. My comment regarded qualitative vs. quantitative approaches. Even physics was largely qualitative until Newton came along, though one can find exceptions in the work of Archimedes, etc.

It's not that qualitative approaches can't provide invaluable insight, but they are much more prone to confirmation bias and much more difficult to debate when two people make varying claims.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

@Bugeyedcreepy ... my apologies for overlooking the question that @tas8831 is referencing. That was an oversight on my part. Before answering, I'll have to point you back to some of my other comments. First, I am not a YEC and disagree with their premise. Second, failing a falsification test does not mean someone isn't doing science. If you share that attitude with tas8831, you share his fallacy. Third, this is not an all-or-nothing thing. I view evolution as more a field of study (a collection of many theories) rather than a single theory. Fourth, my specialty is mechanics, not biology. So, I'm not claiming expertise in biology. In fact, it doesn't really interest me. I've only looked at it because so many people talk about it that I felt compelled to be informed.

No worries! I'm comforted to hear you're not a full-on YEC, I'm curious as to what level of belief you have in each of them I guess... though you've explained it here a little. Theoretical Physicists generally come up with all kinds of scenarios that are currently unfalsifiable, so not being falsifiable doesn't necessarily mean it's not a scientific endeavour, but I do agree with @tas8831 in that not having a falsification test means it can't be incorporated into science or its theories until it gets one. the Multiverse is an example of an unfalsifiable hypothesis which is little more than a talking point until there's a way for it to be falsified - even though our current models of cosmology support such a hypothesis.

So, rolling all that together, you'll not find me rejecting every theory in biology point by point simply because someone chose to place the label "evolution" on it. In the same way, you'll not find me touting some particular study by a creationist as the thing that will sink the evolutionary ship. All I said was that I think creationists have raised some legitimate questions. An example would be Dembski's early work on intelligent design before it became a political football. As I also have said before, unfortunately his idea runs aground and will never make it to a test.

What early work did Dembski do? As far as I understand it, it can pretty much be summarised as "We don't know how some of this came about and it looks too complex to be natural, so it might be Intelligently Designed" ... <ignores evidence showing how it could've come about> - which is pretty much summarises 'ID' in its entirety. They haven't done anything since! As much as it might be a political football, if there were legitimate science in there anywhere, then it would stand up to scrutiny.

but it doesn't.

Take the Universe for example. If there was ever anything that would be contentious, it'd be the discovery that the universe isn't static and eternal after all.... Despite the implications it would have in favour of certain religions, the evidence showed this to be the case, so the scientific community took it onboard along with all the possible implications and accepted it for the evidence in support of it. Case closed.

I've even formally formulated my own hypotheses and proposed them to some selected scientific organizations. I got a lot of encouraging feedback until it came time for someone to pay the bill, then my own ship ran aground due to a series of procedural details ... and I burned out on trying to push it further.

Oh, Wow! This I'd be interested in - is it possible to post something about this, or even PM it to me if you're not overly keen to throw it into the wild...?

 

[Ophiolite]

1. You used ID and evolution as the two alternatives to creation. I pointed out that ID has support neither with science nor religion. It is an attempt to combine two mutually exclusive things. It's not that science or religion contradict each other, it's that they address things from a completely different and incompatible world view.

2. I said that "like many, you believe that we live in a world governed by physical laws. That's why you are seeking proof and require physical evidence to support what you believe. You are wrong. The supreme force in the universe is God's will. If He wanted to reverse the spin of the earth today he could do so without consequence. The absolute authority of the Lord is like an author writing, "Looking up, I saw a sky filled with stars." God wanted a sky filled with stars and it happened just that fast. Anyone who met Adam the day after he was created would insist that he was a mature man just as they would insist that the world he lived in was mature. God did not create over millions of years, he did so instantly and it was good.

3. The world was perfect until Adam sinned, and then the world became cursed. Before there was no death, and after there was only death. Nothing died before Adam lived. No fossils predate him. You have been taught a lifetime of untruths based on the world view that everything came about by natural processes. That comes from over 2,000 years of a new covenant where mankind is saved through faith. Previous to that God performed many miracles so that all would know He was the Lord. After Christ was crucified God became secretive and could only be found through faith in Christ. He still performed miracles, but mostly they dealt with things that were unbelievable co-incidences; like a nail finding its way into a tuna fish can which got shipped to Africa and opened by a missionary right after praying to God for a way to demonstrate the crucifixion.

4. I address posts, not posters. I have no delusions that anything i say will resonate with you or in any way impact your world view. I write for those who might otherwise be swayed by the insistence of the evolution proponents who feel the need to preach their beliefs to all the lost Christians who still put their belief in God over the laws of physics. I stand in defense of the truth, and the truth lies with the word of God not the theories of man.

I guess I prefer evidence over Providence.

 

[KWCrazy]

I guess I prefer evidence over Providence.

What happens when you see irrefutable evidence of the supernatural?
It's not likely to happen to you, because Satan prefers you believe he doesn't exist, but as people who have been Christians for a while what they have experienced. If the devil doesn't hate you, you aren't in the image of Christ.

 

[Ophiolite]

What happens when you see irrefutable evidence of the supernatural?

Well I have seen ghosts on two occasions. I've had dreams that foretold the future. I've witnessed outcomes that matched the desires of prayers. But, it turns out they were all - sadly - refutable. I searched for the supernatural for many years without success. If you try arguing I wasn't sincere in my search I'll be tempted to slap you with a lawsuit for defamation of character. Fortunately, for you, I resist temptation most days.

Now, since your last post was directed primarily at others and not at me, just accept that I prefer evidence to Providence, and lets agree to differ.

 

[PsychoSarah]

What happens when you see irrefutable evidence of the supernatural?

You say that as if I have or definitely will see irrefutable evidence of the "supernatural".

Obviously, if a deity made itself known in a very obvious way, I wouldn't continue being an atheist.

It's not likely to happen to you, because Satan prefers you believe he doesn't exist, but as people who have been Christians for a while what they have experienced. If the devil doesn't hate you, you aren't in the image of Christ.

I can't force myself to be Christian, even though I'd much rather be a Christian than an atheist. Not even to save my own soul, because that's not how belief works. Not that I think souls are a thing, but you get my point.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

This is funny. I don't think you've been reading what I wrote. I don't promote ID as scientifically feasible.

yet you insist on including it in the scientific arena simply because it hasn't been disproven? Then you say this:

Again, if you'll read what I wrote, the point I was making is that this statement can't be established in the positive or negative. ID can't be demonstrated scientifically, but neither can it be excluded. It's a question that can't be answered with science.

I tell you what else can't be established in the positive or negative - Flatulence-powered Magic Unicorns, Mars orbiting Teapots, Universe creating pixies, Magic sandwiches that grant wishes, Desktop lamps that answer prayers, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, Republicans that accept the overwhelming evidence for, and scientific consensus on anthropomorphic climate change, etc. All these 'can't be excluded from science' too, should we treat them as actual contenders?

You have evidence to justify this is such a common occurence?

Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, Kirk Cameron, Ray Comfort, Eric Hovind to name just a few...

And evidence to justify that your certainty in the above statement is not Dunning-Kreuger? Oy vey. Let's clarify a bit here. Does everyone have the capability to do all the sciences? If not, why?

So, I said I don't know and would require further education on the topic before being able to do what you suggest, or give reasons why I couldn't , and that's Dunning-Kreuger?



...or is it Dunning-Kreuger to say I'm sure I 'don't know'... which expert in 'not knowing anything' do I assume to be more knowlegable than, of 'not knowing'? Confused, I am....

So a priori knowledge is necessary for science? I don't recall that I've ever seen that included in all the proclamations of "scientific method" that list the magical steps.

Subject matter familiarity is, yes. For the reasons why I wouldn't try making leaps into your (or anyone else's) area of expertise to make declarations of inadequacy about its much more experienced and knowledgable is why

I never claimed otherwise.

Oh, Great!

Nor did I claim anything contrary to what you said above. My comment regarded qualitative vs. quantitative approaches. Even physics was largely qualitative until Newton came along, though one can find exceptions in the work of Archimedes, etc.

It's not that qualitative approaches can't provide invaluable insight, but they are much more prone to confirmation bias and much more difficult to debate when two people make varying claims.

The evidence is what demarcates the differing opinions - that's where the falsifiability test is brought to bear on a given hypothesis (or two). If something can be falsified, then we have the potential to learn of it being false, and then we can discard (or improve) the model as we apply the evidence to the test of falsifiability. This eventually produces a model that becomes a predictive framework with which we can make useful predictions - this then leads to things like drug testing and cancer research, vaccines, tiktaalik fossils, screening for genetic diseases before pregnancies, paternal testing & dna forensics, genome sequencing between organisms to determine last common ancestors, etc.