Why doesnt creationism need any data?

[FrenchyBearpaw]

In a sense, you are right.
So the only way is to prove that everything evolution says is not correct. Every research work which is used to support evolution, is also saying that evolution is wrong. It depends on how do you read it.

It also depends on the ignorance of the reader. Those who publish understand exactly what it is they're saying.

 

[sfs]

They don't admit it. What can I do?

Presenting some evidence would be a nice start.

They have tried (to prove evolution) for decades and the situation did not improve a single bit, but is getting worse.

That's certainly not my impression as a geneticist who studies natural selection. I thought you denied having expertise in biology -- do you know more about biology than the biologists or not?

Hey, I recently heard that we are partially Neanderthals. Is that new?

It's about a year old.

 

[sfs]

The proof is, in fact, everywhere. Find a journal article decades old and read its conclusion.

You may say: they did not know.
But I say: the conclusion was wrong !!

Okay, here's a paper from 1970 that I happen to have on my computer, titled "Primary Adult Lactose Intolerance and the Milking Habit: A
Problem in Biologic and Cultural Interrelations", by Frederick J. Simoons. I have it because I've studied lactose tolerance in humans, and I wanted to look at the earliest suggestions that natural selection was responsible. After an excellent summary of a wide range of evidence, his conclusion begins:

Tile evidence overwhelmingly supports a genetic basis for primary adult lactose intolerance, and a form of selection under which tolerance became commonplace among adults in an ethnic group after consumption of lactose-rich forms of milk over many generations.

He then makes several good suggestions about where to look to further support his conclusions. His conclusions were, of course, correct.

So what was your point again?

 

[DaveISBG]

Only if you consider misinformation and deliberate falsehoods to be "compelling."


You put your primary agrument last. Do you really believe that your god designs every single snowflake individually? Rather, snowflakes follow specific laws of physics and chemistry.... not design.

Can you look at the snowflake and say it is not a design? Yes I do believe that the grand Designer takes the time to designs every little snowflake. The Bible suggest that there is nothing to small for God. Isn't it interesting that every one of them shows a uniqueness in appearance. Since everyone of them is unique, in this case the laws of physics you talk about appear not follow any set pattern. For what reason, if any, do the laws of physics, in this case, show such diversity? Where did the laws of physics originate? Did they formulate themselves? A computer can spit out snowflake designs all day long. But the computer can do nothing of itself unless it is first programed to do so by someone who has the concept of what a design is.

 

[Split Rock]

The proof is, in fact, everywhere. Find a journal article decades old and read its conclusion.

You may say: they did not know.
But I say: the conclusion was wrong !!

Except, of course, when they were correct.

I have a friend (atheist), he gave up research 10 years ago. Why? because he discovered that doing scientific research is simply another way of make living. No more than that. Well, a little bit over exaggerated, but is mostly true.

I still do research, not because of science, but because of God. Otherwise, I would quit too.

What research do you do again?

In a sense, you are right.
So the only way is to prove that everything evolution says is not correct. Every research work which is used to support evolution, is also saying that evolution is wrong. It depends on how do you read it.

Maybe your problem is not using the language the papers are written in?

 

[Split Rock]

Can you look at the snowflake and say it is not a design? Yes I do believe that the grand Designer takes the time to designs every little snowflake. The Bible suggest that there is nothing to small for God. Isn't it interesting that every one of them shows a uniqueness in appearance. Since everyone of them is unique, in this case the laws of physics you talk about appear not follow any set pattern. For what reason, if any, do the laws of physics, in this case, show such diversity? Where did the laws of physics originate? Did they formulate themselves? A computer can spit out snowflake designs all day long. But the computer can do nothing of itself unless it is first programed to do so by someone who has the concept of what a design is.

First you say that God designs every single snowflake individually. Then you claim he is instead responsible for the laws of physics which allow for snowflake patterns to differ. Which is it?

 

[selfinflikted]

Data? Facts? Evidence? Who needs those things when you have faith?

 

[AV1611VET]

Data? Facts? Evidence? Who needs those things when you have faith?

Good question.

 

[Non sequitur]

Data? Facts? Evidence? Who needs those things when you have faith?

Good question.

Easy answer.

Everybody

 

[juvenissun]

It also depends on the ignorance of the reader. Those who publish understand exactly what it is they're saying.

True. They also know exactly what they are NOT saying, which, in most cases, will overshadow what they said.

 

[juvenissun]

Presenting some evidence would be a nice start.

That's certainly not my impression as a geneticist who studies natural selection. I thought you denied having expertise in biology -- do you know more about biology than the biologists or not?

It's about a year old.

In fact, I don't need to know this discipline or that discipline. I just need to know one. And the rest are all in similar situation.

You know what? That is the beauty of creation. If everything were not created, then I won't dare to say that.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

True. They also know exactly what they are NOT saying, which, in most cases, will overshadow what they said.

I understand how ignorance may lead someone to believe this. Conspiracy theories usually begin with they're "NOT" telling us something mentality.
Good on ya'.

 

[juvenissun]

Okay, here's a paper from 1970 that I happen to have on my computer, titled "Primary Adult Lactose Intolerance and the Milking Habit: A
Problem in Biologic and Cultural Interrelations", by Frederick J. Simoons. I have it because I've studied lactose tolerance in humans, and I wanted to look at the earliest suggestions that natural selection was responsible. After an excellent summary of a wide range of evidence, his conclusion begins:
He then makes several good suggestions about where to look to further support his conclusions. His conclusions were, of course, correct.

So what was your point again?

Of course you can find a few articles like that. Geology is more ancient than biology and has more such examples. And if you study history of science, you can find even more. Some scientist said 200 years ago may still be valid today, or even valid 100 years later. It is called vision, and does not mean the old research solved the current problem.

My point is that 99% of so-called scientific researches are simply expensive playing. That is why science is as useful as people think it is. Sure, the recent knowledge about genetics fascinated everyone. It is a part of the knowledge explosion happened to everything. However, I like to compare it to the development of astronomy, which also has some amazing break through. We do increase a lot of knowledge. But we will also never know what is really going on.

Focus back: All scientific data only tell us what we do not know, but not what we know.

 

[juvenissun]

I understand how ignorance may lead someone to believe this. Conspiracy theories usually begin with they're "NOT" telling us something mentality.
Good on ya'.

Your case may be true. But the situation at the other end of the line is about the same.

Ha ha, only those people in the middle would say: science is great, creation is wrong.

 

[Split Rock]

I know why creationism doesn't depend on data... it would sink like a stone if it did.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

I know why creationism doesn't depend on data... it would sink like a stone if it did.

True dat!

 

[DaveISBG]

First you say that God designs every single snowflake individually. Then you claim he is instead responsible for the laws of physics which allow for snowflake patterns to differ. Which is it?

Since snowflakes and their different patterns are real and the laws of physics are real and God is the Creator of all that there is I think both can be true. A programer can program a computer causing it spite out a million different designs. Technical you could say he is not physically creating them but he did program the computer to creating them.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Since snowflakes and their different patterns are real and the laws of physics are real [and since I choose to believe] God is the Creator of all that there is I think both can be true. A programer can program a computer causing it spite out a million different designs. Technical you could say he is not physically creating them but he did program the computer to creating them.

Bolded text are mine, and NOT part of the original post.

What you basically have said is... 'snowflakes are a bunch of really hard things to completely understand... ergo god.' Sorry, that don't fly.

 

[Non sequitur]

Bolded text are mine, and NOT part of the original post.

What you basically have said is... 'snowflakes are a bunch of really hard things to completely understand... ergo god.' Sorry, that don't fly.

I find The Jersey Shore really hard to understand, ergo....

(I swear, I'm making a bumper sticker out of that snowflake saying)

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

I find The Jersey Shore really hard to understand, ergo....

(I swear, I'm making a bumper sticker out of that snowflake saying)

Snooky?