Why doesnt creationism need any data?

[Timothew]

I know. And you claimed I was ignorant in return. Demonstrating that I am actually an expert in (one aspect of) evolution rebuts your counterclaim. That's all I was doing.

By the way, I don't think "ignorant" is a term of abuse. I am ignorant of a vast number of things and a vast number of fields -- and that includes fields I've taken courses in.

Ignorant is a term of abuse whether you think so or not.

You wished to whisk me away with a derogatory statement about me that isn't even true, and I called you on it.

 

[sfs]

You are the one claiming that I'm ignorant. You lost the argument the minute you resorted to name-calling. I never accused you of anything other than being ignorant of the definition of ignorant.

You accused me of not doing science. Remember the part where you said that "evolutionism" isn't science? My employers are under the impression that I am a scientist, studying evolution. Either you or my employers are confused.

I think calling someone ignorant is a serious charge. Especially when it isn't true. Why don't you show a little class and admit that your were wrong to call me ignorant?

Because I was right, based on all of the evidence I have seen here so far. Like most scientists, I get very stubborn when it comes to evidence. I make mistakes all the time, and I admit them -- but only if I'm shown to be wrong. So far, the evidence I have is that your only comments with any content about evolution have been wrong, and really elementary errors, not subtle mistakes; that's pretty strong evidence. The only counterevidence you offer is that you took an unidentified biology course an unspecified number of years ago. That information tells me that you could know a lot, a little or virtually nothing about evolution.

 

[sfs]

Ignorant is a term of abuse whether you think so or not.

You wished to whisk me away with a derogatory statement about me that isn't even true, and I called you on it.

Nope. As I said, everyone is ignorant about many things.

What I wished to do was challenge your standing to declare evolutionary biology not science. Biologists, physicists, chemists and geologists all think it's science. Scientific journals think it's science. Every major university thinks it's science. The National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science think it's science. Science magazine thinks it's science. The National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation think it's science. The Gates Foundation thinks it's science. Scientific American thinks it's science. The American Society of Human Genetics thinks it's science. Philosophers of science, historians of science and sociologists of science all think it's science.

But you don't. And the reason we should accept your opinion, rather than the opinion of the entire scientific world, is that you know enough based on a biology course you took once to declare it not to be science. So yes, I'm challenging your capacity to make such a sweeping judgment.

 

[Split Rock]

Ignorant is a term of abuse whether you think so or not.

You wished to whisk me away with a derogatory statement about me that isn't even true, and I called you on it.

I disagree that "ignorant" is a derogatory statement. Perhaps, however, you could come up with an acceptable alternative? How about "unknowledgable?" Let's try and get past this sensless argument over who is "ignorant" and if it is derogatory to call someone "ignorant."

 

[AV1611VET]

I disagree that "ignorant" is a derogatory statement. Perhaps, however, you could come up with an acceptable alternative? How about "unknowledgable?" Let's try and get past this sensless argument over who is "ignorant" and if it is derogatory to call someone "ignorant."

Someone talking about me, again?

Eyes barn ignit, eyes die ignit.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm terribly sorry but your claim that I am ignorant about the theory of evolution is false.

I am not saying creationism is true or false.
I reject the theory of evolution because the claims have not been proven, and because I've read falsehoods in the textbooks supporting evolution. Haeckel's Law was proven false, and he falsified the data. But Haeckel's Law was still in the textbooks when I was studying the TOE.
Why should I believe someone who is more than willing to lie to me?

First, no theory is ever proven. If you were not ignorant of the scientific method you would already know this. Proof is for math and alcohol, not for science. Theories are either supported or falsified. They are never proven.

Secondly, Haeckel's drawings were never a part of the theory of evolution. "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" was actually rejected by Darwin, and it is not required by the theory. If you understood the theory, you would already know this, but you don't. If you think inaccurate textbooks falsify scientific theories then you really are ignorant of how science works.

 

[Loudmouth]

You are the one claiming that I'm ignorant. You lost the argument the minute you resorted to name-calling.

It is not name-calling. It is calling attention to a lack of knowledge. I am ignorant of car mechanics. If someone told me tha I am ignorant of car mechanics I would agree. What is wrong with that?

The difference is that I don't get on car mechanic forums and tell real car mechanics that they are wrong about everything, all the while not knowing the difference between fuel injection and carburetors.

I think calling someone ignorant is a serious charge.

One that you should take seriously and think on. If someone says that you are ignorant of how something works this is a sign that you should take a step back and re-evaluate your knowledge on the subject. Sadly, creationists rarely do. Instead, they feign persecution as you are doing here.

 

[Loudmouth]

The steps of the scientific method are to:

• Ask a Question
• Do Background Research
• Construct a Hypothesis
• Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
• Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
• Communicate Your Results

• (Insist that anything else is not Science)
  

Steps of the Scientific Method

Hypothesis: Chimps and humans share a common ancestor and the differences in our genome were produced by Darwinian mechanisms.

Test: We compare the genomes of chimps and humans. If we share a common ancestor then we should find tons of ERV's at the same location in each genome. On top of that, we should see divergence of LTR's within those ERV's consistent with random mutations that have filtered through neutral selection (the Darwinian mechanisms).

Findings: Chimps and humans share more than 200,000 ERV's at the same location in our genomes. On top of that, LTR divergence is consistent with the accumulation of random mutations and neutral selection, especially when compared to other ape species.

Conclusion: Humans and chimps share a common ancestor, and there are clear fingerprints of Darwinian mechanisms in the differences between our genomes.


Please show me how this is not science.

 

[Loudmouth]

The field of Science belongs to everyday people. Nobody else. We rule it. Not the other way around.

We, the people, have stated quite clearly that evidence gathered in the present can be used scientifically to infer what has happened in the past. That is the whole point of the scientific method, and yet you deny this simple fact.

If you were on a jury would you ignore all forensic science because it is science trying to recreate a historical event? Is forensic science a belief system?

 

[AV1611VET]

We, the people, have stated quite clearly that evidence gathered in the present can be used scientifically to infer what has happened in the past.

Catastrophism vs. Uniformitarianism

 

[Split Rock]

Someone talking about me, again?

Eyes barn ignit, eyes die ignit.

No, AVET. No one is talking about YOU (hard to believe, I know...).

 

[AV1611VET]

No, AVET. No one is talking about YOU (hard to believe, I know...).

 

[Split Rock]

 

[USincognito]

IDK, doesn't this reasoning disprove species change into other species by a process of evolution?

Existing species (or those in the past) don't turn into other existing species.

If you see a frog, you know that it's parents were frogs, not fish.

Frogs are an order within the class Amphibians. Fish isn't even proper taxon because it includes a number of different types of beings (jawless fishes, bony fishes, lobe finned fishes). Why would you refer to species and then use an order and a subPhylum clade for your examples?

We have studied this and have the emperical evidence.
I've studied this myself, when I was younger I raised guppies.

Raising gupppies hardly constitutes "studying evolution".

I didn't expect to grow frogs, and I didn't. But I also put some tadpoles in the aquarium, and watched them develop into little frogs.

That's correct. And evolution doesn't say that guppies (at least that is a species) will turn into frogs during their lifetime or in one or a few generations, so I don't see how this has anything to do with "studying evolution".

I put some snails in another aquarium, and I got hundreds of snails but no snakes.

Snails are a class of Mollusk. Snakes are a suborder of the order Squamata (scaled reptiles). Why are you referring to species above, but talking about classes and suborders here? And if you think that evolution suggests that snails will turn into snakes during their lifetime or in one or a few generations, you clearly don't understand evolution at all.

 

[USincognito]

Are you saying those were snakes and not snails?

No he wasn't and since evolution doesn' predict such a thing happening, why do you think that's an objection?

On the other hand, I have studied the theory of evolution in college.

Really? Because it sounds like you might have studied Biology in college, but the only things you learned about the theory of evolution is from Creationist websites.

Please forgive me for not accepting everything they say as fact. I've seen too many falsehoods in the textbooks, which were not removed when they were proven false.

Which sounds exactly like someone who has learned more about evolution from Creationist websites than actual textbooks. You keep harping on and on and on about Haeckel's drawings, but none of them have been used in textbooks since the 50s unless the publisher was too cheap to purchase the rights to more recent and accurate drawings or photographs. Haeckel's drawings are used in a historical context, but I'd really love for a Creationist who makes this claim to go down to their library, scan copies of the pages that supposedly use them as "evidence of evolution" and post them to the Internet.

On another forum I'm a member of, one guy did just that. He went to a university library that had Biology textbooks going back 30-40 years and copied the images used in the embryology section. Not one of them was Haeckel's drawings.

So what are these other "many falsehoods"? I hope you're not relying on Jonathan Wells' Icons of Evolution as a source for this claim because the NCSE has much documentation showing Wells is full of it.
Icons of Evolution? | NCSE

I'm not telling you what to believe, I'm just telling you what I don't believe. I don't believe that higher organisms such as humans and e. coli bacteria evolved from lower organisms such as amoebas and slime molds.

You think E. coli are "higher organisms" and are "higher" than amoebas and slime molds? What grade did you get in that Biology class?

I don't believe life spontaneously generated from nothing.

Spontaneous generation is an archaic belief that "fully formed" organisms spontaneously emerged from what often was organic material so the concept has nothing to do with abiogenesis. Mice from grain, geese from barnacles, maggots from rotting meat, etc. isn't just not "spontaneously generated from nothing" but is spontaneous generation from existing organic matter or other living beings.

And while I know Creationists think this sort of phraseology is pithy and convincing, it actually makes you look ignorant. Abiogenesis doesn't suggest life coming from "nothing", but from chemicals that were extant 3.5+ billion years ago just as they are today.

I don't believe that all matter in the universe was squeezed into a walnut and then the big bang happened.

No person who accepts the inflation model "believes" that either. This straw man is a little less egregious than the one above though.

I don't believe the earth is held up by an elephant standing on a turtle.

Turtles all the way down!

People believe the theory of evolution without knowing anything about it.
I disbelieve the theory of evolution, and I know something about it.

You are free to think this to be the case, but based on all the comments you have made, that just doesn't seem to be true.

 

[USincognito]

I guess that makes me a bad scientist.

You are as much a "scientist" as I am a "historian" - and I majored in History.

Science is about forming hypotheses, and then testing those hypotheses.
Since the origin of species already happened, by whatever mechanism you accept, the hypothesis can't be tested.

Actually, it's statements like this that make you a "bad scientist". I don't think you'll actually check out this large source of information regarding evolution, but if you do so, note that every one of the evidences cited is based on a hypothesis, most of which come directly from Darwin. You'll also note that a verification and potential faslification is offered. It would be nice to see Creationists offer a potential faslification in their press releases...er "papers".
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent

So evolutionism is not science.
It is a belief system.

You need to ask for your money back from that Biology course you took.

 

[USincognito]

So you are saying that christians such as Isaac Newton should just stay out of science?

No. Split Rock was clearly saying science should be left to the scientists, not to those who fancy themselves such.

{snip mockery comments}
But I'm expected to believe a theory based on very little knowledge.

Thus far it appears that very little knowledge sums up what you have about the theory of evolution.

I reject the theory of evolution because the claims have not been proven, and because I've read falsehoods in the textbooks supporting evolution. Haeckel's Law was proven false, and he falsified the data. But Haeckel's Law was still in the textbooks when I was studying the TOE.

"I've read". "I've seen". Blah blah. Why not cite the actual textbook instead of just alluding to something you've seen and the timeframe in which you "read" or "saw" it? If it's so blatant, some Creationist website out there must have some textbook from the 60s or 70s or whenever you attended college showing Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny as part of the instruction. Why merely allude to something when it should be easy to evidence?

And this seems as good a time as any to point out that while Haeckel was off base on his general concept of ORP and he did fudge his drawings - from the 1890s - embryology does provide some very powerful evidence for common ancestry. This has been known during the decades after Haeckel's drawings were shown to be fudged, but while more accurate drawings showed a definate development of vertebrate embryos evidenced common ancestry and before genetic studied facillitated the new field of Evo-Devo in the 90s.
Evolutionary developmental biology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[USincognito]

I'm saying Christians should not be disqualified from science just because they are Christians. I am reacting against the boast "Leave the science to us".

How about we leave the science regarding evolution to Francis Collins, Bob Bakker, Mary Schweitzer, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Ken Miller, etc.? Would that satisfy you?

Ignorance is the hallmark of evolution. Read all about Haeckel's Law in college textbooks. Textbook publishers know that the Recapulation Theory is false, but they still print it as if it were true, hoping that people remain ignorant about Earnst Haeckel.

You really need to invest in an irony meter as it will prevent you from posting insipid claims like this. OCR hasn't been in textbooks for many decades. It's presence in them is nothing more than a Creationist website induced fantasy of yours. This irony is further layered on top of the fact that while OCR was a bad hypothesis, embryology continued to validate common ancestry between the time Haeckel's drawings were exposed as embellishments and the advent of Evo-Devo which has just continued to steamroll with the evidence of common ancestry via the study of embryological development.

However, since I am not confused, I refuse to do that.

I don't think you're confused at all. It's clear your knowledge of evolutionary theory has been fatally poisoned by the lies and duplicity found on Creationist websites though.

 

[Timothew]

How about we leave the science regarding evolution to Francis Collins, Bob Bakker, Mary Schweitzer, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Ken Miller, etc.? Would that satisfy you?



You really need to invest in an irony meter as it will prevent you from posting insipid claims like this. OCR hasn't been in textbooks for many decades. It's presence in them is nothing more than a Creationist website induced fantasy of yours. This irony is further layered on top of the fact that while OCR was a bad hypothesis, embryology continued to validate common ancestry between the time Haeckel's drawings were exposed as embellishments and the advent of Evo-Devo which has just continued to steamroll with the evidence of common ancestry via the study of embryological development.



I don't think you're confused at all. It's clear your knowledge of evolutionary theory has been fatally poisoned by the lies and duplicity found on Creationist websites though.

Well, aren't you just a bright ray of sunshine on a cloudy day.
You don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Timothew]

It is not name-calling. It is calling attention to a lack of knowledge. I am ignorant of car mechanics. If someone told me tha I am ignorant of car mechanics I would agree. What is wrong with that?

The difference is that I don't get on car mechanic forums and tell real car mechanics that they are wrong about everything, all the while not knowing the difference between fuel injection and carburetors.



One that you should take seriously and think on. If someone says that you are ignorant of how something works this is a sign that you should take a step back and re-evaluate your knowledge on the subject. Sadly, creationists rarely do. Instead, they feign persecution as you are doing here.

OK, That's enough.

The term IGNORANT means that someone doesn't know anything about a topic. If someone has studied the topic in college then they are no longer ignorant. I never, ever claimed to be an expert. But the FACT is that I am not ignorant about the topic.

My only claim, and it is a small one, is that I am not ignorant about evolution. So you people can stop being jerks about this OK?

Enough is enough.