Why doesnt creationism need any data?

[cubinity]

Am I the only one who understands?

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Am I the only one who understands that I'm taking your points with a grain of salt?

Am I the only one who understands that you shouldn't rub salt in a wound?

 

[SkyWriting]

This is what happens when we compare oranges to transistors.Religion is faith and ToE is science. Each belongs to totally different fields.Creationists who deny science are basically confusing two totally dissimilar things.

Creationists deny that Science can spell out events in the past that can't be recreated except in the imagination.

Science agrees that such fiction writing is not science.

I believe creationists feel threatened by science simply because science is not a spiritual thing and it is something that is "visible". I often wonder if their faith is so weak as to feel threatened by the physical world to the point where they deny it and conjure up all sorts of excuses in order to "fit" their faith into an empirical "box". __________________

Nahhh. Nothing of the sort. We BUILT this city on (the) rock....

 

[SkyWriting]

Am I the only one who understands that you shouldn't rub salt in a wound?

Urine is much better field dressing due to some urea levels.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Urine is much better field dressing due to high urea levels.

Are you sure you understand this?

 

[Split Rock]

Creationists deny that Science can spell out events in the past that can't be recreated except in the imagination.

Science agrees that such fiction writing is not science.

Do you really think if you continue to repeat this nonsense here, that you will convince anyone that you are right?

 

[SkyWriting]

Do you really think if you continue to repeat this nonsense here, that you will convince anyone that you are right?

You are correct.
I'll start quoting others then:

Scientists accept that the observations and the results of science must be "objective." That is they must be repeatable, testable and confirm-able by other scientists, even (and especially) skeptical ones.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/pseudo/scipseud.htm

The defining characteristic of science is the concept of the testable hypothesis. A testable hypothesis must make predictions that can be validated by independent observers. By "testable", we mean the predictions must include examples of what is likely be observed if the hypothesis is true and of what is unlikely to be observed if the hypothesis is true. A hypothesis that can explain all possible data equally well is not testable, nor is it scientific. A good scientific hypothesis must rule out some conceivable possibilities, at least in principle. Furthermore, a scientific explanation must make risky predictions — the predictions should be necessary if the theory is correct, and few other theories should make the same necessary predictions. These scientific requirements are the essence of Popperian falsifiability and corroboration.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html



Your claim is that

....Science can spell out events in the past that can't be recreated except in the imagination.

Now support it.

 

[Split Rock]

Your claim is that

Now support it.

Why don't you support your ridiculous statement?

Do you know what formed Craters of the Moon in Idaho?

Do you know when the biggest marine reptiles lived on the earth?

Do you know what caused the huge crater on the surface of Saturn's moon Mimas?

So you know why the genetic sequence of human DNA is more similar to chimpanzee DNA than any other species?

Scientists do. What do you have, Mr. Scoffer?

 

[Loudmouth]

Creationists deny that Science can spell out events in the past that can't be recreated except in the imagination.

We already knew that creationists reject the scientific method. What is new?

Where does it say that evidence in the present can not be used test hypotheses of what occurred in the past? Care to explain? Every time I have challenged your claims in other threads you have ignored it. Will you run away again?

 

[Loudmouth]

You are correct.
I'll start quoting others then:

Scientists accept that the observations and the results of science must be "objective." That is they must be repeatable, testable and confirm-able by other scientists, even (and especially) skeptical ones.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/pseudo/scipseud.htm

Yes, it says that the OBSERVATIONS must be repeatable, not the hypothesis.

The defining characteristic of science is the concept of the testable hypothesis. A testable hypothesis must make predictions that can be validated by independent observers. By "testable", we mean the predictions must include examples of what is likely be observed if the hypothesis is true and of what is unlikely to be observed if the hypothesis is true.

Hypothesis: Humans and chimps share a common ancestor that existed in the past. If this is true, then humans and chimps should share many ERV's at the same location in each of their genomes.

Test: Locate and sequence the ERV's in each genome. This procedure is repeatable and objective.

Please tell me how this is not scientific.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Urine is much better field dressing due to some urea levels.

And yet, honey is an even better dressing.

 

[Doveaman]

Why don't you support your ridiculous statement?

Why don't you?

Do you know what formed Craters of the Moon in Idaho?

Do you know when the biggest marine reptiles lived on the earth?

Do you know what caused the huge crater on the surface of Saturn's moon Mimas?

So you know why the genetic sequence of human DNA is more similar to chimpanzee DNA than any other species?

Scientists do.

No they don't.

As you like to say, they infer (guess, assume, speculate, estimate, approximate, etc) based on the evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

As you like to say, they infer (guess, assume, speculate, estimate, approximate, etc) based on the evidence.

"to derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence"

That is the definition being used here. Specifically, it is a conclusion derived through the scientific method. Is scientific knowledge so threatening that you need to redefine it?

 

[mzungu]

Wow -- I would think Mr. Literature Professor here would understand the art of amanuensis better than most here.

Am I the only one that understands that when a secretary types a letter that was dictated to her, the letter goes out as being from the boss, not the secretary?

Yes but what happens when the Boss forgets to check and sign it? What happens when the secretary has made mistakes, and why would the boss even need a secretary when all he had to do was will the letter into existence like the 10 commandments

 

[cubinity]

Yes but what happens when the Boss forgets to check and sign it? What happens when the secretary has made mistakes, and why would the boss even need a secretary when all he had to do was will the letter into existence like the 10 commandments

What ten commandments? The only ones that were ever seen by anyone other than Moses were remakes by Moses after the originals were supposedly smashed in a violent rage by Moses when he came down from that mountain to find everyone worshipping that calf. Or something like that.

 

[mzungu]

What ten commandments? The only ones that were ever seen by anyone other than Moses were remakes by Moses after the originals were supposedly smashed in a violent rage by Moses when he came down from that mountain to find everyone worshipping that calf. Or something like that.

When debating a creationist one has to use analogies that he can identify with! You missed my point!

 

[USincognito]

Turkana Boy

Why don't you find a profile image that is closer to that of the Orang you've been using. Even with without a more accurate comparison, anyone can see that he lacks the canines that even this female has (which would be more pronounced on a male), the saggital crest and the very pronounced brow ridges. His are there, but not nearly as pronounced on our fellow extant apes.

Bornean Orang female

But lets leave aside for the moment that the skull characteristics. Why do you continually avoid addressing his body and how undeniably it belongs to someone in genus Homo?
Sneak Peek at the Hall of Human Origins Exhibit | Photo Gallery | Smithsonian.com

 

[dad]

An anatomically modern human? No. Transitional between modern humans and basal apes? Yes.

So no then. OK. As far as the transition business that is 100% in your head. Still doing the Quixote thing I see...

 

[dad]

Shouldn't an evolutionary transition between modern humans and our common ancestor with apes have a mixture of basal ape and modern human features?

Irrelevant! What imaginary figments of satanic imagination 'should have' does not Matter a whit in the real world.

Or should they, as Astridhere keeps alluding to, be identical to modern humans?

Neither. Any link is imagined. If you happened upon an actual human fossil that was different than modern humans, it would just be some adapting of mankind. Nothing more...ever.

Do you really think that the theory of evolution has a chimp-like species giving birth to a whole generation that is identical to modern humans? Do you?

You know, the intricacies of the fables of satanic evolution without God have no importance in any reasoning man's mind. Does it really concern you?? Let's get some focus here, you admit they are not men! So why expect anyone to cowtow to evo dreams about some silly link?

 

[dad]

Read slower. He didn't say that the writers weren't inspired by some ghost. He merely said that the writers were humans and wrote the Bible using physical methods and tools.

But at least you've admitted that we've no way of verifying that indeed the Bible was inspired by any deity.

No I admit you have no way. I do.

By the way, when God's Own hand wrote the commandments on the tablets, would you credit Moses as the writer?? When God spoke out of a cloud, or from heaven, would what He said be attributed to the poor sod writing it down?