Why don't more creationists think like Todd Wood?

[USincognito]

The only 'science' for the past is history. Nothing in the past can be proven or disproven.

Please read this essay.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...sconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

Nothing in fossil evidence can ever prove that evolution happened or that any fossil is related to another. The bones only show a creature lived.

1. Science doesn't prove anything (see the above essay).
2. It's a good thing fossils are not our only line of evidence. We have genetics which can demonstrate relatedness.
3. Body fossils are not the only fossils. Trace fossils can tells us plenty about lifestyle, diet, the rearing of offspring or the lack thereof, etc. Body fossils also tell us about lifestyle, whether a corpse was preyed upon, whether it was effected by worms or beetles after death, etc.

 

[TCassidy]

What does Jupiter have to do with gases in space becoming stars?

[Sigh] Jupiter is a ball of gas. The gas that makes up Jupiter is being compressed by Jupiter's own gravity. That compression is resulting in Jupiter getting hotter and giving off almost twice as much energy as it receives. If Jupiter were massive it would have continued to get hotter and hotter until it became a star.

You stated:

It can't be done be gravity or any known natural force.

I showed you that you are wrong. And I did it using 4th grade general science.

 

[TCassidy]

No, but I can't read what you intend, only what is written.

Then you need to work on developing reading comprehension and critical reasoning skills.

Go back and reread your own post and see.

I did. Makes perfect sense to those with a greater than 4th grade reading comprehension ability.

 

[pat34lee]

Please read this essay.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...sconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

1. Science doesn't prove anything (see the above essay).
2. It's a good thing fossils are not our only line of evidence. We have genetics which can demonstrate relatedness.
3. Body fossils are not the only fossils. Trace fossils can tells us plenty about lifestyle, diet, the rearing of offspring or the lack thereof, etc. Body fossils also tell us about lifestyle, whether a corpse was preyed upon, whether it was effected by worms or beetles after death, etc.

I hate to tell Psychology Today, but evolution hardly qualifies
as a hypothesis, much less a theory. The only part that has
been shown to work is adaptation, using already existing DNA.

2. Most fossils have no DNA, therefore no genetic evidence.
3. None of this can tell you whether fossils are related, much
less whether one is a direct ancestor of another. That is very
much a matter of conjecture and belief.

 

[pat34lee]

[Sigh] Jupiter is a ball of gas. The gas that makes up Jupiter is being compressed by Jupiter's own gravity. That compression is resulting in Jupiter getting hotter and giving off almost twice as much energy as it receives. If Jupiter were massive it would have continued to get hotter and hotter until it became a star.

You stated: I showed you that you are wrong. And I did it using 4th grade general science.

I wanted you to restate that so you couldn't say that
I was misinterpreting you again.

Jupiter has nothing to do with this. That is like saying
that because there are stars, the theory of star formation
must be correct. Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune
are already existing. They have massive gravity, which
keep the gases from escaping, much like our atmosphere
does for us. Random gases in space have no such force
to pull them together. If anything, after some period of
time, the existing stars should pull in any dust and gas
from space. If gravity is too weak to do that, then it
is laughable to believe that gas alone can create enough
gravity to cause itself to collapse into a new star.

 

[pat34lee]

Then you need to work on developing reading comprehension and critical reasoning skills.

I did. Makes perfect sense to those with a greater than 4th grade reading comprehension ability.

Strike.

 

[USincognito]

I hate to tell Psychology Today, but evolution hardly qualifies as a hypothesis, much less a theory.

1. "Psychology Today" didn't write that article.
2. The article was a discussion of how science doesn't prove things and that there's no such thing as scientific proof so your non sequitur of a response tells me you didn't even take the link, much less read it.
3. From what I have seen you are simply not in a position to make that determination.

The only part that has been shown to work is adaptation, using already existing DNA.

Why do Creationists just keep posting nonsense like this? I gave six or seven different examples of genetic evidence we have for whale evolution alone just two days ago.

2. Most fossils have no DNA, therefore no genetic evidence.

So what if fossils don't have DNA? That's not germane to the fact that relationships between taxa can be determined using genetics.

3. None of this can tell you whether fossils are related, much less whether one is a direct ancestor of another.

What does this have to do with what I wrote???? You claimed the only thing fossils told us was that something died. That was a falsehood and I corrected your falsehood.

That is very much a matter of conjecture and belief.

You keep using these words...

 

[TCassidy]

Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune
are already existing.

Yes, we all know that, but thank you for reminding us, Captain Obvious.

They have massive gravity, which
keep the gases from escaping,

Yes, we all know that, but thanks again, Captain Obvious.

Random gases in space have no such force
to pull them together.

Wrong. All mass exerts gravitational pull on all other mass. Every atom of gas pulls on every other atom of gas. That is what gravity is!

If gravity is too weak to do that

It is not. Gravity is one of the most powerful forces in the universe!

it
is laughable to believe that gas alone can create enough
gravity to cause itself to collapse

And that is why Jupiter, contrary to your failure to understand, is so important for this discussion. The compression of the gas produces heat. Remember old Jove? It gives off 1.9 times the heat it receives. That heat comes from compression. And that is why I also said if Jupiter was bigger (and 10 X the mass) gravitational collapse would have created enough heat and pressure to make Jupiter a star. Granted, with only 10X the mass it would only be a brown dwarf star, but a star nevertheless.

Let me give some advice from an old old man who has spent most of his adult life as an academic. Go to your public library and get a library card. Then ask a librarian to help you find a 4th or 5th grade science book and read up on gravity, compression heat, etc.

Then come back and we can continue this discussion.

 

[Hammster]

ADVISOR HAT ON


Here’s the deal. Some of you are acting like children with the blatant and subtle insults. Some of the staff want to just close the thread and be done with it. But I’ll give you another shot.

But stop the flaming.

However, next time a valid report comes in, we will action it. So chose your words carefully.


ADVISOR HAT OFF

 

[pat34lee]

1. "Psychology Today" didn't write that article.
2. The article was a discussion of how science doesn't prove things and that there's no such thing as scientific proof so your non sequitur of a response tells me you didn't even take the link, much less read it.
3. From what I have seen you are simply not in a position to make that determination.



Why do Creationists just keep posting nonsense like this? I gave six or seven different examples of genetic evidence we have for whale evolution alone just two days ago.

So what if fossils don't have DNA? That's not germane to the fact that relationships between taxa can be determined using genetics.

What does this have to do with what I wrote???? You claimed the only thing fossils told us was that something died. That was a falsehood and I corrected your falsehood.

You keep using these words...

1&2. Read the top of the page and the last paragraph. Psychology Today
is where the article was posted. I didn't bother with the author's name.

"I gave six or seven different examples of genetic evidence we have for whale evolution alone just two days ago. "

"relationships between taxa can be determined using genetics. "

And yet, there is no way to prove that whales evolved. That is a belief based
on nothing more than piles of bones. Nobody can prove that the bones are
related in any way, much less ancestor and progeny.

Similarities can be determines, not relationships.
Can a Genetic Relationship Be Proved by DNA Alone?

I'll keep using the words belief and philosophy because too many people
don't bother digging deep enough to tell where science gives facts and where
they tell pet theories based on facts.

 

[USincognito]

1&2. Read the top of the page and the last paragraph. Psychology Today
is where the article was posted. I didn't bother with the author's name.

Seeing as you're continuing to use prove/proven/etc. in a scientific context I'd suggest reading it again.

One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science.​

And yet, there is no way to prove that whales evolved.

The large amount of evidence showing that whales have evolved from terrestrial ancestors can only be denied via dishonesty or willfull ignorance of said evidence.

That is a belief based on nothing more than piles of bones. Nobody can prove that the bones are
related in any way, much less ancestor and progeny.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. We do have numerous transitional cetacean fossils but I didn't refer to them at all in my list of evolution facts. Every one I mentioned was related to genetics, embryology or physiology. That means you didn't understand anything I wrote when you claim, "nothing more than piles of bones". That is a falsehood. And genetics, by definition, is evidence on relatedness....

Similarities can be determines, not relationships.
Can a Genetic Relationship Be Proved by DNA Alone?

Do you seriously just cite a genealogist's blog entry discussing genealogy?

Dr. Francis Collins oversaw the Human Genome Project. He's an actual authority.
'God Is Not Threatened by Our Scientific Adventures'
>> It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming. <<

I'll keep using the words belief and philosophy because too many people don't bother digging deep enough to tell where science gives facts and where they tell pet theories based on facts.

Creationists use words like belief and philosophy because as a dishonest attempt to poison the well without actually addressing the evidence - which more often than not they don't even understand.

 

[pitabread]

I hate to tell Psychology Today, but evolution hardly qualifies
as a hypothesis, much less a theory.

You're not really in a position to make that determination though. Hence the point of this thread.

 

[tas8831]

I hate to tell Psychology Today, but evolution hardly qualifies
as a hypothesis, much less a theory.

I suggest you brush up on those terms.

The only part that has been shown to work is adaptation, using already existing DNA.

What do you mean by "already existing DNA"?

3. None of this can tell you whether fossils are related, much
less whether one is a direct ancestor of another. That is very
much a matter of conjecture and belief.

Right...

You have commented on genetics and fossils. So I assume that you have (or think you have) some general knowledge of both.

What do you suppose causes fossils to have the shapes they do? Do you think DNA has something to do with it?
If DNA has something to do with bone/fossil shape, then could it possibly be that fossils morphology is a function of genetics and thus heredity?

See where I am going with this?

 

[tas8831]

That is a belief based
on nothing more than piles of bones.

I will never understand why so many creationists rely on these very obviously false assertions. Does it e you feel special?

Similarities can be determines, not relationships.
Can a Genetic Relationship Be Proved by DNA Alone?

I see that was about Genealogy.

Since you do not seem to know, Genealogy, as used on your link, refers to the study of human ancestor-descendant relationships. That is, they are asking the question "Is living person X the great great great grandson of person Y".

Which is a very different question from "Is living person X related to person Y", which is the question asked in molecular phylogenetics (among other things).

It really does help when you have sufficient background to ask, and seek the answers for, the right and relevant questions.

I'll keep using the words belief and philosophy because too many people
don't bother digging deep enough to tell where science gives facts and where
they tell pet theories based on facts.

Hilariously projective.

 

[pat34lee]

Seeing as you're continuing to use prove/proven/etc. in a scientific context I'd suggest reading it again.

One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.​

And yet...
Somehow evolutionists manage to get the idea out that
evolution has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Even saying that though, leaves room for unreasonable
(in their eyes) doubt.

About faith again: Say you have a theory about something
that happened in the past. You examine all the evidence,
run tests and everything shows that your theory could have
happened given all the known facts and evidence. Does that
mean it happened, or is even likely to have happened? If yes,
then all conspiracy theories could be true if they cannot be
disproven, no matter how wild or improbable.

 

[tas8831]

And yet...
Somehow evolutionists manage to get the idea out that
evolution has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Examples?

 

[Speedwell]

And yet...
Somehow evolutionists manage to get the idea out that
evolution has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Even saying that though, leaves room for unreasonable
(in their eyes) doubt.

About faith again: Say you have a theory about something
that happened in the past. You examine all the evidence,
run tests and everything shows that your theory could have
happened given all the known facts and evidence. Does that
mean it happened, or is even likely to have happened? If yes,
then all conspiracy theories could be true if they cannot be
disproven, no matter how wild or improbable.

That's why scientific theories are regarded as no more than confirmed by the existing evidence and not contradicted by any of it yet--rather than "proven."

I think that your impression that evolution has been touted as "proven beyond a reasonable doubt' rests on the fact that your favorite alternative has been rejected as disproven. In principle, it is possible that the theory of evolution may turn out in the end to be wrong, but we already know that recent special creation is wrong.

 

[pitabread]

You examine all the evidence,
run tests and everything shows that your theory could have
happened given all the known facts and evidence. Does that
mean it happened, or is even likely to have happened? If yes,
then all conspiracy theories could be true if they cannot be
disproven, no matter how wild or improbable.

Huh? I'm confused as to how you immediately jump to "all conspiracy theories could be true if they cannot be disproven".

 

[pat34lee]

Examples?

"For scientists, evolution is a fact. We know that life evolved with the same certainty that we know the Earth is roughly spherical, that gravity keeps us on it, and that wasps at a picnic are annoying."
How do we know that evolution is really happening?

"As with all active areas of science, there remain questions about evolution. There are always new questions to ask, new situations to consider, and new ways to study known phenomena. But evolution itself has been so thoroughly tested that biologists are no longer examining whether evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Similarly, biologists no longer debate many of the mechanisms responsible for evolution."
Evolution Resources from the National Academies

"...we can't go back and see how life actually originated. But we have much solid evidence demonstrating that all the life forms we've studied on this planet arose from a single common ancestor, changing and diversifying over billions of years. Contrary to Behe's claim, the genetic evidence for common ancestry, up to and including humans, is overwhelming."
The Problem With Evolution: Where Have We Gone Wrong?

"How can doctors deny evolution?
We assumed such beliefs would be unusual among doctors. After all, evolution is the foundational principle of biology, which, in turn, is the basic science that backs medicine. "
Why Do Some Doctors Reject Evolution?

 

[pat34lee]

Huh? I'm confused as to how you immediately jump to "all conspiracy theories could be true if they cannot be disproven".

Anything that can actually happen is possible.
It may not be likely, but it cannot be discounted.