Why no evidence FOR creation/ID?

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I already know he is wrong.

OK. I hear that a lot here.

 

[Divide]

OK. I hear that a lot here.

Now that's funny brother! When we're talking about hearing the voice of God, it's all, hey we wont believe unless it can be tested...then someone mentions something that I have tested (!!)...and I don't know that either! Lol!!! Make up your mind man.

But what you guys are not getting is that, by the time the Lord spoke to me, I already believed in Him and He had done other things for me which encouraged my faith and belief in Him. When that happens in a persons life, it's pretty profound. You guys somehow take offense to...I know it. I believe it. As if, how would I know? Well when ones faith has been encouraged, they tend to pray more. I did. And how do I know that it was the Christian God and not the Hindu God? Well, because I never prayed to the Hindu God, I prayed to our Lord, Jesus the Christ. Pretty easy, right.

You guys have a problem with belief. With a mans ability to think something is true, to have been persuaded of or to place ones confidence in and to give credit (to God) and trust him at His word that He left in the book. If the Hindu God is the real God, then that Hindu God better get me the right book in my hand before its too late...they stuck a king james bible in my hand when I was a kid. Eventually I prayed to this God, and He answered me. A bunch of times. You know why He did? Because I believed in Him first. (That's how it works). I trusted Him and said ok the balls in your court, I'll trust you, and He said ok. He always answers me at the last minute, but never late. It's weird like that. I don't know why He does it that way, but first you trust Him and then He comes and reveals Himself to you and proves that He is real and He is on your side.

Belief is being of the conviction and trust to which a man is impelled by a certain inner and higher prerogative law of soul, so if you don't believe that that exists...then, you don't believe in anything! Lol. You're darn right I know it.

Now what's your credit card number again? Lol...

 

[Divide]

Same thing with the test sorta. I know hot water does not freeze faster than cold water, because I made that test. Conditions were great, too. I had whole bunch of different thermometers from my work kit, and tested them all against each other into glasses of packed icewater and I only used the best thermometers that I had. I have a few that are right on the money, one I can actually calibrate myself. so irregardless of if they still argue about it I do know the truth. I learned it because I did it. So...I know it.

Let me ask you sumpin'...do we, learn so that we can do, or do we do, so that we can learn?

 

[DogmaHunter]

It's not good to just believe anything that anyone says.

Then don't expect me to do exactly that.

I don't. But surely this would apply to science and scientists also, yes?

Yes.

A few letters after ones name is no guarantee that one is going to be correct in all they say. Conversely, a lack of letters after ones name, is not conclusive evidence that they are wrong in what they say.

Correct. However, as a layman, who are you going to give more credit?
The one with the "letters after ones name" concerning things of his particular field of expertise, or some random Joe in the streets about the same subject?

When you have a lump in your armpit and after carefull examination, a doctor tells you that you have cancer. Your garagist however tells you that it's just a pimple.

Who are you going to trust here?

If there's any motive for outright lying, one would consider the possible motives for lying.

Yes.
Creationists, who's primary role is advancing their fundamentalist religious agenda, have such motives and indeed have been caught time and again doing just that: lying, misrepresenting, quote mining, etc.

Having said that, while some individual scientists surely will have some motives to lie as well, the scientific method quickly sniffs them out.
Forging the evidence and / or manipulating your test results never ends well. Sooner or later, some other scientist (who doesn't share whatever agenda the liar has) is going to evaluate your work and try and build on top of it.

If there is fishy data there, it will be quickly exposed as such.

That's the neat thing about science, see.... they don't assume the answers before actually asking the questions.

Does the science community have enough of a vested interest in it, to be motivated to lie about it?

No. Au contraire. Lying in science gets you 15minutes of fame. Being honest and actually proving your collegues wrong, will grant you immortality in name, fame, glory and nobel prizes.

Furthermore, lying about the evidence, isn't going to result in anything usefull either. If for example the phycisists of the early 20th century were lying about atomic theory, then nukes would not explode and the manhatten project would have failed.

On the other hand, has this man who has no letters after his name, asked you for your credit card # yet?

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!

Not *my* credit card, no. The credit cards of his followers, however.... YES!
Ever wondered why people like the Hovinds, Ray "Banana-man" Comfort, Ken Ham, etc... are multi-milionaires? These people don't do anything usefull or productive. They are "professional creationists", which means that they make money through donations and selling books and dvd's filled with science slander, scientist demonization/dehumanization, lies and fundamentalist religious things.

They don't do anything productive. Their flock just keeps throwing money at them.
One of them did some jail time even, because he set his personal construct up in such a way that he avoided paying taxes as well.

Is he trying to make a profit somehow?

Creationists do, yes.
And, off course, pushing hard for a fundamentalist religious agenda.

Ever read the leaked wedge document from the discovery institute? You should. It like literally details their hidden agenda and the true purpose of "intelligent design". Hint: it's not to advance science. Au contraire.

Reading that document even makes you believe that they actually KNOW how ID is just a collection of bs.

Those questions could easily be their own thread. That's a jumping off point to go down that trail.

I don't think so. I think it ties right into the thread topic, which is "why is there no evidence for creation or ID". And what we talk about here is at least part of the answer.

The easy answer is "because there is nothing there".
It's all religion. It's all agenda. It's not about content, explanatory power, advancement of knowledge, progress, understanding.... Nope. It's about spreading a specific religious interpretation of christianity (and the quran - the middle eastern counterpart of this, like that liar Harun Yaya or whatever his name is) and for some, to make millions of dollars along the way.

...and strangely enough...I've never been effectively conned.

How would you know?
Take people who really believe in psychics for example.... They'ld go and visit one for a "reading" and pay 250 bucks for it. They'll walk away thinking "money well spend".

I'ld consider them conned. They wouldn't.

But uh, I started into business for myself at a pretty young age so consequently learned to look for the red flags of cons. That's the big thing about cons...there's always a financial motive, greed.

In the creationist thingy, that's only part of it. And many "professional creationists" most definatly became multi-millionaires by selling DVD after DVD and book after book, filled with nothing but lies and misrepresentations of science. They'll also have their own ministries where they beg people for "donations" etc.

To their flock and followers, that wouldn't count as "conned" either. They'ld figure they'ld be doing a good thing by "donating to the church" thinking the poor will get fed with it. Meanwhile, they're really just paying for some million dollar mansion with pool.

I've had contractors try to con me into doing work for them and they planned to not pay. Several times. You ever heard of a Mechanics Lien? The bad thing about them is, it takes some time to finally get your money. The good thing is, they work and they always have to wind up paying extra to get the lien released. Every single time that I have ever filed a mechanics lien, I have got my money. They have NEVER failed me. One contractor thought he'd screw me out of about 3 thousand dollars...he had to pay 4500 to get it released. That was worth the wait to me, lol.

But I digress,

Yes you digress, because that's not the type of conning I'm talking about. And I'm quite sure that you know that as well.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Now that's funny brother! When we're talking about hearing the voice of God, it's all, hey we wont believe unless it can be tested...then someone mentions something that I have tested (!!)...and I don't know that either! Lol!!! Make up your mind man.

This is part of the Physical and Life Sciences forum - all claims are likely to be challenged, questioned, and doubted. You did a test and got the expected result, and lots of others also got that result; but far more people than would be expected have got a different result - and many of them are experienced in setting up and controlling that kind of scientific experiment.

For a scientist, this raises questions - it's not, on the face of it, a complex or difficult experiment - you might expect a few careless experimenters to get it wrong, but the vast majority should get the expected result. But this doesn't happen - and when repeated, it's not consistent. Something odd is happening - and as Isaac Asimov said, "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

You guys somehow take offense to...I know it. I believe it. As if, how would I know? Well when ones faith has been encouraged, they tend to pray more. I did.

I don't think anyone here takes offense at that; you're entitled to believe what you like. But as I said, these are the Physical and Life Sciences forums, people will challenge your claims and beliefs, and, more importantly, will encourage you to apply skepticism and critical thinking to them. As Richard Feynman said, "I can live with doubt, and uncertainty, and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong."

 

[PsychoSarah]

I don't know what your talking about because it's not my trade, but I get the point and I do agree with you. It is not enough to have good equipment and perfect procedure because it will still throw you a curve ball, it sure can. I get those once or twice a year, lol. But for me, I do it so much that my method is consistent so the only variable left is equipment (and energy supplier).

Living cells are dynamic things, unlike machines. They are always changing in response to their environment, and a dead cell isn't going to have its parts remain intact after it dies. Heck, I have to cut off plant tissue, stuff it in a tube, and immediately drop it in a bucket of liquid nitrogen just to make sure all the RNA doesn't break down before I extract it. All the while wearing gloves to ensure that none of my proteins that break down nucleotides contaminate the sample at any point. You breathe wrong at the tube and you can mess it up.

That's what I meant when I said perhaps amateur scientist? Because phd whatever schooling aside when it come time to do something...is it something you do all the time, or a new idea he had and so fumbled through a test. He could be Einstein and if he's not consistent in his methods with the exact experiment that he's doing then maybe that's why they got such different results and mine seemed pretty darn consistent?

Different tissues react differently. The same tissue type can react inconsistently depending on the time of year/day or how old it is or the subject is. Not to mention variation within populations being a factor. This is why experiments in biology have to be repeated so many times in various lab settings by various different people to be viewed as reliable. It is actually not uncommon for one lab to get consistent results, but other labs don't get results that match, for a variety of reasons.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Same thing with the test sorta. I know hot water does not freeze faster than cold water, because I made that test. Conditions were great, too. I had whole bunch of different thermometers from my work kit, and tested them all against each other into glasses of packed icewater and I only used the best thermometers that I had. I have a few that are right on the money, one I can actually calibrate myself. so irregardless of if they still argue about it I do know the truth. I learned it because I did it. So...I know it.

Let me ask you sumpin'...do we, learn so that we can do, or do we do, so that we can learn?

That hot water doesn't freeze as fast as cold water is the observation. Why that is the case is what is covered by scientific theory.

 

[Divide]

That hot water doesn't freeze as fast as cold water is the observation. Why that is the case is what is covered by scientific theory.

Are you sure? I thought that other guy was trying to get me to read the article on why hot water does freeze faster than cold water...but you're saying the opposite. So I'm a bit lost here on that. I know what happened when I tested it.

Maybe those people are getting such different results all the time is due to the variables such as...what water temperatures did they start at and was the differential between h&C greater or less than what I had in my setup? My cold was around 55 deg and the hot 120-125 so there's a 60 to 70 degree delta T there. It as to be something like that accounts for the inconsistent results. I got consistent results by my conditions always being the same. But I didn't follow a given set of parameters, it was what it was and I just recorded it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Are you sure? I thought that other guy was trying to get me to read the article on why hot water does freeze faster than cold water...but you're saying the opposite. So I'm a bit lost here on that. I know what happened when I tested it.

-_- you see, this is why I am not a physicist. Apparently, that happens when the temperatures of the water being compared are vastly different, such as 30 degrees Celsius vs 70 degrees Celsius (86 and 158 degrees F, respectively). This effect also doesn't always happen. Certainly not anything I would have seen, since I have never had a reason to attempt to freeze water that hot or compare water that different in temperature. What I'd see is the difference between a refrigerated glass (1.6 C or 35 F) and one at room temperature (22 C or 71.6 F).

The consensus on that is that the effect is caused by the properties of the water changing with temperature. Given that water does strange things like getting less dense when freezing, I should have known better than assuming it was consistent at high temperatures. Learned something new today.

Maybe those people are getting such different results all the time is due to the variables such as...what water temperatures did they start at and was the differential between h&C greater or less than what I had in my setup? My cold was around 55 deg and the hot 120-125 so there's a 60 to 70 degree delta T there. It as to be something like that accounts for the inconsistent results. I got consistent results by my conditions always being the same. But I didn't follow a given set of parameters, it was what it was and I just recorded it.

Yeah, seems like it is a matter of your temperature differences combined with a weird water specific phenomenon that's been observed for thousands of years that I happened to be unaware of.

 

[Divide]

The consensus on that is that the effect is caused by the properties of the water changing with temperature. Given that water does strange things like getting less dense when freezing, I should have known better than assuming it was consistent at high temperatures. Learned something new today.

That's the weird thing about water. It's one of the few substances on earth that has three different states instead of two like most things. It can be a solid, a liquid or a gas. Atmospheric pressure prolly has an effect on it too! I conducted my test at over 6000 ft elevation.

I've noticed oddities in other stuff (mostly gases like Nitrogen) that isn't exactly how the science books say that it will act. The book says one thing and I see a different reaction in the field.

 

[Herman Hedning]

That's the weird thing about water. It's one of the few substances on earth that has three different states instead of two like most things. It can be a solid, a liquid or a gas. Atmospheric pressure prolly has an effect on it too! I conducted my test at over 6000 ft elevation.

All substances can be solid, liquid, or gaseous. It is just a matter of finding the correct temperature.

 

[PsychoSarah]

That's the weird thing about water. It's one of the few substances on earth that has three different states instead of two like most things. It can be a solid, a liquid or a gas.

Actually, those states of matter are purely temperature dependent. True, most compounds and elements don't have all 3 in nature on this planet, but it is not unusual for planets to have compounds that do that or to have precipitation regardless.

Atmospheric pressure prolly has an effect on it too! I conducted my test at over 6000 ft elevation.

Water boils at a lower temperature at higher altitudes, so it would not be improbable that freezing is also influenced.

I've noticed oddities in other stuff (mostly gases like Nitrogen) that isn't exactly how the science books say that it will act. The book says one thing and I see a different reaction in the field.

I mostly use liquid nitrogen; it's great for RNA extraction.

 

[Divide]

Actually, those states of matter are purely temperature dependent. True, most compounds and elements don't have all 3 in nature on this planet, but it is not unusual for planets to have compounds that do that or to have precipitation regardless.


Water boils at a lower temperature at higher altitudes, so it would not be improbable that freezing is also influenced.


I mostly use liquid nitrogen; it's great for RNA extraction.

I use dry nitrogen, and they taught me that it is not temperature sensitive. So a guy should be able to do the job one day and pressure up the system for an inspection tomorrow...and have it pass inspection the next day, without losing pressure from the overnight temperature drop...I've been to that call back more than once. Dry nitrogen is temp sensitive and I care not what they say that it is not because I have failed inspections several times from loss of pressure where there were no leaks. So I got used to making an early morning trip out to the job-site where the inspection is scheduled that day, to top off the lines and gauge for the inspector. Once the sun comes up, it'll be alright.

Pressurizing lines with regular air is cheaper than nitrogen, but normal mixture of air is way more temperature sensitive than dry nitrogen. So in order to use air, one has to pretty much be on the job-site with the inspector when he is there. They stand and watch the gauge for 15 minutes. So I did continue to buy their Nitrogen to test with, also because it absorbs moisture that is in the system and I was usually having A/C line-sets tested and moisture is real bad on a/c.

Is liquid Nitrogen temperature sensitive or no?

 

[Divide]

All substances can be solid, liquid, or gaseous. It is just a matter of finding the correct temperature.

I guess that's technically true, but sometimes some fairly extreme temperatures are required to begin vaporizing a substance. Water has a real close temperature swing before it changes state. 31.5° F will freeze it, 35° F will thaw it, and 190° F will boil it into steam (in Colorado at 6035 ft) 212° at sea level.

That's only a 180° temperature swing to achieve 3 different states. There isn't any rock which vaporizes at 212°...so the point largely still stands.

 

[Herman Hedning]

I guess that's technically true, but sometimes some fairly extreme temperatures are required to begin vaporizing a substance. Water has a real close temperature swing before it changes state. 31.5° F will freeze it, 35° F will thaw it, and 190° F will boil it into steam (in Colorado at 6035 ft) 212° at sea level.

That's only a 180° temperature swing to achieve 3 different states. There isn't any rock which vaporizes at 212°...so the point largely still stands.

Well, maybe, and maybe not. I haven't looked into the melting and boiling points of that many substances, but just as an example, the melting point of Bromine is 19° F, and the boiling point is 138° F. So a swing of only 119° F for all three states. Just sayin'.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I use dry nitrogen, and they taught me that it is not temperature sensitive.

Dry nitrogen just lacks any water contamination. However, regardless of the state of matter said nitrogen is in (as a gas, liquid, or solid), temperature changes can cause it to change state. Dry liquid nitrogen would evaporate at room temperature quite rapidly. As a gas, it would expand with heat much the same.

So a guy should be able to do the job one day and pressure up the system for an inspection tomorrow...and have it pass inspection the next day, without losing pressure from the overnight temperature drop...I've been to that call back more than once. Dry nitrogen is temp sensitive and I care not what they say that it is not because I have failed inspections several times from loss of pressure where there were no leaks. So I got used to making an early morning trip out to the job-site where the inspection is scheduled that day, to top off the lines and gauge for the inspector. Once the sun comes up, it'll be alright.

Yeah, nothing I look up would suggest that dry nitrogen isn't temperature sensitive, and that wouldn't even make sense from a physics standpoint. Whoever told you otherwise should have their education looked into.

Is liquid Nitrogen temperature sensitive or no?

Lol, it's boiling point is about -196 degrees Celsius (about -320 F). The stuff gives off puffs of smoke kinda like dry ice at room temperature. XD there's the reason the stuff doesn't exist as a liquid on this planet naturally.

 

[Tayla]

You have to keep in mind that the audience for ID/creationism are people who already believe in ID/creationism. They are not trying to convince their audience that ID/creationism is true.

I am a Christian who is not a young earth creationist and who does accept intelligent design. I also believe evolution is true, all except for the randomness part. I doubt that randomness is a sufficient cause to result in all the spectacular chemical biological structures and functions. I think there must have been a nudge from outside at certain key moments to direct subsequent events. This is where intelligent design comes in, probably at the quantum mechanical level such that every once in a while, the waveform collapsed in a directed manner, not by pure randomness. It happens this way so infrequently it can't be detected.

 

[gaara4158]

I am a Christian who is not a young earth creationist and who does accept intelligent design. I also believe evolution is true, all except for the randomness part. I doubt that randomness is a sufficient cause to result in all the spectacular chemical biological structures and functions. I think there must have been a nudge from outside at certain key moments to direct subsequent events. This is where intelligent design comes in, probably at the quantum mechanical level such that every once in a while, the waveform collapsed in a directed manner, not by pure randomness. It happens this way so infrequently it can't be detected.

A billion years is an utterly incomprehensible expanse of time. Life has existed here for 3.5 of them. It’s not difficult to accept that the result of random mutations accumulating over that period of time might result in the biodiversity we observe today. You might find it extraordinary how many forms life has managed to flourish in, but you’re not seeing the multitude of failed forms that outnumber them a thousandfold.

 

[tas8831]

I am a Christian who is not a young earth creationist and who does accept intelligent design. I also believe evolution is true, all except for the randomness part. I doubt that randomness is a sufficient cause to result in all the spectacular chemical biological structures and functions..

You doubt this, but can you explain what you mean by "randomness"?

 

[tas8831]

All these pages of posts and I am not thinking one of them contains actual evidence for YECism.