Will Creation Science Ever Be Accepted By Mainstream Scientists?

[Michael]

I still think this link by The Cadet was the most useful link posted to this thread as it relates to the reason that "scientists" aren't ever going to accept YEC.

 

[MikeEnders]

Not Alfven, I assure you. Care to demonstrate that your erroneous statement applies to Einstein and GR theory, or Alfven and MHD theory?.

And the strawman machine jsut keeps marching on. You really are a wonder of silliness to behold you quote me saying "most all" ignore the most and then claim I was stating simply all. care to get a dictionary? You need it badly.

I have studied history which is why I know that you're whistling Dixie with respect to GR theory and MHD theory.

never said anything about either. If so show us all where I did.......cue the sound of crickets

 

[Michael]

Are you questioning my honesty again???

No, I'm simply waiting to hear you actually give us your opinion of the age of the Earth and hear you tell us when humans inhabited the Earth. You keep avoiding answering those two questions. Why not?

Furthermore the idea that anyone who holds to a literal genesis one interpretation has to hide in a closet on a christian forum is perhaps your stupidest insinuation ever

Since I didn't ever say such a thing, I'll have to assume that it's another of your own strawmen.

 

[LoricaLady]

Hey Lorica before you go and in keeping with the thread title - there are a number of things perculating in science now that are possible and even likely to have a bearing on the thread title. Most of them Darwinist in the know go into a frenzy over when you mention them (or try to brush off like they are nothing to cover them up). I thought maybe if you didn't know about them then I'd bring them up for you to watch in the future. First is HGT is which causing quiet a stir every now and again

HOrizontal Gene transfer is destroying the idea that genes are always inherited from a close related species .literally genetic transfers can take place form unrelated species (occassionally you will get some Darwinian complaining that they are all related but thats based on their circular reasoning). How often this happens was questionable but it now appears its pretty wide spread. the potential wide spread impact of this is that if you find genes between humans and Chimpanzess they no longer have to be a result of inheritance but merely ab HGT event where genetic material tranferred from a human to a chimpanzee with no relationship. Serious issues arise to the Darwinists whole tree of life mumbo jumbo

Molecular convergence is another - we've already seen the games played with convergence. At last count due to the facts just not aligning for them they now have to claim that the eye evolved scores if not hundreds of times independently. Its getting worse because the claim then was that niches were finding the same solutions to issues or just happening upn them due to various factors. What wasn't suppose to happen was that the near same genetic composition of these solutions would be found in very distantly related species. Thats whats beginning to show up. SO we not only have the unlikeliness that "nature" would just over and over find themselves with the same "solutions" but now its more than the solutions its the near exact genetic composition. the more this keeps showing up the higher the odds go against them being accidental or merely a result of common evolution

finally to keep it short there is Epigenetics which as the name implies is whats happening outside of the genome. to make it simple we'll say this refers to how and species can actually change not in respect to mutations during inheritance but by environmental cues. Turns out life is designed to adapt and change in respect to the environment and surprisingly genetic changes can take place because of external cues; Some are even seeing this as a return to a discredited idea - lamarckianism

http://www.realclearscience.com/blo...e_over_epigenetics__lamarckian_evolution.html

this has sweeping repercussions even for the fossil record basically changes can take place rapidly as the species adopts to changing environments not because of mutation but because of changes in gene expression that are programmed in

anyway three things to keep an eye out for

Oh and the fourth - major scientists are abandoning the idea that natural selection is the main driving force in Evolution. Thats been underway for years but Darwinist in the know just pretend like the public has not been fed that it was a key and major driving force

Thanks! I am indeed new to the concepts of HGT and molecular convergence and will have to study up on them. I have already seen plenty of evidence, though, that natural selection and mutations no way lead to evolution. Of course nothing leads to evolution. It's a religion, not science.

 

[Michael]

And the strawman machine jsut keeps marching on. You really are a wonder of silliness to behold you quote me saying "most all" ignore the most and then claim I was stating simply all. care to get a dictionary? You need it badly.

I cited two specific scientific theories that are typically used to describe the universe and/or it's origin. Neither theory was started by someone who A) believed in Genesis, or B) supported a literal interpretation of Genesis. That fact you can find "some" that happened to agree with you isn't a demonstration of "most" in the first place.

Was Darwin one of your "most' scientists too, and if so, what's your beef with EV theory?

 

[Michael]

Thanks! I am indeed new to the concepts of HGT and molecular convergence and will have to study up on them. I have already seen plenty of evidence, though, that natural selection and mutations no way lead to evolution. Of course nothing leads to evolution. It's a religion, not science.

And you've yet to explain why your brand of 'religion' is somehow superior to theirs.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Pasteur showed that life has to come from life.

No, that's really not what he showed - for two important reasons:

Firstly he was testing the commonly held (and erroneous) belief that microbial life was spontaneously generated in dead matter (a nutrient broth of his own devising). He showed that if he allowed contamination in, life appeared, but he didn't see it if he kept the broth sterile.

We know his conclusions were correct, but his experiments were not a rigorous scientific test of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, they were actually a far more rigorous test that there are living organisms in the air. That he failed to produce spontaneous generation was not, in itself, a proof that it couldn't happen - anymore than failing to get your meringue to rise is a proof that meringues can't rise (it's like the 'No black swans' idea, no matter how many white swans you see, it doesn't prove that there are no black swans). It's the problem of induction, as Karl Popper explained with his falsifiability criterion.

Secondly, he wasn't testing abiogenesis, the idea that life could have originated on the early Earth. He couldn't have done that if he'd wanted; he didn't know the conditions on the early Earth, nor did he have the means to detect the putative earliest life. The environmental conditions on the early Earth at the time the first life is thought to have appeared, are very different to those of our or Pasteur's time, and the candidate environments being considered today are unlike anything that Pasteur experimented with. The microorganisms that clouded his broth probably wouldn't survive in those environments, and the earliest life probably wouldn't have survived in his nutrient broth.

The Law of Biogenesis tells us that life only comes from life. Flies don't spontaneous generate from dead meat. Life can't spontaneously generate from some mythical primal pond or whatever. Life comes from life. And btw 100% of the times we see that it comes from life of the same kind.

That is (probably) true of the world today, but not necessarily true of the early Earth; it was very different then. If you try to make a recipe with different ingredients, you'll get different results. That's why scientists are experimenting to see what happens under those conditions - and what they've found is more encouraging than discouraging.

You think abiogenesis is possible? That takes a lot of....faith. Sorry, I don't have enough faith to believe that in the misty murky conveniently invisible "billions of years ago" somehow, some way - though we've never seen any such thing happen ever - some chemicals arranged themselves into living material. It doesn't happen now.

This is just the argument from incredulity writ large. Lots of things happened then that don't happen now, and vice-versa; it's not a reasonable argument.

 

[MikeEnders]

I cited two specific scientific theories that are typically used to describe the universe and/or it's origin. Neither theory was started by someone who A) believed in Genesis, or B) supported a literal interpretation of Genesis. That fact you can find "some" that happened to agree with you isn't a demonstration of "most" in the first place.

LOL
A) he finds TWO scientists and claims to have debunked the concept of most
B) he can't read a lick since i said founders of science not founders of any theory in science
C) clearly he has no sense of the difference between all and most

 

[Michael]

LOL
A) he finds TWO scientists and claims to have debunked the concept of most
B) he can't read a lick since i said founders of science not founders of any theory in science
C) clearly he has no sense of the difference between all and most

You keep moving your goalposts every single time your show gets busted. Let's review what you *actually* stated, *before* you started moving the goalposts shall we?
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...ream-scientists.7901150/page-13#post-68441649

The fact that practically every science was established by people who held creationist views rebuts your nonsense claim.

GR theory was established by Einstein and it's the prevailing theory of the makeup of the universe. MHD theory was first mathematically constructed by Alfven and he was an atheist! Thus far you haven't even cited a single branch of relevant physics that was actually started by A) a Christian or B) a literal Genesis believer in YEC.

 

[LoricaLady]

MikeEnders - P.S. Do you think there is anything derogatory or insulting in calling someone an evo fan or evo devotee? I don't mind a bit if you say Yes. I really want to know as I have had no intention of doing name calling. If someone I am debating accuses me of being offensive through use of those words, maybe somehow I am, maybe the person is looking for something to pick at - can't tell.

I have tried to think of something else to call a fan of evolution, or someone devoted to evolutionary thought, but so far nothing occurs. I'm not being sarcastic, really I don't know what else to use to refer to them, off hand. I can't call them evolutionists because that generally means a scientist who promotes evolution. (I wouldn't be a bit offended if someone called me a fan of, or devotee of, creationism.) Thanks for any input.

 

[MikeEnders]

Thanks! I am indeed new to the concepts of HGT and molecular convergence and will have to study up on them.

great....I am glad at least you were able to get two things out of this thread than the standard Darwinist rhetoric and strawmen. In case you are missing any of these pretty good sites here are three of my favorites

http://blog.drwile.com/ (not very well known but really good and reasoned stuff)
http:uncommondescent.com
http://www.evolutionnews.org/

 

[Michael]

For the record, EVO "fan" is fine. EVO devotee however is highly insulting to a Christian who is only a devotee of Christ and only Christ.

 

[MikeEnders]

GR theory was established by Einstein and it's the prevailing theory of the makeup of the universe. .

Yawn ....poor soul quotes me saying science then changes it to theory. A theory is not properly a science by itself (the simple things you have to explain to poor mike)

Biology is a science
Chemistry is a science
Physics is a science

all of those may have many theories. I even spelled it out simpler to you by saying founders o f science but it still went way over your head and led to yet another example of your straw creation super powers. lol

 

[Michael]

Yawn ....poor soul quotes me saying science then changes it to theory. A theory is not properly a science by itself (the simple things you have to explain to poor mike)

Biology is a science

Er, can you even demonstrate that "most" biologist are YEC Christians? Ditto for anything else on your list.

Apparently you've got a supercharger running under the hood of your moving goalposts now. The universe we live in is defined by gravity and plasma physics, and neither concept was 'founded' by a Christian, let alone a YEC Christian. If there ever was a "majority" of scientists that actually believed in YEC, it was more than a century ago!

FYI, I think you're up a creek without a paddle if you're trying to claim that QM was founded by a YEC proponent:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Dirac#Religious_views

 

[MikeEnders]

MikeEnders - P.S. Do you think there is anything derogatory or insulting in calling someone an evo fan or evo devotee? I don't mind a bit if you say Yes.

Of course not. Ignore Mike's noise. If someone is devoted to something the why should it be an insult to say theya re devoted to it.If someone says you are a creationist devotee why should I get my back up and cal it insulting? I could just as well say I am a fan of only Christ so the distinction between fan and devotee is just a personal preference not an insult.

If someone says they didn't like it then I guess you can skip it but I would not be feeling guilty about it or falsely convicted it was wrong. You have shown you are the FAR superior person in character by admitting without condition making a mistake even though they attempted to make it into a fallacy it never was. Don't even make it be a bubble in your well of serenity

 

[LoricaLady]

No, that's really not what he showed - for two important reasons:

Firstly he was testing the commonly held (and erroneous) belief that microbial life was spontaneously generated in dead matter (a nutrient broth of his own devising). He showed that if he allowed contamination in, life appeared, but he didn't see it if he kept the broth sterile.

We know his conclusions were correct, but his experiments were not a rigorous scientific test of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, they were actually a far more rigorous test that there are living organisms in the air. That he failed to produce spontaneous generation was not, in itself, a proof that it couldn't happen - anymore than failing to get your meringue to rise is a proof that meringues can't rise (it's like the 'No black swans' idea, no matter how many white swans you see, it doesn't prove that there are no black swans). It's the problem of induction, as Karl Popper explained with his falsifiability criterion.

Secondly, he wasn't testing abiogenesis, the idea that life could have originated on the early Earth. He couldn't have done that if he'd wanted; he didn't know the conditions on the early Earth, nor did he have the means to detect the putative earliest life. The environmental conditions on the early Earth at the time the first life is thought to have appeared, are very different to those of our or Pasteur's time, and the candidate environments being considered today are unlike anything that Pasteur experimented with. The microorganisms that clouded his broth probably wouldn't survive in those environments, and the earliest life probably wouldn't have survived in his nutrient broth.

That is (probably) true of the world today, but not necessarily true of the early Earth; it was very different then. If you try to make a recipe with different ingredients, you'll get different results. That's why scientists are experimenting to see what happens under those conditions - and what they've found is more encouraging than discouraging.

This is just the argument from incredulity writ large. Lots of things happened then that don't happen now, and vice-versa; it's not a reasonable argument.

You are correct that Pasteur was not trying to say anything about abiogenesis. However, his experiment had the effect of causing people to examine whether or not "spontaneous generation" occurs or not. This is why Dr. Wald referenced Pasteur in his quote and I believe people understood exactly the point he was trying to make. He doesn't seem to have been a dummy or lacking in adequate skills for communicating to the scientific world.

Spontaneous generation has never been seen with dead meat or with anything else. The way the religion of evolution goes is kinda like this: "Well, yeal, for thousands of years no one has ever seen life come from anything but life, and even life of the same kind. But! Have faith brothers! That doesn't mean it couldn't have happened! Just don't focus on the evidence that piles up to the skies, focus on pie in the sky proof for spontaneous generation bye and bye. Belieeeve brothers and Comrades!"

I've never seen a tooth fairy either. Maybe she really did leave those pennies under my pillow. Sure lots of people give evidence that the parents put the money there, but, hey, ignore the real evidence 'cause you don't know everything! And it happened a long time ago. No telling what was going on in the past! And horrors of horrors someone might accuse you of an argument from incredulity if you are 100% against belief in tooth fairies.

I'm incredulous alright. Based on the evidence of what has been observed, I'm incredulous about believing what has never, ever been observed just because you think maybe it did happen. Actually it's not an argument from incredulity at all. It's resisting an hypothesis that has no supporting data whatsoever! It's a refusal to shrug off what real science, real observable facts, teach us - in favor of a fantasy that attempts to make evolutionary theory look more feasible. It's refusing to get taken in by evo. think!

 

[Michael]

You have shown you are the FAR superior person in character by admitting without condition making a mistake even though they attempted to make it into a fallacy it never was. Don't even make it be a bubble in your well of serenity

So where does that leave you since you won't admit your mistakes with or without conditions?

 

[MikeEnders]

Er, can you even demonstrate that "most" biologist are YEC Christians? Ditto for anything else on your list.

WOW! lol........you reading comprehensions skill are REALLLLLLY bad. Want another try ? here read again. this is what I wrote and you have been trying to twist to no avail ever since

The fact that practically every science was established by people who held creationist views rebuts your nonsense claim.

that doesn't say most people in any science are YEC christians that is speaking of those who historically established the science

Apparently you've got a supercharger running under the hood of your moving goalposts now.

Apparently you can't read a lick

FYI, I think you're up a creek without a paddle if you're trying to claim that QM was founded by a YEC proponent:

Never said all I said most which history bears out and never claimed QM was founded by a creationist. Historically most sciences were founded in the 1500-1800s and yes most were creationists. You've been corrected on this now about three times and still continue to misrepresent that I said all. I realize you are hurt after being called to task rightfully) but as a person naming the name of Christ you need to get a grip of yourself and your emotions.

 

[LoricaLady]

Of course not. Ignore Mike's noise. If someone is devoted to something the why should it be an insult to say theya re devoted to it.If someone says you are a creationist devotee why should I get my back up and cal it insulting? I could just as well say I am a fan of only Christ so the distinction between fan and devotee is just a personal preference not an insult.

If someone says they didn't like it then I guess you can skip it but I would not be feeling guilty about it or falsely convicted it was wrong. You have shown you are the FAR superior person in character by admitting without condition making a mistake even though they attempted to make it into a fallacy it never was. Don't even make it be a bubble in your well of serenity

Thanks again!

 

[Michael]

WOW! lol........you reading comprehensions skill are REALLLLLLY bad. Want another try ? here read again. this is what I wrote and you have been trying to twist to no avail ever since



that doesn't say most people in any science are YEC christians that is speaking of those who historically established the science

And yet the founders of (those who established) the three most relevant branches of physics that are used to describe this universe were *not* even Christians, let alone supporters of Genesis or creationism. You've been moving the goal posts continuously since then, and now you're even backpeddling form your "most" commentary. Wow indeed.

And by the way, the fact that you haven't and won't answer those two simple questions about the age of the Earth and the age of mankind necessitates the need for my "conditions' as you put it. My original comments could actually be applicable to you and accurate for all I know.