Science is about truth if you can prove creationism your going to get published in this day and age. So quit trying to argue that theres some evil anti-creationism cabal of scientist hiding the truth. Plus what you quoted has nothing to do with getting something published in a science journal, since he had court room to plead his case he failed to convince the judge. Also you still owe me 15 provable negative mutations.
Evidence for creationism, Part 2.
- Thread starter negZero
- Start date
- Status
Science is about truth if you can prove creationism your going to get published in this day and age. So quit trying to argue that theres some evil anti-creationism cabal of scientist hiding the truth. Plus what you quoted has nothing to do with getting something published in a science journal, since he had court room to plead his case he failed to convince the judge. Also you still owe me 15 provable negative mutations.
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
I know, Peer Review just prevents anything from advancing ever. You know how hard it is to get a constructionist paper published in a history journal? There are litterally zero constructionist papers in any journal because intentionalists run them.
Oh wait.
Trev
Prince
The proof of creation I posted on page 12 of this thread I have seen no serious argument against yet.
Behind The Mask
King
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2010
- Messages
- 776
I believe they already refuted it and have since moved on; just because you refuse to take their explanation doesn't mean it holds any less merit.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
People aren't trying to disprove evolution, but the theory which models Evolution. There are three major problems I see with this.
1. As you noticed, the attempts almost always focus on a specific part of the Theory. When you would manage to disprove one part of the theory, that doesn't render the whole Theory invalid. This is where Scientific Theories differ from Biblical ones. The Bible litteralists need the whole Bible to be accurate, and can't have even the smallest part of it be questioned. The question arises, if this is the supposed Word of God and it has a mistake in it, it would mess with the Bible is absolute truth assumption. While the Theory of Evolution doesn't have one pillar to lean on, but many. So, finding inaccuracies in Scientific Theories often only discredit a specific part of the Theory while the rest is still valid.
That is, if one would manage to disprove a specific part of the ToE.
2. Second, if one would manage to find a fundamental flaw in the ToE which renders the whole Theory invalid, you have only faulted the model which describes Evolution. There could be a different model, a different ToE which doesn't have that flaw.
That is, if one would manage to find a fundamental flaw.
3. If Creationism aspires to be granted the title of scientific theory and wants to play outside the church courtyard, there are certain criteria it needs to meet. Most important of these is that it needs to have come about by Scientific Method. Scientific Method requires positive, falsifiable proof. Disproving Evolution can't give you this.
That is why Thor creating thunder and lightning by smashing his hammer on the clouds is not a scientific theory when people in those times couldn't prove it was caused by mere friction of water.
So, no further news on why the Egyptian dating controversy proves creation?
Please link to it. I'll be more than happy to answer it, provided it's not more "I hate evolution, waaaaahhh!"
Please link to it. I'll be more than happy to answer it, provided it's not more "I hate evolution, waaaaahhh!"
I very much doubt it, though I'm sure you have masses of evidence to point this out to me.
Askthepizzaguy
Know the Dark Side
That's utter nonsense.
You seem to skip over the part where it said the grand majority of mutations are neutral, having little or no effect, positive or negative, and that only in certain situations (such as a plague) would you even notice a difference.
You know what happens after the plague? Most of the survivors are resistant to the plague.
And there you go, natural selection due to micro-evolutionary differences.
It's not a death spiral where we're all de-evolving into a sub-human species of underworld dwellers. That's fantasy that exists only in your brain.
Could you stop telling me what my argument is? I think I know what it is far better than you do, because you're ignoring it and talking past it.
Can you say things besides bizarre conclusions lacking supporting reasoning?
This appears to be entirely unrelated to the sentence before and after it. Also, lacking punctuation, not to be a stickler, but it just adds to the overwhelmingly random disjointed chaos that is this post of yours.
Is that a fact?
Why don't you prove it somehow. Why don't you support your ideas instead of randomly stating them as fact?
Every part of a DNA strand has a function. Even if its function is to merely hold together the rest of the strand.
Mr. Magicfan, what you've just said is one of the most baseless, unsupported posts I have ever read. At no point in your random assertion-laden response were you even close to anything that could be considered a relevant observation.
Chukchi Husky
Lone Wolf
Unless everyone laughs at you and calls you an idiot for being wrong.
Behind The Mask
King
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2010
- Messages
- 776
Stop trying to make this about you; perhaps if you didn't take everything at face value as absolute evidence and then posted it without a shred of reliable proof then perhaps you might not be shot down so readily.
Chukchi Husky
Lone Wolf
I'm sorry.
This is never good in any field of human endeavour.
Behind The Mask
King
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2010
- Messages
- 776
Why not stop being sorry and get a clue; make a claim and get the evidence to back it up.
Do that and I'll accept your apologize, otherwise no dice.
Chukchi Husky
Lone Wolf
Whenever I try to show evidence for something, I just get told it's wrong because it's not what it says in the Bible.
Behind The Mask
King
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2010
- Messages
- 776
You haven't given evidence.
Don't give a sod about the bible and what people tell you; don't listen to everybody, that seems to be the arguement you give.
You heard this or that, evidence is not word of mouth but facts, so get on it.
Chukchi Husky
Lone Wolf
I guess I'm just too much of an idiot.
Behind The Mask
King
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2010
- Messages
- 776
Mod, will I get an infraction for agreeing cause he seems quite intent on making us believe this.
He just doesn't get the point.
Moderator Action: He gets the point. There is no need to agree or disagree with CH's self assessment.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Being wrong is great.
I wish I was wrong more often
Hey! being an idiot is great as well! This I can say with some authority.
Sing with me...
Link to video.
Chukchi Husky
Lone Wolf
Why would it be great?Being wrong is great.
I wish I was wrong more often
I have nothing to contribute other than "I LOL'D."
I think the YEC side is getting too much of their information from sites like creation.org or answersingenesis.com, where the baldly stated intent is to make science fit the Bible, so they come up with a lot of scientific-sounding stuff that purports to debunk evolution or "prove" biblical creation. That's what the scientific method is all about, right??
Brian Shanahan
Permanoob
You have no idea what is involved in a peer reviewed paper do you? The paper is passed on to two experts in the field, who have no idea who the autor is or his/her agenda. They test the ideas put out in the paper to check against best practice and evidence of obvious bias (e.g. leaving out pertinent data). They also check and findings or conclusions stated to ensure they match the data furnished. And last but not least the repeat any experiments carried out (not every paper contains experimental data) to ensure that it is rigorous and the findings replicable. Then they give it back to the editor with their conclusions, and maybe some recommendations for further study if needed. Then based on these recommendations the editor will decide to publish or not.
- Status
