What is creationism?

[muhammad_isa]

In "Scientific American" a couple of years ago, they mentioned that the last "creationist study" put forth for peer-review for possible publication was back in the 1950's. Point being, there isn't one slice of objectively-derived evidence that they can put forth.

The laws of God change little .. the laws of mankind are changing constantly!
I know who I trust .. physical observation of 'a closed system' is a limited exercise.
Many physicists consider the universe as an illusion .. I'm not sure about biologists .. it probably varies according to their philosophy..

 

[Sapiens]

The laws of God change little ..

LAWS of god ... no such thing.

the laws of mankind are changing constantly!

As is good and proper.

I know who I trust ..

Yes ... your invisible friend.

physical observation of 'a closed system' is a limited exercise.

Why?

Many physicists consider the universe as an illusion ..

Many? Absurd.

I'm not sure about biologists .. it probably varies according to their philosophy..

No, biologists spend little time worry about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin ... or similar foolishness.

 

[rusra02]

In "Scientific American" a couple of years ago, they mentioned that the last "creationist study" put forth for peer-review for possible publication was back in the 1950's. Point being, there isn't one slice of objectively-derived evidence that they can put forth.

Here is a link to dozens of peer reviewed articles relating to ID. The most recent was published in December 2015.

 

[rusra02]

I've presented evidence till I was blue in the face. There are whole courses on the evidence. Instead of asking me to provide evidence for the whole of evolution, which would be a gross misuse of my time, narrow it down to something specific and I shall provide evidence.

Making assertions is not presenting evidence.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Many physicists consider the universe as an illusion ..

Many? Absurd.

What are you trying to say? That only a few scientists like Einstein or Hawking are the only ones?

Mankind has been endowed with intelligence. They are able to investigate 'how the universe works' to some extent, unlike other creatures that we share this planet with .. and you expect me to believe that this was accidental, and that one day mankind will be more knowledgable than God?
Now that's absurd!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What are you trying to say? That only a few scientists like Einstein or Hawking are the only ones?

Do you have examples of Einstein and Hawking claiming that the Universe is an illusion?

Mankind has been endowed with intelligence. They are able to investigate 'how the universe works' to some extent, unlike other creatures that we share this planet with .. and you expect me to believe that this was accidental, and that one day mankind will be more knowledgable than God?
Now that's absurd!

"Accident" implies intent gone awry. When a southern wind blows, it doesn't blow "by accident" even if there is no intelligence or intent behind it. It is a natural result of its physical composition and the forces working upon it. To create a false dichotomy by claiming that it is either "God did it" or "it was an 'accident'" is dishonest at best.

 

[metis]

The laws of God change little .. the laws of mankind are changing constantly!
I know who I trust .. physical observation of 'a closed system' is a limited exercise.
Many physicists consider the universe as an illusion .. I'm not sure about biologists .. it probably varies according to their philosophy..

I don't know of any physicist that I have run across that believes that our universe is "an illusion". Secondly, exactly how do you supposedly know the "laws of God"? Which "laws"? How exactly do you know they "change little"?

 

[metis]

Here is a link to dozens of peer reviewed articles relating to ID. The most recent was published in December 2015.

Sorry, but that link is to a creationist website that clearly is not a scientific one despite their claims. One simply cannot invent "peer-review" as they have done. Real peer-review goes through specific steps used throughout the science community worldwide, and the Discovery Institute clearly does not do that.

Are you familiar with the Dover (Pa.) Trial that they were involved in whereas a Christian and politically-conservative Republican-appointed judge found that they were lying? All from the D.I. but Bebe fled the scene as they could have been charged with perjury. Instead, the judge ruled against them and then chastised them for lying under oath.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Here is a link to dozens of peer reviewed articles relating to ID. The most recent was published in December 2015.

Here is a link to two articles which looks into every article cited by the Discovery Institute as being peer-reviewed evidence of intelligent design:

http://www.skeptical-science.com/religion/intelligent-design-examined-peer-review/
http://www.skeptical-science.com/science/claims-peer-review-intelligent-design-examined/

In short, not a single article is credible as evidence for ID. They are either completely unrelated to I.D "science" - often as stated by the authors themselves - , or have been since retracted by the journals they were published in, or have not actually been subject to peer review and/or have only been published in creationist journals.

 

[rusra02]

Do not expect the same in return.

In 6 years that I have been here, I don't think he has ever posted a link or source.

Sorry, but that link is to a creationist website that clearly is not a scientific one despite their claims. One simply cannot invent "peer-review" as they have done. Real peer-review goes through specific steps used throughout the science community worldwide, and the Discovery Institute clearly does not do that.

Are you familiar with the Dover (Pa.) Trial that they were involved in whereas a Christian and politically-conservative Republican-appointed judge found that they were lying? All from the D.I. but Bebe fled the scene as they could have been charged with perjury. Instead, the judge ruled against them and then chastised them for lying under oath.

Your interpretation of the Dover trial varies wildly from others. And setting up a scientific priesthood to pass judgment on what is peer- reviewed or not is simply a method used to silence the dissenting voices against evolution, IMO.

 

[rusra02]

Here is a link to two articles which looks into every article cited by the Discovery Institute as being peer-reviewed evidence of intelligent design:

http://www.skeptical-science.com/religion/intelligent-design-examined-peer-review/
http://www.skeptical-science.com/science/claims-peer-review-intelligent-design-examined/

In short, not a single article is credible as evidence for ID. They are either completely unrelated to I.D "science" - often as stated by the authors themselves - , or have been since retracted by the journals they were published in, or have not actually been subject to peer review and have only been published in creationist journals.

Hmmm... So evolutionist websites take exception to peer-reviewed scientific papers supporting ID? That's a surprise, said no one ever.

 

[metis]

Your interpretation of the Dover trial varies wildly from others. And setting up a scientific priesthood to pass judgment on what is peer- reviewed or not is simply a method used to silence the dissenting voices against evolution, IMO.

I'll deal with the former in a follow-up post. As far as the latter statement is concerned, it is obvious you really do not understand how and why "peer-review" was established many decades ago up within the international scientific communities.

First of all, it is not for the purposes of censorship-- exactly the opposite. What it actually does is to allow other researchers to examine the process used and the conclusions reached so that other researchers can chime in on their take. Any study can be submitted for peer-review, btw, so it simply is hot limited by its source.

So, what you have done is to actually support an organization that has lied in a court of law, has lied about it being an organization that has submitted studies for peer-review, and has lied about using scientific objectivity in it's "research".

Me thinks you should probably seek out more honest company to associate with, rusra.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Hmmm... So evolutionist websites take exception to peer-reviewed scientific papers supporting ID? That's a surprise, said no one ever.

No, skeptical scientific websites take exception to claims of articles that are peer reviewed and support Intelligent Design when, upon investigation, they do nor or are not. After just a quick look at the list myself, I can see over a dozen citations from BIO-Complexity, which is not a peer-reviewed journal but is a creationist publication made by the Biologic Institute (SOURCE: http://ncse.com/rncse/30/6/latest-intelligent-design-journal). I can also see many more of the articles are by David L. Abel, who is a well-known fraud who runs his entire "scientific foundation" from his garage (SOURCE: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyng...-in-on-the-origin-of-life-science-foundation/)

If this is the best list of "peer-reviewed articles" the Discovery Institute can come up with, it is outright proof of their dishonesty.

 

[metis]

Your interpretation of the Dover trial varies wildly from others. .

OK, let's take a look at this:

After the trial, there were calls for the defendants, accused of not presenting their case honestly, to be put on trial for committing perjury. "Witnesses either testified inconsistently, or lied outright under oath on several occasions," Jones wrote. "The inescapable truth is that both [Alan] Bonsell and [William] Buckingham lied at their January 3, 2005 depositions. ... Bonsell repeatedly failed to testify in a truthful manner. ... Defendants have unceasingly attempted in vain to distance themselves from their own actions and statements, which culminated in repetitious, untruthful testimony." An editorial in the York Daily Record described their behavior as both ironic and sinful, saying that the "...unintelligent designers of this fiasco should not walk away unscathed." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District#Allegations_of_perjury

If you read about earlier in that same article, it gives the judges decision and why he ruled as he did.

 

[rusra02]

I'll deal with the former in a follow-up post. As far as the latter statement is concerned, it is obvious you really do not understand how and why "peer-review" was established many decades ago up within the international scientific communities.

First of all, it is not for the purposes of censorship-- exactly the opposite. What it actually does is to allow other researchers to examine the process used and the conclusions reached so that other researchers can chime in on their take. Any study can be submitted for peer-review, btw, so it simply is hot limited by its source.

So, what you have done is to actually support an organization that has lied in a court of law, has lied about it being an organization that has submitted studies for peer-review, and has lied about using scientific objectivity in it's "research".

Me thinks you should probably seek out more honest company to associate with, rusra.

Yes, I understand the wicked ID proponents are not to be trusted. In fact, not even tolerated since they reject the theory of evolution on scientific grounds. I find it obvious that many supporters of evolution have nothing to refute ID except ridicule and personal attacks.

 

[rusra02]

No, skeptical scientific websites take exception to claims of articles that are peer reviewed and support Intelligent Design when, upon investigation, they do nor or are not. After just a quick look at the list myself, I can see over a dozen citations from BIO-Complexity, which is not a peer-reviewed journal but is a creationist publication made by the Biologic Institute (SOURCE: http://ncse.com/rncse/30/6/latest-intelligent-design-journal). I can also see many more of the articles are by David L. Abel, who is a well-known fraud who runs his entire "scientific foundation" from his garage (SOURCE: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyng...-in-on-the-origin-of-life-science-foundation/)

If this is the best list of "peer-reviewed articles" the Discovery Institute can come up with, it is outright proof of their dishonesty.

You conveniently neglected to mention the biologists and other scientists listed. Are they frauds in your opinion also?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You conveniently neglected to mention the biologists and other scientists listed. Are they frauds in your opinion also?

I've already presented you with the articles that go through each and every paper listed and discovers the articles either weren't peer reviewed or don't support intelligent design. So no, they aren't all frauds. Some are, some aren't - but those that aren't don't support I.D. The biggest fraud is the Discovery Institute, which nakedly touts its own vanity publications as "peer-reviewed scientific journals" and lists the work of scientists who do not support I.D.

Please tell me exactly why the Discovery Institute would claim that BIO-complexity is a peer-reviewed scientific journal when it isn't, and why they would credit work by a known fraud as credible evidence of their position. What does this say about them?

 

[metis]

Yes, I understand the wicked ID proponents are not to be trusted. In fact, not even tolerated since they reject the theory of evolution on scientific grounds. I find it obvious that many supporters of evolution have nothing to refute ID except ridicule and personal attacks.

Really, and exactly where did I use personal attacks on you? To falsely accuse others of "personal attacks" if they haven't used personal attacks is in itself a personal attack, rusra.

Secondly, the Discovery Institute does not use the scientific method, nor peer-review, nor anything really associated with prevailing science. It is strictly a propaganda tool put forth for strictly religious reasons that makes money off those that simply haven't actually done real research.

BTW, I was one who grew up in a fundamentalist church with plans to go into the ministry, but then I actually did the research, left the church, married another Christian who belonged to a church that didn't teach the nonsense of the former, and I still attend church with her after 49 years of marriage. Any religious organization that tries to convince its congregants to believe in out-and-out lies is simply a bogus organization. Honest organizations do not tell lies, and my former church and the Discovery Institute do tell lies.

BTW, where's your refute of the lies and perjury of the Discovery Institute put forth in the Wiki link? How does that "vary wildly" from what you supposedly read? Maybe you can provide an objective source for your claim?

 

[vombatus]

For your benefit, "The evidence now, as in Darwin’s day, is in agreement with the Genesis record of direct creation.

Again I've been beaten to this by others, but I have to repeat: what is this evidence? (Giving myself brownie points for restraint in not resorting to shouty caps.)

Animals and plants continue to reproduce after their kind. In fact, the conflict between paleontology (study of fossils) and Darwinism is so strong that some scientists are beginning to believe that the in-between forms will never be found.”

Arrant nonsense. Dinosaur-bird transitionals are abundant. What is Ambulocetus if not transitional between terrestrial ancestors and cetaceans? There are plenty of other examples here.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Thank you for your frank admission. Transitional forms in fossils are lacking. Again, to quote Chittick: "A direct look at the fossil record would lead one to conclude that animals reproduced after their kind as Genesis states. They did not change from one kind into another. The evidence now, as in Darwin’s day, is in agreement with the Genesis record of direct creation. Animals and plants continue to reproduce after their kind. In fact, the conflict between paleontology (study of fossils) and Darwinism is so strong that some scientists are beginning to believe that the in-between forms will never be found.” Luther D. Sutherland wrote in his book Darwin’s Enigma: “The scientific evidence shows that whenever any basically different type of life first appeared on Earth, all the way from single-celled protozoa to man, it was complete and its organs and structures were complete and fully functional. The inescapable deduction to be drawn from this fact is that there was some sort of pre-existing intelligence before life first appeared on Earth.”

"Darwin's Enigma" is written by Luther Sunderland, an aerospace engineer. He died in 1987.

Judging from the quote you've given (and assuming it's accurate) it sounds like he doesn't understand evolution. Of course every type of life that appears is complete and fully functional. Evolution doesn't state that anything else should be the case.
What is this guy looking for exactly? Half wings or half a toe or something? What he's saying doesn't appear to make sense. Also, his conclusion doesn't follow from his premise.

Why should anybody take you seriously when 1) you can't even get these peoples' names right, and 2) You continue to quote mine when the dishonesty of the tactic has been pointed out to you innumerable times?