Are Creationists the Great Pretenders?

[tas8831]

Speaking of great pretense:

"Because you can put together a graphical 'tree', showing plausibility of descent, does not provide evidence for descent. The conjectured graphic does not prove itself."

Hilarious.

 

[ecco]

It goes pretty much like this ~

Someone says these words ~
"Analysis of DNA shows very little similarity, in the actual genes.”

Then there is a law that someone MUST accept their interpretation of DNA and genetic evidence or face the wrath and bullying of Muhammad (and Tas) and get embarrassed, demeaned, shunned, kicked out of the scientific church, and psychologically attacked ~ perhaps eternal scientific torment at stake after death.

We have 50-60 year olds doing this and telling others to grow up ~ and believe this Muhammad and Tas character and behavior should be enabled.

What?!?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

There are only two ways life could have been created, biogenesis, or by powerful God, or gods.

We could just as well been planted here by a non-god species.

Creationists have faith in the latter, natural science, the former.

Science doesn't have an answer, so there is no scientific position. And science itself runs of empirical observation and objective evidence, not faith.

 

[Jose Fly]

So then accordingly ~ all of the most integral mechanisms are left out, leaving them currently as magic, or mysterious.

Um....what? You're equating scientists saying "X is unknown" with them saying "X was magic"? Why?

Or they couldn’t do just anything or act in any way imaginable ~ pending on however one would want to define.

Well, if you ever come up with a way to incorporate gods into science in an objectively testable way, let us know.

 

[Kk4mds]

Science starts with the observation of phenomena, looks to explain them by the use of empirical data, reaches a conclusion, and then immediately test the conclusion in an attempt to invalidate it.

Creationism starts with a conclusion based on what they consider to be a history book, find evidence that can be interpreted to support the conclusion (confirmation bias), and then stop inquiry.

Science starts with the question; Creationism starts with the answer.

“Teach thy tongue to say 'I do not know,' and thou shalt progress.” ~ Moses Ben Maimon

 

[tas8831]

Well, if you ever come up with a way to incorporate gods into science in an objectively testable way, let us know.

And she never did...

 

[tas8831]

And the pretense keeps coming...

"There is a "marker' in mtDNA that shows descendancy. It is passed down from mother to daughter, and is scientific evidence of actual descendancy.. not something speculated or drawn in a graphic."​

"Hominids do NOT have a common marker."

And not sure how to categorize this:

"There is only a 'looks like!', morphological speculation, from similarities in a few physical traits, but there is NOTHING in the genes to indicate common ancestry. 'Apes and humans both have thumbs! Therefore. evolution!' But as far as hard evidence? Nothing. There is only imagination, 'looks like!' plausibility, and speculation, to link humans and apes."​

I could say it is just the result of amazing ignorance, but this creationists claims to "know the material"... so...
especially in light of the fact that I have presented him with several papers showing genetic evidence as all... is this....what it clearly looks like?

 

[Audie]

We could just as well been planted here by a non-god species.

Science doesn't have an answer, so there is no scientific position. And science itself runs of empirical observation and objective evidence, not faith.

The deep insights on the nature of science that
we see from our "dont know-dont care" science
illiterates are about on the level of the things I
might say on a football post-game show.

But then I would know better than to say anything.

 

[Audie]

And the pretense keeps coming...

"There is a "marker' in mtDNA that shows descendancy. It is passed down from mother to daughter, and is scientific evidence of actual descendancy.. not something speculated or drawn in a graphic."​

"Hominids do NOT have a common marker."

And not sure how to categorize this:

"There is only a 'looks like!', morphological speculation, from similarities in a few physical traits, but there is NOTHING in the genes to indicate common ancestry. 'Apes and humans both have thumbs! Therefore. evolution!' But as far as hard evidence? Nothing. There is only imagination, 'looks like!' plausibility, and speculation, to link humans and apes."​

I could say it is just the result of amazing ignorance, but this creationists claims to "know the material"... so...
especially in light of the fact that I have presented him with several papers showing genetic evidence as all... is this....what it clearly looks like?

Oh, they often know the material*. So well that they may
have it word for word.

*creosite material that is.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The deep insights on the nature of science that
we see from our "dont know-dont care" science
illiterates are about on the level of the things I
might say on a football post-game show.

But then I would know better than to say anything.

What? No commentary of the latent homo-erotic elements of men chasing balls, jumping and climbing on top of each other, and slapping each other on the bum? How boring!

 

[Wandering Monk]

And the pretense keeps coming...

"There is a "marker' in mtDNA that shows descendancy. It is passed down from mother to daughter, and is scientific evidence of actual descendancy.. not something speculated or drawn in a graphic."​

"Hominids do NOT have a common marker."

And not sure how to categorize this:

"There is only a 'looks like!', morphological speculation, from similarities in a few physical traits, but there is NOTHING in the genes to indicate common ancestry. 'Apes and humans both have thumbs! Therefore. evolution!' But as far as hard evidence? Nothing. There is only imagination, 'looks like!' plausibility, and speculation, to link humans and apes."​

I could say it is just the result of amazing ignorance, but this creationists claims to "know the material"... so...
especially in light of the fact that I have presented him with several papers showing genetic evidence as all... is this....what it clearly looks like?

Not surprising.

 

[Audie]

What? No commentary of the latent homo-erotic elements of men chasing balls, jumping and climbing on top of each other, and slapping each other on the bum? How boring!

Probably more like pointing out that they could
just decide which way they want the ball to go and
cooperate, rather than fighting over it.

 

[shunyadragon]

As to the intense discussions, I rely on a friend, a full professor of microbiology with over a hundred peer reviewed articles and papers, a creationist, or the writings of other scientists who are creationists, and they are many.

There are not many Fundamentalist Creationist with PhDs In the fields of Biology

 

[tas8831]

There are not many Fundamentalist Creationist with PhDs In the fields of Biology

True. Many of those that are, earned a degree for the sole purpose of lending weight to their creationist beliefs. One did so at the behest of his cult leader (Jon Wells). Several have gone directly from their graduation to creationist outfits (figuratively) - Jon Sarfati (technically not biology, but still), Nathanial Jeanson, etc.
Wasted talent.

 

[tas8831]

Yes. They are.

 

[dad]

One commonality among every single creationist I can ever recall encountering is an overblown, evidence-less sense of their own superior knowledge of the science.

Since the bible is evidenced, your claim is false. The fables of evolution are not evidenced but pure beliefs. Maybe it is time to stop being jealous of superior beliefs, and admit defeat?

 

[dad]

True. Many of those that are, earned a degree for the sole purpose of lending weight to their creationist beliefs. One did so at the behest of his cult leader (Jon Wells). Several have gone directly from their graduation to creationist outfits (figuratively) - Jon Sarfati (technically not biology, but still), Nathanial Jeanson, etc.
Wasted talent.

So if talent is used to explore the realities of creation then it is wasted, If talent is used to manufacture Satanic fables it is well used. Got it.

 

[shunyadragon]

Since the bible is evidenced, your claim is false. The fables of evolution are not evidenced but pure beliefs. Maybe it is time to stop being jealous of superior beliefs, and admit defeat?

It sounds like your puffing up your chest and feeling superior like Napoleon at the Battle of Waterloo.

The Bible is evidenced only in part, as being written in the 'context of history' around some historical events and people, and NOT evidenced as an accurate history just like the limits of all ancient literature.

No jealousy on the part of science, because you lack the methods and objective verifiable evidence that science is based on,

 

[Subduction Zone]

So if talent is used to explore the realities of creation then it is wasted, If talent is used to manufacture Satanic fables it is well used. Got it.

No, it would be fine if they actually tried to explore your myth. But creation "scientists" tend to be cowards. One of the very early steps that one must follow us to form a testable hypothesis. I have yet to see a creationist do so.

 

[dad]

It sounds like your puffing up your chest and feeling superior like Napoleon at the Battle of Waterloo.

The Bible is evidenced only in part, as being written in the 'context of history' around some historical events and people, and NOT evidenced as an accurate history just like the limits of all ancient literature.

? You thought there were more reliable records??

No jealousy on the part of science, because you lack the methods and objective verifiable evidence that science is based on,

None of those methods relate to creation or addressing beliefs of creation. The methods result in fables about creation, that are methodically distanced from truth.