Are Creationists the Great Pretenders?

[Audie]

And yet again, we are subjected to what is being passed off as intellectual honesty, but is really deceit. And not even any effort to hide it.

Lets see if he can look up "proof in science".
He wont believe you or me, that science
doesnt do proof.

If he cant do it then waste no more time. (Plz!!)

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That is funny. When I edited a previous post and added the link to the Wikipedia article, it automatically named it for what the article was about. "Scientific evidence" and not "science proves or disproves the hypothesis being asked". Maybe it was an error of ignorance, maybe not. I think the evidence supports maybe not.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Lets see if he can look up "proof in science".
He wont believe you or me, that science
doesnt do proof.

If he cant do it then waste no more time. (Plz!!)

I think I have wasted enough time with him already. I may have lost IQ points over it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Evolution deals with evolving life over time therefore builds off the origin of life which is not understood. If you cannot get your foundations right how can you build your house?

All evolution needs is life. Randomly created from a primordial soup, put here by aliens, programmed by computers, none of that matters to evolution because evolution only begins once life was here and reproducing. Before that there was no evolution (on Earth at least, anyways). Without biogenesis there is no evolution, but we still have evolution regardless of how life got here.
For example, if I were to explain to you how a computer works, this discussion would not include where the electricity comes from to power the computer or its source of origin. And that is because it doesn't matter. It needs power to run, but solar, coal, wind, nuclear, geothermal, it makes absolutely no difference because the computer will function in the same way regardless.

 

[3rdAngel]

No it is not and never has been. Where did you come up with that?

Your confused science proves or disproves the hypothesis being asked.

That does not make them the same thing. You can have evolution even if we discover that the origin of life is divine. The evidence still supports evolution.

No one said they were the same thing. These are your words not mine. How can you have evolution when we do not understand the origin of life when evolution deals with how life develops? If the origin of life was instant there is no evolution. The origin of life is unknown so to say it is a gradual process over time is still an unproven and an unknown theory.

I am aware of the concept of false positive. Being aware of that does not mean that the material being discussed is the result of a false positive. False positives arise from errors in methodology and not the hypotheses being tested. Even a false positive is evidence, and it is not changed. Are you familiar with what evidence means?

The point being made by discussing false positives within science is that science is constantly evoloving and changing over time as new science emerges. It has direct relation to the materials being discussed here because the origin on life is unknown and to this you have already agreed with me. How can you build your house if you have no foundation? It is still but a theory until you know the origin of life.

It is true that if we find that false positives have occurred, methodology needs to be reconsidered.

Absolutely. We have to be able to understand that the false positive is false to begin this process.

Regardless, you are saying that this has taken place and nothing about specific instances taking place. Do you realize this sounds like you are aware of the possibility of something and then asserting that it has occurred based only on knowledge that it is possible. Also, you are trying to conclude that every observation for 150 years has been a false positive or at least the majority have. That is not reasonable and nothing supports it.

As posted earlier if the foundation for evolution is origin of life and life is the unknown variable how can you build your house if you have no foundation?

You need to support this and show that the definitions of life that we have are insufficient.

No problem. There is no clear definition on life that science can collectively can agree upon...

There are over a 100 definition of life and all are wrong
Lifes working does it work? NASA
There is currently no consensus regarding the definiation of life
The Definition of Life: A Brief History of an Elusive Scientific Endeavor Astrobiology.

There is too many more to list. If you would like some more let me know?

Evolution is independent of the origin of life and knowledge of the origin is not required to demonstrate evolution. Living things and heredity are the foundations of evolution, but knowing how that life arrived here is not.

Evolution is the study of life how can you say it is independent of life? That does not make any sense.

I did not. My questions--not assumptions--come directly from your posts. Do you even read your own posts?

No they didn't as evidenced in you saying things I have never said. Perhaps you had a misunderstanding of what was posted. Saying things I have not said only shows you are trying to make strawman arguments no one has said or posted or you did not understand what was posted. I am not sure which one it is but I choose to believe the second.

I do not think if astrobiologists do not pull their weight, that we will not be able to discover anything about the origin of life because of that failure. You are being too vague to have any meaning here, either positive or negative. Scientific information is publicized and made widely available. Collaborations between scientists are vastly greater than they have ever been. It is not uncommon to see reports now, where there are 100 authors, sometimes more.

I am not sure why you think that if astrobiologists do not pull their weight that we will not be able to discover the origins of life. This was never my point. The point being made is that to understand the origins of life it would need a collective effort across all life sciences as each are connected to each other for a collective whole. It is true that there is much more collaboration than what there has been in the past.

Is it. There seems to be some other reason, since you are agreeing that no one claims to know how life originated.

Not really. If the origin of life is unknown than everything else is still an unproven theory which cannot be verified until the origin of life is known.

I never said that the origin of life leads to a rejection of Genesis. Are you sure you are reading my posts? Maybe it is comprehension? Other evidence that contradicts Genesis. Do you have an explanation for that evidence? Age of the earth. The fossil record. No mention of vast faunas that formerly lived on Earth. You know. Things like that.

You state by your posts that you believe in evolution over the Word of God therefore you reject the Genesis account of creation. Where in the bible does it support evolution when it says God created all things in 6 days and rested on the seventh? Perhaps you do not read your own posts. They come across as one that does not believe the bible and one who teaches against it. I am not sure if you are meaning to do this or not but you seem to be trying to support unbelievers into not believing God's Word. A Christian does not do this.

Is there any reason to conclude that the theory is tied to a particular origin of life? No. What else do you need to know?

Of course it is tied to the origin of life. Everything is. If this is not understood than how can everything else be? What else do we need to know? Everything. Until we know the origin of life that everything else is only theory.

 

[3rdAngel]

The first line from the article you linked. You may notice the absence of the use of the word proof.

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis." From the previously linked Wikipedia article on scientific evidence.
Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

The article goes on to clarify that proof is not a part of empirical science.

Interestingly, you must have named your link yourself--how intellectually honest of you--since a search for that string did not reveal it existing in the article.

Thanks so your agreeing with what I posted earlier. What is it that you have posted here that disagrees with what I have posted earlier? Nothing.

 

[3rdAngel]

Scientists test hypotheses that are either rejected or accept and not proven.

I think it is a little early for you to start claiming an understanding of the scientific method. I believe your level of understanding of science and the scientific method is already established and it is not as high as you had hoped.

Rubbish. To accept or reject a hypothisis it is done through experiementation. If the results are positive then the research proves the hypothesis if it does not then it disproves it. You do not know much about scientific method do you.

 

[3rdAngel]

That is funny. When I edited a previous post and added the link to the Wikipedia article, it automatically named it for what the article was about. "Scientific evidence" and not "science proves or disproves the hypothesis being asked". Maybe it was an error of ignorance, maybe not. I think the evidence supports maybe not.

Your belittleing and judgmental attitude to others that do not agree with you is not Christian. Scientific evidence is proof why are you claiming it is not is beyond me.

 

[3rdAngel]

All evolution needs is life. Randomly created from a primordial soup, put here by aliens, programmed by computers, none of that matters to evolution because evolution only begins once life was here and reproducing. Before that there was no evolution (on Earth at least, anyways). Without biogenesis there is no evolution, but we still have evolution regardless of how life got here.
For example, if I were to explain to you how a computer works, this discussion would not include where the electricity comes from to power the computer or its source of origin. And that is because it doesn't matter. It needs power to run, but solar, coal, wind, nuclear, geothermal, it makes absolutely no difference because the computer will function in the same way regardless.

Your still trying to make the argument that a computer can work without electricity. I would argue that it cannot. This is the same argument that I am making with evolution and the origin of life. Without an understanding of the origin of life which science does not understand, evolution is only still a theory.

 

[3rdAngel]

I think I have wasted enough time with him already. I may have lost IQ points over it.

Indeed. The natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness to him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. It seems you do not believe.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Your confused science proves or disproves the hypothesis being asked.

No. You are confused. Science does not prove or disprove anything.

No one said they were the same thing. These are your words not mine. How can you have evolution when we do not understand the origin of life when evolution deals with how life develops? If the origin of life was instant there is no evolution. The origin of life is unknown so to say it is a gradual process over time is still an unproven and an unknown theory.

Everything you write indicates that you are conflating the two to be completely dependent on each other. This has been asked and answered. You need to educate yourself on some very basic knowledge of science and the subject at hand. You clearly do not understand it.

I am responding to what you post and have no need to embellish on it falsely.

The point being made by discussing false positives within science is that science is constantly evoloving and changing over time as new science emerges. It has direct relation to the materials being discussed here because the origin on life is unknown and to this you have already agreed with me. How can you build your house if you have no foundation? It is still but a theory until you know the origin of life.

I have already explained that you are confused about the foundation that is required to explain evolution. You have done nothing to refute that. You are just repeating your previous statements without acknowledging the new information you have received.

Absolutely. We have to be able to understand that the false positive is false to begin this process.

This is going no where. You have not established a link between your reference of false positives and what that means regarding the theory of evolution. You have not established that false positive applies to any specific information. Certainly in no way that would wipe out 150 years worth of corroborating evidence for evolution.

This is just silly and reflects on your resistance to accept valid information.

As posted earlier if the foundation for evolution is origin of life and life is the unknown variable how can you build your house if you have no foundation?

Repeating what has been explained to you. Really?

No problem. There is no clear definition on life that science can collectively can agree upon...

There are over a 100 definition of life and all are wrong
Lifes working does it work? NASA
There is currently no consensus regarding the definiation of life
The Definition of Life: A Brief History of an Elusive Scientific Endeavor Astrobiology.

There is too many more to list. If you would like some more let me know?

This is all superfluous and demonstrates nothing. The theory of evolution is not dependent on a particular definition of life or a particular origin. You are just fencing to avoid acknowledging that.

Evolution is the study of life how can you say it is independent of life? That does not make any sense.

I didn't say that. I said that it was independent of the origin of life. Please do not purposefully misquote me.

No they didn't as evidenced in you saying things I have never said. Perhaps you had a misunderstanding of what was posted. Saying things I have not said only shows you are trying to make strawman arguments no one has said or posted or you did not understand what was posted. I am not sure which one it is but I choose to believe the second.

No. I am not doing any of the things you are accusing me of doing. Sorry. It will not fly. I have addressed what you have previously stated.

I am not sure why you think that if astrobiologists do not pull their weight that we will not be able to discover the origins of life. This was never my point. The point being made is that to understand the origins of life it would need a collective effort across all life sciences as each are connected to each other for a collective whole. It is true that there is much more collaboration than what there has been in the past.

Wow. Talk about twisting. I did not say they do not pull their weight. I said if they do not pull there weight, it will not matter to the bigger picture. You have invented an issue to support an indefensible position and I found a hole you cold walk through. It is that simple. We already have collaborations and increasing collaborations. What more do you expect. None of it would convince you anyway, if a paper came out signed by every scientist on Earth as the author.

Not really. If the origin of life is unknown than everything else is still an unproven theory which cannot be verified until the origin of life is known.

All theories are unproven. Not knowing the origin of life does not prevent formulation of a theory for evolution. We do not know the origin of the laws of the universe, but have a theory of gravity.

You state by your posts that you believe in evolution over the Word of God therefore you reject the Genesis account of creation. Where in the bible does it support evolution when it says God created all things in 6 days and rested on the seventh? Perhaps you do not read your own posts. They come across as one that does not believe the bible and one who teaches against it. I am not sure if you are meaning to do this or not but you seem to be trying to support unbelievers into not believing God's Word. A Christian does not do this.

I accept evolution and believe in God. I do not follow a literal interpretation of Genesis. Didn't you just deny following a literal interpretation of the Bible too? Which is it. It cannot be both.

It is not me that needs to rethink whether they are reading these posts or review what putting words into the mouths of others really is.

We are talking about science. I am precluded from proselytizing here, just as you are. Are you suggesting I should break the rules? It sounds like it.

Are you attempting to persecute me on religious grounds. You better stick to only one or two subjects you clearly do not understand and stop adding in more.

Of course it is tied to the origin of life. Everything is. If this is not understood than how can everything else be? What else do we need to know? Everything. Until we know the origin of life that everything else is only theory.

It is not tied to the origin of life as you are insisting it is and this has been explained to you. It is you that does not understand and apparently does not want to understand.

Science is mostly just a set of theories and none of those theories are proven or intended to be proved.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Thanks so your agreeing with what I posted earlier. What is it that you have posted here that disagrees with what I have posted earlier? Nothing.

It disagrees with your claim that theories and hypotheses are proven. False interpretation does not serve in giving you credibility.

Support and counter are not prove or disprove. You continually disappoint me with the level of knowledge that you demonstrate.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Rubbish. To accept or reject a hypothisis it is done through experiementation.

I never said differently. Who is it that was just commenting about straw man arguments. Oh. It was you. And here you are giving me an example of one. How kind.

If the results are positive then the research proves the hypothesis if it does not then it disproves it. You do not know much about scientific method do you.

If the experiment supports the hypothesis, then it is accepted. If not, it is rejected. At no point is it proven. Further experimentation, new information or new techniques might lead to a rejection of the hypothesis. You simply do not understand science and no one here has time to give you even an elementary level of education on the subject.

I know a good deal about the scientific method, but you obviously do not.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Your still trying to make the argument that a computer can work without electricity. I would argue that it cannot. This is the same argument that I am making with evolution and the origin of life. Without an understanding of the origin of life which science does not understand, evolution is only still a theory.

What a ham-handed attempt at discrediting another poster with assertions about things that do not exist. Since you are aware of straw man arguments, it is only fair and proper to introduce you to the concept of your use of them through the example you provide.

You are completely twisting the analogy into something it is not.

Just sad.

 

[3rdAngel]

It disagrees with your claim that theories and hypotheses are proven. False interpretation does not serve in giving you credibility.

Rubbish. Evidence is proof the same as no evidence is no proof.

Support and counter are not prove or disprove. You continually disappoint me with the level of knowledge that you demonstrate.

Rubbish. If you have no proof you have no evidence. Science either has evidence (proof) or no evidence (no proof). This either proves or disproves an hypothesis which is carried out through experimentation. You do not understand the scientific method do you.

 

[3rdAngel]

What a ham-handed attempt at discrediting another poster with assertions about things that do not exist. Since you are aware of straw man arguments, it is only fair and proper to introduce you to the concept of your use of them through the example you provide.

You are completely twisting the analogy into something it is not.

Just sad.

Well that is not true. What a dissapointing reply from someone who professes to be a Christian but secretly teaches the bible is not true. Your strawman arguments only show what side your on. It is you that is seeking to twist what has been shared with you into something that is not being said. I am sad for you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Indeed. The natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness to him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. It seems you do not believe.

All I know is that you have demonstrated a high level of ignorance regarding science and the science that you deny for no reason other than you do not understand it and don't feel comfortable with the implications with regard to your personal choice to deify the Bible.

Like anyone needed more confirmation.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Rubbish. Evidence is proof the same as no evidence is no proof.

Not in science and you have not established that. Getting more worked up in your repetition of assertion will not make that assertion come true.

Rubbish. If you have no proof you have no evidence. Science either has evidence (proof) or no evidence (no proof) the either proves or disproves an hypothesis through experimentation.

We have evidence. We never have proof. Evidence is not proof.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well that is not true. What a dissapointing reply from someone who professes to be a Christian but secretly teaches the bible is not true. Your strawman arguments only show what side your on. It is you that is seeking to twist what has been shared with you into something that is not being said. I am sad for you.

I never said the Bible is not true. Those are your words in your attempt at persecution. You are sad all right, but do not blame me, I have tried to help you.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Your belittleing and judgmental attitude to others that do not agree with you is not Christian. Scientific evidence is proof why are you claiming it is not is beyond me.

He wasn't belittling or judging you.