You Don't Understand...

[Subduction Zone]

So we are in full circle to the OP where two intelligent people look at the same evidence and come to two different conclusions.

Listen very carefully. By definition you have no evidence. You can prove that yourself:

What reasonable test, based upon ID's claims and predictions, could possibly refute the idea?

If there is no test it is not even a valid hypothesis. It is just an ad hoc explanation. There is no evidence for ad hoc explanations, only excuses.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And yet thee are scientists that disagree with you who know so much more than you do.

Repeating a statement of "no, the evidence only supports one side" without testable evidence that there isn't a Creator" doesn't make it so. Just go to your garage and say "I am a car" and see if you change... wait a minute, do you identify yourself as a car?

So.... we are back to the OP.

No. There really are not. To be a "scientist" one has to do science. That means working in the area of one's expertise and publishing that work in proper sources. That is all part of the scientific method. What you have are people that are outside of their area of expertise making comments about the sciences that they do not understand. There are even rarer examples of scientists that have training in the appropriate areas, but they can be easily shown to be liars by experts in those areas. You are believing people that can be shown to be either fools or liars.

Where are their papers published in well respected professional journals? Peer review is hard because to even get published one has to write an article that has no obvious errors. And even being published does not mean that one is right because now the whole world of scientists in the field are apt to refute one's ideas.

That is what actually makes science advance. It is very rare that a person come up with a new idea that has not been refuted. If one makes a mistake in the sciences one's colleagues will not be afraid at all to publicly point out one's errors. One cannot be a coward and be a scientist.

Show me a "scientist" that is an ID believer that is not a coward. The only one that I can think of is Behe. And do you know what happened to him? He made bogus claims that he could not support and was publicly embarrassed. Since he could not own up to his errors his career as a scientist is over. He only speaks to creationists these days which must suck for him since he does not believe the Adam and Eve myth himself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is that your opinion? And is it "evolutionists" that are judging the papers? If there was a "creationist panel" to judge papers, would you accept it? Or is bias only a one-way street.

It is scientists that judge the papers. Those educated in the topic at hand. Conspiracy theories simple do not work in the sciences. If there was a group where describing trying to lead them is like "herding cats" that would be scientists.

Do you know how you get fame and fortune in the sciences? You publish a paper that proves almost everyone else to be wrong. Please note I am using "proves" in a colloquial sense. The paper's evidence must show that current theory is incorrect. IDists cannot even seem to follow the rules of evidence in the sciences.

 

[sayak83]

Is that your opinion? And is it "evolutionists" that are judging the papers? If there was a "creationist panel" to judge papers, would you accept it? Or is bias only a one-way street.

Creationism is currently rejected by science because of lack of scientifically tenable evidence. So a creationist panel is like alchemy panel or astrology panel....pseudo-science. For creationism to have scientific acceptance, the scientific work showing evidence for creationism must be published in proper biological science journals (LIST LINK) to a large enough extent so that evolution is no longer considered to the best explanation for current diversity of life. Meanwhile creationist can do their pseudoscience in their cliques to their hearts content (like astrology, palmistry, alchemy, reiki whatever whatever), but science and the scientific community does not give a hoot.

 

[SkepticThinker]

And yet thee are scientists that disagree with you who know so much more than you do.

Repeating a statement of "no, the evidence only supports one side" without testable evidence that there isn't a Creator" doesn't make it so. Just go to your garage and say "I am a car" and see if you change... wait a minute, do you identify yourself as a car?

So.... we are back to the OP.

Which scientists are you claiming have evidence of deities, the supernatural, god(s), etc.?

 

[Kenny]

The "judging" is done on the basis of evidence, thus it is not to ban any publication, idea, or person. Peer review gives other scientists the right to look at what evidence is presented and then they can chime in their own ideas and/or research. I was involved in such a process back in the late 1960's, and it is such tedious work, let me tell ya.

I agree... but at the same time, one can begin to wonder if over time, it became more political and money driven than genuine science review. You know, back when you were young as compared to today

 

[Kenny]

Listen very carefully. By definition you have no evidence. You can prove that yourself:

What reasonable test, based upon ID's claims and predictions, could possibly refute the idea?

If there is no test it is not even a valid hypothesis. It is just an ad hoc explanation. There is no evidence for ad hoc explanations, only excuses.

I disagree... as someone said:
"But the basic reality of God is plain enough. Open your eyes and there it is! By taking a long and thoughtful look at what God has created, people have always been able to see what their eyes as such can’t see: eternal power, for instance, and the mystery of his divine being. So nobody has a good excuse."

 

[Kenny]

It is scientists that judge the papers. Those educated in the topic at hand. Conspiracy theories simple do not work in the sciences. If there was a group where describing trying to lead them is like "herding cats" that would be scientists.

Do you know how you get fame and fortune in the sciences? You publish a paper that proves almost everyone else to be wrong. Please note I am using "proves" in a colloquial sense. The paper's evidence must show that current theory is incorrect. IDists cannot even seem to follow the rules of evidence in the sciences.

The OP has just shown that the once "approved thought" was then "proved wrong".

Haeckel’s Fraudulent Embryo Drawings Are Still Present in Biology Textbooks — Here’s a List | Evolution News

Now we have another issue:

And now:

The famous diagram of evolution - an ape figure turning into an upright human - should be “expunged from the record” of everything, according to an expert.

Evolution diagram should be 'expunged from record' as it portrays 'wronger things': Expert

What happened to "peer review process" ion these cases? or was it bias that pushed it through.

 

[Kenny]

Creationism is currently rejected by science because of lack of scientifically tenable evidence

And yet so many professional disagree because of science itself. And we are back to the OP.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I disagree... as someone said:
"But the basic reality of God is plain enough. Open your eyes and there it is! By taking a long and thoughtful look at what God has created, people have always been able to see what their eyes as such can’t see: eternal power, for instance, and the mystery of his divine being. So nobody has a good excuse."

You can disagree all that you want. But you will still be demonstrably wrong. You as much as admitted it yourself. I asked you a very reasonable question and you dodged it. There was no excuse for doing that except for the fact that you know answering it would prove you wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The OP has just shown that the once "approved thought" was then "proved wrong".

Haeckel’s Fraudulent Embryo Drawings Are Still Present in Biology Textbooks — Here’s a List | Evolution News

Now we have another issue:

And now:

The famous diagram of evolution - an ape figure turning into an upright human - should be “expunged from the record” of everything, according to an expert.

Evolution diagram should be 'expunged from record' as it portrays 'wronger things': Expert

What happened to "peer review process" ion these cases? or was it bias that pushed it through.

Oh my! You used a known lying source. Why am I not at all shocked.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And yet so many professional disagree because of science itself. And we are back to the OP.

No, wrong again. When it comes to evolution there is almost no dissent in the sciences except for a rather small number of loons.

 

[Kenny]

You can disagree all that you want. But you will still be demonstrably wrong. You as much as admitted it yourself. I asked you a very reasonable question and you dodged it. There was no excuse for doing that except for the fact that you know answering it would prove you wrong.

Actually I answered it... it is just you don't like my answer IMHO,

 

[Kenny]

Oh my! You used a known lying source. Why am I not at all shocked.

Are you saying it wasn't taught and in the books even after it was proven wrong?

Are you willingly deciding to be blind? Or is it just that you are ignorant of the proven facts.

 

[Kenny]

No, wrong again. When it comes to evolution there is almost no dissent in the sciences except for a rather small number of loons.

And that's the key! If someone disagrees with you, then are "loons". No bias whatsoever.

So the 6 billion people who believe in God or gods are all loons. Got it!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you saying it wasn't taught and in the books even after it was proven wrong?

Are you willingly deciding to be blind? Or is it just that you are ignorant of the proven facts.

If you want to discuss Haekel I am happy to do so. But you just used two lying sources. Apologize for that and we can have a discussion. Otherwise I am just sitting here laughing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And that's the key! If someone disagrees with you, then are "loons". No bias whatsoever.

So the 6 billion people who believe in God or gods are all loons. Got it!

You have not listened one iota. There was no bias in that claim.

Do you want to have a discussion? Then do not make false accusations.

 

[Jose Fly]

@KenS I have to ask something. Your earlier posts suggested to me that while yes, you are indeed a Christian creationist, you also understand that it is first and foremost a religious belief. IOW, you're a creationist because that's what you believe God has revealed through scripture (and possibly the Holy Spirit).

So we're clear, I've always appreciated when a creationist is up front like that. It's honest.

Yet in your latest posts you're starting to act as if your creationism is actually rooted in science (e.g., claims about scientists agreeing with you, copied old creationist arguments about Haekel and peer review.

So my question: Are you trying to make a scientific case for creationism here? Or are you trying to pull a fast one (as other creationists do) where you'll talk about science when you think it suits you, but whenever it doesn't you fall back on religious concepts (as you did with my question about increases in complexity)?

 

[Kenny]

If you want to discuss Haekel I am happy to do so. But you just used two lying sources. Apologize for that and we can have a discussion. Otherwise I am just sitting here laughing.

I think I hit a soft spot. Sorry it hurt?

 

[Kenny]

@KenS I have to ask something. Your earlier posts suggested to me that while yes, you are indeed a Christian creationist, you also understand that it is first and foremost a religious belief. IOW, you're a creationist because that's what you believe God has revealed through scripture (and possibly the Holy Spirit).

So we're clear, I've always appreciated when a creationist is up front like that. It's honest.

Yet in your latest posts you're starting to act as if your creationism is actually rooted in science (e.g., claims about scientists agreeing with you, copied old creationist arguments about Haekel and peer review.

So my question: Are you trying to make a scientific case for creationism here? Or are you trying to pull a fast one (as other creationists do) where you'll talk about science when you think it suits you, but whenever it doesn't you fall back on religious concepts (as you did with my question about increases in complexity)?

Thank you for an honest and upfront statements. If it seems like I become a little more "argumentative" - it is only because there are some who just are irrational in their approach so I just stop trying.

To be honest, you could almost say that the Haekel comment is just that I knew it would make the poster squirm and react. Hey, I'm human. And he did.

After a while, the comments of that poster becomes more of an atheistic blah blah responses that don't merit putting my head into deep thought.

Not trying to pull a fast one at all.

Science, at its best IMV, can only explain what happened and even how it happens. But it can never explain the beginning.

I'm not a scientist, for sure. But the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (for me) does throw a wrench for no creative source. (I can be corrected if it is cogent and understandable).

When I look at the body (again, just me thinking) - I find the complexities to complex to not have a driving creative force behind it.

Yes, obviously, as a Christ follow and a believer in the texts given, I find harmony between what is written and the science we see. So (for me) I'm satisfied with my position.

I don't require anyone to follow my faith or beliefs.. But certainly no one has proven my beliefs wrong either. (not scientifically)

So it will alway be an impasse between believers and non-believers. Reality is that there are non-believers who become believer and then believers that become non-believers and both are convinced in their minds.

So, there are scientist, who after furthering their studies, came to the conclusion there is a Creator. Can they say "here is the empirical and verifiable proof" - of course not. But it is the best and simplest answer to that which fits what is seen. For them it is the Occam's Razor.

And then, for those who read how they come to that conclusion, finish the thought by just saying they are "loons". An answer that doesn't merit deep thought.

it will be an argument until the end.

I hope I was clear and honest. let me know.