Are all creationist dishonest?

[tumbleweed41]

Yeah and evolution has objective evidence enough to still lurk and flutter around for support for being called more than just a theory, so that athiests can patronize about arrogantly in context of its dubious status. If science itself was supporting the theory, it would've been made 'The rule, The Law of evolution'. Seriously, who is being blatantly un-intelligent here

The person who has no understanding of Scientific Hypothesis, Scientific Theory, Scientific Law, Scientific Fact, or the Scientific Method in general.

Namely, anyone who would make the blatantly ignorant statements of...
"called more than just a theory"
and
"If science itself was supporting the theory, it would've been made 'The rule, The Law of evolution'."

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Don't worry. Creationists are only dishonest when they voice their opinion.

 

[ellenjanuary]

Don't worry. Creationists are only dishonest when they voice their opinion.

How do you tell when a politician is lying?

 

[David M]

Yeah and evolution has objective evidence enough to still lurk and flutter around for support for being called more than just a theory, so that athiests can patronize about arrogantly in context of its dubious status. If science itself was supporting the theory, it would've been made 'The rule, The Law of evolution'. Seriously, who is being blatantly un-intelligent here

You are the one being blatantly un-intelligent here, although it may just be blatant ignorance.

There is no higher level in science for a theory to reach.

Scientific theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also from wiki

A law differs from a scientific theory in that it does not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: it is merely a distillation of the results of repeated observation.

For example, In this article the story of evolution is described brilliantly, and yet all they say, before any conclusion, is

"it is thought, is it said, maybe ( without any evidence)"

A lie, the qualifiers are given when talking about the evidence and only when such qualifiers apply.

The scientific methods in easy terms, are established this way.

1.Ask a Question
2.Do Background Research
3.Construct a Hypothesis
4.Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
5.Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
6.Communicate Your Results

The theory of evolution is stuck at step 3, and jumps widely to step 6. What are the results of experimentation of evolution, that are unanimously accepted and approved by science?

No, ToE has reached step 6 and gone beyond that to reach the status of a scientific theory.

The results you ask for are in the tens of thousands of papers published annually on evolution.

Heres 50 papers published on a single experiment.
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/PublicationSearchResults.php?group=aad

Many fossils have proven to be fakes , is that the merit of honesty of the evolutionists?

Lie, a mere handful of fossils have been proven to be fakes out of the millions discovered. And this status has been determined by scientists.

 

[Revoltingest]

How do you tell when a politician is lying?

His teleprompter is scrolling text?

 

[outhouse]

How do you tell when a politician is lying?

im trained in this.

Why when his lips are moving :yes:

 

[Nepenthe]

I agree that many believe in what they perceive to be evidence of creation.

But when one dogmatically adheres to that perception when shown that their evidence is either purely subjective of blatantly false, they are not only being dishonest to themselves, they are being dishonest to others when they promote what they have been shown to be false.

I suspect many creationists- particularly those that actually have some scientific training- are guilty of adaptive preference formation in that they cannot rationally dismiss evolution while simultaneously practicing or understanding their specific field, yet they exclude evolution on emotional grounds which are of course intimately tied to their faith. So the rare creationist biologist can focus on their specialty while disregarding the evolutionary big picture inevitability of their work and remain comfortable in their faith. It's obstinance and dogma that keeps their emotional investment in their world view intact and excludes any data that threatens that comfort.

I've posted this before but I think it's relevant here in that creationists' denial of evolution is like the Trobriand Islanders refusal to accept any connection between sexual intercourse and pregnancy. They've domesticated and breed animals, they're well aware of the necessity of a male and female for pregnancy, they're incredibly intelligent, have a working culture built around subsistence horticulturalism, they use and understand the science of modern medicine, but they dogmatically deny any connection between sex and pregnancy. Their traditional religious beliefs insist that different spirits inhabit the world and interact with humans on a regular basis; they have a complex series of rituals to respect and honor these spirits. The Islanders believe that pregnancies are caused by a baloma (an ancestral spirit) that inhabit a woman and creates a baby. The concept that pregnancy is tied to sex is so offensive and contradictory to their faith, their magical belief systems, and their emotional succor from that faith, they are compelled to dogmatically ignore and deny any evidence that contradicts their assumptions. Sex cannot be linked to pregnancy because their religion says otherwise.

Per the OP it's dishonesty but a kind of cognitive dissonance version of dishonesty where anything contradictory to the comfort of their faith is too painful to rationally analyze much less accept.

 

[ellenjanuary]

His teleprompter is scrolling text?

Just shows a depth of willful ignorance, doesn't it?

 

[Revoltingest]

Just shows a depth of willful ignorance, doesn't it?

...or very scripted lying.

 

[JustWondering2]

I suspect many creationists- particularly those that actually have some scientific training- are guilty of adaptive preference formation in that they cannot rationally dismiss evolution while simultaneously practicing or understanding their specific field, yet they exclude evolution on emotional grounds which are of course intimately tied to their faith. So the rare creationist biologist can focus on their specialty while disregarding the evolutionary big picture inevitability of their work and remain comfortable in their faith. It's obstinance and dogma that keeps their emotional investment in their world view intact and excludes any data that threatens that comfort.

I've posted this before but I think it's relevant here in that creationists' denial of evolution is like the Trobriand Islanders refusal to accept any connection between sexual intercourse and pregnancy. They've domesticated and breed animals, they're well aware of the necessity of a male and female for pregnancy, they're incredibly intelligent, have a working culture built around subsistence horticulturalism, they use and understand the science of modern medicine, but they dogmatically deny any connection between sex and pregnancy. Their traditional religious beliefs insist that different spirits inhabit the world and interact with humans on a regular basis; they have a complex series of rituals to respect and honor these spirits. The Islanders believe that pregnancies are caused by a baloma (an ancestral spirit) that inhabit a woman and creates a baby. The concept that pregnancy is tied to sex is so offensive and contradictory to their faith, their magical belief systems, and their emotional succor from that faith, they are compelled to dogmatically ignore and deny any evidence that contradicts their assumptions. Sex cannot be linked to pregnancy because their religion says otherwise.

Per the OP it's dishonesty but a kind of cognitive dissonance version of dishonesty where anything contradictory to the comfort of their faith is too painful to rationally analyze much less accept.

Wow!!
Talk about hitting the nail on the head, you did it here! :shout Their (the islanders) belief in Sprits making babies is very close to fundies belief that their God is in their bedroom and he is where babies come from and makes about as much sense!!

 

[painted wolf]

Yeah and evolution has objective evidence enough to still lurk and flutter around for support for being called more than just a theory, so that athiests can patronize about arrogantly in context of its dubious status. If science itself was supporting the theory, it would've been made 'The rule, The Law of evolution'. Seriously, who is being blatantly un-intelligent here

For example, In this article the story of evolution is described brilliantly, and yet all they say, before any conclusion, is

"it is thought, is it said, maybe ( without any evidence)"



Human Evolution

What makes evolutionist claim more intelligence and honesty when all the talk is based on lets say, a few more than, a hundred yrs old skepticism as creationist see it? Athiests say there is no evidence of creation besides evolution, and frankly speaking evolution STILL is in dire need of evidence to actually even support itself on its own. Are all evolutionists dreaming delusioners ? (If that is to be concluded)

In such a subjective comparison, creationism; the concept of divine religions , is atleast a thousands of yrs old, tried , tested, and AGED enough

The scientific methods in easy terms, are established this way.

1.Ask a Question
2.Do Background Research
3.Construct a Hypothesis
4.Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
5.Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
6.Communicate Your Results

The theory of evolution is stuck at step 3, and jumps widely to step 6. What are the results of experimentation of evolution, that are unanimously accepted and approved by science?

Many fossils have proven to be fakes , is that the merit of honesty of the evolutionists?

See, this is an example where I would rather say that the poster is simply uneducated about evolution than outright lying.

After all, there are hundreds of hypothesis being tested in evolution... from the very recent: "can life evolve to use arsenic instead of phosphorus" to "fossil theropods with feathers should be found older than Archeopteryx."

Both hypotheses have been tested and the data crunched and the results/conclusions shared.

I tend to think the poster simply doesn't know about or understand these sorts of things... rather than knowing and understanding them and then lying about it.

wa:do

 

[Alceste]

See, this is an example where I would rather say that the poster is simply uneducated about evolution than outright lying.

After all, there are hundreds of hypothesis being tested in evolution... from the very recent: "can life evolve to use arsenic instead of phosphorus" to "fossil theropods with feathers should be found older than Archeopteryx."

Both hypotheses have been tested and the data crunched and the results/conclusions shared.

I tend to think the poster simply doesn't know about or understand these sorts of things... rather than knowing and understanding them and then lying about it.

wa:do

But how many times must he make the factual claim that evolution has never been observed and how many links do we need to provide to such observations before we say "Ok, he's just lying now"?

The annoying thing is the endless repetition of false claims which have been repeatedly demonstrated to be false.

 

[Starsoul]

See, this is an example where I would rather say that the poster is simply uneducated about evolution than outright lying.

After all, there are hundreds of hypothesis being tested in evolution... from the very recent: "can life evolve to use arsenic instead of phosphorus" to "fossil theropods with feathers should be found older than Archeopteryx."

Both hypotheses have been tested and the data crunched and the results/conclusions shared.

I tend to think the poster simply doesn't know about or understand these sorts of things... rather than knowing and understanding them and then lying about it.

wa:do

You probably did not read the paper on human Evolution , If it is an unbiased concluded theory there was no room for any debate on it. The post is based on the accepted fact that human evolution still NEEDS to find a lot of substantiation rather than a theoretical inference drawn in the absence of any other plausible explanation. This is what all Articles and Journals on evolution conclude over. Denying ignorant aspects of a theory isn't a smart scientific tactic.

As for the Arsenic thriving bacteria, it is a mere observation, inconclusive of the entire mechanism and verifications to even claim the possibility. Noteworthy biologists say that its just an environmental adaptation to arsenic WITH phosphorus still found to be functioning in the same organism.

In The middle of the sandy areas of Africa, silica dust congregates because of the winds. In some of the less temperate environments, a silica dust rich desert could be remote enough to spawn if not silicon based life, but silicon-exchanging life. Near water in such an environment, that adaptation possibly exists that a bacteria or algae could opt to intermittently switch from using carbon in some cellular processes in deference for a silicon. No-one has looked for that either.

Biologists Comments:
Other biologists had deeper reservations. "It remains to be established that this bacterium uses arsenate as a replacement for phosphate in its DNA or in any other biomolecule found in 'standard' terran biology," says Steven Benner, who studies origin-of-life chemistry at the Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution in Gainesville, Florida.

The article is full of holes and reviewers should have asked for some simple additional experiments to support such strong claims. Replacement of phosphorus by arsene could have been very easily demonstrated by determination of the molecular weight of components (nucleotides from DNA hydrolysate) or lipids – mass spectra should very clearly identify if they contain arsenic or phosphorus.

The species of bacteria described in this paper have many close relatives. If it were radically different from other life forms its genetic code would have been vastly different. This suggests that a minor change, with specialization for environment with high levels of arsenic. Authors were able to determine the 16S RNA sequence of these bacteria. If bacterial genome would contain arsenic instead of phosphorus is very likely that the enzymes used for sequencing would be unable to perform the same reactions as for the normal DNA, yet no problems of this kind are mentioned.


The most important argument in the article is that arsenic replaces phosphorus in biological macromolecules. The analysis shows that bacteria still contain phosphorus, which apparently originated from the reagents (probably arsenate) which was added to the medium. The article does not indicate in the materials section what was the source and purity of arsenate used for media preparation, particularly with respect to the content of phosphates in it. Given that bacteria do not grow without either phosphate or arsenate may suggest that the arsenate could provide sufficient phosphorus contaminants to sustain bacterial growth

Maybe You should read up on the update on this story too.

It's a great story about adaptation, but it's not ET," says Gerald Joyce, a biochemist at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California.

But data in the paper, they argue, suggests that it is just as likely that the microbe isn't using the arsenic, but instead is scavenging every possible phosphate molecule while fighting off arsenic toxicity. The claim at a NASA press briefing that the bacterium represents a new chemistry of life is at best Premature, they say.

Microbe gets toxic response : Nature News

 

[Alceste]

You probably did not read the paper on human Evolution , If it is an unbiased concluded theory there was no room for any debate on it. The post is based on the accepted fact that human evolution still NEEDS to find a lot of substantiation rather than a theoretical inference drawn in the absence of any other plausible explanation. This is what all Articles and Journals on evolution conclude over. Denying ignorant aspects of a theory isn't a smart scientific tactic.

Human evolution doesn't "need" substantiation. Scientists continue to investigate our origins because no matter how much we know about ourselves, there is always much more to learn. We know we are primates, we know we evolved, we know we have some degree of common ancestry with every other living organism, we know where we came from, we know approximately how old we are. These things are certainties. Nevertheless, we don't necessarily know exactly what we ate fifteen thousand years ago. We don't know exactly how many migrations it took for the indigenous peoples to populate the Americas, or the specific route they took. We don't necessarily know exactly what happened to our neanderthal brothers and sisters. There are always questions that can be answered.

In science, an enormous proliferation of research, competition and debate is a sign of a vibrant, sure-footed and thriving field of study - one which is producing concrete answers to life's most important questions, and of course technologies and inventions that can be put to profitable use.

The fields which produce a thin trickle of "studies", all of them suspiciously homogenous, and in which there is no debate and no admission that some things are unknown or even unknowable - those are the ones you need to be suspicious of. ID leaps to mind.

 

[painted wolf]

You probably did not read the paper on human Evolution , If it is an unbiased concluded theory there was no room for any debate on it.

No, debate helps theories grow and develop... there are no theories in science that are without debate. Not even the theory of gravitation.
When you find a theory that doesn't have some debate on the minutia, you have found something anti-scientific.

The post is based on the accepted fact that human evolution still NEEDS to find a lot of substantiation rather than a theoretical inference drawn in the absence of any other plausible explanation. This is what all Articles and Journals on evolution conclude over. Denying ignorant aspects of a theory isn't a smart scientific tactic.

Sorry, what human evolution needs is to be more fleshed out, not substantiated. You are confusing debate on the minutia with debate on the substance.

As for the Arsenic thriving bacteria, it is a mere observation, inconclusive of the entire mechanism and verifications to even claim the possibility. Noteworthy biologists say that its just an environmental adaptation to arsenic WITH phosphorus still found to be functioning in the same organism.

Not really.... I admit they did a lousy job with this particular paper... but there is plenty of room for others to step in and fix it up with new findings.... they did provide a way to verify their findings. Those findings have yet to be independently verified.

And it's not simple observation... if you actually read the paper you would see that they manipulated the environment of the bacteria over several generations, removing phosphorous and replacing it with increasing amounts of arsenic. This is how an experiment is done.

BTW... environmental adaptation over generations is evolution.

Evolution is a change in allele frequencies over time... Alleles are specific copies of genes.

Some people seem to want to make evolution into something it isn't... I attribute this to misunderstanding what evolution actually means.

In The middle of the sandy areas of Africa, silica dust congregates because of the winds. In some of the less temperate environments, a silica dust rich desert could be remote enough to spawn if not silicon based life, but silicon-exchanging life. Near water in such an environment, that adaptation possibly exists that a bacteria or algae could opt to intermittently switch from using carbon in some cellular processes in deference for a silicon. No-one has looked for that either.

That would be an interesting study... if you can get it funded. But, is carbon less common in such an environment than silica?

Btw... I never claimed that it was an ET... I said they had a hypothesis "this bacteria should be able to evolve the capacity to tolerate even higher levels of deadly arsenic" they tested the hypothesis and published their results. I chose it because it was current news and thus should have been the sort of thing that people would have heard of.

A better example is the "E.coli long term evolution experiment" E. coli Long-term Experimental Evolution Project Site

However, it does show that Evolution is science as it meets the hypothesis, testing, data gathering, publishing of results and conclusions requirements given.

wa:do

 

[outhouse]

In The middle of the sandy areas of Africa, silica dust congregates because of the winds. In some of the less temperate environments, a silica dust rich desert could be remote enough to spawn if not silicon based life, but silicon-exchanging life. Near water in such an environment, that adaptation possibly exists that a bacteria or algae could opt to intermittently switch from using carbon in some cellular processes in deference for a silicon. No-one has looked for that either.

having some experience with this matter I can say with certainty that silica is to hard for energy to be converted into something living. Silica doesnt release any elements in water. The best that can happen is that the silica layers can harbor anaerobic bacteria and the transitional bacteria to the o2 rich upper layes.

Silica is made up of material that changes little with acidic or alkaline processes so silica is a poor choice for abiogenesis over other elements.

 

[Big_TJ]

Are they dishonest because they dont believe in/accept your evidence? What you consider as a fact is only a fact because you believe it. Evolution is a good point...just because some one thought up a theory that generally COULD work it doesnt constitute undeniable proof. If you can show the world a monkey that turns into a human being in lab in real time and conditions then you can call that a fact but as you cant it will always be a theory NOT A FACT. As your faith tells you that it is so because the theory has been designed to fit so my faith tells me that it is not so because I have faith in the complexity being beyond random coincidence.

You know, when I see nonsense like this, I am eager to suggest that we modify the thread rules to include:


1) You MUST provide EVIDENCE that you at least READ the VERY BASICS of evolution BEFORE posting here.
2) You must start your postings by CORRECTLY stating what evolution, in a nutshell is.
3) YOU MUST "attack" sections of what TOE says, not what YOU THINK it says.


If we do this, we will avoid idiotic postings like the one above, and will stop my brain cells from commiting suicide EVERY TIME THEY TRY TO PROCESS THE NONSENSE THAT SOME PERSONS POST.

 

[outhouse]

You know, when I see nonsense like this, I am eager to suggest that we modify the thread rules to include:


1) You MUST provide EVIDENCE that you at least READ the VERY BASICS of evolution BEFORE posting here.
2) You must start your postings by CORRECTLY stating what evolution, in a nutshell is.
3) YOU MUST "attack" sections of what TOE says, not what YOU THINK it says.


If we do this, we will avoid idiotic postings like the one above, and will stop my brain cells from commiting suicide EVERY TIME THEY TRY TO PROCESS THE NONSENSE THAT SOME PERSONS POST.

theres a few active ones LOL that still dont grasp reality newhope, wilsoncole.

funny they wont last much longer like all those before them that wont face reality

 

[McBell]

You know, when I see nonsense like this, I am eager to suggest that we modify the thread rules to include:


1) You MUST provide EVIDENCE that you at least READ the VERY BASICS of evolution BEFORE posting here.
2) You must start your postings by CORRECTLY stating what evolution, in a nutshell is.
3) YOU MUST "attack" sections of what TOE says, not what YOU THINK it says.


If we do this, we will avoid idiotic postings like the one above, and will stop my brain cells from commiting suicide EVERY TIME THEY TRY TO PROCESS THE NONSENSE THAT SOME PERSONS POST.

BUt then you would not be able to discuss the OP with any creationists....

 

[McBell]

theres a few active ones LOL that still dont grasp reality newhope, wilsoncole.

funny they wont last much longer like all those before them that wont face reality

I am not familiar with wilsoncole, but newhope is actually a really nice person to talk to if you can get her away from the whole "poking holes in evolution proves creation correct" nonsense.