Can any creationist tell me ...

[DavidFirth]

Then you are self-deluded. Nothing revealed itself to you: you hallucinated and adopted your delusions as fact.

Opinion noted. I'm so happy that you can figure all of these things about me when you don't even know me. You must have god-like qualities. Bravo for you!

 

[SkepticThinker]

The SCIENTIFIC METHOD is decided, conducted and done by biased people. That's why the evidence can be interpreted in more than one way.

It is a self-correcting method. Dishonesty, prejudiced and poor methodology are exposed via publication, peer-review and critical analysis; and have been on many occasions. Ask Andrew Wakefield, he'll tell you that. His methodologically flawed and dishonest work linking autism to vaccines was exposed and he has since been shunned from the scientific community.

Please go read up on some history of science. Please.

 

[DavidFirth]

It is a self-correcting method. Dishonesty, prejudiced and poor methodology are exposed via publication, peer-review and critical analysis; and have been on many occasions. Ask Andrew Wakefield, he'll tell you that. His methodologically flawed and dishonest work linking autism to vaccines was exposed and he has since been shunned from the scientific community.

Please go read up on some history of science. Please.

I am familiar with this "self-correcting method." YEC science is often biased against and not published in "serious scientific journals" who use this "self-correcting method." It was set up to exclude them on purpose due bias against them.

Yeah, you lock them out and you use your fallacious "Argument from Authority" logic to discredit them. So much for so called, "Unbiased non-preferential" scientists. They don't exist.

 

[metis]

Well, men are men and all men lie or have lied.

Like the pastors that lead your church?

There's simply no room for liars in science but there certainly is in theistic circles as we've seen all too often.

I see you agree that carbon dating is not an exact science.

I never said otherwise. But the difference is that we work from objectively-derived evidence whereas theists work from here-say from people who lived thousands of years ago that you cannot know and where you simply cannot confirm their accuracy. IOW, it's literally a "blind faith" that you are working from. Faith is fine and dandy to an extent, but blind faith simply is blind.

I believe it is possible that there could be a creator-god or gods, but it is virtually impossible for me to know that there is. You cannot know either, even though you may think you know, because were you there at "creation"? As for myself, I may be old but I ain't 13.7 billion years old.

 

[DavidFirth]

Like the pastors that lead your church?

There's simply no room for liars in science but there certainly is in theistic circles as we've seen all too often.

Let's not make it sound like pastors lie more than scientists do. There is every bit of room for liars in science as all men lie and have lied.

 

[metis]

Let's not make it sound like pastors lie more than scientists do.

Why not? What's your source? What's your logic?

My point is that if you are going to talk about scientists supposedly lying, which is really quite hard for them to do and get away with because of the peer-review process, then maybe look at your own house. If I was so dishonest so as to claim that the universe was created by the Cosmic Godzilla, try and prove me wrong. I guarantee that you can't. See the difference?

 

[DavidFirth]

Why not? What's your source? What's your logic?

My point is that if you are going to talk about scientists supposedly lying, which is really quite hard for them to do and get away with because of the peer-review process, then maybe look at your own house. If I was so dishonest so as to claim that the universe was created by the Cosmic Godzilla, try and prove me wrong. I guarantee that you can't. See the difference?

You don't think it is hard for a pastor to lie and get away with it? Pastors get fired every day for lying, among other things.

You started this little convo, not me. You seem like you think scientists are a "cut above" the average Joe. They aren't.

 

[Polymath257]

Opinion noted. I'm so happy that you can figure all of these things about me when you don't even know me. You must have god-like qualities. Bravo for you!

I know you are human.

 

[DavidFirth]

I know you are human.

Are you 100% sure? I could be an alien that evolved after abiogenesis happened on another planet... (yeah, right)

 

[Polymath257]

I am familiar with this "self-correcting method." YEC science is often biased against and not published in "serious scientific journals" who use this "self-correcting method." It was set up to exclude them on purpose due bias against them.

Garbage. The problem is that YECs don't do serious science. Their ideas were shown wrong over a century ago. They are 'excluded' for the exact same reasons that flat-earthers are 'excluded'. If they actually did some science and produced some actual evidence, they would be published just like others who have disagreed with the 'norm' at the time.

The journals were set up for a fair discussion of ideas. They do this quite well. But that doesn't mean they have to admit every silly idea that is ever proposed.

Yeah, you lock them out and you use your fallacious "Argument from Authority" logic to discredit them. So much for so called, "Unbiased non-preferential" scientists. They don't exist.

The difference is that debate and discussion are the norm for science journals. Those that disagree *and can supply evidence* will have their ideas aired. But going over the exact same BS again and again and again and again isn't done.

 

[Polymath257]

Let's not make it sound like pastors lie more than scientists do. There is every bit of room for liars in science as all men lie and have lied.

But pastors are in the business of lying. That is their whole job.

 

[Polymath257]

Are you 100% sure? I could be an alien that evolved after abiogenesis happened on another planet... (yeah, right)

You are correct. You could easily be a bot given the level of understanding of basic issues you show.

 

[Polymath257]

You don't think it is hard for a pastor to lie and get away with it? Pastors get fired every day for lying, among other things.

It is quite clear that pastors lie and get away with it every day. That is their whole job: to fleece the flock.

 

[Polymath257]

I don't suppose you can prove that statement, can you?

Read the Bible and a few other books from the same time period and compare. Then think a bit. It is quite obvious.

 

[DavidFirth]

Garbage. The problem is that YECs don't do serious science. Their ideas were shown wrong over a century ago. They are 'excluded' for the exact same reasons that flat-earthers are 'excluded'. If they actually did some science and produced some actual evidence, they would be published just like others who have disagreed with the 'norm' at the time.

The journals were set up for a fair discussion of ideas. They do this quite well. But that doesn't mean they have to admit every silly idea that is ever proposed.



The difference is that debate and discussion are the norm for science journals. Those that disagree *and can supply evidence* will have their ideas aired. But going over the exact same BS again and again and again and again isn't done.

But pastors are in the business of lying. That is their whole job.

You are correct. You could easily be a bot given the level of understanding of basic issues you show.

You're so biased against Christianity that you really ought to see a professional about it. You're so locked into your version of reality that the idea of anything outside your little scientific box would scare you half to death. Maybe it is better that you just stay in there.

 

[Polymath257]

You're so biased against Christianity that you really ought to see a professional about it. You're so locked into your version of reality that the idea of anything outside your little scientific box would scare you half to death. Maybe it is better that you just stay in there.

I am against fundamentalist superstition of any sort: whether Christian, Islamic, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, or whatever else.

Christianity doesn't scare me. Neither does Islam. Those who believe in these are what scare me. Without the crazy believers, both are just moderately amusing fairy tales.

 

[metis]

You don't think it is hard for a pastor to lie and get away with it? Pastors get fired every day for lying, among other things.

Like so many of your assertions, I betcha you can't find any evidence of those who have. Fired for having affairs, theft, etc., yes; but for just lying by itself, not likely.

You started this little convo, not me. You seem like you think scientists are a "cut above" the average Joe. They aren't.

I didn't compare them to the "average Joe", so I'm not buying into your bait & switch tactic here. What I am saying is that it is much harder for a scientist to lie and get away with it because of the rules for peer review, and rules like this simply do not exist in the area of theology.

 

[DavidFirth]

Like so many of your assertions, I betcha you can't find any evidence of those who have. Fired for having affairs, theft, etc., yes; but for just lying by itself, not likely.

I didn't compare them to the "average Joe", so I'm not buying into your bait & switch tactic here. What I am saying is that it is much harder for a scientist to lie and get away with it because of the rules for peer review, and rules like this simply do not exist in the area of theology.

I don't need evidence. I'm pretty sure I'm right and if I'm not then I'm not.

I don't buy into your theory of the truthful scientist. They're sinners just like everybody else, no better, no worse.

 

[Polymath257]

I don't need evidence. I'm pretty sure I'm right and if I'm not then I'm not.

That says it all right there.

Evidence won't change your mind.

 

[SkepticThinker]

"how scientists sequenced the genomes of tigers, snow lions and leopards indicating that the tiger shares 95.6% of its DNA with modern house cats" does not prove anything. So what? You've shown that their DNA is similar. That's a far cry from proving one came from the other.

DNA similarity indicates relatedness.

You need to read over the articles, and my last post where I pointed out how scientists were able to map out and detect the genetic alterations that occurred over tens of millions of years that resulted in the digestive, metabolic and musculatory differences between the big cats that were included in the study. The degree of relatedness between living creatures helps us determine where they fall along the phylogenetic tree. It’s a pretty good method (one of many) for helping scientists figure out what came from what or that “one came from the other.” Read up on comparative genomics sometime.


“The tiger shares 95.6 percent of its genome with the domestic cat, from which it diverged about 10.8 million years ago, the comparison showed.

In addition, several genes were altered in metabolic pathways associated with protein digestion and metabolism, or how the body uses fuel like food to power cells. Those changes, which evolved over tens of millions of years, likely enable the majestic felines to digest and rely solely on meat, Bhak said.

Big cats also have several mutations that make for powerful, fast-acting muscles — a necessity when chasing down prey.

The team also found two genes in the snow leopard that allow it to thrive in the low-oxygen conditions of its high-altitude habitat in the Himalayan Mountains. Those genetic changes are similar to ones found in the naked mole rat, which also lives in low-oxygen conditions, though underground. In addition, the genetic analysis identified the mutations that give Bengal tigers and white African lions their distinctive white coats, Bhak said.”House cats and tigers share 95.6 percent of DNA, study reveals

The tiger genome and comparative analysis with lion and snow leopard genomes

Our DNA is what, 97% similar to a chimp's? Chimps aren't human at all. They're stupid animals just like the rest of the apes are. The remaining 3% is what's important. It is what distinguishes humans from chimps physically.

Actually, chimps are quite intelligent and not actually stupid at all. You should read up on chimps as well.


We didn't descend from chimps, rather, we share a common ancestor with them. Nobody is asserting that chimps are human. Chimps and humans are however, both Homininae.