Challenge to Creationists: Ichneumon Wasp

[Subduction Zone]

I don't know where his published works are. Does everyone who has a degree in science or who teaches publish papers? For years he was not a creationist/Christian, but an atheist secular scientist teacher. I really think it is misinformation or ignorance on your part to say that creationist organizations make their employees swear not to use the scientific method or that their work is not real science. I've never heard of such a thing and this sounds really bias and completely contrary to everything I read about their research.

To claim to be a scientist one has to work in the field.

You have not even said what he does not like about evolution. I tried to watch the video, but all I could find was sermonizing and no science.

And no, it is a well known fact that creationist organizations do make their employees promise not to use the scientific method. They do not even attempt to hide the fact. And their work clearly is not real science. Real scientists work through the process of peer review. That is where one submits one's ideas to well respected professional scientific journals. Creationists avoid publishing in those like the plague. In fact they have invented their own fake journals to fool the ignorant.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why don't you just tell me my error. I don't see it because I don't see how one can have an elaborate theory on the progression of life while ignoring the origin of life or simply having some vague assumptions on how life began.

Evolution deals with how life changed after it got here. It does not matter what the source was. It could have arisen naturally on earth, that would be abiogenesis, the most likely answer. It may have come from outer space, or panspermia. Or first life could even have been magically poofed into existence by a god. No matter the source we know it evolved after that.

 

[InChrist]

Evolution deals with how life changed after it got here. It does not matter what the source was. It could have arisen naturally on earth, that would be abiogenesis, the most likely answer. It may have come from outer space, or panspermia. Or first life could even have been magically poofed into existence by a god. No matter the source we know it evolved after that.

Why do you mock and say..."magically poofed into existence by a god", as if that option, the possibility of a Creator, is nonsense?
Personally, I think ones view, scientist or not, about how life originated will impact one's view concerning how life changes. So it does matter.

 

[InChrist]

To claim to be a scientist one has to work in the field.

You have not even said what he does not like about evolution. I tried to watch the video, but all I could find was sermonizing and no science.

And no, it is a well known fact that creationist organizations do make their employees promise not to use the scientific method. They do not even attempt to hide the fact. And their work clearly is not real science. Real scientists work through the process of peer review. That is where one submits one's ideas to well respected professional scientific journals. Creationists avoid publishing in those like the plague. In fact they have invented their own fake journals to fool the ignorant.

Creationists do not avoid publishing. Their papers are outright rejected from the start if it is known that they have any leaning toward creation or design by journals controlled by the secular scientific community.

 

[Skwim]

The theory of evolution and natural selection depends on the existence of life, doesn't it? Or are you telling me evolution can just skip life and take place in and of itself?

Thing is, YOU don't get to decide what any field of science investigates and what it doesn't, no matter how illogical its purview may seem to you. The fact is, the scope of evolution simply doesn't include investigation into a first cause, which leaves first cause open to not only abiogenesis, but the Biblical hand of god. First cause is simply immaterial. You may not like it because it prevents you from using it as a point of attack, but that's the way the butter melts. What is surprising though is that while you obviously feel equipped to debate evolution, you're unaware of this well known fact. But then Christians are always surprising us secularists.

Why don't you just tell me my error. I don't see it because I don't see how one can have an elaborate theory on the progression of life while ignoring the origin of life or simply having some vague assumptions on how life began.

But there is no such vague assumption within the field of evolutionary study. First cause is simply ignored. This isn't to say that many, many scientists don't side with abiogenesis instead of creationism, and even investigate it, but its issues and findings don't bear on the theories of evolution. The evolutionist will simply look at the evidence for abiogenesis or the Biblical hand of god, and likely say, "Well, that's interesting," and go on with her work. In short, evolution only deals with changes in life, not changes in non-life.

Creationists do not avoid publishing. Their papers are outright rejected from the start if it is known that they have any leaning toward creation or design by journals controlled by the secular scientific community.

Actually, they'd be rejected because none of them are scholarly enough to merit publication. Often this is because the subject simply doesn't fall into a peer-reviewable category. Or they are poorly prepared---peer reviewal demands that a paper meet specific manuscript requirements. For instance a manuscript has to meet the aims scope and author guidelines of the publisher, and

The title should summarize the main theme of the article and reflect your contribution to the theory.
The abstract should be crafted carefully and encompass the aim and scope of the study; the key problem to be addressed and theory; the method used; the data set; key findings; limitations; and implications for theory and practice.
source​

Or the work itself is simply poorly done and failed to abide by the standards of the scientific method. If you want to see how abysmal a creationist scholarly work can be take a look at Kent Hovind's doctoral dissertation HERE (for downloading)

.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why do you mock and say..."magically poofed into existence by a god", as if that option, the possibility of a Creator, is nonsense?
Personally, I think ones view, scientist or not, about how life originated will impact one's view concerning how life changes. So it does matter.

Moving the goal posts is always a dishonest debating technique. And since there is no reliable evidence for a creator it seemed appropriate.

And it really should not. You are trying to prejudice your beliefs before you even begin. But after we cover evolution we can go over abiogenesis and how that problem is getting close to being solved.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Creationists do not avoid publishing. Their papers are outright rejected from the start if it is known that they have any leaning toward creation or design by journals controlled by the secular scientific community.

Nonsense. If creationists could find a paper that was wrongfully rejected they would trumpet the news all over the place. The problem is that they cannot honestly approach the science and as a result lie to themselves or others and make obvious errors in their work.

Peer review does not guarantee that a paper is right. Many papers that are published are shown to be wrong later. What it does do is to eliminate papers that are clearly wrong. The few competent scientists that creationists have know that they are wrong. That is why the avoid peer review.

Now would you like to go over the scientific method quickly? One must understand it first before one understands how creationist sources require their workers to avoid it.

 

[Audie]

I find some of your posts actually confusing. What do you specifically want to talk about? And what is this... the boys in Sweden?

BTW, I don't usually post videos without including some of my own personal thoughts and words, questions, etc.

The fact that you speak of "theories of abiogenesis"
shows with great clarity that you have no idea what you are
talking about.

You do not even understand why there is no theory of
abiogenesis. And you wont learn; you dont even ask
why I said there isnt, you just come back with the claim
that there is.

That alone says so much about whether you actually
value objectivity. You dont even know what it is!

"If you dont know the origin of life, then ToE is not
valid". I know you guys think this is a terrif kill shot.
It is not. Others can and will explain why it isnt,
why it makes no sense. You wont learn though,
Next chance, you will just chirp it again.

We have a Chinese saying, push a pumpkin under
water, another will pop up.

You will just go right back to it.

My reference to the boys in Sweden is the Nobel
committee.

Why, we ask, is it that if you youtube guys have
discovered proof the ToE is false, why no Nobel prize
for the greatest scientific discovery, revolution, of
all time?

Easy, you say. They are not allowed to publish
The conspiracy. You actually believe that.

That alone says so very much about the quality
of everything else you believe.

 

[Audie]

Not always, but just as you have said you are not a scientist, neither am I. So when a scientist who fully understands the theory of evolution sees flaws, then changes their perspective to that of biblical creation, I consider the book or youtube of interest and their view as valid. BTW, not all secular evolutionary scientists who have accepted creation or intelligent design have started with a commitment to the Bible or had the same stance as Dr. Wise.

Flaws? Nothing is perfect. Everything that people have
ever done is flawed. Every machine, every theory,
every law, every government, everything.

Fatal flaws? Nobody can find a fatal flaw in ToE.
There are unknowns, sure. Your life history has
unknowns. Everything does.

Do such "flaws" as you have in your life history
make you invalid? Your story as best you can tell
it is fatally flawed, and out you go? I'dont-think-so!

What all those who went over to the dark side (creationism)
have in common is-not one single datum point contgrary
to ToE. NOTHING!

Another thing they have in common and with K Wise
is the same intellectual dishonesty.

It is impossible to be an informed and intellectually honest
creationist.

Do you have a problem with what Dr. Wise said, btw?
He is more honest than you tyoutubies, coz he does not
bother to pretend there is evidence against ToE.

 

[InChrist]

The fact that you speak of "theories of abiogenesis"
shows with great clarity that you have no idea what you are
talking about.

I didn't say "theories of abiogenesis", I said ..."secular theory of evolution, abiogenesis, or other theories of origin". (post #145)

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didn't say "theories of abiogenesis", I said ..."secular theory of evolution, abiogenesis, or other theories of origin". (post #145)

That demonstrates that at best you do not understand what the word "theory" means. The only actual theory there is the theory of evolution. There are no other scientific theories in regards to life at this time.

 

[Audie]

I didn't say "theories of abiogenesis", I said ..."secular theory of evolution, abiogenesis, or other theories of origin". (post #145)

Well! That makes such a difference! You are wrong either way.

There is no theory of origin, or abiogenesis, singular or plural.

Nor is there a "secular theory of evolution".

So, yeah you have shown with great clarity that you
dont know what you are talking about, and just make
things up.

AND, of all the silly ideas of yours that I mentioned,
the only one you could try to defend was with a (silly)
semantics game, and you did not succeed with that-
you are still wrong, still showing you dont know
what you are talking about

 

[InChrist]

Flaws? Nothing is perfect. Everything that people have
ever done is flawed. Every machine, every theory,
every law, every government, everything.

Fatal flaws? Nobody can find a fatal flaw in ToE.
There are unknowns, sure. Your life history has
unknowns. Everything does.

Do such "flaws" as you have in your life history
make you invalid? Your story as best you can tell
it is fatally flawed, and out you go? I'dont-think-so!

What all those who went over to the dark side (creationism)
have in common is-not one single datum point contgrary
to ToE. NOTHING!

Another thing they have in common and with K Wise
is the same intellectual dishonesty.

It is impossible to be an informed and intellectually honest
creationist.

Do you have a problem with what Dr. Wise said, btw?
He is more honest than you tyoutubies, coz he does not
bother to pretend there is evidence against ToE.

First you say that Dr. Wise is intellectually dishonest, then you say he is more honest than others. Which is it?

Sure everyone and everything is imperfect and there are flaws. The thing is that those who hold to a the theory of evolution and a strictly materialistic mindset will not address those flaws if they in any way cast doubt on the already established ideas of evolution and natural selection. Is the theory of evolution falsifiable? The theory has become so that no matter what the data is, it can be made to fit the theory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

First you say that Dr. Wise is intellectually dishonest, then you say he is more honest than others. Which is it?

Sure everyone and everything is imperfect and there are flaws. The thing is that those who hold to a the theory of evolution and a strictly materialistic mindset will not address those flaws if they in any way cast doubt on the already established ideas of evolution and natural selection. Is the theory of evolution falsifiable? The theory has become so that no matter what the data is, it can be made to fit the theory.

Really? Do you think in only black and white? Wise is more honest then Kent Hovind. But then any politician at his worst that you care to name is more honest than Kent. That does not mean that Wise is honest when it comes to his beliefs.

 

[InChrist]

That demonstrates that at best you do not understand what the word "theory" means. The only actual theory there is the theory of evolution. There are no other scientific theories in regards to life at this time.

Okay, maybe there are not actual theories, but there are a variety of ideas about the origin of life in the secular scientific community, with of course the complete exclusion of a Creator/Designer.

 

[InChrist]

Really? Do you think in only black and white? Wise is more honest then Kent Hovind. But then any politician at his worst that you care to name is more honest than Kent. That does not mean that Wise is honest when it comes to his beliefs.

How do you presume to know his mind, heart, or sincerity of beliefs or of any others who believe in creation over evolution?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Okay, maybe there are not actual theories, but there are a variety of ideas about the origin of life in the secular scientific community, with of course the complete exclusion of a Creator/Designer.

The problem with your beliefs is that no one on your side can find any scientific evidence at all for them. In fact they are usually so poorly formed that they earn the disparaging remark of being "not even wrong". In science that means absolutely worthless.

Here is a simplified flow chart of the scientific method:

It is a method of solving problems. It allows tools such as the computer that you are now using possible (and yes, even if you using your cell phone you are still using a computer). Do you have any problem with this image?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How do you presume to know his mind, heart, or sincerity of beliefs or of any others who believe in creation over evolution?

Wise has been fairly open. Kent is a bit of a psychopath. He is either a liar, an idiot, or both.

If one is honest and studies the material one has to admit that life is the product of evolution, and that Genesis cannot be read literally. Are you ready to learn at least the basics? I have seen creationist after creationist turn tail and run when it became obvious to them that their beliefs were wrong.

 

[Audie]

First you say that Dr. Wise is intellectually dishonest, then you say he is more honest than others. Which is it?

Sure everyone and everything is imperfect and there are flaws. The thing is that those who hold to a the theory of evolution and a strictly materialistic mindset will not address those flaws if they in any way cast doubt on the already established ideas of evolution and natural selection. Is the theory of evolution falsifiable? The theory has become so that no matter what the data is, it can be made to fit the theory.

Seriously? You think that is a "gotcha"?

One guy is a bit more honest than another. You cannot
possibly be confused by that.

But no, that is not it at all. You are trying in vain to throw
a gotcha back at me, and slip away from the thing I pointed
out, that your creo-heros are to a man, intellectually dishonest.

The thing in bold is just, well, a lie*. No, not just a lie.
It shows, once again, that you have no idea at all
about science, or scientists.

What you are describing is the behaviour of
religious fundamentalists. (see K Wise, or yourself)

"no matter what the data is" Isnt that you?
Be honest, it is you, isnt it? A little psychological
pro-jection going on!

Of course ToE is falsifiable. Nobody has done it,
but of course it could be.

Now "god", THAT is what is not falsifiable.

A little more projection going on.

In the event, all you can do it evade, change
the subject, point fingers and make things up.

You, nor anyone else, has one single feraking
fact contrary to ToE.

I guess you noticed that even if you wont admit it.

* you are partly excused, as you do not know
any better, and would not lie on purpose.
Right? But you have been lied to, and then
you uncritically parrot the lies. Not cool.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Sorry.

No worries, I don't really care what you call me.

It's okay Skeptic, You asked, I delivered.
There is no way I can convince you to see things different to how you do. That's not my job. An offer of a million bucks, I'd still say, "No way! Let Donald Trump do it... better yet Putin."

You "delivered" something that has nothing to do with the assertion in question.

I can always be convinced to see something differently, if I were presented with evidence that contradicts what I believe to be true. I prefer believing true things, but they need to be demonstrable, rather than just assertions.

Trump couldn't tell the truth if his life depended on it.