Proof of Creational Science

[questfortruth]

Why do we not respect the mind of scientists? But how clever is it to assume that there is a common relative (i.e., ancestor) between the flea (or a virus) and an elephant?

Axioma is a statement that is so apparent that the statement has been proven by its apparency. Obviously, elephants did not occur from fleas. It is infinitely evident.

If the modern flea and modern elephant have a common ancestor A, then the A is the ancestor of the contemporary flea. The latter fact means that ancestor A is a very primitive, under-developed ancient flea. Hence, modern elephants came from very primitive, under-developed antique flea.

The Riemann hypothesis is an unproved statement, but not an axiom, and never will ever become an axiom. Why? Because the Riemann hypothesis's validity is not apparent.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Why do we not respect the mind of scientists? But how clever is it to assume that there is a common relative (i.e., ancestor) between the flea (or a virus) and an elephant?

Axioma is a statement that is so apparent that the statement has been proven by its apparency. Obviously, elephants did not occur from fleas. It is infinitely evident.

The Riemann hypothesis is an unproved statement, but not an axiom, and never will ever become an axiom. Why? Because the Riemann hypothesis's validity is not apparent.

If everything was created by the same "form of substance" would not science be able to see the "link" between different spicies? (Sorry if wrong spelling)

And by this scuence would call it evolution due to finding part of the same DNA everywhere they look?

Just a thought

 

[Nakosis]

Why do we not respect the mind of scientists? But how clever is it to assume that there is a common relative (i.e., ancestor) between the flea (or a virus) and an elephant?

Axioma is a statement that is so apparent that the statement has been proven by its apparency. Obviously, elephants did not occur from fleas. It is infinitely evident.

The Riemann hypothesis is an unproved statement, but not an axiom, and never will ever become an axiom. Why? Because the Riemann hypothesis's validity is not apparent.

How is creation science?
Isn't creational science an oxymoron?

 

[Nimos]

Axioma is a statement that is so apparent that the statement has been proven by its apparency. Obviously, elephants did not occur from fleas. It is infinitely evident.

That is correct, elephants did not evolve from fleas.

You can use this to check how things are connected.

Just type in Fleas in the top right and then you can try to type in Elephants

OneZoom Tree of Life Explorer, text page for All life

 

[stvdv]

New Why do we not respect the mind of scientists? But how clever is it to assume that there is a common relative (i.e., ancestor) between the flea (or a virus) and an elephant

Not clever. Just a belief some people entertain

 

[metis]

But how clever is it to assume that there is a common relative (i.e., ancestor) between the flea (or a virus) and an elephant?

Who told you that we "assume" that? We don't as it's a scientific hypothesis that we come from a single source.

 

[vulcanlogician]

That is correct, elephants did not evolve from fleas.

You can use this to check how things are connected.

Just type in Fleas in the top right and then you can try to type in Elephants

OneZoom Tree of Life Explorer, text page for All life

Wow. That is really neat. Thanks for sharing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why do we not respect the mind of scientists? But how clever is it to assume that there is a common relative (i.e., ancestor) between the flea (or a virus) and an elephant?

Axioma is a statement that is so apparent that the statement has been proven by its apparency. Obviously, elephants did not occur from fleas. It is infinitely evident.

X and Y sharing an ancestor does not mean that X came from Y.

In any case, common ancestry is pretty much genetic fact.
You can either accept the facts of reality or stick you head in the sand.

 

[Windwalker]

Why do we not respect the mind of scientists?

Because of ignorance or fear of upsetting our worldviews on our part? Not sure. It's a mystery to me why some are so closed off to science like this.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Because of ignorance or fear of upsetting our worldviews on our part? Not sure. It's a mystery to me why some are so closed off to science like this.

Yea.

If your looking for facts and truth, what better tool to use than science itself?

 

[questfortruth]

X and Y sharing an ancestor does not mean that X came from Y.

If the modern flea and modern elephant have a common ancestor A, then the A is the ancestor of the contemporary flea. The latter fact means that ancestor A is a very primitive, under-developed ancient flea. Hence, modern elephants came from very primitive, under-developed antique flea.

 

[questfortruth]

It's a mystery to me why some are so closed off to science like this.

Sure, brother. But I am author of a very logical paper:
Evaluation of the Gauss integral

 

[Aštra’el]

How is creation science?
Isn't creational science an oxymoron?

Why would the phrase “creational science” be an oxymoron?

Humans already create our own worlds and life in videogames. Just look at the rate of improvement since the 80s... it hasn’t even been a century. Now imagine what happens in two hundred years. A thousand. A hundred thousand.

What kind of worlds would an advanced civilization whose existed far longer than mankind have the technology to create? What does hundreds of thousands of years experience, or millions of years, developing “videogames”, create? Their creations would be indistinguishable from reality. The creators could become gods within their own realms, create heavenly paradises or hellish prisons, alternate universes, and even live an entire life- however mundane or epic- within their creation only to wake up and do it all over again. The possibilities are endless.

I would not be so quick to separate the words “creation” and “science”.

 

[F1fan]

If the modern flea and modern elephant have a common ancestor A, then the A is the ancestor of the contemporary flea. The latter fact means that ancestor A is a very primitive, under-developed ancient flea. Hence, modern elephants came from very primitive, under-developed antique flea.

Why are you presuming the common ancestor is any sort of flea? That is not what science reports. Given the vast difference between the two it's more likely to be some sort of very basic life form that is neither flea nor elephant.

 

[F1fan]

Why would the phrase “creational science” be an oxymoron?

Because creationism exists to present disinformation about science to certain religious people willing to be deceived.

 

[Aštra’el]

Because creationism exists to present disinformation about science to certain religious people willing to be deceived.

You don’t find it even slightly fascinating or exciting to imagine how far “videogame” technology will evolve if humanity survives long enough? Or to ponder what kind of digital world-building a hyper advanced alien civilization could accomplish with millions of years experience? Would you not consider the construction of alternate universes, or even artificial intelligence, to be a form of “creation science”?

 

[questfortruth]

very basic life form that is neither flea

Let me repeat then my scientific remark:

the A is the ancestor of the contemporary flea. The latter fact means that ancestor A is a very primitive, under-developed ancient flea.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The latter fact means that ancestor A is a very primitive, under-developed ancient flea.

No. Not a flea. And not an elephant either.

Hence, modern elephants came from very primitive, under-developed antique flea.

Elephants, like all animals and plants, ultimately came from a single celled eukaryote.
Not a flea. Not an "antique flea" either.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sure, brother. But I am author of a very logical paper:
Evaluation of the Gauss integral

Yes yes, and you won a "gold medal" in high school. We know.
None of that gives you any expertise or qualifications in biology.
Nor does it count as evidence for your arguments.

If anything, I'ld say it's evidence against it. If you have to brag about your unrelated skillz and perceived accomplishments in order to defend some argument, it might be a hint that you don't have any valid evidence to offer instead.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why would the phrase “creational science” be an oxymoron?

Humans already create our own worlds and life in videogames. Just look at the rate of improvement since the 80s... it hasn’t even been a century. Now imagine what happens in two hundred years. A thousand. A hundred thousand.

What kind of worlds would an advanced civilization whose existed far longer than mankind have the technology to create? What does hundreds of thousands of years experience, or millions of years, developing “videogames”, create? Their creations would be indistinguishable from reality. The creators could become gods within their own realms, create heavenly paradises or hellish prisons, alternate universes, and even live an entire life- however mundane or epic- within their creation only to wake up and do it all over again. The possibilities are endless.

I would not be so quick to separate the words “creation” and “science”.

Engineering makes those worlds.
Science provides the engineers with the know-how.
Engineers then use that know-how to develop technology and practical applications. Like build computers that can run awesome simulations.