The Creationistic Method and Why It Is Fraudulent

[sayak83]

Bridge these gulfs please:

The evolutionary process through natural selection does not involve effort, trying, or wanting from any species leading up to the human being.

The evolutionary process through natural selection has no intentions or senses for any species leading up to the human being. There is no sense or intent by species or individuals, species and/or individuals cannot sense "need."

The species through natural selection have no altruism, they do not work/act for the greater good of the species. There is no foresight or intentions leading up to the human being.

The species and/or individual does not stop to think, "now what was this trait for?" leading up to the human being.

Species and/or individuals were able to modify their environments with technology before the human being.

Species and/or individuals were able to instigate evolution in other organisms before the human being.

Species and/or individuals were able to study, test, write, reason amongst each other the process in which they evolved before the human being came along.

An organism had a self-conscious and feels shame or embarrassed being naked before the human being came along.

An organism had an ego, concernment for their reputation prior to the human being.

An organism chose who they mated with prior to the human being.

A lion does not make an effort to hunt a deer?
There is no need or intent of a male peacock dancing in many poses in his attempts to woo a peahen?
Here is altruism in mouse
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/will-you-rat-me-out/

Foresight in birds and monkeys
Time in the Animal Mind

We have already discussed intentions.

Tool use is a good example of abstract thinking, insight, planning etc. Animals do use tools extensively shaping them for their needs. Read article below

Animal Tool-Use - ScienceDirect

There are plenty of species who instigate evolution in other species. There are examples of deliberate evolution and farming of other species as well.
How Ants Figured Out Farming Millions of Years Before Humans

Beavers create dams that modify their river environment in very significant ways.


Lots of folks in history could not read or write. There are lots of traditional cultures where nudity does not cause shame. These are not universal traits of human beings at all.

Reflective thinking is called meta cognition and chimpanzees can do this.
https://phys.org/news/2013-04-metacognition-ability-limited-humans.html

Reputation is very important in chimpanzee society.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/...ps-reward-cooperation-and-punish-freeloaders/

Umm animals do not choose who they mate with?

How Females Choose Their Mates

 

[Profound Realization]

The nearest star (other than the sun) is 25 quadrillion miles away. A mere hundred million miles is a distance for inside our solar system: the Earth is 93 million miles from the sun and Mars is about 140 million miles.

You certainly never took a 'close up' shot of a star. You may have pointed your camera to the sky, but you certainly didn't resolve the disk of any star, ;et alone see things like sunspots on them.



Nope. The distances to stars wasn't known until the 1830's when the first parallax measurement was made of a star. Since then, many have been made.

That is a prime example, I'm told all these things and I have little choice but to accept based on faith. While I don't have sunspots or disks, the star is close enough in my crap zoom digital camera to conclude in my perception that it is impossible to be 25 quadrillion miles away. Have close shots of the colors changing vividly.

Just as it would appear to the eye that the sun is in no way 93 million miles away. Then I'm just told that my eyes/perception lie and trust them, the sun is just really big.

The further the distances, the easier it is to indoctrinate and/or promote any model.

 

[Polymath257]

That is a prime example, I'm told all these things and I have little choice but to accept based on faith. While I don't have sunspots or disks, the star is close enough in my crap zoom digital camera to conclude in my perception that it is impossible to be 25 quadrillion miles away. Have close shots of the colors changing vividly.

Optical effects from the atmosphere and camera. Any amateur astronomer learns to deal with such.

Just as it would appear to the eye that the sun is in no way 93 million miles away. Then I'm just told that my eyes/perception lie and trust them, the sun is just really big.

The further the distances, the easier it is to indoctrinate and/or promote any model.

If you had a good amateur scope and wanted to do the precise measurements, you could potentially determine the parallax of, say, Sirius. Then you would know how far away it is.

For the moon, you can do similar parallax measurements and they are not nearly so difficult to do. The sun is trickier, mainly because it is so bright. But you can get a scale for the solar system by parallax of, say, a comet, as it goes by.

 

[Profound Realization]

A lion does not make an effort to hunt a deer?
There is no need or intent of a male peacock dancing in many poses in his attempts to woo a peahen?
Here is altruism in mouse
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/will-you-rat-me-out/

Foresight in birds and monkeys
Time in the Animal Mind

We have already discussed intentions.

Tool use is a good example of abstract thinking, insight, planning etc. Animals do use tools extensively shaping them for their needs. Read article below

Animal Tool-Use - ScienceDirect

There are plenty of species who instigate evolution in other species. There are examples of deliberate evolution and farming of other species as well.
How Ants Figured Out Farming Millions of Years Before Humans

Beavers create dams that modify their river environment in very significant ways.


Lots of folks in history could not read or write. There are lots of traditional cultures where nudity does not cause shame. These are not universal traits of human beings at all.

Reflective thinking is called meta cognition and chimpanzees can do this.
https://phys.org/news/2013-04-metacognition-ability-limited-humans.html

Reputation is very important in chimpanzee society.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/...ps-reward-cooperation-and-punish-freeloaders/

Umm animals do not choose who they mate with?

How Females Choose Their Mates

The irony is, is that all you're doing is agreeing with me and you have no clue to such.

The no intent/blind/no choice given to the scientific evolutionary process for organism's leaves no room for what science is also saying (your links.)

 

[Profound Realization]

Optical effects from the atmosphere and camera. Any amateur astronomer learns to deal with such.



If you had a good amateur scope and wanted to do the precise measurements, you could potentially determine the parallax of, say, Sirius. Then you would know how far away it is.

For the moon, you can do similar parallax measurements and they are not nearly so difficult to do. The sun is trickier, mainly because it is so bright. But you can get a scale for the solar system by parallax of, say, a comet, as it goes by.

That's what's messed up.... I've done a lot of experiments/measurements and the sun and the moon always equate to being much closer. Reminds me of a snake-oil faith healer kind of, they just would tell you did something wrong or didn't believe enough and leave it at that.

There are also experiments that give one equations, and any mathematician knows that they are already rigged with a particular variable to equal the distances in their alleged models.

 

[Polymath257]

That's what's messed up.... I've done a lot of experiments/measurements and the sun and the moon always equate to being much closer. Reminds me of a snake-oil faith healer kind of, they just would tell you did something wrong or didn't believe enough and leave it at that.

There are also experiments that give one equations, and any mathematician knows that they are already rigged with a particular variable to equal the distances in their alleged models.

Hmmm...I am a mathematician and I know no such thing.

 

[sayak83]

The irony is, is that all you're doing is agreeing with me and you have no clue to such.

The no intent/blind/no choice given to the scientific evolutionary process for organism's leaves no room for what science is also saying (your links.)

No. There is plenty of room.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If you're content with just using "emergent properties" and being a "yes man" for whatever is fed to your appetite for the entire picture, which explains absolutely nothing...other than the parallel meaning that all things "just magically emerge because we say so," that's your personal call.

The phrase emergent property is not an explanation nor intended to be one. It simply refers to the self-evident fact that phenomena may exist at a higher level of organization or a larger scale not found at more fundamental scales. I gave you the example of a collection of water molecules producing wetness when no single molecule is wet.

Yes, I'm content consider life, for example, an emergent property of matter properly arranged. We have no need to inject anything else into the mix, most especially souls or a life force. That's not to say that we know that no such thing exists, just that there is no evidence for it, and no apparent need to propose its existence.

Likewise, consciousness emerges from unconscious elements, or so it appears, and reason and the moral sense from consciousness. There is no reason to think otherwise, nor any justification in proclaiming it impossible.

Regarding being a yes man for whatever is fed to me, actually, I have pretty high standards for what I accept, and they are the same standards used in science and all valid forms of critical thinking. To be believed, an idea has to be justified by reason and evidence, and should be believed no more than the quantity and quality of evidence supports. Some beliefs are more certain than others because they have better support.

That's what it means to be a skeptic, a rationalist, and an empiricist.

Free-range, untethered speculation has a place in this process, but only to generate new ideas to consider and perhaps test. These ideas are of little value to others until they can be fleshed out somewhat with supporting evidence.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Bridge these gulfs please:

The evolutionary process through natural selection does not involve effort, trying, or wanting from any species leading up to the human being.

The evolutionary process through natural selection has no intentions or senses for any species leading up to the human being. There is no sense or intent by species or individuals, species and/or individuals cannot sense "need."

The species through natural selection have no altruism, they do not work/act for the greater good of the species. There is no foresight or intentions leading up to the human being.

The species and/or individual does not stop to think, "now what was this trait for?" leading up to the human being.

Species and/or individuals were able to modify their environments with technology before the human being.

Species and/or individuals were able to instigate evolution in other organisms before the human being.

Species and/or individuals were able to study, test, write, reason amongst each other the process in which they evolved before the human being came along.

An organism had a self-conscious and feels shame or embarrassed being naked before the human being came along.

An organism had an ego, concernment for their reputation prior to the human being.

An organism chose who they mated with prior to the human being.

Perhaps you should make your argument explicitly.

If your only point is that some things are still unknown, I wouldn't call that an argument - just a self-evident truth.

I suspect that you are making an implied argument with an incredulity fallacy, namely, that because you can't see how various traits evolved in man, that they couldn't have, and therefore an intelligent designer must be involved.

If that's not your point, what is?

And what are you expecting from others? Are you trying to change minds? I already accept the idea that an intelligent designer of the universe and the life in it is logically possible.

I also accept that this may be a godless universe that arose naturalistically. I don't see any way to rule either option in or out.

But I can order them using Occam's Razor. I like the one that doesn't require a conscious, volitional agent.

And I find the argument that the world seems too complex to have arisen undesigned and uncreated, therefore something even less likely to exist undesigned and uncreated must exist to account for it a terribly flawed argument.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

That is a prime example, I'm told all these things and I have little choice but to accept based on faith. While I don't have sunspots or disks, the star is close enough in my crap zoom digital camera to conclude in my perception that it is impossible to be 25 quadrillion miles away.

Science can be believed by faith, but need not be. One can also use evidence and reason.

That's the thing with faith - nothing can't be believed if one is willing to go down that path.

The further the distances, the easier it is to indoctrinate and/or promote any model.

Scientists and science teachers don't need to indoctrinate. None of academia does.

Indoctrination is for those trying to persuade without a sound argument. It's useful for advertisers, priests, and political propagandists. Those are all people who care very much what you believe, and will use any technique that they think will work to convince you, including deceit.

Scientists don't care what you believe. They merely provide their evidence and show how that led them to certain conclusions.

Likewise with a good teacher. He or she makes the case for the student, but doesn't really care if it is believed, just understood. That's for Sunday school.

 

[Super Universe]

Well, considering that galaxies vary over a very wide range of brightnesses, a mere doubling is to be expected. There are galaxies with hundreds of times as many stars as our own and our galaxy has thousands of times more stars than others we have seen. The galaxies in the early universe are *inherently* dim, not just seemingly dim because of distance. That is because they are still forming: no large galaxies had formed yet because there wasn't enough time.


Funny, that is exactly what they do and you are failing to do.



Well, we *do* have some understanding of how galaxies form and we *do* know the age of the current expansion phase.



You don't understand much about noise, do you?



Well, you have some fine claims. One is concerning the Webb scope and we shall see what the evidence brings. The other is a claim about intrinsic brightness of early galaxies and has already been answered contrary to your expectations.



Cold is a relative term, not an absolute term. Why is it *uniformly* 2.72 K in all directions? Why no variation to even one part in 100,000? Why not 2 K in one direction (still cold) and 5 K in another (still cold)? What we see is more than simply being cold. That is a very precise temperature throughout space and in every direction.

Now go backwards in time. The universe contracts (because it is expanding and we are running the movie backwards). That means it heats up. So it wasn't always 2.72 K in temperature. As you go back further into the past, it is hotter. This is a fundamental BB prediction, made long before the background radiation was discovered. And the prediction was that the temperature would be uniform across the sky, which it is.



Yes, the cosmological constant (dark energy) increases the expansion rate. We are investigating this now.

Galaxies have a wide range of brightness? Galaxies are bright. You can think they have a wide range of brightness if you wish but the galaxies we will see over 13 billion light years away won't be early universe galaxies. They will be fully formed galaxies, unless the scientists lie and hide the truth.

Where is the evidence that gravity can be inactive during a big bang? Where is the evidence that energy can be created in a big bang and then never created again?

Scientists know the age of the current expansion? Correct. You know what you call the Hubble Constant, the current rate of expansion, but when you develop a theory that violates a fundamental law you are no longer scientists.

I don't understand much about noise? The big blue and green and red blobs are not noise. The extremely small pixels are noise.

We shall see what the Webb scope reveals? We shall but Hubble already revealed fully formed galaxies at 13.2 billion light years where you thought would be immature galaxies and nebular clouds and proto-stars.

Why is the universe uniformly cold? Because there is no heat source for space except stars that are located in galaxies separated by a lot of cold space. Space is not formed warm.

As we go back into the past space is hotter? Do you have some evidence? That's what your theory says should exist but that's not what we see. The Hubble doesn't see hotter space the farther out it looks, none of the space telescopes do. WMAP doesn't. Planc doesn't. Herschel didn't.

The cosmological constant increases the expansion? That's what the evidence shows but you have no idea how or why. I would suggest you keep working on string theory but you need people who are willing to go outside the box a bit more. Thats what the students who first found the graviton in string theory did.

 

[gnostic]

They also invented the Conservation of Energy law that says that energy cannot be created, but, if that was true then how could the big bang create energy?

What do you mean by the Big Bang creating energy?

What make you think there wasn’t any energy before the universe began expanding?

And what make you think there was no energy once the universe expands?

I don’t think you understand the Big Bang cosmology at all.

 

[Super Universe]

What do you mean by the Big Bang creating energy?

What make you think there wasn’t any energy before the universe began expanding?

And what make you think there was no energy once the universe expands?

I don’t think you understand the Big Bang cosmology at all.

What do I mean by the big bang creating energy? The theory is that the big bang created all energy, matter, and space.

What makes me think there wasn't any energy before the universe began expanding? Because that does not fit the theory of the big bang. Everything is theorized to have been created in one inflationary event.

And what makes me think there was no energy once the universe expands? The theory of the big bang is that all energy, matter, and space was created by it. So, if you're theory is that energy existed before the big bang, that's a completely new idea and not accepted science.

I did not say that there was no energy once the big bang happened. What I said was that the COE law can't be applied to the big bang because all energy was formed in the big bang and the COE says that energy cannot be created, so, that means if the COE is correct then it prevents the big bang from happening.

Here's another problem, there is no theory as to how laws of physics can turn themselves on after an event so, either gravity is a law or it isn't and the COE is either a law or it isn't. You can't have it both ways and both gravity and the COE prevent a big bang.

You don't think I understand the big bang cosmology at all? Seems you're the one who doesn't understand the big bang. You just confused yourself.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What do I mean by the big bang creating energy? The theory is that the big bang created all energy, matter, and space.

Not quite. The big bang didn't "create" the energy, space or matter. All of it already existed (at least, as of the planck time) but contained within an infinitely dense singularity. The "big bang" refers to the sudden expansion of this singularity into the form we known as the Universe today, not the creation of the singularity.

What makes me think there wasn't any energy before the universe began expanding? Because that does not fit the theory of the big bang. Everything is theorized to have been created in one inflationary event.

Again, false. The big bang wasn't a creation event, it was an expansion event. It describes how the Universe expanded from a singularity into its current state. It does not state that it is where everything necessarily came from. It is useful to talk about it in those terms because, as far as we are aware, time stop functioning at the planck time, so little - if anything - is known or can be known of the state of reality before then, but it is not necessarily the origin of all mass.

And what makes me think there was no energy once the universe expands? The theory of the big bang is that all energy, matter, and space was created by it. So, if you're theory is that energy existed before the big bang, that's a completely new idea and not accepted science.

False. See above.

I did not say that there was no energy once the big bang happened. What I said was that the COE law can't be applied to the big bang because all energy was formed in the big bang and the COE says that energy cannot be created, so, that means if the COE is correct then it prevents the big bang from happening.

False. See above.

Here's another problem, there is no theory as to how laws of physics can turn themselves on after an event so, either gravity is a law or it isn't and the COE is either a law or it isn't. You can't have it both ways and both gravity and the COE prevent a big bang.

This statement makes no sense. You do realize that physical laws can only exist in a Universe that has already expanded, right?

You don't think I understand the big bang cosmology at all? Seems you're the one who doesn't understand the big bang. You just confused yourself.

You have demonstrated quite definitively that you have no actual grasp of the big bang theory, I'm afraid.

 

[Profound Realization]

Perhaps you should make your argument explicitly.

If your only point is that some things are still unknown, I wouldn't call that an argument - just a self-evident truth.

I suspect that you are making an implied argument with an incredulity fallacy, namely, that because you can't see how various traits evolved in man, that they couldn't have, and therefore an intelligent designer must be involved.

If that's not your point, what is?

And what are you expecting from others? Are you trying to change minds? I already accept the idea that an intelligent designer of the universe and the life in it is logically possible.

I also accept that this may be a godless universe that arose naturalistically. I don't see any way to rule either option in or out.

But I can order them using Occam's Razor. I like the one that doesn't require a conscious, volitional agent.

And I find the argument that the world seems too complex to have arisen undesigned and uncreated, therefore something even less likely to exist undesigned and uncreated must exist to account for it a terribly flawed argument.

My point is that many don't understand the concept of natural selection. It is aimless, unguided, has no reason, no intent, is blind, is not a conscious process, there is no choice involved while at the same time those many are invoking those concepts into it that don't exist in natural selection in its current state, and that the human being contradict and deny natural selection in and of themselves. Understand yet? It's like someone saying that "no, choice is an emergent property of evolution," when the process of natural selection invokes no choice available. Or "no, this organism shows signs of altruism, when natural natural selection invokes no altruism.

Just about every response I have gotten been invoking things that are irrelevant and don't relate to natural selection but all they've proved is exactly what I've been trying to get across the entire time. My aim, if that's possible, since natural selection invokes no aim... is awareness.

 

[Altfish]

That's what's messed up.... I've done a lot of experiments/measurements and the sun and the moon always equate to being much closer. Reminds me of a snake-oil faith healer kind of, they just would tell you did something wrong or didn't believe enough and leave it at that.

There are also experiments that give one equations, and any mathematician knows that they are already rigged with a particular variable to equal the distances in their alleged models.

Why don't you publish your findings you could become famous for rewriting science.

 

[Profound Realization]

Science can be believed by faith, but need not be. One can also use evidence and reason.

That's the thing with faith - nothing can't be believed if one is willing to go down that path.



Scientists and science teachers don't need to indoctrinate. None of academia does.

Indoctrination is for those trying to persuade without a sound argument. It's useful for advertisers, priests, and political propagandists. Those are all people who care very much what you believe, and will use any technique that they think will work to convince you, including deceit.

Scientists don't care what you believe. They merely provide their evidence and show how that led them to certain conclusions.

Likewise with a good teacher. He or she makes the case for the student, but doesn't really care if it is believed, just understood. That's for Sunday school.

Everyone is an independent scientist.

There are still plenty of lies in academic books.

Indoctrination comes from human beings.

The further things are away from independent analysis and research, such as stars that are alleged to be quadrillion's of miles away.... the easier it is for a human being to be a human being. It would just come in more clever, convincing, deceitful technique.

Understood? Much of the stuff doesn't make sense and is not possible to be understood to the common mind, let alone even "scientists" themselves can't make sense of many things that are accepted as "facts."

 

[Profound Realization]

Why don't you publish your findings you could become famous for rewriting science.

Non-biased "scientists" are already well aware of that, people on forums...perhaps not as much.

I would care less for any fame.

Nice trollish response though, are you seeking approval on the forum from others of like-mind?

 

[Profound Realization]

No. There is plenty of room.

A decent link to hopefully clear up some popular misunderstandings.

Misconceptions about evolution

 

[Altfish]

Non-biased "scientists" are already well aware of that, people on forums...perhaps not as much.

I would care less for any fame.

Nice trollish response though, are you seeking approval on the forum from others of like-mind?

No it is not a trollish response and I'm seeking no-one's approval.
I'm trying to understand if you are so sure of your statement, "I've done a lot of experiments/measurements and the sun and the moon always equate to being much closer." Well then, share the information and let us see how you come to make such an assertion. Such assertions cannot go unchallenged.