What is the biggest scam in world history?

[Man of Faith]

The huge difference being, Origin is not used to interpret data. Scientist are perfectly willing to show where Darwin was mistaken.
Can the same be said of Creationists? Where have they admitted that empirical evidence shows a part of the Bible to be mistaken?
Answer-they don't. They hold the Bible to be unerring. Thus eliminating a significant part of the Scientific Method.

Unfortunately I haven't seen any evidence to show that scientists are eager or willing to show where Darwin was mistaken. Either Darwin wasn't mistaken or that statement is false.

 

[painted wolf]

Unfortunately I haven't seen any evidence to show that scientists are eager or willing to show where Darwin was mistaken. Either Darwin wasn't mistaken or that statement is false.

You refuse to see a lot of evidence that is right in front of you. Why would this be any different?

wa:do

 

[tumbleweed41]

Unfortunately I haven't seen any evidence to show that scientists are eager or willing to show where Darwin was mistaken. Either Darwin wasn't mistaken or that statement is false.

Highlighting your ignorance of evolutionary biology does nothing to help your stance.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Unfortunately I haven't seen any evidence to show that scientists are eager or willing to show where Darwin was mistaken. Either Darwin wasn't mistaken or that statement is false.

Darwin believed domestication by itself produced greater variability in animals than nature. We now know that to be wrong. The reason domestic animals appear to show greater variability is because they are not subjected to natural selection which tends to eliminate those that depart from the norm. Gene recombination and mutation give rise to variability and these occur at the same rate in the wild as under domestication. But in the wild, variations will usually be far more ruthlessly weeded out.

 

[Autodidact]

The Bible is used by some as a reference for interpreting data that was obtained from using the scientific method. Just like some us The Origin of the Species as a reference for interpreting the exact same data.

No, it's nothing like this, and repeating this falsehood is doing nothing for your credibility. There is no book, even one as important as The Origin that is sacrosanct in science. As soon as a scientist discovers something that changes or even belies that book, the discovery stands, and the original claim is discarded.

Your first statement also does not accurately describe what YECs do. They don't interpret data, they require their contributors to swear an oath to literal Genesis, and only to present conclusions that conform to it.

The two sides are not in any way symmetrical; one uses the scientific method; the other does not.

In short, contrary to what you may have been taught, lying actually does not help your case.
Proverbs 12:22, "Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are his delight."

 

[Autodidact]

If you are interested in baraminology, there is plenty of data about it on the internets. I don't have all the answers but refer to scientists for that type of stuff.

So you have no answer?

There is no such science as baraminology, and anyone who purports to study it is not doing science. "Baramin" is a religious, not a scientific term.

Concerning genetic similarity, when The Origin of the Species is on your nightstand and is used as a reference in the interpretation of scientific data then that is how someone will say that a 95-98% genetic match would mean common descent. When the Bible is on your nightstand and is used as a reference of the same data someone will say that a close genetic match means a similar design to live in the same world.

Proverbs 21:6, "The getting of treasures by a lying tongue is a vanity tossed to and fro of them that seek death."

It's not just the genetic similarity, MoF, it's the percentage of similarity, the precise pattern of that similarity, the homology, the nested hierarchy, the vestigial features and the geographical distribution.

Again you demonstrate how NOT to do science. When you say "a similar design," you're referring to magic poofing, are you not? Science cannot permit magical explanations. As soon as you resort to them, you leave the realm of science. To be scientific, you would have to posit a specific natural mechanism for implementing that purported design. If you posit a divine creator who is at once all-powerful and un-knowable, you bar the possibility of scientific investigation.

 

[Autodidact]

Unfortunately I haven't seen any evidence to show that scientists are eager or willing to show where Darwin was mistaken. Either Darwin wasn't mistaken or that statement is false.

Because you're so familiar with the last century of publication in the field of Biology?

Two words: punctuated equilibrium.

 

[johnhanks]

If you are interested in baraminology, there is plenty of data about it on the internets. I don't have all the answers but refer to scientists for that type of stuff.

I don't think you'll find many scientists - certainly not biologists - involved with baraminology, any more than you'll find astronomers dabbling in astrology. You only have to read this Conservapedia extract on 'baraminic demarcation' to see that it is non-science:

In order to determine the baraminicity of a given group of organisms, baraminic demarcation must be evaluated. This process involves four foundational concepts[6]:

• Biological Character Space (BCS): A theoretical multidimensional space in which each character (e.g. height or color) of an organism comprises a dimension, and particular states of that character occupy unique positions along the dimension. A single organism is therefore precisely defined by a single point in the multidimensional space.

• Potentiality Region: A region of that biological character space within which organismal form is possible. Therefore, any point in the biological character space that is not within a potentiality region describes an organism that cannot exist.

• Continuity: describes the relationship between two organisms which are either in the same potentiality region, or linked to each other by a third, such that transmutation between the two is theoretically possible.

• Discontinuity: describes the relationship between two organisms which are in disconnected potentiality regions, such that transmutation between the two is impossible.

Thus, organisms that are found to be continuous in a BCS potentiality region form a holobaramin or monobaramin (depending on if all organisms within the potentiality region are considered), whereas those that are discontinuous form a polybaramin or apobaramin (again, depending on completeness of the organisms considered).

This is utter gobbledygook, tailored - untestably - to fit a preconceived conclusion.

When the Bible is on your nightstand and is used as a reference of the same data someone will say that a close genetic match means a similar design to live in the same world.

But humans and chimps have very different ecological niches - are you really saying your day-to-day existence is so similar to a chimp's that god had to design your bodies to work with 98% overlap? Gorillas live a life far more similar to that of chimps than we do: why are chimps more genetically different from gorillas than they are from us?

 

[Willamena]

This is utter gobbledygook, tailored - untestably - to fit a preconceived conclusion.

Rather, it sounds like a mockery of science.

 

[Autodidact]

I've tried, really tried, to understand what the heck they're gibbering on about. As best I can tell it's some kind of circular deal, in which they're saying (in a very complicated way) that a "kind" consists of all creatures that share common descent. Since they also assert that common descent is limited to kinds, the definition is circular and hollow.

If you think about it, under this definition, a kind could mean all living creatures. Not very helpful.

btw, I have yet to meet a YEC who is even aware of this definition, let alone understands it.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

I've tried, really tried, to understand what the heck they're gibbering on about. As best I can tell it's some kind of circular deal, in which they're saying (in a very complicated way) that a "kind" consists of all creatures that share common descent. Since they also assert that common descent is limited to kinds, the definition is circular and hollow.

If you think about it, under this definition, a kind could mean all living creatures. Not very helpful.

btw, I have yet to meet a YEC who is even aware of this definition, let alone understands it.

Probably not very helpful but, during my time as a bible-thumper, I understood "kind" to mean basically the same thing as "species".

 

[johnhanks]

Probably not very helpful but, during my time as a bible-thumper, I understood "kind" to mean basically the same thing as "species".

During most of my time arguing evolution with creationists the same has been true: this 'baramin' is a (relatively) recent development, and seems to be a retreat on the part of creationists who have had reluctantly to concede that speciation is a real and observed event. So, they have abandoned the species as the unique and god-created unit, and have instead invented - completely ad hoc - this 'baramin' thing.

 

[Autodidact]

The problem with kind = species (aside from observed speciation) is that even a credulous YEC cannot explain how Noah got over 24 million creatures on a wooden boat.

 

[MSizer]

The problem with kind = species (aside from observed speciation) is that even a credulous YEC cannot explain how Noah got over 24 million creatures on a wooden boat.

Or why god would make the ridiculously human scenario of getting noah, a mere human, to build a boat in the first place. Then kill so many innocent creatures by flood. If god could flood the earth, surely he could have been much more morally upright and simply made all the bad people vanish.

 

[RedOne77]

I've tried, really tried, to understand what the heck they're gibbering on about. As best I can tell it's some kind of circular deal, in which they're saying (in a very complicated way) that a "kind" consists of all creatures that share common descent. Since they also assert that common descent is limited to kinds, the definition is circular and hollow.

It is no more hollow than Darwinism. Darwinists start with the assumption that everything evolved from a common ancestor, thus everything evolved despite that we don't know (nor can we know) every step, and they fit all the data into this model. As in with whale evolution, they see the modern day whale, purport that it evolved, and then they go out and try to find the basal species. So when they find something that looks archaic (likepakicetus or ambulocetus) they assume that this group of organisms eventually evolved into whales today. Similarly, our assumption is that God created distinct kinds that diversified overtime via adaptation. Despite that we can't know where every line is, we take the evidence (as do you) and see how it works in a creationist model.

If you think about it, under this definition, a kind could mean all living creatures. Not very helpful.

btw, I have yet to meet a YEC who is even aware of this definition, let alone understands it.

This definition is called evilution. Under this definition the idea of kinds become a tautology, so no wonder few creationists are aware of this definition. But I would think that your encounters with YECs are skewed, giving the stereotype of dumb rednecks that don't know how to use a computer. There are many YECs that are well educated, productive members of society, and understand the darwinist paradigm more than you (and practically every evo here) would care to admit.

 

[johnhanks]

Or why god would make the ridiculously human scenario of getting noah, a mere human, to build a boat in the first place. Then kill so many innocent creatures by flood. If god could flood the earth, surely he could have been much more morally upright and simply made all the bad people vanish.

Yes, the whole ark thing smacks of a conjuror's trick: why bother with a physical ark, if you can just make the whole business come out as you want it?

 

[McBell]

It is no more hollow than Darwinism. Darwinists start with the assumption that everything evolved from a common ancestor, thus everything evolved despite that we don't know (nor can we know) every step, and they fit all the data into this model. As in with whale evolution, they see the modern day whale, purport that it evolved, and then they go out and try to find the basal species. So when they find something that looks archaic (likepakicetus or ambulocetus) they assume that this group of organisms eventually evolved into whales today. Similarly, our assumption is that God created distinct kinds that diversified overtime via adaptation. Despite that we can't know where every line is, we take the evidence (as do you) and see how it works in a creationist model.



This definition is called evilution. Under this definition the idea of kinds become a tautology, so no wonder few creationists are aware of this definition. But I would think that your encounters with YECs are skewed, giving the stereotype of dumb rednecks that don't know how to use a computer. There are many YECs that are well educated, productive members of society, and understand the darwinist paradigm more than you (and practically every evo here) would care to admit.

Wow.
I am genuinely impressed.
Here I thought Man of Faith had no equal in piling up the most bull **** with the fewest number of words.

CONGRATS!!!

 

[johnhanks]

There are many YECs that are well educated, productive members of society, and understand the darwinist paradigm more than you (and practically every evo here) would care to admit.

Would you care to introduce us to one?

 

[RedOne77]

Wow.
I am genuinely impressed.
Here I thought Man of Faith had no equal in piling up the most bull **** with the fewest number of words.

CONGRATS!!!

Thank you! :yes:
But you haven't seen anything yet.

 

[MSizer]

Thank you! :yes:
But you haven't seen anything yet.

Well, I'll grant you this one.