A rather interesting picture.

SteveB

Well-known member
I found myself amused by this.

I think it goes well with the other thread I started on the definition of science
 

Attachments

  • FB_IMG_1606011930370.jpg
    FB_IMG_1606011930370.jpg
    36 KB · Views: 22

Nouveau

Well-known member
I found myself amused by this.

I think it goes well with the other thread I started on the definition of science
You mean the thread where you utterly failed to provide any examples of CARM atheists treating science as a religion?

I expect you'll fail here to, or do you have examples this time of anyone here following the RHS of your diagram?
 

The Pixie

Active member
The one on the right looks exactly like so-called creation science.

Base a model on the pre-conceived ideas in Genesis, find data that agrees with that model, discard data that does not.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
You mean the thread where you utterly failed to provide any examples of CARM atheists treating science as a religion?
You seem to think that you know what my purpose is for posting it.
It's a pity that you actually believe that you know so much
The only failure here is yours.

I expect you'll fail here to, or do you have examples this time of anyone here following the RHS of your diagram?

Yep.
You.
I'll let you take the time to learn why, and how.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
The one on the right looks exactly like so-called creation science.
I wouldn't know. I always used the left side to learn.
Base a model on the pre-conceived ideas in Genesis, find data that agrees with that model, discard data that does not.
Curious.
Your post looks like the right side of the picture.
You've assumed you know what you're talking about.
You never asked any questions, and jumped right to a conclusion that is unsupported by any other information.
Thank you for your input.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
You seem to think that you know what my purpose is for posting it.
It's a pity that you actually believe that you know so much
The only failure here is yours.

Yep.
You.
I'll let you take the time to learn why, and how.
So still no examples you can quote?

That makes this another failed thread for you then.
 

The Pixie

Active member
Me previously said:
The one on the right looks exactly like so-called creation science.
I wouldn't know. ...
You would not know because you are not familiar with so-called creation science or because you did not look at the right side of the picture you presented in the OP?

... I always used the left side to learn.
So when learning how to build a fence, you used the left side of the picture? How odd.

Curious.
Your post looks like the right side of the picture.
You've assumed you know what you're talking about.
I think I do know what I am talking about. I see you offer no evidence to suggest otherwise, so I will continue to do just that.

You never asked any questions, and jumped right to a conclusion that is unsupported by any other information.
Thank you for your input.
I have been working in science since 1984, and looking at so-called creation science since not long after 2000. This is a conclusion I have reached after many years of off-and-on investigations.

What is curious is that YOU have jumped to a conclusion here when you clearly know nothing of the actual facts. Oh the hypocrisy!

Here is an example of cherry picking by so-called creation science

Another would be Behe's argument, "irreducible complexity", which was challenged in the Dover courtroom. Behe presented three systems that he claimed exhibited "irreducible complexity", but it was later shown that there were numerous published papers addressing the evolution of all three, and proving that evolution was plausible. Behe nevertheless dismissed the papers because, well, that is what so-called creation scientists do - ignore evidence they do not like.

Now, Steve, you clearly have an axe to grind here. How about you find an example from evolution in which the data is cherry-pocked? Can you do that, or is this just another instance of you blowing hot air?
 

SteveB

Well-known member
You would not know because you are not familiar with so-called creation science or because you did not look at the right side of the picture you presented in the OP?
because whatever you're calling creation science, is not a field that I've learned creation science to be.
I.e., your terms are vagueries.
So when learning how to build a fence, you used the left side of the picture? How odd.
When learning to build a fence, install gutter, hang ductwork, do sheet metal layout, fabrication, follow Jesus, learn to repair a vehicle, appliances, cook or prepare a meal, bake, etc.....


I think I do know what I am talking about. I see you offer no evidence to suggest otherwise, so I will continue to do just that.
So, just as long as YOU think you know, you actually know?
If what you think is correct, then why is what I think incorrect?

I have been working in science since 1984, and looking at so-called creation science since not long after 2000. This is a conclusion I have reached after many years of off-and-on investigations.

Which field do you work in?

The "creation" science I've been engaged in learning dates long before 2000. So, your ideas would have much later developments than my own.


What is curious is that YOU have jumped to a conclusion here when you clearly know nothing of the actual facts. Oh the hypocrisy!
then it would appear we are both hypocrites.


Here is an example of cherry picking by so-called creation science


A rather curious point....

Obviously, evolutionists don’t accept the story of the first temptation. As far as they are concerned, the snake evolved from some reptile which originally had legs. But evolutionists have always tried to find some evolutionary advantage to losing legs and, thus, justify their theory. In 1973 an unpublished study suggested that garter snakes use 30 percent less energy for locomotion than they would if they had legs. That study was preliminary and never published. But that didn’t stop evolutionists from saying that they had found the reason that snakes don’t have legs.​

I find two ironies here....
1- We have no idea what the serpent was prior to the fall. We only know that it would, from that point forward, crawl on its belly, and lick the dust of the earth. So, while I applaud people for thinking, their thinking led to mere speculation.
2- evolutionists use their own bias to dismiss what others have sought to speculate about.

I learned several years ago that I have more important matters to attend to because I lack the technological wherewithal to actually learn what the creature really was, prior to the fall in the garden.

Could it have been a snake with legs? Sure. WAS it? We have no idea. Speculation, like assuming, does more to make an a88 out of you than it does me.

The only real reason I let got of trying to figure such things out is that according to 1 Corinthians 13:12, there's coming a day when God will make everything known to his children, and "we will know, as we are known." And considering that in Hebrews 4:13, we are laid naked before God, to whom we will one day give an account, I'm okay with waiting until then.
Not because I don't want to know, but because I'll never be able to actually know in this life.

If however you ever create a time machine, I'd love to travel back with you. I'm acquainted with the region where these events could've taken place, and am willing to scour the area, and time periods they would've taken place.




Another would be Behe's argument, "irreducible complexity", which was challenged in the Dover courtroom. Behe presented three systems that he claimed exhibited "irreducible complexity", but it was later shown that there were numerous published papers addressing the evolution of all three, and proving that evolution was plausible. Behe nevertheless dismissed the papers because, well, that is what so-called creation scientists do - ignore evidence they do not like.

And as I am not Behe, nor have his background, I'm not going to go rounds with this.
Several years ago I read an article by him, or one of his colleagues, and contacted him to posit my thoughts, and his only response was---
I like it.

I have seen nothing to demonstrate that evolution actually took place.
I have however seen plenty which seems pretty clear it required a designer's input.
In fact, I think that what you believe is evidence for evolution, I see as evidence for creation. My opinion is--- you simply stop too soon for an explanation. I was taught in my physics program to keep looking until there is not farther back you can go. Which is why I dismiss the big bang coming from a singularity, and that's it.
where did the energy, which caused the singularity to take place, arise or derive from?


Now, Steve, you clearly have an axe to grind here. How about you find an example from evolution in which the data is cherry-pocked? Can you do that, or is this just another instance of you blowing hot air?
I disagree--- atheists are the ones with the axe to grind.
Otherwise, they'd be off living their lives, and not trying to convince people who are experience with YHVH their experiences are false.

We who follow Jesus are here, because Jesus said that we're to make apprentices of the nations, teaching them to do what Jesus taught us.

I.e., we're here because we've been given an edict to be here.
You guys are here because you need to silence us. I think whack-a-mole would be an accurate description.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
So still no examples you can quote?

That makes this another failed thread for you then.
Looks like you're still talking.
If it was actually a failure, you would never have started engaging in the first place.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Looks like you're still talking.
If it was actually a failure, you would never have started engaging in the first place.
I engaged to give you the chance to support your claim. But you have again quite predictably failed to do so.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
When learning to build a fence, install gutter, hang ductwork, do sheet metal layout, fabrication, follow Jesus, learn to repair a vehicle, appliances, cook or prepare a meal, bake, etc.....
I don't believe you form hypotheses or do background research every time you prepare a meal.

You certainly never followed the scientific method when it comes to religion. (We've discussed before your failure to perform anything that would qualify as a test, where you developed an apparent blindness for links to previous posts.)
 

The Pixie

Active member
because whatever you're calling creation science, is not a field that I've learned creation science to be.
I.e., your terms are vagueries.
So do tell me Steve, what do you understand "creation science" to be. Give an example of what it claims, and we can look at it, see how it fits with either the left or right of your "interesting picture".

When learning to build a fence, install gutter, hang ductwork, do sheet metal layout, fabrication, follow Jesus, learn to repair a vehicle, appliances, cook or prepare a meal, bake, etc.....
Okay, I'll bite. Exactly how did you use the procedure of the left side of the picture to build a fence?

So, just as long as YOU think you know, you actually know?
If what you think is correct, then why is what I think incorrect?
Because I have supported my claims with evidence, such as the links at the end of my last post. You have not.

The "creation" science I've been engaged in learning dates long before 2000. So, your ideas would have much later developments than my own.
So you are the expert, talk us though how creation science has used the scientific method.

Until you do, I will continue to think you are just spouting unsupported opinions - doing pretty much what the right side of the picture indicates.

A rather curious point....

Obviously, evolutionists don’t accept the story of the first temptation. As far as they are concerned, the snake evolved from some reptile which originally had legs. But evolutionists have always tried to find some evolutionary advantage to losing legs and, thus, justify their theory. In 1973 an unpublished study suggested that garter snakes use 30 percent less energy for locomotion than they would if they had legs. That study was preliminary and never published. But that didn’t stop evolutionists from saying that they had found the reason that snakes don’t have legs.​

I find two ironies here....
1- We have no idea what the serpent was prior to the fall. We only know that it would, from that point forward, crawl on its belly, and lick the dust of the earth. So, while I applaud people for thinking, their thinking led to mere speculation.
2- evolutionists use their own bias to dismiss what others have sought to speculate about.
What a great example of cherry-picking! You had to go all the way back to the seventies, and even then the best you can do is unpublished data.

Back in real science...

This article discusses the genes involved in snakes losing their legs.

This article (only the abstract can be seen for free) is about the discovery of a two-limbed snake in 1997, i.e., transitional fossil - something creationists pretend do not exist.

More snakes with hind-limbs and no fore-limbs have since been discovered.

And later a four-limbed snake was discovered, in 2015:

Here is a further study about snake evolution.

One of the big messages from these is that the evolution of snakes is a topic under debate. That means that biologists are asking questions about how it happened. They are constructing hypotheses and they are testing with experiments.

Now let me turn that around and look at so-call creation science. Can you point me to a creationist article that dares question the account in Genesis of the snake losing its legs? Can you point out where a creationist has tested a hypothesis with an experiment?

See, Steve, this is why I think I am right, and you are wrong. I can point to actual evidence to support my view, and you cannot.

Could it have been a snake with legs? Sure. WAS it? We have no idea. Speculation, like assuming, does more to make an a88 out of you than it does me.
My view is based on evidence, not assumptions. It is called science, Steve. Take a look at the left side of that picture to see how real science is done.

The only real reason I let got of trying to figure such things out is that according to 1 Corinthians 13:12, there's coming a day when God will make everything known to his children, and "we will know, as we are known." And considering that in Hebrews 4:13, we are laid naked before God, to whom we will one day give an account, I'm okay with waiting until then.
Not because I don't want to know, but because I'll never be able to actually know in this life.
Another great illustration of the difference between creationism and science.

Science is about asking questions and then looking for the answers. That is exactly what the left side of your picture is.

Creationism is just accepting. Do not ask the questions, do not research, do not experiment. Just as you say here.

If however you ever create a time machine, I'd love to travel back with you. I'm acquainted with the region where these events could've taken place, and am willing to scour the area, and time periods they would've taken place.
So-called creation science demands a time machine before it will do any research. Meanwhile real science is going on right now.

And as I am not Behe, nor have his background, I'm not going to go rounds with this.
Very wise. You would lose.

Several years ago I read an article by him, or one of his colleagues, and contacted him to posit my thoughts, and his only response was---
I like it.

I have seen nothing to demonstrate that evolution actually took place.
I have however seen plenty which seems pretty clear it required a designer's input.
In fact, I think that what you believe is evidence for evolution, I see as evidence for creation. My opinion is--- you simply stop too soon for an explanation. I was taught in my physics program to keep looking until there is not farther back you can go. Which is why I dismiss the big bang coming from a singularity, and that's it.
where did the energy, which caused the singularity to take place, arise or derive from?
Why has he seen nothing to demonstrate that evolution actually took place? That would be "Discard Data that does not align with model"!

That is exactly what Behe did in the Dover courtroom. He was presented with numerous published articles that demonstrated the systems he was discussing had actually evolved, and he chose to ignore them.

And, by the way, this is exactly what you will do with the evidence for snake evolution I presented above. You will find some way to rationalise it away. You will "Discard Data that does not align with model".

Me previously said:
Now, Steve, you clearly have an axe to grind here. ...
I disagree--- atheists are the ones with the axe to grind.
Steve, hate to break it to you, but YOU started the thread. YOU posted that picture. Not atheists.

Me previously said:
How about you find an example from evolution in which the data is cherry-pocked? Can you do that, or is this just another instance of you blowing hot air?
Otherwise, they'd be off living their lives, and not trying to convince people who are experience with YHVH their experiences are false.

We who follow Jesus are here, because Jesus said that we're to make apprentices of the nations, teaching them to do what Jesus taught us.

I.e., we're here because we've been given an edict to be here.
You guys are here because you need to silence us. I think whack-a-mole would be an accurate description.
So you cannot actually find an example of evolutionists cherry-picking?

No surprise there. As predicted, you are just blowing hot air. See, Steve, again, this is why I think I am right and you are wrong. Every time I ask you to support your position, all you can do is spout your opinions about Jesus. I am sure it will not be long before you are telling me I will go to hell, because, let us be frank, that is how all discussions with creationist end. They cannot support their claims, so they retreat behind religious dogma and self-righteous threats.
 

The Pixie

Active member
because whatever you're calling creation science, is not a field that I've learned creation science to be.
I.e., your terms are vagueries.

...

The "creation" science I've been engaged in learning dates long before 2000. So, your ideas would have much later developments than my own.

Perhaps we should get specific about so-called creation science. An interesting issue is the distribution of fossils through the geological column. According to evolution, the distribution is chronological, the deeper down the column, the older the fossil. It is simple, it makes firm predictions, and those predictions have been confirmed experimentally.

Creationists, however, posit the whole (or nearly whole?) geological column being laid down in a single year. So why are birds and mammals always found towards the top, dinosaurs in the middle and trilobites towards the bottom? In fact, it is considerably more complicated than that, and this article, written by a creationist, actually has a good summary of the issues creationists face. Obviously the author argues against the evolutionist position, but is honest enough to admit that most creationist scenarios do not actually make sense.

However, I am going to look at the others. This is the more mainstream (for creationists) view, from Answers in Genesis.

Indeed, not only did the animals and plants have to be buried rapidly by huge masses of water-transported sediments to be fossilized, but the general vertical order of burial is also consistent with the biblical flood. The first fossils in the record are of marine animals exclusively, and it is only higher in the strata that fossils of land animals are found, because the Flood began in the ocean basins (“the fountains of the great deep burst open”) and the ocean waters then flooded over the continents. ...
...
It is significant that the marine organisms fossilized in the earliest Flood strata, such as the trilobites, brachiopods, etc., are very “streamlined” and quite dense. The shells of these and most other marine invertebrates are largely composed of calcium carbonate, calcium phosphate, and similar minerals which are quite heavy (heavier than quartz, for example, the most common constituent of many sands and gravels). This factor alone would have exerted a highly selective sorting action, not only tending to deposit the simpler (that is, the most spherical and undifferentiated) organisms first in the sediments as they were being deposited, but also tending to segregate particles of similar sizes and shapes. These could have thus formed distinct faunal “stratigraphic horizons,” with the complexity of structure of deposited organisms, even of similar kinds, increasing progressively upward in the accumulating sediments.
...
A second factor in the ranking of the likelihood of vertebrates being buried is how animals would react to the Flood. The behavior of some animals is very rigid and stereotyped, so they prefer to stay where they are used to living, and thus would have had little chance of escape. Adaptable animals would have recognized something was wrong, and thus made an effort to escape. Fish are the least adaptable in their behavior, while amphibians come next, and then are followed by reptiles, birds, and lastly, the mammals.
...
The third factor to be considered is the mobility of land vertebrates. Once they become aware of the need to escape, how capable would they then have been of running, swimming, flying, or even riding on floating debris? Amphibians would have been the least mobile, with reptiles performing somewhat better, but not being equal to the mammals’ mobility, due largely to their low metabolic rates. However, birds, with their ability to fly, would have had the best expected mobility, even being able to find temporary refuge on floating debris.

One thing that strikes me as how much the author pigeon-holes creatures. All amphibians are more adaptable than all the fish, but less adaptable than all the reptiles. Is life really so simple? Of course not! Some dinosaurs are thought to have been pretty clever (troodon for example), and agile too. We would expect them to be one of the last to die. Certainly after, say, a mouse, who would be far less able to out-run rising flood waters.

What about plants? As the article I linked to above admits, flowering plants are only seen higher in the geological record. Is that because of their greater mobility? Or is their behaviour less rigid than, say, a trilobite? Of course not! They get around this by ignoring it.

And that brings us to how creationists cherry-pick the data. They ignore the fossils that do not fit. They ignore the species that fall outside their neat categories.

The methodology on the right of the image in the OP says "Construct a Model Based on Pre-conceived ideas". Well this theory started with Genesis, so the ideas were conceived long, long ago. Check.

Then "Find Data that agrees with model". The above indicates they have done just that. Check.

Then "Discard Data that does not align with model". They ignore plant fossils, they ignore radiometric dating, etc. Check.

This is a great fit.


Does it fit with the left side? Well I see "Test with an Experiment" in there, and that certainly never happened!

In fact, "Test with an Experiment" is a vital part of science that is worth expanding on. It goes hand-in-hand with "Construct a Hypothesis", because what real scientists do is make predictions based on the hypothesis, and that is what is tested with experiment.

With regards to fossils the experiment is digging up fossils. If evolution is true, then the prediction is that transitional fossils will be found - and their approximate place in the geological record can be found. This is what happened with snakes; if snakes evolved, we would expect to see transitional fossils. This was tested by experiment, and has been confirmed.

A further prediction is that if snakes are related to other lizards, they will be genetically similar. Testing experimentally has again confirmed this to be true.

Evolutionary science follows the methodology on the left of the image in the OP. So-called creation science follows the methodology on the right.


So now the question is, which do you follow, Steve? Are you going to just continue to believe your pre-conceived ideas, and just ignore the evidence that does not fit? Are you going to just trust the "experts" who assure you creationism is true?

Or are you going to open your eyes and look at all the evidence?
 
Top