Posted on 01/09/2009 7:19:48 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
Jan 9, 2009 — Imagine giraffe-sized animals that could fly. They lived. National Geographic News has an illustration of an extinct pterosaur, tall as a giraffe, that was able to leap into the air and flap its wings for sustained powered flight...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
ping!
God did it. Case closed.
You believe anything those lying creationist websites feed you, but you deny science, which produces evidence to back up what it claims.
What a joke.
Science always backs up what it PROVES, not what it claims.
Don’t pick on creationists, their science fits their model just as well as yours.
Both sides are staffed with scientists who must grapple with the same evidence, and come to very different conclusions.
Don’t pick on creationists, their science fits their model just as well as yours.
Science deals with evidence and theories. It allows you to examine two competing ideas and determine which, if either, is the more likely. It can falsify, but not prove, theories.
When compared with real science, creation "science" has done very poorly. It is essentially religious apologetics, whose aim is to support scripture and revelation no matter what the evidence might show. In this, it is the opposite of science, which must go where the data leads.
And just for your information, proof is not a part of science. Science deals with data and theories.
Here are a couple of definitions from my FR home page that might help explain this concept:
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.
Proof: A term from logic and mathematics describing an argument from premise to conclusion using strictly logical principles. In mathematics, theorems or propositions are established by logical arguments from a set of axioms, the process of establishing a theorem being called a proof.
The colloquial meaning of "proof" causes lots of problems in physics discussion and is best avoided. Since mathematics is such an important part of physics, the mathematician's meaning of proof should be the only one we use. Also, we often ask students in upper level courses to do proofs of certain theorems of mathematical physics, and we are not asking for experimental demonstration!
So, in a laboratory report, we should not say "We proved Newton's law" Rather say, "Today we demonstrated (or verified) the validity of Newton's law in the particular case of..." Source
But one side will follow the evidence wherever it leads.
The other side will distort, misrepresent, and ignore evidence as required to make everything come out supporting scripture and revelation--no matter what.
As an example, lets take the Creation Research Society. This is on their website:
The Creation Research Society is a professional organization of trained scientists and interested laypersons who are firmly committed to scientific special creation. The Society was organized in 1963 by a committee of ten like-minded scientists, and has grown into an organization with an international membership.See any opportunity for data-driven science there? Or is this an organization dedicated to supporting scripture and revelation--no matter what?CRS Statement of Belief
All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:
1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.
2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.
3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.
4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.
I think even you will have to admit its the latter. And that is the exact opposite of science.
So don't give us any "Both sides are staffed with scientists who must grapple with the same evidence, and come to very different conclusions" nonsense. One side is doing science and the other is doing religious apologetics.
==But one side will follow the evidence wherever it leads.
Obviously not. Otherwise the Evos would be publishing Creation/ID challenges (not to mention rival evolutionary theories!) to neo-Darwinian evolution in their journals on a regular basis.
Bring scientific evidence, not religious apologetics, and you'll do better. (If you have any.)
Coyoteman is a lost cause. He beats his chest about evolution quite frequently here, but then goes into fits of apoplexy if you dare question the worthiness of American Indian coyote myths.
It is interesting to me how this supposed man of science can deride believers in a God created world, but claims to find great enlightenment in the silly myths of a defeated neolithic people.
Isn’t the consistent scientific mind impressive?
R-I-G-H-T.
Like I told the others. I have a paper written by a creation scientist that I believe makes an air-tight case rendering materialist evolution completely impossible. I’d be glad to post it. Are you guys up for the challenge?
==Coyoteman is a lost cause. He beats his chest about evolution quite frequently here, but then goes into fits of apoplexy if you dare question the worthiness of American Indian coyote myths.
LOL! No, seriously...LOL!
It is interesting to me how this supposed man of science can deride believers in a God created world, but claims to find great enlightenment in the silly myths of a defeated neolithic people.
Isn’t the consistent scientific mind impressive?
You clearly have misunderstood the reason I used to post the Native American creation stories.
Perhaps if you went back and checked the context of those posts you would acquire a better understanding of the reasons behind my posts.
And "beating my chest" is not a very accurate description of my posts. I realize you may disagree with what I say, but if you wish to practice science your role is to provide evidence to the contrary. (Empty rhetoric does not substitute for evidence.)
Thanks for the ping!
You wrote:
“You clearly have misunderstood the reason I used to post the Native American creation stories.”
Nope. I just think you’ll change your story now to fit what works best.
“Perhaps if you went back and checked the context of those posts you would acquire a better understanding of the reasons behind my posts.”
Perhaps if you didn’t rely on neolithic myths about rangy undomesticated near-dogs for enlightenment you might not spout knee-jerk responses to posts about creation.
“And “beating my chest” is not a very accurate description of my posts.”
Oh, no? Let’s see:
“Bring scientific evidence, not religious apologetics, and you’ll do better. (If you have any.)”
What’s that I hear? Thump, thump, thump goes your fist against your breast?
How about...
“So don’t give us any ... nonsense. One side is doing science and the other is doing religious apologetics.”
Thump, thump, thump...
“You believe anything those lying creationist websites feed you, but you deny science, which produces evidence to back up what it claims. What a joke.”
Thump, thump, thump...
“I realize you may disagree with what I say, but if you wish to practice science your role is to provide evidence to the contrary.”
I am here merely to listen to you thump your chest while you fantasize...er...meditate on coyotes and their oh so important teachings to defeated third-world style peoples.
“(Empty rhetoric does not substitute for evidence.)”
And reliance on Indian myths is no substitute for common sense and the Western canon.
Umm, what science?
One side has 100,000s of thosands of highly educated scientists working in specialities associated with evaluation of evolution.
The other side has a handful of people, those few with real, actual legitimate advanced degrees (as opposed to ones fake diploma factories) tend to be from fields not directly associated with biology, paleontology, etc.
==The other side has a handful of people, those few with real, actual legitimate advanced degrees (as opposed to ones fake diploma factories) tend to be from fields not directly associated with biology, paleontology, etc.
That’s not true at all. Indeed, I am reading a creationist book on genetic entropy by the inventor of the “Gene Gun” right now.
Materialist /Naturalist Statement of Belief
All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:
1. Matter, energy, space and time are all that exists or has ever existed. They originated from nothing and for no reason. The universe consists only of that which is perceived by our five sensory organs, and nothing else exists or can exist.
2. All living things, including man, originated accidentally from non-living matter by means of natural processes. The first living cell came to be through random chance, and evolved by sheer effing luck over billions of years into da Vinci, Bach, and Mozart.
3. The pre-time, pre-matter event described in modern cosmology texts, commonly referred to as the Big Bang, was a prehistoric event that happened everywhere at once.
4. We are an organization of men and women of science who accept nothing except what can be poked with a stick as real. Human beings are animals — mobile automatons made from electrified meat — and are the result of the random action of wind and sunlight on dirty water billion of years ago. Neither the universe nor human beings have any special status, purpose, or destiny. Souls do not exist. Mind is an illusion. The order and structure we see in nature are illusions. Free will is an illusion. Right and wrong are matters of opinion; good and evil do not exist. Our only hope is that the human race continues long enough to build super-intelligent computers, which will then assimilate the data in our brains and allow us to “live” forever as virtual gods.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.