The Scientific Method Vs. The Creationist Method.

[Ultimus]

[matpal]

hey, that's new...



for this week.

[QuicksandATL]

Actually, they realistically both operate the same way.

O hai, wai is dis planet goiang thiz way, noathing is thar? IT mUst be DaRk mAtTTr1!

[nonAtlas]

Thanks. That the Word of God is the original science textbook is fine with me, and that so many respected scientists (without whose Bible-based work we would be centuries behind where we are now) were faithful believers in God and His works of creation doesn't hurt either the Word or the science that depends on it.

[TheLasher]

Which one do you have to believe to not to go hell?

[bmy-]

Not to be nitpicky ..

But working from the top-down is just as legitimate of a method as working bottom-up.

[HoosierBoy]

So scientists are not looking for facts to support the Big Bang Theory?

[JabCross]

So scientists are not looking for facts to support the Big Bang Theory?

what led to the big bang theory

[HoosierBoy]

what led to the big bang theory

Evidence. Which led only to a theory.

What led to the theories of creationism? Evidence.

[Galt]

I've posted this one on here before, but it always makes me smile.

[nonAtlas]

I've posted this one on here before, but it always makes me smile.

.

[nonAtlas]

what led to the big bang theory

Resentment of God and hatred of other humans.

[user1245464]

Actually, they realistically both operate the same way.

O hai, wai is dis planet goiang thiz way, noathing is thar? IT mUst be DaRk mAtTTr1!

You're smarter than that.

So scientists are not looking for facts to support the Big Bang Theory?

Other way around. The BB theory was the natural conclusion based on the evidence we found in nature. When Hubble's law was discovered, new tests and observations were performed to see if they agreed with the concept of an expansionary universe. They did, and still do.

There are only two alternatives to the Big Bang theory. A static universe (in which you must concede that general relativity is wrong), or that all energy and matter spontaneously and simultaneously sprang into existence in their current form, complete with conveniently planted evidence to otherwise fool us. Which do you subscribe to?

What led to the theories of creationism? Evidence.

To begin with, creationism is not a theory. A theory must make predictions and have testable data. Creationism does not. Therefore, the correct terminology is "creation myth".

Now, what led to the myth of creationism? The Bible. Nothing else. Searching for gaps in knowledge and scientific theory does not constitute as scientific evidence.

Look, I have no problem with you believing what you want about the creation of the universe, but stop trying to pass something off as science when it clearly is not.

[Wintermule]

Thanks. That the Word of God is the original science textbook is fine with me, and that so many respected scientists (without whose Bible-based work we would be centuries behind where we are now) were faithful believers in God and His works of creation doesn't hurt either the Word or the science that depends on it.

You love quote mining and consciously turning things around to make them seem that they are supporting your side when they obviously don't, don't you?

So, been preaching at many funerals lately?

[mehdi84]

Wiki...

Lookup 'The Scientific Method'...
"Since Ibn al-Haytham (Alhacen, 965?1039), a pioneer of scientific method..."

Lookup 'Ibn al-Haytham'...
"Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥasan ibn al-Ḥasan ibn al-Haytham or Ali, hasan poore hasan poore heysam (Arabic: and Persian: ابو علی، حسن بن حسن بن هيثم‎ Latinized: Alhacen or (deprecated) Alhazen) (965 ? 1039), was an Arab[1][2][3][4][5] or Persian[6][7][8] Muslim polymath[9][10] who made significant contributions to the principles of optics, as well as to anatomy, astronomy, engineering, mathematics, medicine, ophthalmology, philosophy, physics, psychology, Ash'ari theology, visual perception, and to science in general with his introduction of the scientific method. He is sometimes called al-Basri (Arabic: البصري), after his birthplace in the city of Basra then ruled by the Buyid dynasty of Persia.[11]"

[Anticrombie315]

What led to the theories of creationism? Evidence.

Evidence and speculation are 2 different things

[JAGERBOY]

What led to the theories of creationism? Evidence.

Post it.

[nonAtlas]

What led to the theories of creationism? Evidence.

Post it.

Irreducible complexity. The fossil record. The perfection of every living thing.

[Wintermule]

Irreducible complexity. The fossil record. The perfection of every living thing.

Give an example of irreducible complexity. What is wrong with the fossil record. Every living thing is not perfect (ever heard of this thing called a tumor? Yeah, it sucks.)

[Ultimus]

The perfection of every living thing.

Why do we have an appendix if we can live fine without it?

Why do we have wisdom teeth removed? Because our new skulls don't have room for them.

[Galt]

Just fyi, the only reason you shouldn't have nonAtlas on ignore is if you take pleasure in negging his inane and provincial comments on a regular basis.
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Poe's_Law

[nonAtlas]

Why do we have an appendix if we can live fine without it?

Because in most cases people don't need it. The appendix is a storehouse for bacteria, where they are kept alive until they are needed. In such cases as a trauma to the system causing the immune system to go into autoimmune hysteria and wipe out all the good bacteria in the intestinal tract, for instance. In most of us that probably will not happen, but the fact that we have provision for it is more testimony to Creator God's goodness and the perfection of His work.

Why do we have wisdom teeth removed? Because our new skulls don't have room for them.

They have only a limited role and mostly they wreck a person's mouth , but that doesn't mean they aren't useful. Some people don't have to have their idiot teeth (a more-appropriate name for them ) taken out. That an organ has an unknown or limited role doesn't mean the design is flawed. It merely says that conditions and circumstances vary.

[nonAtlas]

Give an example of irreducible complexity.

The human eye. Sexual reproduction. Birds' wings.

What is wrong with the fossil record.

Nothing. It is a perfect proof that all lifeforms were created abruptly and simultaneously, and that there have been no "intermediate" forms such as Darwin and Stevie Gould admitted would have to be all over the fossil record for macroevolution to be true.

Every living thing is not perfect (ever heard of this thing called a tumor? Yeah, it sucks.)

That is damage done to the created being; not a design flaw.

[Wintermule]

The human eye. Sexual reproduction. Birds' wings.

Not irreducibly complex, not irreducibly complex, and not irreducibly complex.

Nothing. It is a perfect proof that all lifeforms were created abruptly and simultaneously, and that there have been no "intermediate" forms such as Darwin and Stevie Gould admitted would have to be all over the fossil record for macroevolution to be true.

Nope. Also, there are transitional fossils, bud. Tiktaalik.

That is damage done to the created being; not a design flaw.

Examples of "poor design" cited include:

* In the African locust, nerve cells start in the abdomen but connect to the wing. This leads to unnecessary use of materials. [1]

The human reproductive system includes the following:

* In the human female, a fertilized egg can implant into the fallopian tube, cervix or ovary rather than the uterus causing an ectopic pregnancy. The existence of a cavity between the ovary and the fallopian tube could indicate a flawed design in the female reproductive system. Prior to modern surgery, ectopic pregnancy invariably caused the deaths of both mother and baby. Even in modern times, in almost all cases, the pregnancy must be aborted to save the life of the mother.
* In the human female, the birth canal passes through the pelvis. The prenatal skull will deform to a surprising extent. However, if the baby?s head is significantly larger than the pelvic opening, the baby cannot be born naturally. Prior to the development of modern surgery (caesarean section), such a complication would lead to the death of the mother, the baby or both. Other birthing complications such as breech birth are worsened by this position of the birth canal.
* In the human male, testes develop initially within the abdomen. Later during gestation, they migrate through the abdominal wall into the scrotum. This causes two weak points in the abdominal wall where hernias can later form. Prior to modern surgical techniques, complications from hernias including intestinal blockage, gangrene, etc., usually resulted in death.[2]

Other arguments:

* Barely used nerves and muscles (e.g. plantaris muscle) that are missing in part of the human population and are routinely harvested as spare parts if needed during operations.
* Intricate reproductive devices in orchids, apparently constructed from components commonly having different functions in other flowers.
* The use by pandas of their enlarged radial sesamoid bones in a manner similar to how other creatures use thumbs.
* The pointless existence of the appendix in humans, also the corresponding potentially fatal condition of appendicitis. The appendix, which is highly developed in herbivores, is meant to aid in the bacterial digestion of cellulose. Since people use fire and heat to cook now the appendix has become useless. (It has also been proposed that the appendix is involved in development of the immune system within the first year after birth, but subsequently has no function. However some people have congenital absence of their appendix without any reports of impaired immune system function.)
* The existence of unnecessary wings in flightless birds, e.g. ostriches.
* The existence of apocrine sweat glands in the armpits. Unlike the sweat glands in all other parts of the body, the sweat glands in the armpits produce sweat that contains proteins and lipids. This causes yellowish stains on clothing, and also creates an odor when bacteria start to digest the proteins and lipids. No other sweat glands release proteins and lipids through sweat, and as a result, sweat from other parts of the body is virtually odorless.
* The route of the recurrent laryngeal nerve is such that it travels from the brain to the larynx by looping around the aortic arch. This same configuration holds true for many animals, in the case of the giraffe this results in about twenty feet of extra nerve.
* Portions of DNA ? termed "junk" DNA, or introns ? that do not appear to serve any purpose.
* The dystrophin gene is the largest ever found in nature ? 2.4 million DNA base pairs; or 0.08 percent of the human genome. Its only known function is to inhibit muscular dystrophy; and such a large gene is highly susceptible to harmful mutations.
* The prevalence of congenital diseases and genetic disorders such as Huntington's Disease.
* The common malformation of the human spinal column, leading to scoliosis, sciatica and congenital misalignment of the vertebrae (vertebral subluxation)
* Photosynthetic plants that reflect green light, even though the sun's peak output is at this wavelength. A more optimal system of photosynthesis would use the entire solar spectrum, thus resulting in black plants.
* The existence of the pharynx, a passage used for both ingestion and respiration, with the consequent drastic increase in the risk of choking.
* The structure of humans' (as well as all mammals') eyes. The retina is 'inside out'. The nerves and blood vessels lie on the surface of the retina instead of behind it as is the case in many invertebrate species. This arrangement forces a number of complex adaptations and gives mammals a blind spot. (See Evolution of the eye). Six muscles move the eye when three would suffice. [3]
* Crowded teeth and poor sinus drainage, as human faces are significantly flatter than those of other primates and humans share the same tooth set. This results in a number of problems, most notably with wisdom teeth.
* Almost all animals and plants synthesize their own vitamin C, but humans cannot because the gene for this enzyme is defective (Pseudogene ΨGULO). Lack of vitamin C results in scurvy and eventually death. Defective vitamin synthesis pathways are a hallmark of "higher" animals ? of which many are predators ? because the prey accumulates vitamins that stems either from the eaten plants or are self-synthesized in the captured individual. Thus, higher animals are mostly unable to return to a purely "vegetarian" lifestyle; while conservation of such pathway genes is of no apparent cost to the animal.
* If rodents do not regularly wear down their incisors, which self-sharpen by chewing on wood, such upper and bottom teeth curl toward the rodents' skull and drill into their brain.

[Cosmonaut]

Which one do you have to believe to not to go hell?

either

[nonAtlas]

Not irreducibly complex, not irreducibly complex, and not irreducibly complex.

Irreducibly complex. Irreducibly complex. Irreducibly complex.

Nope. Also, there are transitional fossils, bud. Tiktaalik.

None. Also all 186 organs on Wiedersheim's list are known to have one or more specific function each, which means that the design is perfect and there is no evidence of "evolution". Creation is proven.

[Wintermule]

Irreducibly complex. Irreducibly complex. Irreducibly complex.

Nope. Proof that they are? I eagerly await you quoting Darwin talking about the eye, out of context, so like with the multiple other times you've quote mined I can post the entire thing to show you that he meant it as a literary device.

None. Also all 186 organs on Wiedersheim's list are known to have one or more specific function each, which means that the design is perfect and there is no evidence of "evolution". Creation is proven.

Cool list. But creation still isn't proven, bud. Certain points of the argument from poor design dealing with some vestigial organs are disproven. Also, argument from poor design also does not say that they have no function, but that the function is less than optimal.

[squanto]

The human eye. Sexual reproduction. Birds' wings.

These questions have been answered already homie.

[QuicksandATL]

Nope. Proof that they are? I eagerly await you quoting Darwin talking about the eye, out of context, so like with the multiple other times you've quote mined I can post the entire thing to show you that he meant it as a literary device.

Actually, Irreducible Complexity is defined as (by Behe) a system "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning".

So yes, the eye, sex organs, and birds wings are irreducibly complex. The argument should be rather if they could or could not evolve.

Just fyi, the only reason you shouldn't have nonAtlas on ignore is if you take pleasure in negging his inane and provincial comments on a regular basis.
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Poe's_Law

Yeah, let's take an militant atheistic website to get an unbiased opinion on how we should reasonably react on an opposing matter. I'll ask Hitler if I want an opinion on the Jews.

These questions have been answered already homie.

That link doesn't really help at all. It's just a bunch of postulation that dances and begs the question even more. We know that natural selection supposedly evolved blood clotting, but any explanation as to why (that is actually based on data) is non-existent.

[Wintermule]

Actually, Irreducible Complexity is defined as (by Behe) a system "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning".

So yes, the eye, sex organs, and birds wings are irreducibly complex. The argument should be rather if they could or could not evolve.

Well, if you mean the definition of irreducible complexity in the sense that they will be worthless if you remove any of the parts. The usual sense is that they can't have evolved because of this. But if you take out the 'they couldn't have evolved' part of the definition, then it's just pretty much saying "don't screw with major components of a complex system."

When defined like that, though, it isn't really even an argument. It's just basically saying "if you rip out someone's heart, they'll die." At this point it isn't a flawed intelligent design argument, it's just logic.