Terrible news for the Creation Science museum (and Republicans)

[Into the Night]

The evidence is actually abundant. The apparent fine tuning of the physical constants, for example. It just can’t be pigeon holed into science because science can only accept purely naturalistic explanations for any phenomena.

A natural constant is nothing more than developing a constant value to convert a relation into our units of measurement. That's what they are for. In other words, we ourselves designed the scale, and the natural constant to convert a relation to using that scale. We ourselves designed the constant.

 

[Into the Night]

"Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig." -- Robert A. Heinlein



I strongly doubt there are any sane, educated, mature adults who don't accept modern science views on evolution, space exploration, vaccines or any other modern tech various scientific fields have produced. While we can question the morality of things like nukes and cloning, denying those things exist is insane.

The Theory of Evolution is not a theory of science. It is a religion.
Space exploration is about engineering, not science.
Vaccines are about engineering, not science.
Modern tech is engineering, not science.
Nuclear weapons is engineering, not science.
Closing is engineering, not science.

Science isn't gadgets. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

 

[Into the Night]

It's correct to the best of our modern knowledge. When I signed up to take the anthropology class I knew that there are been two hominid species alive at the same time -- us and the Neanderthals. Turns out there were lots more. We survivors still carry traces of some of them in our DNA. Denisovans, Neanderthals, the Red Deer Cave people, H. erectus, H. floresiensis, H. luzonensis, H. heidelbergensis were all alive at the same time as H. sapiens sapiens.

https://www.livescience.com/how-many-human-species.html

Speculation. Not science.

 

[Into the Night]

Evolution by natural selection has been demonstrated in real time under laboratory conditions using the principles of genetics.

That is unnatural selection. We imposed the conditions for selection. The Theory of Natural Selection creates a paradox.

The fossil record is only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the theory.

The fossils record does not support the Theory of Natural Selection. It does support the Theory of Evolution, but it's rather like the Bible supports Christianity.

Science does not use supporting evidence. Only religions do that. The Theory of Evolution is not a theory of science. Science has no theories about past unobserved events.

 

[Into the Night]

The fine tuning argument is the best one that creationists have, but it is still a weak and fatally flawed hypothesis.

Not a hypothesis. An argument.

The crux of the hypothesis is that life could not exist if the physical constants of the universe were different.

Not a hypothesis. An argument.

That is a major assumption which is not substantiated by evidence.

Science does not use supporting evidence. Only religions do that.

I do not accept the premise of this assumption.

Fine. You don't have to.

Humans and other animals would not exist if the gravitational constant, Boltzmann constant, etc. were different. But that neither proves that life could not exist under different physical conditions, or that the physical constants we currently know could not exist elsewhere in a Multiverse.

Since the purpose of any natural constant is to convert a relation to our units of measurement, the constants themselves were designed...by us.

 

[Into the Night]

What they are are facts!

A 'fact' is not a proof nor a Universal Truth. A fact is simply an assumed predicate. The moment someone disagrees with a 'fact', it is no longer a fact. It is an argument.

 

[Into the Night]

The fossil record is really incomplete
https://creation.com/that-quote-about-the-missing-transitional-fossils

The fossil record and all of its assignments on what is a parent or child to what is pure speculation.

 

[Into the Night]

That does not cut the mustard.

If I ask for a credible medical opinion, you refer me to a trained, qualified, and reputable doctor.

You do not refer me to a plumber or obscure intent quack.

If you have a point to make about evolutionary science, you are obligated to use links to reputable scientific organizations or peer reviewed publications.

Not to some obscure quack websites.

Science is not a magazine, journal, book, pamphlet, or web site. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Science does not use consensus. Only religions and governments do that. There is no voting bloc in science.

 

[Into the Night]

So I will just ask the question not one evolutionist can answer, how, and where did it all begin?
Now it will get good!

There are two theories:

The Theory of Abiogenesis, where life arrived on Earth through a series of random unspecified events, and the Theory of Creation, where life arrived through the action of an intelligence (that intelligence does not have to be a God or gods).
Neither theory is science. Both theories are nonscientific theories, and religions. These two theories are mutually exclusive. If one occurred, the other can't have.

Personally, I find the Theory of Abiogenesis has a rather fatal problem:
Assuming that a cell somehow was naturally synthesized out of non-living material, what did the cell eat? How did it gain energy to divide? The use of something like absorbing sunlight directly is a very complex process requiring complex structures.

So what did said cell eat?
If there were two cells, and one ate the other, then one has to argue that the synthesis not only occurred once by chance, but TWICE, and the end result is simply two cells. On eats the other to gain energy to divide once again into two cells. Now what? One eats the other AGAIN??

Personally, I subscribe to the Theory of Creation. It makes more sense.

 

[Into the Night]

If it is not in a reputable peer reviewed scientific journal or vetted through a credible review and referee process, it ain't science and it ain't facts.

Science is not peer review. Consensus is not used in science. There is no voting bloc in science. It is not a journal, magazine, paper, pamphlet, or website. There are no referees in science. There is no one 'in charge' of science. No one owns science.

Science is just a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all. It does not use supporting evidence, votes, or depend on any paper, journal, pamphlet, or website.

 

[Into the Night]

Evolution?

There is ample evidence in the fossil record and beyond.

It is not possible to prove any theory True. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). The Theory of Evolution does not discuss how live arrived on Earth.

 

[Into the Night]

Every research biologist in the world uses evolution.

You don't get to speak for every research biologist. You only get to speak for you.

 

[Into the Night]

It all happened some time before you were born stupid and then remained stupid.

Insult fallacies.

When something began is not relevant to how or if something works. Does your car not work if you don't know where the iron ore was mined?

Are you seriously suggesting that a car is an intelligent life form????

Evolution occurs with existing life. Evolution theory says it occurs with existing life. The theory doesn't say how or when life began just as it doesn't say where the iron ore in your car was mined. Not being able to answer those urelated questions doesn't mean evolution doesn't happen.

This part is correct. The Theory of Evolution discusses nothing about how life arrived on Earth. Wolverine asked, however, specifically how life arrived on Earth. You pivoting to the Theory of Evolution is a fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Where is the fossil records for humans?????

Some people are called 'fossils'.

 

[Into the Night]

why would you thank Owl when she denied "science" claims all life evolved from a single celled creature?....apparently you are fairly selective in what science you will accept.......

Whatever is in favor of his religion he calls 'science'.

 

[Into the Night]

then you should be able to link to the results of such an experiment......thanks in advance.....

Since laboratories tend to impose unnatural selection, that's gonna be a tall order for him!

 

[Into the Night]

the only evidence available in the fossil record is that a creature existed.......that one fossilized creature 'evolved' from another fossilized creature is an unproven and untestable assumption......

Correct. Nothing links one fossil to another genetically except by assumption and speculation.

 

[Into the Night]

Which ones?

The ones that start with this religion as a basis for their theory.

 

[Into the Night]

we know where iron ore comes from.......nobody has to guess and call their guesses "science".....

You can't build a car out of iron ore either. You have to smelt it. You have to form it. You also need to gather other materials (or make them) like rubber, plastics, aluminum, copper, tungsten. various rare earths, lead, sulfur, very pure silicon, tin, antimony, glass, and of course the refined hydrocarbons to use as fuel.
Electric cars further require lots of lithium oxides to be smelted and formed into batteries in strict cleanroom like conditions, and of course the electrical grid and the fuels to run it are necessary to fuel this car as well.

A lot of work goes into designing a car.

 

[Into the Night]

Never heard of any biologist using that concept.

Get yer head outta the ground. It happens. A lot.