I might be biting off more that I can chew with this thread. I am not a scientist. I do not particularly enjoy digging into scientific topics on the creation vs evolution debate. However, I do find the topic interesting. I have already examined enough evidences contradicting the theory of evolution and lending support to the young earth creationist view that I, personally, am satisfied that the creationist view is the winner of the argument. I think that most people don't realize that the creationist view is sound scientifically. I also care about people and would like to be helpful if anyone wants to understand why creationists think their view is scientifically sound when evolutionists claim the creationist view is not. I have access to a person to holds a science degree and believes science favors the creationist view. If I cannot answer your question then he has agreed to allow me to consult him for the purpose of this thread. He will remain anonymous. Here's the deal: I don't want to invest a lot of time on this topic, neither does the scientist. We are both busy. However, if there are any SINCERE questions that are presented on this thread, I will go through them and pick out the ones that seem sincere and answer them. That means please don't spam this thread with a lot of questions that would be time consuming to answer. If anyone wants to take me up on this offer, I am asking that you limit your questions to ONE question until I am caught up answering all questions. Then you can ask another. I don't know if I'll get anyone to take me up on this, but hey, is there anyone out there that would like to ask a legit question regarding the creation vs evolution disagreement and get the answer from the creationist viewpoint?
Just thought I'd repost what I wrote last night on Expiated's thread, "Problems with conventional evolutionary theory." I am personally well acquainted with three creation scientists. Two of them have PhDs in their area of scientific expertise. Also, two of them have made known that there is much suppression in the academic world of any science that supports creation science or that contradicts the theory of evolution. One is a professor in a public university science department. He will not share with his colleagues that he believes that science supports a young earth creation and that science does not support evolution. He knows he will lose his job if he openly shares those evidences. Ben Stein starred a film called Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. The film documents some incidences of suppression of scientists who believe Intelligent Design to be accurate scientifically. The film exposes only a small portion of the large scale deception that has gone on for a while now. Here is an excerpt from a review of the film written by Mark Looy for Answers in Genesis: "As a demonstration of how the evolution police can mete out injustice, the film’s first “persecutee” is an evolutionist himself: Richard Sternberg. He does not doubt evolution, yet Sternberg’s very act of allowing a peer-reviewed research paper that presented evidence for intelligent design to be published in a science journal (Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington) led to his forced resignation and a career “ruined.” Sternberg, with two PhDs, was the target of the anti-creationist group National Center for Science Education and the Smithsonian Institution (where Sternberg was a researcher), as these groups orchestrated an effort to have him expelled from his position."https://answersingenesis.org/reviews/movies/expelled-review/ Some quotes for all you evolutionists to consider: Karl Popper, a well respected evolutionist argued that "evolutionary theory contains no testable laws and is therefore a metaphysical research program." https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/691119 pg. 1 Michael Ruse is an evolutionist that wrote a book called The Evolution-Creation Struggle. Below are two quotes from him taken from this site: https://creation.com/michael-ruse-evolution-is-a-religion "Leading anti-creationist philosopher admits that evolution is a religion “Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. “… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.”National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000." style="box-sizing: inherit; color: rgb(34, 139, 246); background-color: transparent; margin-bottom: 4px; border-bottom: none; cursor: pointer;">1 Michael Ruse was professor of philosophy and zoology at the University of Guelph, Canada (recently moved to Florida), He was the leading anti-creationist philosopher whose (flawed) arguments seemed to convince the biased judge to rule against the Arkansas ‘balanced treatment’ (of creation and evolution in schools) bill in 1981/2. At the trial, he and the other the anti-creationists loftily dismissed the claim that evolution was an anti-god religion." The following quotes are from some reviews of Michael Ruse's book, The Evolution-Creation Struggle, taken at this site: https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674022553&content=reviews “Michael Ruse, a philosopher of science at Florida State University, is one of the most stimulating writers on the never-ending cultural debate over evolution. Here, this self-professed ‘ardent Darwinian’ arrives at a surprisingly sympathetic view of the anti-Darwin crowd. They may be wrong, but they’re not quite as crazy as we smugly imagine.”—Jim Holt, New York Magazine “In view of all that has been written, one might wonder what more there is to be said. Michael Ruse’s The Evolution–Creation Struggle represents a genuinely fresh perspective. Ruse, an eminent and well-respected historian and philosopher of biology, has over the course of several decades established himself as a vocal advocate for evolution… The task of Ruse’s book is to figure out why the evolution/creation debate is so hotly disputed in the American context, why so many otherwise intelligent people are in such complete disagreement about the scientific status of evolution and creation science. Ruse’s answer, in short, is that the debate reflects two fundamentally different reactions to a crisis of faith that started at least 150 years before the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species. After reviewing the history of evolutionary theory against the backdrop of this larger crisis, Ruse draws several lessons he suggests may provide a way beyond the impasse that currently exists between advocates on the two sides… It is certainly true that greater insight into the reasons why some Christians feel threatened by evolutionary theory is a necessary step to any reconciliation between these two opposing camps, and Ruse’s treatment is particularly useful in clarifying why the issues have become so heated in the American context. For science educators, Ruse’s analysis is insightful and entertaining. It is one of a very few books that is accessible to an introductory student while nevertheless providing a sophisticated perspective of value to scholars in this area.”—David Rudge, Science Education The bold lettering and underlining is mine. I think it's funny that we supposedly aren't as crazy as you all thought we were. Also, it was nice of David Rudge to say that it's intelligent people who are are in disagreement on both sides of the issue. The point is, I think a lot of folks would be surprised at the amount of science they haven't been told about that contradicts evolution and lends support to creation.
The Devil did. It's always the Devil when something negative comes up. Simple explanations for simple minds.
Okay... It says right in the abstract: Not the best paper to pick. Importantly the concluding arguments are scathing This is meaningless in this debate. Argument from authority are typically fallacies. People say a lot of things. If they are published academics give me their names. I have access to JSTOR and a lot of time on my hands. I'd love to see what these alleged creation "scientists" are putting out. Science suppresses ideas that do not satisfy the scientific method. This is by design. In this debate a lack of credentials makes their opinion as valid as the rest of ours. I don't care what you believe I care what you can prove. Scientifically sound implies reproducibility. For example we can drop a ball and observe the effects of gravity. I will link two papers to start. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42001452 This paper goes into detail that intelligent design does not follow the logical constructs of any scientifically reproducible theory. For someone who claims to be able to debate an entire body of science I would assume you're capable of reading papers so I will link them to you. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0017349 This paper discusses a statistical analysis of IDT believers and comes to the conclusion that belief in a theory such as IDT is explained well by terror management theory. In other words, people believe it because it assuages their fears of death. There is no conspiracy here. IDT is simply a re-hashing of creationism that some pretty smart people came up with after observing some holes in arguably the most complicated question we've ever asked - where did we come from? The lack of explanation does not mean you can insert God. It means for IDT to be a valid explanation for these gaps, we must have evidence of God we can reproduce. So far, there has only been probabilistic arguments of God which do not hold up well to simply looking at a fossil. Importantly, measurement and reproducibility are key tenants of science. A theory must be observable and reproducible to hold any validity. Intelligent Design fails in this regard. I can hear you say "but what about the human ear, we can observe that!" but we most go more abstract. In order for IDT to hold any validity we must necessarily be able observe the sudden creation of an object. An argument from probability here (whats the cases that the human ear came into existence?) is invalid. In the human ear example we can observe it's evolution through fossil records. The null hypothesis provides a complete explanation because no one has yet been able to observe an object being willed into existence by a higher power. There is no science in intelligent design. Is there a God? Who knows. What we do know is whoever God is, they aren't in intelligent design.
Well whoopdy fucking do. How much do you have him on retainer for? Well, yer just full of hubris, ain't ya'? Did you and your scientist friend ever consider the idea that both views are wrong? Never thought there is another option, now did ya'? And I am not talking about a combination of the two theories, but rather the opposite of the combination of those two theories. And since I am as busy as the two of you are, times 3, I will not have time to answer the questions you and your science friend undoubtedly have for me on what I mean. I am so terribly sorry, I am just too full of myself to answer your now-must-have answers to questions that led to the answer of 42.
I hope you know that I was being sarcastic. There is no creation at all. Never has been a creation. Everything has always been here. There is no beginning, there is no end. Evolution does exist though. Things change from one thing into another over time. This is what evolution is. Change. And change is constant from what we can observe with our limited human mind.