Creationism is not a science and hasn't contributed to science

[jeffblue101]

I thought his statement was very clear. He said that creationism is a belief, not science, and doesn't contribute anything to science. He and I both agree on that point.

and again do you agree with his justification, ignoring or disregarding someones justification is indeed a quote mine. Here is a clear cut definition from a pro evolutionary source
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quote_mining

Quote mining (also contextomy) is the fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint or to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme or hold positions they don't in order to make their positions easier to refute or demonize.[2] It's a way of lying.

What exactly are you talking about? Quit dragging this out until the thread is long enough for you to hide behind "I already answered". If you think I've misrepresented what 6days posted, then...

1) Copy what 6days posted,

2) Copy what I posted that you think misrepresents #1, and

3) Explain how I misrepresented.

Anyone can just say "You quote mined"; it doesn't become anything more than a baseless accusation until you put some actual substance behind it.

and i haven't avoided anything and did provide proof, instead you are the one avoiding the question on his justification.

And it is. Everything is compatible with theism. All you have to do is say "God did it that way" and you're done.

take that up with the various theistic evolutionists on this forum.

It always cracks me up when creationists think that an "evolutionary worldview" means "do whatever you want". All that does is show just how ignorant of evolution you are (hint: social structure and order is important for the survival of social organisms, such as humans).

I said how is honesty being a good or bad thing even relevant in evolutionary worldview. so a more accurate rephrasing would be "do whatever you want" as long it gives a reproductive advantage.

 

[Jose Fly]

and again do you agree with his justification

What justification are you talking about? Be specific (copy it or cite a post #).

Quote mining (also contextomy) is the fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint or to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme or hold positions they don't in order to make their positions easier to refute or demonize.[2] It's a way of lying.

And I haven't done any of that. 6days posted that creationism is a belief, not science, and doesn't contribute to science. I agree.

He said the same thing about evolution, and I already addressed that in this thread (post #3).

and i haven't avoided anything and did provide proof

And here we go again. Where did you "provide proof"? See above how I backed up what I said with a post # and link to where I said it? Do that.

instead you are the one avoiding the question on his justification.

Again, what justification are you talking about?

I said how is honesty being a good or bad thing even relevant in evolutionary worldview. so a more accurate rephrasing would be "do whatever you want" as long it gives a reproductive advantage.

And "maintaining a social order" confers a reproductive advantage on the population that manages to do it. Do you deny that or something?

 

[jeffblue101]

Hard to say until you specify what you're talking about.

my question is pretty clear. Are you willing to accept non scientific philosophical arguments that prove God's existence or does it only run in the opposite direction for you?

 

[jeffblue101]

What justification are you talking about? Be specific (copy it or cite a post #).

already cited "beliefs about the past and don't contribute anything to science"

And I haven't done any of that. 6days posted that creationism is a belief, not science, and doesn't contribute to science. I agree.

He said the same thing about evolution, and I already addressed that in this thread (post #3).

"Creationism is not a science and hasn't contributed to science" is not the same and does not have the same impact on the mind as "creationism and evolutionism are not a science and hasn't contributed to a science" because "beliefs about the past and don't contribute anything to science". leaving out context to create a false agreement is quote mining.

and "maintaining a social order" confers a reproductive advantage on the population that manages to do it. Do you deny that or something?

And I don't exactly see how "maintaining social order" is the exclusive domain of honesty.

 

[6days]

There was evil before Adam's sin.There was the effect of evil--the chaos of unfilled and unformed, which is from God's judgement on something.

That perhaps is in the new chapters you want to add to the Bible.*

Genesis 1 tells how God formed and filled the earth over 6 days. There was no chaos...no death... no mention of evil. God called it "very good".*

The Gospel of Christ is still absolutely necessary for justification from sins ...

Yes. Perhaps I'm wrong but you don't seem to understand the Gospel. *Why did Christ have to physically die? Both OT and NT teach that death / shedding of blood is the penalty of sin. Christ, the Last Adam suffered physical death at the cross to pay for sin and defeat death caused by the first Adam.*

You destroy the Gospel inserting death, evil and chaos before sin entered our world. If death evil and chaos existed before sin, then the sacrifice of our sinless Savior becomes unecessary.

 

[6days]

"Creationism is not a science and hasn't contributed to science" is not the same and does not have the same impact on the mind as "creationism and evolutionism are not a science and hasn't contributed to a science" because "beliefs about the past and don't contribute anything to science". leaving out context to create a false agreement is quote mining.

What is interesting is the impact Christianity has had on science, and how Christianity had had such a positive impact on our world.

 

[Interplanner]

6days wrote:
That perhaps is in the new chapters you want to add to the Bible.*

Genesis 1 tells how God formed and filled the earth over 6 days. There was no chaos...no death... no mention of evil. God called it "very good".*


No! Job 38. Jer 4. God did not call 'formless and void' good ever! Not if you are paying attention Gen 1, which I am not sure of. The formless and void stage had some time to it. It was not the act of creation. The act of creation was forming that into a habitable place.

There is no connection between other death or evil and the first Man's! You are a nuisance on this. The death of Christ is the sacrifice of atonement for mankind's sins. It does not atone for any other entities out there--principalities and powers. They will be vanished, but not atoned for. God has mercy only on frail children of dust.

I did not add Job 38 to the Bible!!! You are insidious about this.

 

[jzeidler]

It is interesting that evolution hasn't contributed anything to science. But let's look at what it has contributed to the world. I.e. Germicide, abortion, eugenics, Colombian shooting, etc. great legacy.

 

[Interplanner]

Columbian shooting?

 

[jzeidler]

Columbian shooting?

The shooters were motivated by evolution and idolized Darwin if I remember correctly.

 

[Jonahdog]

It is interesting that evolution hasn't contributed anything to science. But let's look at what it has contributed to the world. I.e. Germicide, abortion, eugenics, Colombian shooting, etc. great legacy.

Just to understand, germicides are bad? And abortion only came into being after Darwin? And all eugenics did was provide an inaccurate basis for human tribalism. I'll also bet that your "Columbian" shooters had little understanding of evolution.

But you go right ahead and preach to your choir here.

 

[Jonahdog]

What is interesting is the impact Christianity has had on science, and how Christianity had had such a positive impact on our world.

Such a positive impact on indigenous people throughout the world. Marvelous.

 

[jzeidler]

Just to understand, germicides are bad? And abortion only came into being after Darwin? And all eugenics did was provide an inaccurate basis for human tribalism. I'll also bet that your "Columbian" shooters had little understanding of evolution.



But you go right ahead and preach to your choir here.

Haha sorry stupid autocorrect. That's been happening to me lately. I meant to say gennoacide.

 

[jzeidler]

Just to understand, germicides are bad? And abortion only came into being after Darwin? And all eugenics did was provide an inaccurate basis for human tribalism. I'll also bet that your "Columbian" shooters had little understanding of evolution.



But you go right ahead and preach to your choir here.

Also, not saying that evolution started them. But it gave a justification for them. If we are all animals with no purpose why not so these things? Why not commit gennoacide? Besides "they aren't as evolved as us." And why not kill millions of the unborn? After all "they aren't human yet." And why not eugenics? "We need to help evolution along, kill off the weak so we can strengthen the more evolved." And why not do a school shooting? "Kill the Christians they are stupid animals with no purpose and their beliefs must be snuffed out."

See, it didn't start evil, it just gives it justification.

 

[Jose Fly]

already cited "beliefs about the past and don't contribute anything to science"

You're not making sense.

"Creationism is not a science and hasn't contributed to science" is not the same and does not have the same impact on the mind as "creationism and evolutionism are not a science and hasn't contributed to a science" because "beliefs about the past and don't contribute anything to science". leaving out context to create a false agreement is quote mining.

Wow. Are you really this desperate to wave away something a fellow creationist said that you don't like?

Basically what you're arguing is that if Joe says "A and B are not round objects" and Steve reads that and says "Joe said A isn't a round object, and I agree. He also said B isn't a round object, but I disagree with that", he is quote mining?

If you really think that's valid, there's something fundamentally wrong with you.

And I don't exactly see how "maintaining social order" is the exclusive domain of honesty.

Well that's good, since I never said that.

 

[Jose Fly]

It is interesting that evolution hasn't contributed anything to science.

Demonstrably false.

Protein Molecular Function Prediction by Bayesian Phylogenomics

We present a statistical graphical model to infer specific molecular function for unannotated protein sequences using homology. Based on phylogenomic principles, SIFTER (Statistical Inference of Function Through Evolutionary Relationships) accurately predicts molecular function for members of a protein family given a reconciled phylogeny and available function annotations, even when the data are sparse or noisy.​

It's via evolutionary relatedness that geneticists figure out the functions of genetic sequences.

You can go to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences--the most prestigious scientific journal in the world--and browse through their topic page on evolution and read thousands of ways evolution has contributed (and continues to contribute) to science: CLICK HERE.

Shoot...an entire field of modern science...comparative genomics...is entirely based on evolution.

Your statement is so wrong, you may as well have said there is no such thing as the moon. :chuckle:

But let's look at what it has contributed to the world. I.e. Germicide, abortion, eugenics, Colombian shooting, etc. great legacy.

Let's assume that any of that is true. That tells me you think the proper way to evaluate something is to examine examples of the worst ways in which people have used it. Would you like to evaluate Christianity by the same measure? :think:

 

[genuineoriginal]

Demonstrably false.

Protein Molecular Function Prediction by Bayesian Phylogenomics

We present a statistical graphical model to infer specific molecular function for unannotated protein sequences using homology. Based on phylogenomic principles, SIFTER (Statistical Inference of Function Through Evolutionary Relationships) accurately predicts molecular function for members of a protein family given a reconciled phylogeny and available function annotations, even when the data are sparse or noisy.​

It's via evolutionary relatedness that geneticists figure out the functions of genetic sequences.

Since there is no evolutionary relatedness to use, the evolutionary scientists resorted to the standard method of comparing form and function.

Since form and function are used to define the placement in the imaginary phylogenetic tree, the SIFTER program ended up producing the results expected by the evolutionary scientists, but it was not because of the misclassification of relatedness in the imaginary phylogenetic tree, it was due to the form and function of the types of creatures being similar.

It is one of those accidental substitution errors like when someone thinks it is multiplication that should be used instead of addition because they get the same result for 2 x 2 as for 2 + 2.

 

[Jose Fly]

Since there is no evolutionary relatedness to use

Of course there is. That was the entire basis for their model.

the evolutionary scientists resorted to the standard method of comparing form and function.

No they didn't.

Since form and function are used to define the placement in the imaginary phylogenetic tree

??????? How can it be imaginary, if it actually exists and predicts genetic function to a 96% degree of accuracy? :idunno:

the SIFTER program ended up producing the results expected by the evolutionary scientists, but it was not because of the misclassification in the imaginary phylogenetic tree, it was due to the form and function of the types of creatures being similar.

It is one of those accidental substitution errors like when someone thinks it is multiplication that should be used instead of addition because they get the same result for 2 x 2 as for 2 + 2.

This is exactly why I do this. It is soooooooo hilarious to watch you creationists scramble for excuses to deny science that you don't understand at all. "I have no idea what this is.......BUT IT'S WRONG!!!11!!" :chuckle:

 

[ok doser]

This is exactly why I do this. It is soooooooo hilarious to watch you creationists scramble for excuses to deny science that you don't understand at all. "I have no idea what this is.......BUT IT'S WRONG!!!11!!" :chuckle:

i predict redness in your future


allow me to be the first to say "good riddance" :wave2:

 

[genuineoriginal]

Of course there is. That was the entire basis for their model.

An imaginary phylogenetic tree defining imaginary evolutionary relatedness is the basis for their model?

It is a good thing that they accidentally classified the "evolutionary relatedness" for their "phylogenetic tree" using the form and function needed for their model to work.

How can it be imaginary, if it actually exists and predicts genetic function to a 96% degree of accuracy? :idunno:

There is no evolutionary relatedness since the species did not form through the process of evolution.
Since evolutionary relatedness is a product of imagination and not nature, the phylogenetic tree that maps evolutionary relatedness is also a product of imagination.

Since placement in the imaginary phylogenetic tree is based upon similarities and differences in physical or genetic characteristics, it is actually the similar form and function that is allowing the software to work despite the use of a model based on nothing more than human imagination.