Are God's Actions Falsifiable?

[JDavis]

In a general sense, RtB is no different than the other creationist organizations. They make all sorts of grand claims about how they've disproved or discredited evolutionary theory and that their explanation of the data is better, yet somehow they never seem to share that with the scientific community. They've never written up this historically astounding material and submitted it to a scientific journal. As we discussed, even if they get rejected repeatedly, if their arguments are scientifically valid then the rejection letters will necessarily be arbitrary, which RtB could then present as clear evidence that their scientifically valid material is being arbitrarily suppressed.

But they never do that. Instead they run a website that snipes at actual scientists doing actual science. That's extremely cowardly.

I have been a fan of RTB for many years. I listen to their podcast, read their work and have even seen two of them speak live.

I have never heard them snipe at evolution, normally it is never mentioned.

They give their creation model and tell you how they derived it. And that's it. One of the things I Like about them is they don't feel the need to bash other theories to promote theirs. they get that disproving another theory does not make theirs valid.

[JDavis]

I have never heard them snipe at evolution, normally it is never mentioned.

Then you need to pay closer attention.

They give their creation model and tell you how they derived it. And that's it.

Um, no. A key part of their "creation model" is to argue against evolution. And of course, like all other creationist organizations, they never seem to find time to write it up into a manuscript and submit it to a prominent journal.

Even that paper does not snipe at evolution, it compares the views on one small topic.

Where do you get your information on how many papers are, or have been submitted to publication?

[JDavis]

Even that paper does not snipe at evolution, it compares the views on one small topic.

????? Did you even read it? The very first paragraph states,

"In accounting for these unexpected differences, evolutionary biologists have proffered inadequate explanations. This article will discuss a few of the many recent discoveries that continue to buttress the case for a biblical Creator while continuing to erode the foundation for the evolutionary paradigm. "

That's a direct snipe at evolutionary biologists and their work. Not only that, they make an extremely bold claim that would change the biological sciences forever....yet they essentially keep this astounding and historically significant information from the scientific community.

That's either cowardly or incredibly stupid.

Where do you get your information on how many papers are, or have been submitted to publication?

From the journals and creationist organizations. I've seen published papers by young-earth creationists, ID creationists, and all sorts of other creationists, but none of them are on creationism itself or any sort of argument against evolution. Instead they're on mundane topics.

Don't trivialize what RtB and the other creationist organizations are claiming. If they truly have a valid scientific refutation of evolutionary theory and a creation model that better explains the data, that's perhaps the most important thing to happen in the earth and life sciences....ever. Yet they have never presented this to the scientific community.

Doesn't that strike you as even a little odd? Kind of like the guy who claims to have discovered cold fusion in his garage?

Yes I do find it odd the scientific community will not give them a chance.....well not really odd, it is sort of expected

[Ninevite]

 

Doesn't that strike you as even a little odd?  Kind of like the guy who claims to have discovered cold fusion in his garage?

 

 

Are you basing your entire faith in evolution on the fact that evolutionist journals don't publish the work of creationists? Try reading a creationist journal, trust me, they don't publish work by evoutionists. It's sort of expected.

 

You keep mentioning the "scientific community". You are aware that there are many scientists that believe in a creator/ID right?

 

Dr. Jason Lisle is an astrophysicist. He graduated from the University of Colorado. He is a member of the "scientific community".

 

*** Removed video.  Videos are to be in the Video Forum only. ***

Edited August 16, 2013 by OneLight
Removed video

[thomas t]

 

Look Gerald,

I'm relieved that you weren't going to express doubts on my honesty. If I've learned anything then that one should be careful with third party assertions in which sources aren't provided. You said already, that you are anonymous, why should I have blind trust in an anonymous person? I mean, I have nothing against you, Gerald. However, every human can make mistakes. So, I think it is only fair to demand sources when it comes to allegations about third persons. But I'm happy that you finally agreed to give me an article to read.

 

Would you ask for a source if I claimed banks handle money?  If I said museums display artifacts?  

 

I would hope not, since that is precisely what those institutions exist to do.  Similarly, criticizing the work of the scientific community is precisely what creationist organizations exist to do.  If you want to clearly demonstrate this point, then I challenge you to provide something from one of those creationist organizations that doesn't contain criticisms of scientists' work. 

Good day Gerald,

I think you are making a mountain out of molehill. On Wednesday, I visited my first ID website. I've never done so before. Where do you have a problem with that?

 

 

The article doesn't adress any particular person, as I see it. So how can this one be nerveracking? I'm not saying that it is not. Would you be annoyed if I tell you: if you don't like it, don't read it ...?

I mean, I'm open to read your explanation.... feel free to express your thoughts.

 

 Now you're just splitting hairs.  That article criticizes a specific paper written by specific authors.  That's exactly what you asked for.

 

I don't see where I'm splitting hairs. In my opinion, this article doesn't criticize or even attack the authors of that paper in particular. It rather criticizes evolutionism as a whole, as I see it. It later tries to convey an alternative interpretation of the data citing the authors of that paper in an effort to back up this alternative interpretation.

 

And all of [sacred texts] were written, compiled, copied, and edited by men.  Therefore, they are men making claims about what God wants.

 

 

I stay with my conviction.

If you want to expand on it, could you please open up a new thread (since it would be a bit off topic here, I think)?

 

 

Thomas

 

[Ninevite]

 

Are you basing your entire faith in evolution on the fact that evolutionist journals don't publish the work of creationists? Try reading a creationist journal, trust me, they don't publish work by evoutionists. It's sort of expected.

No, and I do read creationist journals.  Further, creationists get published in scientific journals on a fairly regular basis (Michael Behe is a good example).  But for some reason, they never bother to submit their creationism work.  And it's nice to see you admit that creationist journals close their doors to outside views.

 

I assume you think this proves Christians are hypocritical while evolutionists (doing the exact same thing) is exceptable and even righteous? The evoltionist double standard never ceases to amaze.

 

You keep mentioning the "scientific community". You are aware that there are many scientists that believe in a creator/ID right?

 

 

So if a handful of scientists who are creationists is compelling to you, why then isn't the fact that the vast majority of earth and life scientists are "evolutionists" even more compelling?  I mean, I'm surprised to see a creationist try and argue from numbers of scientists.

 

I find it compelling that you try to place scientists that believe in creation/ID outside of the "scientific community" when they are in fact members of that community whether you like it or not. And btw, the number of creationists in that community is growing rapidly.

 

[thomas t]

 

I think you are making a mountain out of molehill. On Wednesday, I visited my first ID website. I've never done so before. Where do you have a problem with that?

 

????? 

That was my reaction because told me that not knowing the content of these sites was equal to not knowing that banks handle money.

 

 

I think you are making a mountain out of molehill. On Wednesday, I visited my first ID website. I've never done so before. Where do you have a problem with that?

 

?????  What are you talking about?  I've never said anything suggesting I would have a problem with you visiting an ID creationist website.  Heck, I provided you links to creationist websites!  So your question is truly strange.

 

I don't see where I'm splitting hairs. In my opinion, this article doesn't criticize or even attack the authors of that paper in particular. It rather criticizes evolutionism as a whole, as I see it. It later tries to convey an alternative interpretation of the data citing the authors of that paper in an effort to back up this alternative interpretation.

 

 

So you are actually arguing that the article, and creationist organizations in general do not criticize the work of scientists?  Ok then.

 

No. My point was, that the article did not criticise any scientist in particular.

[Ninevite]

 

Further, creationists get published in scientific journals on a fairly regular basis (Michael Behe is a good example). 

 

 

 

I'd like to address this in further detail.

 

Science is not all about evolution or creation. A lot of science has nothing to do with either. Behe has a lot of good science that has nothing to do with ID and therefor he is published, but this in no way validates your "community" as being some elite group of overseers that know what is good science and what is not.

 

Many of the journals he submits to are in fact not interested in his work on ID because they find it "unscientific" though it some very good science regardless of what they think. He submits his work according to who finds it useful. I would to.

 

Evolution does nothing to further scientific study and is unnecessary to the "scientific community". In fact, evolution creates a wall that hinders scientific advance by limiting the scope to only that which can be labeled "natural". The problem there is that the definition of natural varies depending on who you ask.

 

I view science as the beginning of understanding how God did things. I am not at all affraid of science because I think, even with a limited understanding and strict guidlines, science will ultimately vindicate the creator.

[Ninevite]

So you are saying criticizing science is a bad thing? We should all just assume scientific theory as gospel? I guess we could argue the world is flat because that is what scientists used to think and according to you we should not allow any new thinking through the door.

 

Criticizing science is a very good thing. It's how we learn the truth. We reject incorrect theories and replace them with facts. The Earth is a sphere, we have seen it from outer space. Fact. Out with old and in with the new. Evolution is a lot like flat earth, it was a decent theory, but it does not hold up under scrutiny.

[Ninevite]

 

Evolution does nothing to further scientific study and is unnecessary to the "scientific community".

 

 

That's demonstrably false.

 

Protein Molecular Function Prediction by Bayesian Phylogenomics 

 

 

 

Three problems limit its feasibility for universal application. First, phylogenomic analysis is a labor-intensive manual process that requires significant effort from dedicated scientists. Second, the quality of the predictions depends on the expertise of the scientist performing the annotation and the quality and availability of functions for the homologous proteins. Third, phylogenomics does not provide a consistent methodology for reporting when a function has insufficient support because of sparse, conflicting, or evolutionarily distant evidence. These three problems motivate the development of a statistical methodology for phylogenomics.

 

In other words. This could work if only we could find scientists to go along with it.