Greetings,

I am new to this site, but it looks like just the thing I've been looking for.

I write an article for the Examiner (online) and oftentimes I find myself engaging in debate with evolutionists.  Their final stab at me consists of telling me that I don't know what I'm talking about because I'm not a scientist.

What is the best response in this situation?

Yours in Christ,

Robert

Views: 283

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Adam,

 

I can see what you're saying, but still would not qualify Tiktaalik as a test, since it is not a true test, and anything found must be interpreted before it can be said to be validating or refuting the premise of the test.  I will say it is a fossil, and interpreted as it is can be fit into the evolutionary framework.  It does not however clearly present itself as validation of the "test" criteria, nor does the test criteria provide for a falsification.

 

So far as creationist predictions, there are few when it comes to strata and fossils, as the creationist perspective doesn't seek to identify the animals by the strata, or have a particular method of determining such.  The best predictions coming from the creationist camp, at this point, are in cosmology and astronomy (Magnetic field strengths, and even anisotropic syncrhony convention).  I must admit though I am not as much "into" geology as I am into astronomy, so my perception is slanted. 

 

Although, thinking more about it, the RATE project did put forth a few predictions and test some hypothesis from the Creationist perspective.  Helium diffusion comes to mind there.

Just tell them evolution must make its case on the merits. if its on authority then theres no reason for anyone to ever discuss it or any non scientist to even understand it. Yet they do nothing but try to teach the public that evolution is true. 

If you ask the public to understand evolution and agree it makes sense then you must accept the public questioning and opposing the claims of evolution.

by the way few scientists get paid 9-5 to deal with evolution. Further science is about process toward discovery of truth. Nothing to do with the later understanding of the subject. One doesn;t need to be a sxcientis for anything that is said to be from science.

Just insist on the merits of the case and get as big a part of the public to hear the case.

They got to give in and make their case. Can't say WE SAID SO.

Brian, sorry for the late reply, things have been hectic round here.

 

Yes, Tiktaalik does require interpretation, regardless of which side you come down on, but that doesn't mean it isn't a test. Almost every scientific explanation is based on an interpretation, even the most mundane ones - saying medicine treats people requires your interpretation to be that it is the medicine affecting the patient and they aren't coincidentally being zapped better by aliens. Of course, medicine treating people is the most sensible interpretation, but it is still an interpretation. Indeed, all science really is is finding the best, most consistent, most explanatory interpretation of the evidence.

 

Involving interpretation does not mean a test is not a test, thus Tiktaalik is an example of a test.

 

RATE and other predictions sound interesting, do you have a link?

Adam J Benton said:
Brian, sorry for the late reply, things have been hectic round here.

None of us ever experiences anything like that =). NP

Yes, Tiktaalik does require interpretation, regardless of which side you come down on, but that doesn't mean it isn't a test. Almost every scientific explanation is based on an interpretation, even the most mundane ones - saying medicine treats people requires your interpretation to be that it is the medicine affecting the patient and they aren't coincidentally being zapped better by aliens. Of course, medicine treating people is the most sensible interpretation, but it is still an interpretation. Indeed, all science really is is finding the best, most consistent, most explanatory interpretation of the evidence.

Involving interpretation does not mean a test is not a test, thus Tiktaalik is an example of a test.

Well, I know Alexander would jump in here and say evidence always requires interpretation, and I acknowledge that to a degree. I suppose what I would desire is a prediction of a result, (such as a measurement) and then the report of whether that result fit the prediction. With Tiktaalik they first have to find a skeleton, then, once found, they have to interpret the bones to be a transition (self-fulfilling) and then once they've labelled it such, it is applied to the test.

To take one example, the Magnetic Fields predictions of Humphreys were based on a model and interpretation of the evidence, but his test involved a measurable quantity. It did not have to be interpreted before it could be measured, it was simply a measurement - he predicted where that measurement would fall based upon his model. When the measurements were made, they were within the bounds of his prediction. They were not in the bounds of the predictions for the dynamo model. Did they guarantee Humprhey's model was right, no, but they were able to predict values that could be tested (without interpretation).

RATE and other predictions sound interesting, do you have a link?

Successful Predictions of Creation Scientists:
RATE project specifically

And the original reason I brought up Tiktaalik as an example of a test was because it was the result of a prediction. Given this is biological field work, the prediction wasn't the most specific thing in the world, but, importantly, it was specific enough to be falsified. They noted two creatures they believed to be related, so predicted that in the intervening years there should be evidence of a creature intermediate to the both of them.

 

These links are interesting, ta.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

About CC

Connecting Christians who believe in Biblical Creation — discussing beliefs, sharing ideas, and recommending evolution-free resources. Please keep all posts relevant to the topics of this community.

Rules of Engagement
Zero Tolerance Policy
Statement of Faith
Creation Terms
FAQ

Homeschool Curriculum

Members

Creation Conversations 2018

What's new @ CC for 2018? 

Creation networking and much more in store for Creation Conversation Members. You'll not want to miss this new year!

© 2019   Created by Creation Conversations.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service