Posted By: Kitsune
CTD's FAQs - 03/25/08 08:05 AM
There are several questions here which I have posed to CTD and to which I am still awaiting an answer. As more arise I will add them to this thread.
From the "What is Abiogenesis" thread:
Post 252286
Technically Gonzalez espouses "Intelligent Design." There have been court cases where IDers have claimed that ID is science, not religion. So why is Gonzalez claiming religious descrimination?
Post 252372
Can you suggest an experiment that would produce some positive evidence for creationism?
Post 252374
How else do you explain the phyletic gradualism (the small changes in time) of horse evolution? Click the link to horse evolution that I posted earlier. You will see that there are many transitional fossils, each of which shows small differences from the preceding one -- and in the order in which they are found in situ. Is this just a weird coincidence? Did God create one horse ancestor, only to wipe it out and create another slightly different one? And do it again and again? The logical conclusion, where this is repeated across different species all over the globe, is evolution. I repeat, how else do you explain the evidence?
Post 252383
Now if ID and CS must be classed as unscientific because some of the historical events they accept aren't testable
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which events are you referring to specifically?
Post 252415
Genetics demolished evolutionism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This will be news to geneticists as well as other scientists. Do explain how this happened.
Post 252415
First off, it was an evolutionist way back in the 40's or something that showed how flawed that horse story was. It's ancient history (which is why you don't know it - sorry I keep forgetting).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you don't start backing up these silly claims with some evidence . . .
Post 252415
Here's something your majority-is-right glasses might enable you to see:
There are 20+ scientific methods of determining the age of the earth which give dates under 50k years.
There are what? 4, 5, 6 that indicate it's billions of years old. Which is more likely: that 20 methods give right answers or that a handful will give right answers?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More unsubstantiated assertions.
Post 252415
You've also said all creationist websites are full of lies. (I've actually reviewed at least a dozen such accusations and found them without merit. So I have a dim view of these accusers.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which website would you like me to check? I've been to a few and they're riddled with inaccuracies. But if you can name one that isn't I'll be glad to look at it, it would certainly make a change.
Post 252432
it's hard to find discussions of any cosmic models that have any chance of being accurate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubstantiated fluff. Unless you can provide some . . . gosh, I'm going to have to use that E-word again.
Post 252432
Ain't no need to invalidate them first. You're supposed to be sick of folks knocking holes in evolutionism. You want evidence for creationism, remember?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a slippery dodge. Radiometric dating and astronomical observations present solid evidence for the age of the earth. If you say you don't accept them then of course you need to explain why. Any theories competing with existing theories need to take those existing theories into account, and explain why they don't adequately explain the evidence.
If you can't do this then I don't expect to hear any more assertions on the subject from you.
From the "Cracking Down" thread
Post 252524
If you think the ToE is not a satisfactory explanation for any of the criteria that you listed in your OP, then which ones does it not explain, and what would be your alternative model? Falsifying one theory does not by default validate another one. You don't get creationism validated if you manage somehow to poke holes in the ToE.
Is creationism in any way falsifiable or testable?
____________________________
Before you begin more new posts or threads, maybe you would like to address some of these?
I have skipped over a few others in the anticipation that you will eventually get to the point in your "Cracking Down" thread.
From the "What is Abiogenesis" thread:
Post 252286
Technically Gonzalez espouses "Intelligent Design." There have been court cases where IDers have claimed that ID is science, not religion. So why is Gonzalez claiming religious descrimination?
Post 252372
Can you suggest an experiment that would produce some positive evidence for creationism?
Post 252374
How else do you explain the phyletic gradualism (the small changes in time) of horse evolution? Click the link to horse evolution that I posted earlier. You will see that there are many transitional fossils, each of which shows small differences from the preceding one -- and in the order in which they are found in situ. Is this just a weird coincidence? Did God create one horse ancestor, only to wipe it out and create another slightly different one? And do it again and again? The logical conclusion, where this is repeated across different species all over the globe, is evolution. I repeat, how else do you explain the evidence?
Post 252383
Now if ID and CS must be classed as unscientific because some of the historical events they accept aren't testable
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which events are you referring to specifically?
Post 252415
Genetics demolished evolutionism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This will be news to geneticists as well as other scientists. Do explain how this happened.
Post 252415
First off, it was an evolutionist way back in the 40's or something that showed how flawed that horse story was. It's ancient history (which is why you don't know it - sorry I keep forgetting).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you don't start backing up these silly claims with some evidence . . .
Post 252415
Here's something your majority-is-right glasses might enable you to see:
There are 20+ scientific methods of determining the age of the earth which give dates under 50k years.
There are what? 4, 5, 6 that indicate it's billions of years old. Which is more likely: that 20 methods give right answers or that a handful will give right answers?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More unsubstantiated assertions.
Post 252415
You've also said all creationist websites are full of lies. (I've actually reviewed at least a dozen such accusations and found them without merit. So I have a dim view of these accusers.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which website would you like me to check? I've been to a few and they're riddled with inaccuracies. But if you can name one that isn't I'll be glad to look at it, it would certainly make a change.
Post 252432
it's hard to find discussions of any cosmic models that have any chance of being accurate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubstantiated fluff. Unless you can provide some . . . gosh, I'm going to have to use that E-word again.
Post 252432
Ain't no need to invalidate them first. You're supposed to be sick of folks knocking holes in evolutionism. You want evidence for creationism, remember?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a slippery dodge. Radiometric dating and astronomical observations present solid evidence for the age of the earth. If you say you don't accept them then of course you need to explain why. Any theories competing with existing theories need to take those existing theories into account, and explain why they don't adequately explain the evidence.
If you can't do this then I don't expect to hear any more assertions on the subject from you.
From the "Cracking Down" thread
Post 252524
If you think the ToE is not a satisfactory explanation for any of the criteria that you listed in your OP, then which ones does it not explain, and what would be your alternative model? Falsifying one theory does not by default validate another one. You don't get creationism validated if you manage somehow to poke holes in the ToE.
Is creationism in any way falsifiable or testable?
____________________________
Before you begin more new posts or threads, maybe you would like to address some of these?
I have skipped over a few others in the anticipation that you will eventually get to the point in your "Cracking Down" thread.