psychology of Young Earth Creationists

[jinx]

Conclusion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recorded_history

It starts around the 4th millennium BC, with the invention of writing.

Every observed law of nature in written history (6000 years) shows neo-darwinian 'evolution' to be baseless. Someone is welcome to believe in a process that has never been observed but it is NOT science. Animals bring forth after their kind. "Evolution" =the greatest myth EVER and you fell for it HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

[Arising_uk]

R wrote:
There is a very real state of uncertainty over evolution among scientists.

You mean Biologists as 'scientists' is a pretty meaningless term. So no, there is not much uncertainty over evolution amongst them, what there is is much discussion and research into the actual mechanisms. What pretty much none of them believe is that it was all knocked-up 6000 years ago. Mainly because the Geologists and Chemists would laugh them out of the room.

[Arising_uk]

Conclusion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recorded_history

It starts around the 4th millennium BC, with the invention of writing.

Every observed law of nature in written history (6000 years) shows neo-darwinian 'evolution' to be baseless. Someone is welcome to believe in a process that has never been observed but it is NOT science. Animals bring forth after their kind. "Evolution" =the greatest myth EVER and you fell for it HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

I think you mean MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

So along with your poor philosophical grasp of Science you also think "Recorded history" means an continuous train of thought?

[Arising_uk]

That did not arise from mutation (that would be impossible) i do not know who lied to you/misinformed you that it did. Strike one.

How do you explain such a function arising then?

All through out origins Darwin is like 'blah blah blah this would be difficult to explain under the theory of creation'. Strike two.

Thank you for confirming that you are in the 99%.

That literature i cited before shows the myth of 'evolution'. Strike three.

And the subject of Geology shows you're reading the wrong things.

Hay you hate God. ...

What observable 'God'?

To each his own. ...

Apparently you think not. You seem to be lacking one of the central tenets of your faith.

But your creation myth ('evolution') has NO basis in science. BTW in the neo-darwinian model everyone on earth shares a common ancestor with one man (Y-chromosomal Adam) and one woman (mitochondrial Eve) so if someone believes neo-darwinian 'evolution' they have themselves sharing a common ancestor with one man and one woman (they are 194,000 years WRONG). Strike four and your outtaaa here!

It has a basis in Science as it is the theoretical part of Science. That its open to revision is what makes it different from your religious dogma.

[Ginkgo]

Baraminology is devoted to classifying created kinds.

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/ar ... nology.htm

http://creation.com/ligers-and-wholphins-what-next

Is Baraminology subject to the scientific method? Is it an empirically testable theory?

[jinx]

Is Baraminology subject to the scientific method? Is it an empirically testable theory?

Most people do not even know what 'science' is.

oxforddictionaries.com

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment:

through observation and experiment

A baby is doing science when they crawl for the first time. We are doing science right now talking to each other. To answer your question 'yes'.

[rantal]

Is Baraminology subject to the scientific method? Is it an empirically testable theory?

Most people do not even know what 'science' is.

oxforddictionaries.com

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment:

through observation and experiment

That is not really a sufficient definition of science for a philosophical use, you would do well to read Popper, Kuhn and if you have the stomach for it Lakatos

all the best, rantal

A baby is doing science when they crawl for the first time. We are doing science right now talking to each other. To answer your question 'yes'.

[jinx]

Lmao. If it doesnt fit the atheists blind ignorant dogmatic faith based worldview of course it isnt a 'sufficient definition'. The only 'sufficient definition' is one that is based on the (false) god of 'evolution did it'. Every observed law of nature in written history shows neo-darwinian 'evolution' to be without foundation. Animals bring forth after their kind, ants produce ants, birds produce birds, fish produce fish. A 5 year old knows this (before they get 10 or so years of indoctrination in the public school system which takes care of common sense and the ability to use ones 5 senses). 'Evolution' = the most dogmatic, scientifically inhibiting myth in the history of mankind. Thank you for your ignorance of science (observable phenomena) life and the religion of the worship of the corpse of an idiot (Darwin) and living idiots (Dawkins, any other atheist cult leaders that depend on their readers scientific ignorance and utter gullibility-which they get sooooo easy).

[rantal]

Lmao. If it doesnt fit the atheists blind ignorant dogmatic faith based worldview of course it isnt a 'sufficient definition'. The only 'sufficient definition' is one that is based on the (false) god of 'evolution did it'. Every observed law of nature in written history shows neo-darwinian 'evolution' to be without foundation. Animals bring forth after their kind, ants produce ants, birds produce birds, fish produce fish. A 5 year old knows this (before they get 10 or so years of indoctrination in the public school system which takes care of common sense and the ability to use ones 5 senses). 'Evolution' = the most dogmatic, scientifically inhibiting myth in the history of mankind. Thank you for your ignorance of science (observable phenomena) life and the religion of the worship of the corpse of an idiot (Darwin) and living idiots (Dawkins, any other atheist cult leaders that depend on their readers scientific ignorance and utter gullibility-which they get sooooo easy).

So, you just presume I am an atheist, do you not think that is rather presumptuous of you?

all the best, rantal

[Ginkgo]

Is Baraminology subject to the scientific method? Is it an empirically testable theory?

Most people do not even know what 'science' is.

oxforddictionaries.com

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment:

through observation and experiment

A baby is doing science when they crawl for the first time. We are doing science right now talking to each other. To answer your question 'yes'.

No doubt this would also include empirical testing of the theory, repeatability of experiments and peer review?

[Ginkgo]

Is Baraminology subject to the scientific method? Is it an empirically testable theory?

Most people do not even know what 'science' is.

oxforddictionaries.com

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment:

through observation and experiment

A baby is doing science when they crawl for the first time. We are doing science right now talking to each other. To answer your question 'yes'.

No doubt this would also include empirical testing of the theory, repeatability of experiments and peer review?

I am in a bit of a hurry so I will answer my own question.

Yes, all of these things are part of the the scientific method.


On this basis I will ask one more question.

Does Baraminology obtain its truth value from the scientific method and/or Genesis?


Ginkgo

[jinx]

Does Baraminology obtain its truth value from the scientific method and/or Genesis?

Hmmmm. Well... ask your 5 year old son who has not been brainwashed in public indoctrination camps what kind of animal he/she would expect an ant to bring forth, or a fish to bring forth, or a bird to bring forth. They have just made a scientific prediction (when they answer correctly, remember you are dealing with someone (a 5 year old) who has common sense). Animals bring forth after their kind. This is science. This is observable.

[Ginkgo]

Does Baraminology obtain its truth value from the scientific method and/or Genesis?

Hmmmm. Well... ask your 5 year old son who has not been brainwashed in public indoctrination camps what kind of animal he/she would expect an ant to bring forth, or a fish to bring forth, or a bird to bring forth. They have just made a scientific prediction (when they answer correctly, remember you are dealing with someone (a 5 year old) who has common sense). Animals bring forth after their kind. This is science. This is observable.

I am not disputing this claim, but the question I actually asked is. Does Baraminology derive its truth value from the scientific method and/or Genesis?


Ginkgo

[jinx]

YEC uses Genesis as the staring point. Neo-darwinian 'evolution' uses 'evolution did it' by the height of blind ignorant faith is its starting point. Im sorry i cant go any further. GG. Cya round. 'Evolution' wins i lose. Can not be bothered. Too much propaganda on t.v. People are retards. Cya.

[Ginkgo]

YEC uses Genesis as the staring point. Neo-darwinian 'evolution' uses 'evolution did it' by the height of blind ignorant faith is its starting point. Im sorry i cant go any further. GG. Cya round. 'Evolution' wins i lose. Can not be bothered. Too much propaganda on t.v. People are retards. Cya.

That's Ok. I can see you are an intelligent person and you appear to have picked up where my line of questioning is headed.

Yes, the question I have put forward is impossible to answer without showing Baraminology to be a suspect science. Perhaps you are right; evolutions starting point is faith as well.