Can any creationist tell me ...

[DavidFirth]

Here is a quick overview of macroevolution from Wikipedia.

Here is a long, detailed article on the evidence for macroevolution.

Here is a shorter article on the evidence for common descent, which is the same thing.

Read those, and then never again say there's no evidence for macroevolution. Or that the evidence is unsatisfactory.

You surely aren't a volunteer to be ignorant or to pretend evidence doesn't exist when it exists in abundance, are you?
.

It is all in how you interpret said evidence. Scientists just twist the evidence around to fit their theories. They've been doing that for centuries, no surprise there.

What I said is that you have no proof in your theories. You have millions of words about it but no hard concrete proof. Zero. So you can take your words someplace else, I tire of hearing theories that are likely to change or get thrown out altogether as soon as tomorrow.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

But we've never detected life more intelligent than H sap sap anywhere, not on earth, not in the cosmos. We don't even have a hypothesis as to how it might exist.

Which adds cred to the natural explanation.

As to knowing what the odds are, it's difficult to say. We don't yet have a description of abiogenesis from go to whoa, so we can neither assert that it would be probable in a particular environment, or would be immensely improbable. The evidence that it happened around submarine geothermal vents is fascinating, but it won't be confirmed or refuted until more is known.

But once life exists, natural selection is a powerful tool and we know that the odds of H sap sap evolving are exactly 1.0.
.

The phenomena of creative intelligence does exist in the universe right here, we know that, and so do unguided natural mechanisms. right?
So what basis do we have, to rule either in or out?- as existing 'outside' and as possible explanations for this universe? All we can do is allow both as possibilities.


We agree on being the most intelligent life we know of in the universe- the only means we know of, by which the universe can contemplate its own existence from within....
and I think this lends cred. to it being created primarily for our benefit. Most atheists argue the opposite rationale- that ET must exist elsewhere making humanity an insignificant fluke


On odds, yes it's difficult, though Hawking puts it at near infinity to one (hence the number of random universes a multiverse needs to spit out to happen upon this one)



If we see a gambler play 5 royal flushes in a row- the odds of this having happened are now exactly 1.0 right? so do we put it down as an unremarkable chance occurance? why not?

Because the odds of this happening by chance were less than 1 in the number of stars in the universe, so we know there is a far less improbable explanation- creative dabbling

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Checking that out, I find this counterclaim:

Prediction 1.2: A nested hierarchy of species

As seen from the phylogeny in Figure 1, the predicted pattern of organisms at any given point in time can be described as "groups within groups", otherwise known as a nested hierarchy. The only known processes that specifically generate unique, nested, hierarchical patterns are branching evolutionary processes. Common descent is a genetic process in which the state of the present generation/individual is dependent only upon genetic changes that have occurred since the most recent ancestral population/individual. Therefore, gradual evolution from common ancestors must conform to the mathematics of Markov processes and Markov chains. Using Markovian mathematics, it can be rigorously proven that branching Markovian replicating systems produce nested hierarchies (Givnish and Sytsma 1997; Harris 1989; Norris 1997). For these reasons, biologists routinely use branching Markov chains to effectively model evolutionary processes, including complex genetic processes, the temporal distributions of surnames in populations (Galton and Watson 1874), and the behavior of pathogens in epidemics.​

Do you think that's fair?
.

"The only known processes that specifically generate unique, nested, hierarchical patterns are branching evolutionary processes"

clearly not true, as in the software example but also pretty much any artificially created information system or ranges of designs as in product lines

unless it's talking about the only known 'natural' process...? in which case I'd argue the premise that evolution is a 'known' process- it's a speculative theory-

i.e. it's simply circular reasoning to say we believe evolution can do things like this, because we believe it can do things like this



Other than that, the crux of the matter is about information systems specifically, as opposed to mere branches in design

for example, we can tweak the parameters controlling text size, color, shape in our posts- because that adaptability is specifically supported by an underlying layer in the hierarchy- yes?
But no amount of tweaking can author that very layer of information that supports the adaptability itself, no more than you can create a radio by twiddling the dials.

i.e. micro adaptation to macro evolution is more than just a matter of an extrapolation of scale (always sorely tempting) , it's an insurmountable paradox inherent to such nested hierarchical information systems.

 

[blü 2]

It is all in how you interpret said evidence. Scientists just twist the evidence around to fit their theories. They've been doing that for centuries, no surprise there.

'Creation science' does virtually nothing but twist the evidence around to fit their theories. I refer to the out loud rules of 'creation science' that I quoted to you from the old ICR website: toe the creo line and pretend the bible is literally true and faultless and Egypt, Mesopotamia, the Indus Valley and China were all many thousands of feet under water in 2348 BCE and every one of their citizens drowned, or you won't get published. That's the perfect antithesis of real science.

And then there's the creo failure to pay attention to the absence of essential evidence. IF Noah's flood happened THEN there must be many many many evidences of it, yet nothing's been found. Eg if there was a Genesis flood then there must be:

1. A single geological flood layer all over every continent and uniformly dated to 2348 BCE or so. No sign of it or anything like it.

2. A genetic bottleneck (you can read about them > here<) in the genetics of every single species of land animal, ALL of them dating to 2348 BCE or more recently. Nope, no sign of anything of the sort.

3. 1.113 billion cubic miles of water over and above the amount of water on earth today, in order to cover the highest mountains 15 cubits deep as prescribed in Genesis. It's not here. Where is it?

Which brings us back to the point of this thread. WHY in 56 years has 'creation science' be able to put not one single teensy weensy scientific scratch on the theory of evolution? Why? That's a 100% perfect fail. If creationism's claims are true statements about reality, how's that possible?

you have no proof in your theories. You have millions of words about it but no hard concrete proof. Zero.

Now now, don't make silly statements like that. The amount of examinable evidence for the theory of evolution is overwhelming. It's just that if I linked you to it, you wouldn't read because you're afraid it's right. There was already a mountain of evidence for it in Darwin's day, and since then it's been further consistently confirmed by further mountains of evidence and the new science of genetics.

So you can take your words someplace else, I tire of hearing theories that are likely to change or get thrown out altogether as soon as tomorrow.

You simply can't take that position. The fact that 'creation science' has registered that perfect 100% fail I mentioned in its attempts to attack the theory of evolution even though it's had 56 years to do so underlines that evolution happens and that the theory explaining it is well founded and creationism is not.

It's a BIG mistake for a religious faith to include falsifiable statements in its dogma. As I've shown you, that's just begging for a bloody nose.
.

 

[DavidFirth]

'Creation science' does virtually nothing but twist the evidence around to fit their theories. I refer to the out loud rules of 'creation science' that I quoted to you from the old ICR website: toe the creo line and pretend the bible is literally true and faultless and Egypt, Mesopotamia, the Indus Valley and China were all many thousands of feet under water in 2348 BCE and every one of their citizens drowned, or you won't get published. That's the perfect antithesis of real science.

And then there's the creo failure to pay attention to the absence of essential evidence. IF Noah's flood happened THEN there must be many many many evidences of it, yet nothing's been found. Eg if there was a Genesis flood then there must be:

1. A single geological flood layer all over every continent and uniformly dated to 2348 BCE or so. No sign of it or anything like it.

2. A genetic bottleneck (you can read about them > here<) in the genetics of every single species of land animal, ALL of them dating to 2348 BCE or more recently. Nope, no sign of anything of the sort.

3. 1.113 billion cubic miles of water over and above the amount of water on earth today, in order to cover the highest mountains 15 cubits deep as prescribed in Genesis. It's not here. Where is it?

Which brings us back to the point of this thread. WHY in 56 years has 'creation science' be able to put not one single teensy weensy scientific scratch on the theory of evolution? Why? That's a 100% perfect fail. If creationism's claims are true statements about reality, how's that possible?
Now now, don't make silly statements like that. The amount of examinable evidence for the theory of evolution is overwhelming. It's just that if I linked you to it, you wouldn't read because you're afraid it's right. There was already a mountain of evidence for it in Darwin's day, and since then it's been further consistently confirmed by further mountains of evidence and the new science of genetics.

You simply can't take that position. The fact that 'creation science' has registered that perfect 100% fail I mentioned in its attempts to attack the theory of evolution even though it's had 56 years to do so underlines that evolution happens and that the theory explaining it is well founded and creationism is not.

It's a BIG mistake for a religious faith to include falsifiable statements in its dogma. As I've shown you, that's just begging for a bloody nose.
.

Blah, blah, blah, no proof, fallacious arguments, heard them all before. They didn't sway me then and they don't sway me now.

 

[metis]

'Creation science' does virtually nothing but twist the evidence around to fit their theories.

Exactly, as they do the "scientific method" backwards-- have the conclusion and then cherry-pick and distort the "evidence". I grew up in a church that did that, but I fortunately now go to my wife's church that doesn't teach this.

 

[blü 2]

Blah, blah, blah, no proof, fallacious arguments, heard them all before. They didn't sway me then and they don't sway me now.

So you remain unswayed by accurate statements about reality, honestly, thoughtfully and repeatedly demonstrated to be so.

And although this has been pointed out to you again and again, yet you remain wedded to false and wholly misleading statements about reality, honestly, thoughtfully and repeatedly demonstrated to be so.

My condolences.
.

 

[DavidFirth]

So you remain unswayed by accurate statements about reality, honestly, thoughtfully and repeatedly demonstrated to be so.

And although this has been pointed out to you again and again, yet you remain wedded to false and wholly misleading statements about reality, honestly, thoughtfully and repeatedly demonstrated to be so.

My condolences.
.

Accurate statements that you can't prove are accurate. That's par for the course for you... with a double bogey or two.

 

[blü 2]

"The only known processes that specifically generate unique, nested, hierarchical patterns are branching evolutionary processes"

clearly not true [...] unless it's talking about the only known 'natural' process...?

Clearly it's talking about natural processes ─ it's talking about evolution.

i.e. it's simply circular reasoning to say we believe evolution can do things like this

That suggests you've also read the papers linked in the passage and found fault with them. If so, what fault? If not, then your statement's simply incorrect.

Other than that, the crux of the matter is about information systems specifically, as opposed to mere branches in design

No, it's about the excellent fit of the maths of nested hierarchies onto the facts of evolution, again with supporting papers cited.

micro adaptation to macro evolution is more than just a matter of an extrapolation of scale (always sorely tempting) , it's an insurmountable paradox inherent to such nested hierarchical information systems.

Odd that you're the only one who thinks so.
.

 

[DavidFirth]

Exactly, as they do the "scientific method" backwards-- have the conclusion and then cherry-pick and distort the "evidence". I grew up in a church that did that, but I fortunately now go to my wife's church that doesn't teach this.

Everybody does that. Scientists approach everything with their preconceived ideas, interpret the evidence based on those ideas that are based on conclusions they have already decided by their preconceived ideas. That's the norm.

 

[blü 2]

Accurate statements that you can't prove are accurate. That's par for the course for you... with a double bogey or two.

What does 'accurate' mean to you?

Conforming to ICR tenets?

Or according with reality?

I'm using the latter.
.

 

[DavidFirth]

What does 'accurate' mean to you?

Conforming to ICR tenets?

Or according with reality?

I'm using the latter.
.

You're still blowing hot air instead of proving anything. I already told you I'm not interested in what you have to say unless you can prove it. But we both know you can't.

 

[blü 2]

You're still blowing hot air instead of proving anything. I already told you I'm not interested in what you have to say unless you can prove it. But we both know you can't.

Yet again you dodge the question.

What does 'accurate' mean to you?

And WHY aren't those three things there that HAVE to be there before the Flood story can be true ─ 1. a single geological flood layer all over all continents and dating to ~2348 BCE, 2. a genetic bottleneck in each and every species of land animal, all the bottlenecks dating to ~2348 BCE; and 3. that extra 1.113 bn cubic miles of water to cover all the mountains?

And WHY has 'creation science had that 100% perfect failure to make even one tiny scientific scratch on the theory of evolution, although it's had 56 years to do so?

If you don't know, just say, "I don't know."

If you know, tell us.

Just stop pretending, please.

 

[DavidFirth]

Yet again you dodge the question.

What does 'accurate' mean to you?

And WHY aren't those three things there that HAVE to be there before the Flood story can be true ─ 1. a single geological flood layer all over all continents and dating to ~2348 BCE, 2. a genetic bottleneck in each and every species of land animal, all the bottlenecks dating to ~2348 BCE; and 3. that extra 1.113 bn cubic miles of water to cover all the mountains?

And WHY has 'creation science had that 100% perfect failure to make even one tiny scientific scratch on the theory of evolution, although it's had 56 years to do so?

If you don't know, just say, "I don't know."

If you know, tell us.

Just stop pretending, please.

More hot air. Still no proof.

 

[blü 2]

More hot air. Still no proof.

And I guess that's the only kind of "conversation" you can manage ─ one where you don't have to defend the indefensible answering questions about creationism.

Do you only come here to duck, weave, pull faces and evade?
.

 

[metis]

Everybody does that. Scientists approach everything with their preconceived ideas, interpret the evidence based on those ideas that are based on conclusions they have already decided by their preconceived ideas. That's the norm.

As a scientist, now retired, I can categorically say that you're wrong on this, and any scientist who would be so disingenuous so as to try that approach simply would be disregarded. Here's the scientific method that used by scientists all over the world:

1. Make an observation.
2. Ask a question.
3. Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation.
4. Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
5. Test the prediction.
6. Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.

 

[DavidFirth]

As a scientist, now retired, I can categorically say that you're wrong on this, and any scientist who would be so disingenuous so as to try that approach simply would be disregarded. Here's the scientific method that used by scientists all over the world:

1. Make an observation.
2. Ask a question.
3. Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation.
4. Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
5. Test the prediction.
6. Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.

That's supposed to be the way it works. But alas, it isn't.

The "prediction" is always based on a preconceived idea of reality. The prediction depends upon a preconceived idea such as "this rock ought to be millions of years old" therefore it is tested with that in mind. Any result of only a few thousand years or a few billion years will be thrown out as the result.

 

[DavidFirth]

And I guess that's the only kind of "conversation" you can manage ─ one where you don't have to defend the indefensible answering questions about creationism.

Do you only come here to duck, weave, pull faces and evade?
.

I have already defended creationism with you all I care to. You're stubbornness precludes me from doing so anymore. You don't listen to what I say, you just discount it.

With that in mind, why do you continue to ask me questions?

All you are ever going to get in the future from me is: Show me proof or forget about it.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Clearly it's talking about natural processes ─ it's talking about evolution.

That suggests you've also read the papers linked in the passage and found fault with them. If so, what fault? If not, then your statement's simply incorrect.

"The only known processes that specifically generate unique, nested, hierarchical patterns are branching evolutionary processes"
^ it's right there- declaring evolution a 'known' process

Again, we know with utter 100% certainty, that information systems like these can be originated through creative intelligence- that's a 'known process'

we cannot say the same for evolution, there is simply no direct, empirical, repeatable observation, experiment, measurement that can verify this-

I get that it's a very attractive, intuitive theory, just like classical physics was, but I'm a stickler for the scientific method, it often points elsewhere

No, it's about the excellent fit of the maths of nested hierarchies onto the facts of evolution, again with supporting papers cited.
Odd that you're the only one who thinks so.
.

belief in Darwinism- i.e as a completely unguided natural process, is about 19% in US according to Gallup. Far less in many other places

[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[DavidFirth]

"The only known processes that specifically generate unique, nested, hierarchical patterns are branching evolutionary processes"
^ it's right there- declaring evolution a 'known' process

Again, we know with utter 100% certainty, that information systems like these can be originated through creative intelligence- that's a 'known process'

we cannot say the same for evolution, there is simply no direct, empirical, repeatable observation, experiment, measurement that can verify this-

I get that it's a very attractive, intuitive theory, just like classical physics was, but I'm a stickler for the scientific method, it often points elsewhere





belief in Darwinism- i.e as a completely unguided natural process, is about 19% in US according to Gallup. Far less in many other places

He is convinced that everything he believes is fact and anything contrary to that must be wrong.