Creationists, please provide evidence

[PolyHedral]

Computers contain more than just matter and energy - they contain information - we do to. where does that info come from? from a programmer of coarse...

Nope, that's the whole point of evolving algorithms to solve your problem. The programmer doesn't know how to solve the problem, otherwise he'd do it himself.

We also have something more, we have agency, a free will, the ability to act of our own accord. So.... where does that come from?

Computation, and a specific kind of modelling. That is all.

 

[Bereanz]

To be able to observe and test. The "God did it" hypothesis says...well, "God did it". How does one go about observing "God" and testing the claims of "creation"?

But isnt that like the Pot who called the Kettle Black?

Adaption within a species is observed tested and proven Fact, which nobody would deny. So this is "Evolution" Fact. Because of this, innocent students have been duped in to believing adaption from one species into another must also be fact. But it has NEVER been observed and tested. So this is EVOLUTION MYTH! If Gods book can be refuted by Observed Science then it can easily be established that it's not from God. As this hasn't happend, we can go about OBSERVING reality and History by checking it against what we can OBSERVE in scripture. IF the two align, we can be assured the Bible is from God. Belief in the God of the bible is not credulity. The scripture says men are without excuse and foolish when they don't believe it. This is pretty bold claim don't you think?

The science that has been observed and tested is in alignment with the Bible, which lends credence to the creation account IE scientific proof that "God did it" just as He said He did.

However to say "God did it" without providing sufficient evidence is as futile and credulous as believing "modern" man evolved from lower primates without proof.

I didnt say you used the other term, but it is a term used by Evolutionary Biologists. Do you know what it means? I dont.

 

[PolyHedral]

But isnt that like the Pot who called the Kettle Black?

Adaption within a species is observed tested and proven Fact, which nobody would deny. So this is "Evolution" Fact. Because of this, innocent students have been duped in to believing adaption from one species into another must also be fact. But it has NEVER been observed and tested.

One new, evolved species. Try again.

 

[idea]

Nope, that's the whole point of evolving algorithms to solve your problem. The programmer doesn't know how to solve the problem, otherwise he'd do it himself.

evolving algorithms or not, the program has a defined goal - it does only what it is programed to do.

Computation, and a specific kind of modelling. That is all.

If you believe that you are a robot with no free will, then perhaps you are.
Personally, I am not a robot.
Nature vs. nurture - there is a third component which dictates our character - we are more than just a product of where we grew up and who are parents are.

Our free agency comes from the eternally existing part of us, from our spirit. The only way to escape the cause/effect net, to have independent thought, independent will (and not all people have this, some are puppets, but not all) - independent will is created when part of you is completely independent from all else. The only way to create this independence is if you have no beginning - you are not just a product of how you were created if you were not created at all... our free will is proof that part of us is eternal...


we were not created... but we can become His creation if we allow Him to transform our lives.

 

[Bereanz]

One new, evolved species. Try again.

That's adaption within a species. TRY AGAIN!!

 

[PolyHedral]

That's adaption within a species. TRY AGAIN!!

"Nylon-eating bacteria are a strain of Flavobacterium..."

Flavobacterium is a genus, not a species. Unfortunately for you, that's an entirely new species. Besides, it's impossible to define "species" sensibly, as is quite well acknowledged in biology.

evolving algorithms or not, the program has a defined goal - it does only what it is programed to do.

But surely every organism's goal is to survive?

If you believe that you are a robot with no free will, then perhaps you are.
Personally, I am not a robot.
Nature vs. nurture - there is a third component which dictates our character - we are more than just a product of where we grew up and who are parents are.

Demonstrate this.

Our free agency comes from the eternally existing part of us, from our spirit. The only way to escape the cause/effect net, to have independent thought, independent will (and not all people have this, some are puppets, but not all) - independent will is created when part of you is completely independent from all else. The only way to create this independence is if you have no beginning - you are not just a product of how you were created if you were not created at all... our free will is proof that part of us is eternal...

But the spirit is obviously influenced by something. What?

 

[newhope101]

But isnt that like the Pot who called the Kettle Black?

Adaption within a species is observed tested and proven Fact, which nobody would deny. So this is "Evolution" Fact. Because of this, innocent students have been duped in to believing adaption from one species into another must also be fact. But it has NEVER been observed and tested. So this is EVOLUTION MYTH! If Gods book can be refuted by Observed Science then it can easily be established that it's not from God. As this hasn't happend, we can go about OBSERVING reality and Histroy by checking it against what we can OBSERVE in scripture. IF the two align, we cab be assured the Bible is form God. Belief in the God of the bible is not credulity. The scripture says men are without excuse and foolish when they don't believe.

The science that has been observed and tested is in alignment with the Bible, which lends credence to the creation account IE scienticfic proof that "God did it".

However to say "God did it" without providing sufficient evidence is as futile and credulous as believing "modern" man evolved from lower primates without proof.

I didnt say you used the other term, but it is a term used by Evolutionary Boilogists. Do you know what it means? I dont.

You are right. There are many misrepresentations being sold to the public. The difference I see is that in saying 'God created', one is not purporting magic, nor making assumptions like evos do. Rather one is speaking to a science that is far beyond the understanding of mankind at the moment. This appears to be a much more scientific approach than to guesstimate or assume and then try to pass that off as evidence..as you say to unsuspecting students or the general public. It is a deceitfull ploy. Creationists do not have the need to make assumptions when the evidence supports creation, anyway.

The point being of course, that what evidence these researchers have supports creation. It may not resolve every creationist question but clearly lends support to creation rather than evolution.

 

[PolyHedral]

The difference I see is that in saying 'God created', one is not purporting magic, nor making assumptions like evos do.

The "poofing hypothesis" does not purport magic?

 

[Autodidact]

avoiding the point, as usual... the ToE (TOE is also used for Theory of Everything btw, so it might be better to actually spell it out - I keep having to correct myself each time I see it )...

anyways, the Toe is confined to living organisms because living organisms contain something more than non-living organisms - because living organisms are more than just matter and energy. That's the point, if it is all just matter and energy, everything would evolve. There is something more in what lives - many people call it a spirit.

No, ToE would apply to anything that reproduces with variation. For example, if we write a computer program that reproduces code with variation, and a selection mechanism, ToE will apply to it.

In a way, ToE applies to human artifacts, because we reproduce them with variations. That is, we keep making new ones that are a little different. We keep the ones that work better (= selection) and allow the ones that don't to "die." That is how a watch got from this:

to this:

 

[Autodidact]

still missing the point...

life contain more than just matter and energy, that is why it reproduces, wants to survive, thinks, acts....

when you can describe the physical substance which differentiates living and non-living entities..... you will have solved abiogenesis, and will have learned what life really is.

Well now you've strayed into philosophy, which does not belong in this thread. Anyway, the point is that ToE is a specific scientific theory in a specific field, biology, and is about living organisms. That is why it is confined to living organisms.

 

[Autodidact]

Yes, our DNA is remarkably similar to a computer program, interesting isn't it? only I hear it is a 4 based system, rather than binary.

Computers contain more than just matter and energy - they contain information - we do to. where does that info come from? from a programmer of coarse...

We have something more than computers, we have agency, a free will, the ability to act of our own accord. So.... where does that come from?

sorry, it's been fun - have to run, read ya later!

Sounds like you want to debate atheism, which has nothing to do with ToE. You may wish to start a thread.

 

[Autodidact]

But isnt that like the Pot who called the Kettle Black?

Adaption within a species is observed tested and proven Fact, which nobody would deny. So this is "Evolution" Fact. Because of this, innocent students have been duped in to believing adaption from one species into another must also be fact. But it has NEVER been observed and tested. So this is EVOLUTION MYTH! If Gods book can be refuted by Observed Science then it can easily be established that it's not from God. As this hasn't happend, we can go about OBSERVING reality and History by checking it against what we can OBSERVE in scripture. IF the two align, we can be assured the Bible is from God. Belief in the God of the bible is not credulity. The scripture says men are without excuse and foolish when they don't believe it. This is pretty bold claim don't you think?

The science that has been observed and tested is in alignment with the Bible, which lends credence to the creation account IE scientific proof that "God did it" just as He said He did.

However to say "God did it" without providing sufficient evidence is as futile and credulous as believing "modern" man evolved from lower primates without proof.

I didnt say you used the other term, but it is a term used by Evolutionary Biologists. Do you know what it means? I dont.

Is your position that no new species has ever evolved?

If I show you scientific papers describing the evolution of a new species, will you change your position?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Toe has no scientific method to invalidate itself

Just because you nor your "Creation scientist" are ill-equipped and uneducated to do so does not mean ToE is not fact. And I want to stress this again...I'm getting so tired of you using the term "Theoretical Assumption". There is no such term among biologist. You have no idea what hypothesis means nor do you understand what a theory is and it shows every time you use that self proclaimed term.

Your theorists alledge they account for bias in their modelling. Yet all modelling is scaffolded against the presumption of ancestry. When these scaffolds are changed you may get results that show a chimp and gorilla form a clade, with humans outside the clade, also. This research is very easy to manipulate. Hence chimp-human comparisons can be 1-30% difference depending on method and what you choose to count or ignore.

His question was on certainty. Science is never certain which is why I said that understanding is more suited for mathematics. If you're going to argue against me at least stop proving my points for me. Look the world of biology is not shaken by Ardi. This is how peer review works. The debate on Ardi is still ongoing and was pretty much debated from the very beginning. You make it seem as though the acceptance was written in stone but if you had even a shred of a clue as to how the scientific method works you'd realize how uneducated your responses are.

No actually you are incorrect. the evidence you have generally supports creation. It is the assumtions and theoretical modelling that is required to turn the evidence into an evolutionary support.

Yet you accept the SAME THEORETICAL EVIDENCE FOR mtEVE......:sarcastic

As I stated, using examples in the here and now does not validate theoretical assumptions. The difference being they can see their results without the same level of assumptions being made.

Wiki -Bacteria
Although the term bacteria traditionally included all prokaryotes, the scientific classification changed after the discovery in the 1990s that prokaryotes consist of two very different groups of organisms that evolved independently from an ancient common ancestor. These evolutionary domains are called Bacteria and Archaea.

Them there's Wiki -Prokaryotes

There is no consensus among biologists concerning the position of the eukaryotes in the overall scheme of cell evolution.
​

The fact is they all except the ToE. Why would you expect "consensus" in science. Remember, science is not about certainty.

What I find interesting is that since you wanted to jump in and offer your two cents you failed to even address evolution of Influenza and what biologist know about the virus as well as not even touching Nylon Eating Bacteria......

:sleep:

 

[Autodidact]

evolving algorithms or not, the program has a defined goal - it does only what it is programed to do.

Not really. The program actually develops a new program that the original programmer did not program in.

If you believe that you are a robot with no free will, then perhaps you are.
Personally, I am not a robot.
Nature vs. nurture - there is a third component which dictates our character - we are more than just a product of where we grew up and who are parents are.

So you say. Would you please support this assertion in a new thread on that subject? Thanks.

 

[Autodidact]

That's adaption within a species. TRY AGAIN!!

How can a new species be within an existing species?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Agreed. I am amazed at some people's inability to separate fact from assumptions.

Wiki - Scientific Modelling, sums it up.

Modelling as a substitute for direct measurement and experimentation
Models are typically used when it is either impossible or impractical to create experimental conditions in which scientists can directly measure outcomes. Direct measurement of outcomes under controlled conditions (see Scientific Method) will always be more accurate than modelled estimates of outcomes. When predicting outcomes, models use assumptions, while measurements do not. However, it is important to note that in analyzing the data collected from measurements, assumptions are made albeit different to those made through the use of a model. As the number of assumptions in a model increases, the accuracy and relevance of the model will likely diminish.

These models use assumptions and insertion values that come from other models using assumptions and probabilities etc.

Yes, theory and assumption mean much the same and neither are facts nor evidence.

See mtEVE. It is based on "Theoretical Modeling".

 

[Dirty Penguin]

"Creation" is a very vague word. If you mean merely that God created all things, I hope you realize by now that is entirely consistent with ToE, right? Or do we need to go over that again. If by "creation" you mean ToE is false, then a ridiculous position like that is open to ridicule.

Right. She's trying to pit one against the other and it doesn't work that way. ToE is not about Abiogenisis.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

NewHope - feel fre to ignore Auto (she tends to be a grumpy name-calling little one - she does it to everyone)

Not true. She's never been grumpy to me or ever called me names...

 

[Dirty Penguin]

It occurs to computer programs too.

Correct. I'm a Network Administrator who used to work for a software firm that designed AI applications as well as Adaptive Tests.

 

[Bereanz]

You are right. There are many misrepresentations being sold to the public. The difference I see is that in saying 'God created', one is not purporting magic, nor making assumptions like evos do. Rather one is speaking to a science that is far beyond the understanding of mankind at the moment. This appears to be a much more scientific approach than to guesstimate or assume and then try to pass that off as evidence..as you say to unsuspecting students or the general public. It is a deceitfull ploy. Creationists do not have the need to make assumptions when the evidence supports creation, anyway.

The point being of course, that what evidence these researchers have supports creation. It may not resolve every creationist question but clearly lends support to creation rather than evolution.

I agree. New hope, its good to see people like yourself standing for truth in this sea of disinformation.