Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
If you haven't stated your hypothesis, how do you know whether it's evidence or not?
[that sounds a bit familiar...]
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Creationists, please provide evidence
- Thread starter evolved yet?
- Start date
If you haven't stated your hypothesis, how do you know whether it's evidence or not?
[that sounds a bit familiar...]
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
What do you mean by "creation?" Could you be more specific? That's what we mean by a hypothesis.
No, it doesn't. If it turns out that aliens from planet bleepmorp assembled us from carbon legos last Tuesday, and planet evidence all over the planet to make us believe differently, for their own nefarious purposes, then even if you did the impossible and disproved one of the most well-established theories in the history of science, it would not do anything to advance your hypothesis. Unless that is your hypothesis?
Yes, and over and over, it supports ToE, which is why I don't understand why you post it.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
EVIDENCE IS SOMETHING THAT SUPPORTS A HYPOTHESIS. If you don't have a hypothesis, you don't know whether you have evidence or not. What is your hypothesis?
Last edited:
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
No you haven't. You look to "our researchers" for the supposed answers, pick what suite your purpose and ignore the rest even though it clearly states it is in line with ToE. What do you do? You then insult the very same researchers whom you cherry picked charging them with nonsensical terms like "theoretical assumption".....
It's no wonder you haven't a clue as to what you're talking about. Trying to use mtEVE, which the very same wiki article you cite says she wasn't the only female, and trying to use Y Adam, which the very same article explicitly says mtEve and Y Adam NEVER lived at the same time and is separated by almost 100k years with mtEve being BEFORE Y Adam, shows that you are being dishonest.
You have done no such thing unless you fee like taking on the challenge to falsify Nylon Eating Bacteria. Let see what you do with it...
Abiogenisis is not a refutation of Evolution.
No they just deny your willful ignorance of ALL the information listed and your blatant cherry picking of the information.
I doubt that you can considering you haven't as of yet. You can't even use your own "creation scientist" to show creation as a fact. You ALL have to rely on "OUR" researchers to get your bias conclusions...
So far you've displayed a craptacular understanding of ToE and the scientific method.
camanintx
Well-Known Member
I don't think you quite understand what Mitochondrial Eve actually represents. Just because you and all of your cousins have the same grandmother does not mean you only have one grandmother, does it.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Don't flatter yourself and lie to us. You took mtEve out because it disproves your stance. Neither mtEve nor Y Adam are shown to have lived in the same time frame and their existence both refutes the hypothesis of Genesis that your god created Adam (FIRST) and EVE from his genetic material.....Even though NO "Creation Scientist" has ever shown to be scientifically possible.
David M
Well-Known Member
Set by you making stuff up you mean? The MRCA of humans alive today could have lived anywhere between the 6th MIllenium BCE and the 1st Millenium CE.
And an MRCA is not the first member of a species not does it indicate a population bottleneck. Also it changes with each generation.
No its not meant to stay the same. No its not remarkably different and chickens don't have a Y chromosome.
Citation? Because the Neandertal FoxP2 gene is the same as the H. sapiens one. You are making this up.
An abundance of life is shown arising before the cambrian.
No, we don't.
In other words every one of these points is a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts.
Citation please.
The quote that you cut out has Darwin explictly stating that Evolution by Natural Selection was not smooth and constant, I expect that is why you cut it out, because it makes it obvious that you are deliverately misrepresenting Darwin's own words in Origin of Species.
Dawin OoS Chapter 11.
You belief is wrong.
Last edited:
newhope101
Active Member
camanintx...did you not read my post. It's not about Eve anymore. I undersdtood perfectly what your researchers CLAIM in relation to cohorts. Yet they are as delusional as Eve ever was. MtEve is dead. She is a delusion previously based on false assumptions. ie that paternal mt does not get passed on. I see ample evidence to throw MtEve into the delusional rubbish bin.
Dirty penguin do you know what a theory is? It is an assumption of what data is telling us. I have given you another hypothesis to explain the data. The benefit of my hypothesis is that it takes evidence for what it is without the need for a plethora of assumptions to redirect the data into a theoretical support for Toe. Your non theoretical evidence supports creation. It is your theories that turn evidence into a support for Toe.
When you suggest that I ignore other evidence, what evidence are you referring to?
Are you going to throw even more theoretical assumption derived from biased changing models of some sort up as evidence? I have already spoken to Chromo2, the fossil evidence, the genetic evidence. Feel free to revisit these or choose some other theoretical evidence for me to destroy.
I have provided points of evidence. I do not have to have all the answers, just like your own Toe doesn't have all the answers and you still have faith in it despite its' history.
Can any of you tell the difference between theory and evidence anymore?
If you know anything at all about your theoretical modelling and its relation to your theories, you would not have made such a comment, penguin.
Dirty penguin do you know what a theory is? It is an assumption of what data is telling us. I have given you another hypothesis to explain the data. The benefit of my hypothesis is that it takes evidence for what it is without the need for a plethora of assumptions to redirect the data into a theoretical support for Toe. Your non theoretical evidence supports creation. It is your theories that turn evidence into a support for Toe.
When you suggest that I ignore other evidence, what evidence are you referring to?
Are you going to throw even more theoretical assumption derived from biased changing models of some sort up as evidence? I have already spoken to Chromo2, the fossil evidence, the genetic evidence. Feel free to revisit these or choose some other theoretical evidence for me to destroy.
I have provided points of evidence. I do not have to have all the answers, just like your own Toe doesn't have all the answers and you still have faith in it despite its' history.
Can any of you tell the difference between theory and evidence anymore?
If you know anything at all about your theoretical modelling and its relation to your theories, you would not have made such a comment, penguin.
I know what evidence and I know what a theory is.
Example: every time that you post something, you provide more evidence to my theory that you have no idea what your talking about.
newhope101
Active Member
micrurus..again I'll restate you opinion is worthless without providing research to refute me. If you have insufficient skills to find or quote research that is your problem, not mine. Your opinion on its' own means zilch, squat, nothing.
You do not know the differnce between evidence and facts as is demonstrated by your comments.
If you do, put some research where your mouth and useless opinions are and refute my points.
I can provide evidence from your own evolutionists to support each and every point I have made. I cannot fit it into one post. Feel free to refute any point and I'll provide the research to validate my points of evidence for creation without the need for useless opinions, alone.
The reason why you will continue to voice hot air is because you cannot provide any evidence to refute me and if you use your theoretical assumptions I can blast them fairly easily. Why?..because your assumptions change like the wind and every one is debated and contested with equally valid contradictory assumptions.
Here is some evidence in support of creation:
1. For now, it appears the MRCA is set at 5,000 years. This demonstrates all of mankind alive today are related to a group of people at that time, which is likely Noah and his family.
2. The Y chromosome is meant to say the same from generation to generation. The Y chromosome is remarkably different in the Chimp and human male chromosome. If we share a common ancestor the Y chromosome should be very similar between descendants. It is not. Rather they are compared to a chicken and human at 310 million years of separation.
3. For now the human version of the FoxP2 gene is also set to 5,000 years which also coincided with the appears of written language an arts.
4. An abundance of life is shown to arise during the Cambrian period. This is the evidence and this is proof of creation. Anything else apart from this evidence are hypothetical assumptions. Evolutionists attempts to assert ancestry to the Precambrian creation have failed. Researchers are unable to provide anything more than assumptions and hypothesis re oxygen levels and why such a plethora of life suddenly begins to appear at the one time. Many Precambrian creatures still exist today, eg sponges, illustrating that sponges were created to be sponges and have remained so until today.
5. Mankind appears fully formed in one domain. This is evidence for creation. Your dating methods are theoretical and biased. SkhulV was initially dated to 40ya then redated to suit the assumption of ancestry. Your theoretical dating methods are tied to evolutionary assumptions and not valid as evidence. Researchers attempts to show ancestry through the fossil record to chimpanzees have failed. The constant debate and reclassification of fossil evidence along with proof that homo cranial features are not unique to the homo line, invalidate any attempt to prove ancestry through morphological similarity. False assumptions re knuckle walking ancestry and inability to classify LUCY demonstrate that researchers are unable to validly identify mid species, which are not mid species at all. Genomic information is reliant on fossil evidence to inform same and hence is not a reliable source of data. Your attempts to tie bipedal walking to brain increases have found no substance to the claim. Your attempts to tie humans to knuckle walkers have failed and had to be reworked. Your attempts to classify bipedal walking as a move to humanness have failed. Your attempts to consolidate another evolutionary path into a new version of human evolutionary theory will not stand the test of time, as past behaviour is the best predictor of future performance..
6. The search for Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) has failed and no longer ties all life to a single LUCA. This supports creation. Your assumption in relation to horizontal gene transfer remain controversial and provide no substance other than assumptions and hypothesis as to why there is no LUCA. The fact is simply, there is no LUCA and that is evidence in favour of creation.
5. Researchers have now shown that the sharing of genes means little in the understanding of what makes humans special or other creatures unique. After all humans share 50% of their genes with a banana. It is about gene expression and gene families. The fact that a human and a plant share genes is proof of common design, and not ancestry.
Let's see if volumes of hot air ensues as a demonstration of your inability to appropriately refute me!
You do not know the differnce between evidence and facts as is demonstrated by your comments.
If you do, put some research where your mouth and useless opinions are and refute my points.
I can provide evidence from your own evolutionists to support each and every point I have made. I cannot fit it into one post. Feel free to refute any point and I'll provide the research to validate my points of evidence for creation without the need for useless opinions, alone.
The reason why you will continue to voice hot air is because you cannot provide any evidence to refute me and if you use your theoretical assumptions I can blast them fairly easily. Why?..because your assumptions change like the wind and every one is debated and contested with equally valid contradictory assumptions.
Here is some evidence in support of creation:
1. For now, it appears the MRCA is set at 5,000 years. This demonstrates all of mankind alive today are related to a group of people at that time, which is likely Noah and his family.
2. The Y chromosome is meant to say the same from generation to generation. The Y chromosome is remarkably different in the Chimp and human male chromosome. If we share a common ancestor the Y chromosome should be very similar between descendants. It is not. Rather they are compared to a chicken and human at 310 million years of separation.
3. For now the human version of the FoxP2 gene is also set to 5,000 years which also coincided with the appears of written language an arts.
4. An abundance of life is shown to arise during the Cambrian period. This is the evidence and this is proof of creation. Anything else apart from this evidence are hypothetical assumptions. Evolutionists attempts to assert ancestry to the Precambrian creation have failed. Researchers are unable to provide anything more than assumptions and hypothesis re oxygen levels and why such a plethora of life suddenly begins to appear at the one time. Many Precambrian creatures still exist today, eg sponges, illustrating that sponges were created to be sponges and have remained so until today.
5. Mankind appears fully formed in one domain. This is evidence for creation. Your dating methods are theoretical and biased. SkhulV was initially dated to 40ya then redated to suit the assumption of ancestry. Your theoretical dating methods are tied to evolutionary assumptions and not valid as evidence. Researchers attempts to show ancestry through the fossil record to chimpanzees have failed. The constant debate and reclassification of fossil evidence along with proof that homo cranial features are not unique to the homo line, invalidate any attempt to prove ancestry through morphological similarity. False assumptions re knuckle walking ancestry and inability to classify LUCY demonstrate that researchers are unable to validly identify mid species, which are not mid species at all. Genomic information is reliant on fossil evidence to inform same and hence is not a reliable source of data. Your attempts to tie bipedal walking to brain increases have found no substance to the claim. Your attempts to tie humans to knuckle walkers have failed and had to be reworked. Your attempts to classify bipedal walking as a move to humanness have failed. Your attempts to consolidate another evolutionary path into a new version of human evolutionary theory will not stand the test of time, as past behaviour is the best predictor of future performance..
6. The search for Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) has failed and no longer ties all life to a single LUCA. This supports creation. Your assumption in relation to horizontal gene transfer remain controversial and provide no substance other than assumptions and hypothesis as to why there is no LUCA. The fact is simply, there is no LUCA and that is evidence in favour of creation.
5. Researchers have now shown that the sharing of genes means little in the understanding of what makes humans special or other creatures unique. After all humans share 50% of their genes with a banana. It is about gene expression and gene families. The fact that a human and a plant share genes is proof of common design, and not ancestry.
Let's see if volumes of hot air ensues as a demonstration of your inability to appropriately refute me!
I have insufficiant skills to research? the onley thing that I have argued about with you is taxonomy.
and you have still not presented me with an irregularity in the thamnophis genus.
what was your research skill there? a wikipediapage that was grossly outdated and oversimplified.
and you have still not presented me with an irregularity in the thamnophis genus.
what was your research skill there? a wikipediapage that was grossly outdated and oversimplified.
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
Assume evolution is wrong. Describe what happened instead. (Because you haven't so far.)
newhope101
Active Member
Micrurus...Actually I have provided a reply for you. I do not debate that you have snakes by various names. I do not dispute that there are currently Homo sapiens sapiens living in the world either. What I do say is that none of you taxons in relation to evolution can provide any consistency, nor establish ancestry. Evos are the ones that reckon they can trace this kind to that kind. Yet you cannot even agree on the rankings of many of your own species here with us today, let alone millions of years ago. That is the point.
Here your snake is a mess at the family rank. I suggest from the info below you'd best leave snakes alone and try something else!
Wiki snakes:
Origins
The origin of snakes remains an unresolved issue. There are two main hypotheses competing for acceptance.
Burrowing Lizard HypothesisThere is fossil evidence to suggest that snakes may have evolved from burrowing lizards, such as the varanids (or a similar group) during the Cretaceous Period.[11] An early fossil snake, Najash rionegrina, was a two-legged burrowing animal with a sacrum, and was fully terrestrial.[12] One extant analog of these putative ancestors is the earless monitor Lanthanotus of Borneo (though it also is semiaquatic).[13] Subterranean species evolved bodies streamlined for burrowing, and eventually lost their limbs.[13] According to this hypothesis, features such as the transparent, fused eyelids (brille) and loss of external ears evolved to cope with fossorial difficulies, such as scratched corneas and dirt in the ears.[11][13] Some primitive snakes are known to have possessed hindlimbs, but their pelvic bones lacked a direct connection to the vertebrae. These include fossil species like Haasiophis, Pachyrhachis and Eupodophis, which are slightly older than Najash.[9]
Fossil of Archaeophis proavus.
Aquatic Mosasaur HypothesisAn alternative hypothesis, based on morphology, suggests the ancestors of snakes were related to mosasaurs—extinct aquatic reptiles from the Cretaceous—which in turn are thought to have derived from varanid lizards.[8] According to this hypothesis, the fused, transparent eyelids of snakes are thought to have evolved to combat marine conditions (corneal water loss through osmosis), and the external ears were lost through disuse in an aquatic environment. This ultimately lead to an animal similar to today's sea snakes. In the Late Cretaceous, snakes recolonized land, and continued to diversify into today's snakes. Fossilized snake remains are known from early Late Cretaceous marine sediments, which is consistent with this hypothesis; particularly so, as they are older than the terrestrial Najash rionegrina. Similar skull structure, reduced or absent limbs, and other anatomical features found in both mosasaurs and snakes lead to a positive cladistical correlation, although some of these features are shared with varanids.Genetic studies in recent years have indicated snakes are not as closely related to monitor lizards as was once believed—and therefore not to mosasaurs, the proposed ancestor in the aquatic scenario of their evolution. However, more evidence links mosasaurs to snakes than to varanids. Fragmented remains found from the Jurassic and Early Cretaceous indicate deeper fossil records for these groups, which may potentially refute either hypothesis
So you see it is not just your one snake example. What snakes 'evolved' from, let alone how or why,.. is still up for grabs and not evidence at all. Snakes is great example of the confusion. Thanks for providing me with the opportunity to further confirm my assertion. Besides, if you knew anything about cladistics at all, you'd know your own researchers dislike your current system. Yet cladistics also has its' inconsistencies around 'Aves' and lizards. Your researchers won't ever get it right while you are trying to prove ancestry.
Poly..I already have. Maybe God went into one of Hawhkins dimentions and made them in a petrie dish. More likely God used a science that mankind has yet to even consider. ..Just like abiogenesis and toe you certainly are far from having all the answers. Not having all the answers accordingly does not mean the points I made, in themselves, are not supportive of creation. Why? because you still have faith in toe despite the inconsistencies, changes, delusionary evidence of days past and continue to maintain toe is valid.
I don't think I'll reply to the other hot air and wait untill someone else has something intelligent to refute.
Last edited:
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
You have been in numerous threads spouting mtEve and Y adam as "evidence" for creation and now you flipflop because the current evidence doesn't support the biblical assertion. It's further evidence that you don't know enough about the subject.
How dare you ask such a question when you outright display a lack of knowledge about the very word. In the area of "Science", real science...not pseudoscience, especially in the field of biology a "Theory" is widely considered "FACT" base on the evidence. A theory is NEVER based on an assumption. You have them backwards. A hypothesis can be considered an assumption
From your favorite wiki;
Hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A hypothesis (from Greek ὑπόθεσις; plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon. The term derives from the Greek, ὑποτιθέναι hypotithenai meaning "to put under" or "to suppose." For a hypothesis to be put forward as a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously in common and informal usage, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis.
The adjective hypothetical, meaning "having the nature of a hypothesis," or "being assumed to exist as an immediate consequence of a hypothesis," can refer to any of these meanings of the term "hypothesis."
How about you start there and learn the difference.
Right, you only have one assumption and that is WHO (God did it) not HOW (if he exist how did he do it) thus it remains an assumption and can NEVER, at this point, qualify as evidence.
It is BECAUSE OF THE EVIDENCE it can be called a Theory.
We've gone over this already. You cited Wiki on mtEve and Y Adam as being evidence for creation per the bible even though the wiki article said mtEve and Y Adam were separated by almost 100k years and mtEve was before Y Adam. The article explicitly says the characters had nothing to do with the events as told to you in your bible but you ignored that and used what data you wanted to fit your preconceived idea.
And your understanding on all of them are in error considering how now you're forced to abandon your bantering on mtEve.
Tackle (Nylon Eating Bacteria). It support evolution on a micro level. Chew on that one for a while.
Who ever said ToE was static. ToE like many other theories are falsifiable and when they have been science welcomes it. ToE doesn't concern itself with the WHO but since you do you must reconcile the HOW. ToE tells us how but you can't.
Can you? Can you tell the difference from hypothesis, evidence, and theory?
mtEve IS THEORETICAL MODELING and you jumped on it like a bucking bronco but you clearly don't seem to understand what theory means......
yes, i saw that post
and I answerd it.
and I answerd it.
do I need to elaborate?Quote:
Originally Posted by newhope101
Thamnophis belongs to the family Colubrid: Note the gargabe bin taxon for snakes that don't fit anywhere. How scientific!.
Wiki:
The Colubridae are not a natural group, as many are more closely related to other groups, such as elapids, than to each other.[2] This family has classically been a garbage bin taxon for snakes that don't fit anywhere else.[citation needed] It is hoped that ongoing research will sort out the relations within this group.
Would you like another chance to find a taxon that is not debated and inconsistent? You would think there would be at east one wouldn't you that these researchers are really clear about? Well, there isn't.
No other takers...why am I not surprised?
colubridae has already been split in 7 subfamilys, thamnophis belonging to natricinae, that was done in 2002 or 2004 (don't remember the exact year) and there has been no arguement about it since than.
I asked you for a inconsistancy WITHIN the thamnophis genus not for a inconcistancy in the superfamily colubroidae.
EDIT
o, and the colubridae family itsself if perfectly concistent, it contains all rearfanged modern snakes. it just turned out that about 2/3 of all snakes are rearfanged modern snakes so they decided to split the family into 7 subfamilies.
why do you think a citation was asked on your wiki when colubridae was described as a garbage bin family?
Last edited:
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Right, because that is clearly what this particular thread is all about.
How about we forget there evolution and let's ignore ALL the current evidence. Can creationist NOW tell us the HOW instead of the WHO....?
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
Sorry, but you need to consider it. "God did it" is not sufficient detail. If you can't elaborate, it doesn't matter whether evolution is right or wrong, because you have no replacement hypothesis. To get you started, when did God do it?
ellenjanuary
Well-Known Member
Did I do that? I saw no previous mention of paternal mtDNA until I posted some research...
Not that I need a pat on the back, mind you; more that I like to feel that I do exist and interact. Staring at my Gwynnies all day, makes me think I'm not real sometimes...
No matter. But I would like to re-state an earlier conclusion, that newhope101's beliefs are axiomatic; rather than presented as a desire to lie. And if she has learned to adapt, such supports my conclusion... but I say this because I don't wanna hafta hate all Creationists.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Did I do that? I saw no previous mention of paternal mtDNA until I posted some research...
I'm not sure. She started her own thread a week or so a go and it has since been removed. She started out her thread citing mtEve and Y Adam. You may have been one of the people who called her on the issue of mtDNA. I don't mind the flipflop but I think she wants quickly sweep it under the rug and hope we all forget about it. This normally happens when one is delivered or comes across damning evidence contrary to what they believed.
Not that I need a pat on the back, mind you; more that I like to feel that I do exist and interact. Staring at my Gwynnies all day, makes me think I'm not real sometimes...
As in guinea pigs? If so they are cute...I have a friend who has a hedgehog...:yes:
No matter. But I would like to re-state an earlier conclusion, that newhope101's beliefs are axiomatic; rather than presented as a desire to lie. And if she has learned to adapt, such supports my conclusion... but I say this because I don't wanna hafta hate all Creationists.
I wouldn't say she's lies rather she's being dishonest and skewing the data and that's what makes it hard to take her serious. I've held plenty of decent conversations with creationist here and other places. I don't hate but I certainly don't agree.
