Science ... NOT God ...

[Subduction Zone]

The debating type always looking for someone talking about the existence of god if when he or she did not. Funny how the first thing out of an atheist's mouth is always "this or that about god"

I did not say god does or does not exist. Simply stating the difference between God and Science. If you want to talk about God go to your local church, temple, synagogue or any place of worship.

You were the one that brought up god. Once again I am merely asking you to support your claims. My only claim is that there does not appear to be any need for a god.


It looks like all you have is "because I said so". I on the other hand have not claimed that a god does not exist. Only that there does not appear to be a need for one.

 

[Jollybear]

Actually they aren't, but my point was about people accepting that there is lots of evidence for evolution and not believing it because of faith.

Because of faith in something else. But, faith in whatever comes with reasons. Those reasons arent just faith. It dont come in a vacume.

But, break it down. How are the two statements not a contradiction?

'There is lots of evidence for evolution'
'Evolution is not true'

I see contradiction. Why dont you?

Neither lots of evidence nor faith makes something necessarily true.

That is correct! Evidence is not the same as proof. Proof is stronger then evidence, evidence is stronger then faith.

No - what gave you that idea? However, I have many good reasons to think anything posted on a message board by a creationist that purports to contradict evolution is likely to be wrong:-

1. Creationists on message boards (in my experience) are mostly ignorant of even basic science.

Well that isnt going to fly because theres some creationists who are scientists. Even though im not a scientists, i have read and i do think.

No such claim (in my experience) has ever stood up to scrutiny. Either it's based on a misunderstanding or misinformation, or it falls into the "but you haven't explained this detail (yet)" - which hardly dents the copious evidence in favour of the theory.

And the "havent explained this detail yet" part is what matters.

I've spent a lot of time in the past looking at creationist websites and they were invariably full of misrepresentation, distortion, and falsehoods. I stopped because I was sick of feeling like I needed a shower after every visit. If they had anything credible to say, why the dishonesty?

Well, first off, even though i have read from both creation and evolution sites, i havent read everything. So, why the dishonesty? I have no idea. I dont know if there dishonest. Id have to look at a set case. All i know is im not dishonest, thats all i KNOW.

If there actually were credible evidence against it, it would be headline news.

Again, i have watched the news. But i dont watch it always. I doubt you do either.

But, even if we did, would it be headline news? Would it really? How do you know that?

No - of course me stating it, isn't evidence of anything but my view.

Good

These debates are largely futile anyway, which was why I was asking you why you think almost all of the scientists who study these things thinks you are wrong. Are they stupid, taken in (by who and how?), are they lying, is it a conspiracy? Why is it that almost all the people who disagree have an obvious faith position to defend?

I think its a combination of lying, stupid, and just not enough information.

Also its not just religious folk who are cretics of evolution. Some agnostics do. I heard one. David berrlinski.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because of faith in something else. But, faith in whatever comes with reasons. Those reasons arent just faith. It dont come in a vacume.

But, break it down. How are the two statements not a contradiction?

'There is lots of evidence for evolution'
'Evolution is not true'

I see contradiction. Why dont you?

I am not sure if that was said just like that. But a more correct statement is: "Evidence is not proof."

There is no contradiction there.

That is correct! Evidence is not the same as proof. Proof is stronger then evidence, evidence is stronger then faith.

No, "proof" is not stronger than evidence. Proof is a mathematical concept. Now if you want to go by the legal concept of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" then evolution is "proven".

Well that isnt going to fly because theres some creationists who are scientists. Even though im not a scientists, i have read and i do think.

When it comes to creationism there is no such thing as an honest and informed creationist. There are some scientists that believe the creationism myth, but since they cannot approach creationism honestly they can not be considered to be doing science in that matter.

And the "havent explained this detail yet" part is what matters.

Not really. When one convicts a murderer knowing what he had for breakfast very rarely plays a part in that conviction.

Well, first off, even though i have read from both creation and evolution sites, i havent read everything. So, why the dishonesty? I have no idea. I dont know if there dishonest. Id have to look at a set case. All i know is im not dishonest, thats all i KNOW.

If you are not dishonest that is a good thing. But part of being honest is being willing to learn. Most creationists are afraid to even learn what is and what is not evidence. Are you?

Again, i have watched the news. But i dont watch it always. I doubt you do either.

But, even if we did, would it be headline news? Would it really? How do you know that?

Now is a good time to be honest. Actual evidence against the theory of evolution would be headline news. There would be no problem in finding it. That you can't find any shouts volumes.

Good



I think its a combination of lying, stupid, and just not enough information.

Also its not just religious folk who are cretics of evolution. Some agnostics do. I heard one. David berrlinski.

Berlinski claims to be a secular Jew, but that does not appear to be the case. At any rate all of his arguments against evolution have been refuted. So why even reference him? In fact he may deny evolution. There are even some atheists that do that. But why refer to loons and losers? It is the work of scientists that matter.

 

[gnostic]

If anyone thinks science is here to replace God then, they do NOT understand science.

The only here who don’t understand Natural Science, are creationists and those who never study science beyond high school science, and I think you are one of those people.

Natural Science, whether it be

1. Life Science (eg biology) or
2. Physical Science (eg physics, chemistry, Earth science & astronomy)

...all point to explaining and answering the WHAT and the HOW questions, not the WHO questions.

The WHO questions are all irrelevant in Natural Science. So in physics, you could be studying natural phenomena like mechanical motions and gravity (eg Newtonian mechanics, or relativistic mechanics), atoms and subatomic particles, electromagnetic waves or radiations, thermodynamics, hydrodynamics, nuclear physics, where all “who” are irrelevant, including any human or spiritual entity (eg God).

The WHO explanation are only relevant in Social Science. Social Science and

Social Science fields are studies of either individual human (eg patients of psychology and psychological medicine) or groups of people (eg anthropology, sociology, etc), and Social Science fields are usually related to the studies of human behaviors, emotions or intelligence, or studies of human cultures (eg anthropology, customs, etc), or of human achievements (eg archaeology, political science, economics, laws, etc).

So if you are going to talk about evolution, as in biology of humans, other animals, plants, or bacteria or archaea, and not about human behaviors, then the studies of biology don’t require the knowledge of “who”. When you are talking about structures (ie anatomy) or functions (ie physiology) of bones, organs, tissues, cells, genes, chromosomes, blood, DNA or RNA, then the “who” like God is irrelevant.

So when you are studying human biology, you can only the physical, like brain, heart, lung, skin, cell, genes, etc, then these physical which you can observe, examine, measure and compare, hence, these are evidences of the physical.

With evidences, you can observe, quantify, measure or test, BUT be honest with me, can you observe, quantify, measure or test God?

This is why god isn’t relevant in life science or physical science, because god cannot be counted as evidence, because there are no possible to observe or detect god, measure god or test god.

That’s why in physics, chemistry or biology, these branches of science don’t mention god or say “God did it”, because it isn’t a valid explanation in science.

And Natural Science is the studies of nature, which would include larger astronomical structures such as planets, stars and galaxies; Natural Science isn’t studies of myths, the supernatural, the paranormal or the divine.

If you are serious about learning about god(s), religions, belief/faith and religious customs/rituals, then you should be taking up subjects, like theology or even mythology, not science.

 

[gnostic]

That is correct! Evidence is not the same as proof. Proof is stronger then evidence, evidence is stronger then faith.

No it isn’t.

You got the “evidence is not same as proof”, right, but got the part proof being stronger than evidence, wrong.

In science, and I am talking about life science (eg biology) or physical science (eg physics, chemistry), evidences ALWAYS determine the validity of science, not proof.

Proof is a mathematical model, like equations, formulas, constants or metrics. These proofs are nothing more than a representation of reality, and they are based on man-made logic or constructs, like equations and formulas. There are always a chance that such equations can be wrong.

Evidences are based on reality that you can observe or detect, that you can measure or quantify, that you can compare, test, verify or refute.

For instance, how do observe and measure electricity? You cannot observe but you can detect and measure of electricity (eg current, voltage, power) with devices such as a multimeter or any other devices capable of detecting and measuring electricity.

In science, evidences always take precedence over proofs like equations or formulas or constants.

To give another example, Newton’s law of motion, is pretty consistent and useful in everyday life, but what of something that can move a lot faster. The closer the velocity is to the speed of light, the less relevant is Newton’s law, which was why Albert Einstein came up with Special Relativity.

Special Relativity’s famous mass-energy equivalence equation -

E = m c^2​

...is a mathematical proof, not evidence for Special Relativity.

Newton’s law on motion are still useful for most engineering projects and most technology, eg automobile vehicles, aeroplanes, ships or boats, but it has limitations.

Likewise Newton’s theory on gravity is still useful, but this too has limits, so Einstein’s General Relativity is the newer theory on gravity, most useful in the studies of deep space objects, like distant stars, distant galaxies, quasars, cosmic background radiations, etc.

My point is that evidences are far more important to natural science than any mathematical proof.

You clearly don’t understand science that well.

 

[Jollybear]

Im not responding to every post. I cant live on this phone.

 

[Jollybear]

I am not sure if that was said just like that. But a more correct statement is: "Evidence is not proof."

There is no contradiction there.



No, "proof" is not stronger than evidence. Proof is a mathematical concept. Now if you want to go by the legal concept of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" then evolution is "proven".



When it comes to creationism there is no such thing as an honest and informed creationist. There are some scientists that believe the creationism myth, but since they cannot approach creationism honestly they can not be considered to be doing science in that matter.



Not really. When one convicts a murderer knowing what he had for breakfast very rarely plays a part in that conviction.




If you are not dishonest that is a good thing. But part of being honest is being willing to learn. Most creationists are afraid to even learn what is and what is not evidence. Are you?



Now is a good time to be honest. Actual evidence against the theory of evolution would be headline news. There would be no problem in finding it. That you can't find any shouts volumes.




Berlinski claims to be a secular Jew, but that does not appear to be the case. At any rate all of his arguments against evolution have been refuted. So why even reference him? In fact he may deny evolution. There are even some atheists that do that. But why refer to loons and losers? It is the work of scientists that matter.

No it isn’t.

You got the “evidence is not same as proof”, right, but got the part proof being stronger than evidence, wrong.

In science, and I am talking about life science (eg biology) or physical science (eg physics, chemistry), evidences ALWAYS determine the validity of science, not proof.

Proof is a mathematical model, like equations, formulas, constants or metrics. These proofs are nothing more than a representation of reality, and they are based on man-made logic or constructs, like equations and formulas. There are always a chance that such equations can be wrong.

Evidences are based on reality that you can observe or detect, that you can measure or quantify, that you can compare, test, verify or refute.

For instance, how do observe and measure electricity? You cannot observe but you can detect and measure of electricity (eg current, voltage, power) with devices such as a multimeter or any other devices capable of detecting and measuring electricity.

In science, evidences always take precedence over proofs like equations or formulas or constants.

To give another example, Newton’s law of motion, is pretty consistent and useful in everyday life, but what of something that can move a lot faster. The closer the velocity is to the speed of light, the less relevant is Newton’s law, which was why Albert Einstein came up with Special Relativity.

Special Relativity’s famous mass-energy equivalence equation -

E = m c^2​

...is a mathematical proof, not evidence for Special Relativity.

Newton’s law on motion are still useful for most engineering projects and most technology, eg automobile vehicles, aeroplanes, ships or boats, but it has limitations.

Likewise Newton’s theory on gravity is still useful, but this too has limits, so Einstein’s General Relativity is the newer theory on gravity, most useful in the studies of deep space objects, like distant stars, distant galaxies, quasars, cosmic background radiations, etc.

My point is that evidences are far more important to natural science than any mathematical proof.

You clearly don’t understand science that well.

Both of you define "intellectual honesty" for me.

Im not debating creation/evolution and what way the evidence favors more until we can get on the same page with what honesty means first.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

In otherwords, im not that uneducated, unthinking, unresearched person, yet i have concluded different then you have.

I'm not that "educated", so I look forward to a lively discussion.

Yes, he said theres lots of evidence for evolution. Granted. I achnoghledge he said that. But where im not comprehending you, is that you think hes intellectually honest despite the fact he contradicts this by forcing his mind to not believe it and then believe creation.

That inconsistency is what i call intellectually dishonest. You dont?

Yes, I do too. (We actually agree on this and quite a bit of other things).

In my mind, he's being intellectually honest by admitting he doesn't care about the evidence. He acknowledges that the evidence is strong, but basically says it is irrelevant because he chooses to have faith.

No, he's not. He's being honest, but not "intellectually honest". An intellectually honest person in his position would be forced to conclude that evolution is correct and creationism is wrong. He is honest about his intellectual dishonesty.

To be fair, I think most creationists have been fed enough distortion, misrepresentation, and falsehoods (all of which you find on creationist websites) that they genuinely think it's an open question and that creationism is compatible with, or even supported by, the evidence

Agree! Scratch that. Strongly agree!

So to say evolution has lots of evidence for it, but evolution is still not true, those two statements are not logically incompatible?

Yes. It would be intellectual dishonesty.

Ok, so, anything that contradicts evolution, is it a must that its wrong?

Probably. Though I have never seen anything nor heard any claim that withstands scrutiny for anything actually existing that contradicts evolution.

Eh, i see....im not gonna debate evolution vs creation YET. We cant even agree on what intellectual honesty is, how we gonna have any hope of debating creation, evolution with proper communication with eachother?

You speak true.

Im not responding to every post. I cant live on this phone.

You're doing this on a PHONE!? That's certainly dedication!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Both of you define "intellectual honesty" for me.

Im not debating creation/evolution and what way the evidence favors more until we can get on the same page with what honesty means first.

It needs some context. In this case it would be neither understating or overstating what the evidence means.

 

[Jollybear]

It needs some context. In this case it would be neither understating or overstating what the evidence means.

So, tell me if i understand you: not understanding the evidence, that is intellectual honesty? And making a conclusion about what the evidence means, that is not intellectual honesty?

 

[night912]

I like words about reality. Here are some:
Subjective: characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind
Objective: having reality independent of the mind
There are 3 versions of reality:

• Reality in total
• Reality as objective
• Reality as subjective

I can hold all 3.
And I know you do it differently. So you pick your definition and I pick mine. Words are so funny. So what is really real?

And BTW imagination and its connects are real, otherwise we couldn't talk about them. Now how that matches the rest of reality is another fun round of words.

And again: There are at least 5 versions of truth:
https://www.iep.utm.edu/truth/

So you keep your truth and I keep mine.

It's entertaining as usual to see you use your word games for your arguments and see you refuting yourself. The reality is, you made a fool of yourself. That might just my subjective reality, but it's the objective of reality of yours and mine.

BTW,

That wasn't an ad hominem. It's an example of your contradicting arguments and methods.

 

[gnostic]

Both of you define "intellectual honesty" for me.

Im not debating creation/evolution and what way the evidence favors more until we can get on the same page with what honesty means first.

I am not sure why you are bringing up "intellectual honesty" from my reply.

My reply was to point out that in science, evidences are more important than proofs, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

Proofs are mathematical models, that only represent the real world, through formulas, equations or constants. While mathematics are important tools for science, observable and testable physical evidences always take precedence over mathematical proofs.

It is the evidence that determine the validity of any theory or hypothesis, not proof.

If say, you have 100 evidences against the hypothesis, then the hypothesis is improbable; then the hypothesis has been refuted. But if you have 100 evidences that back up the hypothesis, then the hypothesis is probable.

That's how science work, it dependent on the evidences that either verify or refute the hypothesis or theory, not the proofs.

You originally stated that "Proof is stronger than evidence". This is wrong.

To give you a real life example of how proof-based model don't make it to "Scientific Theory" status: Superstring Theory.

Superstring theory is an attempt to provide solution to answer everything in a single theory to the problems of both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. But all the solutions come from mathematical proofs, from the equations.

So while the proofs are strong in this Superstring model, there are no evidences. They may in the future find observable and testable evidences, there are no evidences now.

Without evidences, the Superstring Theory ISN'T A SCIENTIFIC THEORY, because it failed to be falsifiable and it failed to meet the requirements of Scientific Method, which required evidences.

Despite the name "Theory" that's attached to the end of "Superstring", Superstring Theory isn't scientific theory, and hasn't been accepted by scientific community, yet, because SS has proofs, but not evidences.

The reason why Superstring Theory hasn't been trashed or discarded as failed concept, is because the maths are still good, and still have potential. Superstring Theory is a proposed theoretical concept or model.

Do you understand what the word "proposed" mean?

Proposed model, are often theoretical model, that has the potential of being falsifiable hypothesis, but there have be some sorts of evidences for that to happen.

Here are some success stories of theoretical models that did become "science".

Einstein's Special Relativity and General Relativity started out being theoretical models when it was published. Other physicists managed to find experimental evidences to back these two models, so they eventually won the status of being "scientific theory".

Peter Higgs' Higgs Mechanism, his papers on Higgs Field and Higgs Boson, was written in 1964, was for nearly 50 years only a theoretical model. No evidences exist until 2013, when they "discovered" Higgs particle, during experiment at the particle accelerator CERN's Large Hadron Collider.

The Higgs Mechanism is no longer merely proof-based theoretical model. They still need more evidences, but the 2013's experiment was a step in the right direction.

Proof doesn't make hypothesis into accepted scientific theory, evidences do.

 

[Prestor John]

I will grant that if a god is omnipotent he could do anything that he wanted to. But you propose a deceitful god. Why would you believe any of the claims of a deceitful god?

I have never once proposed a deceitful god.

You may want to peruse the forum rules regarding Trolling which mentions the "misrepresentation of a member's belief/argument"

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have never once proposed a deceitful god.

You may want to peruse the forum rules regarding Trolling which mentions the "misrepresentation of a member's belief/argument"

You do not seem to understand that if you make certain claims about the world you are in effect claiming that your God is deceitful. Fundamentalists do this all of the time without understanding what they are doing. I believe that you never meant to say that your God is deceitful, but if you say there really was a Flood of Noah for example, you are in fact making that claim. Such an event would have left endless evidence instead we only see evidence that it never happened. Now an all powerful God could plant false evidence, but that God would have to be deceitful to do so.

 

[Jollybear]

I am not sure why you are bringing up "intellectual honesty" from my reply.

My reply was to point out that in science, evidences are more important than proofs, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

Proofs are mathematical models, that only represent the real world, through formulas, equations or constants. While mathematics are important tools for science, observable and testable physical evidences always take precedence over mathematical proofs.

It is the evidence that determine the validity of any theory or hypothesis, not proof.

If say, you have 100 evidences against the hypothesis, then the hypothesis is improbable; then the hypothesis has been refuted. But if you have 100 evidences that back up the hypothesis, then the hypothesis is probable.

That's how science work, it dependent on the evidences that either verify or refute the hypothesis or theory, not the proofs.

You originally stated that "Proof is stronger than evidence". This is wrong.

To give you a real life example of how proof-based model don't make it to "Scientific Theory" status: Superstring Theory.

Superstring theory is an attempt to provide solution to answer everything in a single theory to the problems of both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. But all the solutions come from mathematical proofs, from the equations.

So while the proofs are strong in this Superstring model, there are no evidences. They may in the future find observable and testable evidences, there are no evidences now.

Without evidences, the Superstring Theory ISN'T A SCIENTIFIC THEORY, because it failed to be falsifiable and it failed to meet the requirements of Scientific Method, which required evidences.

Despite the name "Theory" that's attached to the end of "Superstring", Superstring Theory isn't scientific theory, and hasn't been accepted by scientific community, yet, because SS has proofs, but not evidences.

The reason why Superstring Theory hasn't been trashed or discarded as failed concept, is because the maths are still good, and still have potential. Superstring Theory is a proposed theoretical concept or model.

Do you understand what the word "proposed" mean?

Proposed model, are often theoretical model, that has the potential of being falsifiable hypothesis, but there have be some sorts of evidences for that to happen.

Here are some success stories of theoretical models that did become "science".

Einstein's Special Relativity and General Relativity started out being theoretical models when it was published. Other physicists managed to find experimental evidences to back these two models, so they eventually won the status of being "scientific theory".

Peter Higgs' Higgs Mechanism, his papers on Higgs Field and Higgs Boson, was written in 1964, was for nearly 50 years only a theoretical model. No evidences exist until 2013, when they "discovered" Higgs particle, during experiment at the particle accelerator CERN's Large Hadron Collider.

The Higgs Mechanism is no longer merely proof-based theoretical model. They still need more evidences, but the 2013's experiment was a step in the right direction.

Proof doesn't make hypothesis into accepted scientific theory, evidences do.

You cant answer a simple question with a simple answer?

 

[Prestor John]

It means that your "being formed from dust" is inadequate as an explanation for the evidence (unless your god set out to deceive people).

First, the claim that the first Man was formed from the dust is not "my" argument, but the one recorded in the scriptures.

I did not write the Genesis account of those events.

The word "inadequate" is completely subjective.

I still don't understand your claim that the presence of these mutated genes means God tried to deceive anyone.

Because what we have is (and, again, this is just one example) clear evidence that humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas evolved from a common ancestor, and are related to each other in exactly the way deduced from other evidence.

This argument is based on an assumption.

It never considers any other possibility for this evidence other than evolution.

Because the relevant bits of the genome are broken - they are genes that worked in our ancestors and have mutated so that they no longer work.

Our bodies were meant to be broken and imperfect.

It's by looking at exactly how they are mutated that gives us the evidence. It's exactly what you'd expect from the evolutionary relationships that we had already established from other evidence.

How does this completely eliminate any other possibility?

Evidence supporting one model cannot support another?

Moving to the other point I mentioned, why would a god want to put a mutated (non-functional) version of the gene for making egg yoke in the human genome, in the same place as it is in chickens?

Why would He create us at all? Why did He give us with anything and everything we have?

These are things we would expect if life in general, and humans in particular, evolved, they are not things we would expect from miraculous creation (unless the creator wanted to fool us).

There was nothing "miraculous" about our formation in the sense that it was "magical" or in suspension of natural law.

The entire Creation process took place in accordance to law. To those we know and those we have not yet discerned.

Adam did not simply "poof" into existence from nothing. The record clearly states that his physical body was formed from pre-existing materials.

Why do you immediately claim that this cannot be a possible explanation for this evidence you shared?

This is how real evidence works - you look at the world and see which hypothesis is supported by what you find.

Yes, but should you immediately disregard all other possibilities?

This reminds of the argument concerning sweet potatoes.

It is a fact that sweet potatoes originated in South America, but there are many explanations and theories surrounding how these plants spread to other parts of the world like Polynesian and Asia.

Many claim that the potatoes floated across the sea and planted themselves in these other lands without any human intervention because they know that these plants were cultivated there before people accomplished transoceanic travel.

However, many native islanders who grow these plants would explain that their ancient ancestors brought them to their island from across the sea.

To me, it is clear that ancient people were crossing the seas, because the plants are on these islands and the natives attest to it.

I just don't see how a potato could not only float across the ocean and plant itself somewhere fertile without help from humans.

Just because we have not yet found any ancient vessels capable of such voyages does not mean that we should rule out that possibility.

We shouldn't let what we don't know affect what we do know.

We know that these potatoes originated in South America and that native islanders claim that they have them because their ancient ancestors brought them from across the sea.

We don't know exactly how they got there, but we should be open to the possibility that ancient peoples could travel the seas.

We know that our bodies contain all kinds of genes that can be found in other species.

We don't know exactly how we got these genes, but we should be open to other possibilities.

I have never claimed that, "The Bible says "dust" therefore you are wrong."

All I have claimed is, "No evidence has completely ruled out the Genesis account."

Did you even look at the article (Genesis and the Genome - pdf)?

I looked, but I'm not about to read the whole thing.

If you were to refer some reading material to you I would share the chapter and relevant verses.

You should present your argument from that document.

Doesn't look much like it.

This assessment is based on....what?

All I need to do is look at the world - with it's harmony and balance - to know that it's creation was executed with great care and perfect precision.

Except for the overwhelming evidence that the universe and earth are very old...

The Genesis account does not rule out the possibility that the Universe and the Earth are very old.

...that life evolved on earth...

The Genesis account does not rule out the possibility that lifeforms evolved from one another.

...that humans are a species of ape that share a common ancestor with the other great apes, and ultimately with all other life on earth.

This is where we deviate.

The Genesis account clearly records that Man was formed from the dust.

I have yet to see anything to rules that out.

 

[ratiocinator]

The word "inadequate" is completely subjective.


I still don't understand your claim that the presence of these mutated genes means God tried to deceive anyone.

My case is that the evidence for evolution (of humans) is so conclusive that the only way to make it consistent with separate creation of humans by a god would be if that god deliberately made it look exactly as if humans had evolved.

The word "inadequate" is completely subjective.


I still don't understand your claim that the presence of these mutated genes means God tried to deceive anyone.

It's not just the presence of mutated genes, it's about the exact way in which these olfactory receptor genes are mutated and how those exact mutations are present or absent in other apes in exactly the pattern we would expect if we were related in the way deduced from other independent evidence. In other words, we share the most mutations with chimpanzees, fewer with with gorillas and still fewer with orangutans. There are also no out of place mutations, so mutations shared with humans and gorillas are also present in chimpanzees and mutations shared with orangutans are also shared with gorillas and chimpanzees.

This is just one line of the evidence for the way in which other apes are related to humans - if it isn't the case, and humans were specially created by a god, then said god seems to have gone to great lengths to make it look exactly like we evolved.

It never considers any other possibility for this evidence other than evolution.

How does this completely eliminate any other possibility?


Evidence supporting one model cannot support another?

Like what? What model do you suggest?

Why would He create us at all? Why did He give us with anything and everything we have?

I have no idea - but that is just avoiding the point.

All I have claimed is, "No evidence has completely ruled out the Genesis account."

No evidence has completely ruled out Last Thursdayism, either.

I looked, but I'm not about to read the whole thing.

Well it's only eleven pages (excluding notes and references) and it's actually quite concise. It's also just a fraction of the total evidence.

 

[gnostic]

I have never once proposed a deceitful god.

You may want to peruse the forum rules regarding Trolling which mentions the "misrepresentation of a member's belief/argument"

There are some Young Earth Creationists who claimed that the ancient fossils of animals, plants or microbes that are older 6000 years old, they would say that god put them (fossils) there, making them seemed older they really are.

If what they say are true, then god is trying to deceive people with young fossils giving false readings of a million-plus years.

Do you know about light from distant stars or distant galaxies, further away than 6000 light years away, the images astronomers would see are lights that took time to reach time to reach us, because light travel at specific speed?

For instance, Andromeda Galaxy is over 2 million light years from Earth. That would mean when we look at Andromeda without telescopes, than that is the distance light must travel in order for us to see this closest large spiral galaxy. We are actually look at Andromeda was like 2 million years ago.

Now YECs’ answer to all objects were there 6000 years ago, because god put the fake lights there, so the images we see are actually younger but god made it seem older.

These examples of fake fossils or fake light/images of distant galaxies are examples that god playing deceitful tricks upon us.

I don’t know if you are one of the creationists who agreed or believed in such claims, but if you do, then you believe in a trickster god.

 

[sooda]

There are some Young Earth Creationists who claimed that the ancient fossils of animals, plants or microbes that are older 6000 years old, they would say that god put them (fossils) there, making them seemed older they really are.

If what they say are true, then god is trying to deceive people with young fossils giving false readings of a million-plus years.

Do you know about light from distant stars or distant galaxies, further away than 6000 light years away, the images astronomers would see are lights that took time to reach time to reach us, because light travel at specific speed?

For instance, Andromeda Galaxy is over 2 million light years from Earth. That would mean when we look at Andromeda without telescopes, than that is the distance light must travel in order for us to see this closest large spiral galaxy. We are actually look at Andromeda was like 2 million years ago.

Now YECs’ answer to all objects were there 6000 years ago, because god put the fake lights there, so the images we see are actually younger but god made it seem older.

These examples of fake fossils or fake light/images of distant galaxies are examples that god playing deceitful tricks upon us.

I don’t know if you are one of the creationists who agreed or believed in such claims, but if you do, then you believe in a trickster god.

I guess God also removed all evidence of a global flood to fool us as well.

 

[gnostic]

You cant answer a simple question with a simple answer?

Because I don’t know where you are coming from, when I have re-read my reply that you have quoted from.

You wrote this:

That is correct! Evidence is not the same as proof. Proof is stronger then evidence, evidence is stronger then faith.

I actually with your 2nd sentence - “Evidence is not the same as proof”, but I disagree with your assertion in the next sentence that “Proof is stronger then evidence”.

That’s not true.

In science, evidences always take precedence over proofs. If the evidences don’t back up the proofs, then the proofs are wrong, not the evidences.

Evidences always matter more than any mathematical proof (eg equations or formulas).

As to “intellectual honesty” that’s argument you were having with Polymath257, not with me.