Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[Sapiens]

G

Sorry. You don't get to set yourself up as your own judge. Kindly prove that any of the people you have supposedly referenced are serious scholars.

Go play Pigeon Chess with someone else. I met your challenge and you are too bad a sport to meet it. Your standard tactic now sees to be to simply attempt to mirror your oppositions's argument regardless of how ridiculous doing so is. I say there are scholars so say Jesus is mythical, first you incorrect claim that the scholars are mythical and when that doesn't fly you try to use "no true Scotsman" to deny that they were scholars.

 

[Zosimus]

You're either very ignorant of the science behind genetic testing or you have a serious problem with reading comprehension... It could be both.
You could also be willfully ignorant because you don't like your worldview challenged, but I don't know enough about you to call that one.

How is genetically testing a hypothesis (admittedly based on the similarity of physical characteristics) the same as crediting Vishnu with the creation of the Universe, or testing flawed assumptions about the profession of anyone?

If the genetic markers indicated similar lineage, then would that not validate the physical connection?

It would not. Perhaps you are puzzled by this, but look at it in a simplified situation. Let's suppose that our claim is this: If it rained, the ground will be wet.
So what do we know if the ground is wet? Some people may say that we know that it rained, but is this really true? Are there no other possible causes for wet ground? Maybe John washed his car. Maybe the sewer backed up. Maybe someone ran over a fire hydrant. Maybe someone left the sprinkers running too long. Maybe it hailed, and the hail has since melted. In short, there are multiple other possible reasons that the ground might be wet.

But what if there were no other known reasons for wet ground? Would that make the hypothesis of rain guaranteed? No, it would not. Tomorrow someone may come up with a new way that the ground can become wet–a way that we didn't know about before.

This is the problem with inductive reasoning. Even when all inputs are true, the conclusion may still be false.[/quote]

If that wouldn't be good enough for you, what would?
Everything else after that validation of the original assumption would simply further support the conclusion, would it not?
And if it wouldn't, what would?

Would it really? How many white swans do I need to see before I know that all swans are white?
Perhaps you say that all grass is green. How would you respond to someone who said that all grass is grue? Don't all the data equally support the idea that grass is grue?

How can you determine between valid and invalid inductive conclusions?
If three girls are on a bus, and the bus is going south, when a new girl gets on the bus, will she also be going south? Most people would say yes.
But if three girls are on a bus, and all three were born in February, when a new girls gets on the bus, will she also be born in February? Most people would say no.

So how can you distinguish between a valid and an invalid inductive conclusion? Do you have a rule? If so, share it with us, please.

I find it interesting that you tried to attack the argument based on some reaching attempt of calling it a logical fallacy, rather than picking apart any of the science that's behind it.

I find it shocking that you would say such a thing. How would you respond to a Christian who said, "I find it interesting that you tried to attack the argument by calling it superstitious writings of ancient primitive people rather than quoting another Bible verse that refutes my point?"

All you have to do in order to blow my whole argument to smithereens is show me a shared physical trait between organisms that is not genetically related somehow.

Wait... what? Physical traits that are not genetically related or organisms that are not genetically related? I think it entirely depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.

If you can do that, then I'll admit defeat. As a secondary bonus you'll probably also win a Nobel prize for forever changing the landscape of scientific understanding, specifically in Biology.

Oh, that's easy. All you have to do is look at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1631068312001960

However, I'd like to point out the logical fallacy that you are employing here. It's a subset of the argument from ignorance logical fallacy, but I'll call it the "Science of the Gaps" logical fallacy. Basically, you are saying that because there is a gap in knowledge, we are required to accept science's latest theory as valid and true.

How is this any difference from the God of the Gaps logical fallacy?

 

[Parsimony]

Sticking to biology. Who still think humans came from apes? Do you still believe in the Cromagnon Man and the Neanderthal Man? The length that atheist scientists would go to prove their theories. All of it has been exposed as fakes or questionable as to its assumptions.

I've explained the creation in six days and a day of rest. Yet, just strawmen and red herrings from the atheists crowd even if we're discussing biology.

Seriously? You are doubting that Neanderthals existed now? Even though we have their genome decoded (which is distinct from that of modern humans) and hundreds of their bones? That would require no less than a conspiracy. So now that you are positing a conspiracy, let's see the evidence for it.

Also, that "Nearly all experts agree that Lucy was a 3 foot tall chimpanzee" comment is a whopper of a claim. Can you provide a source backing up that statement? It sounds like it might be a reference to this:

Another Patton quote:

"[Adrienne] Zihlman compares the pygmy chimpanzee to "Lucy," one of the oldest hominid fossils known and finds the similarities striking. They are almost identical in body size, in stature; and in brain size.... " (Science News, Vol.123, Feb.5. 1983, p.89)

Once again, Patton has omitted contextual information that would weaken his case. The full sentence reads:

"They are almost identical in body size, in stature, and in brain size, she notes, and the major differences (the hip and the foot) represent the younger Lucy's adaptation to bipedal walking."

This is an example of quote-mining, another fallacy, which completely ignores that Lucy's pelvis was much more similar to that of humans than it was to that of chimpanzees.

 

[gnostic]

I still haven't seen a single VERIFIABLE evidence or a single source provided by creationists, in this thread.

There has only been whining about how evolution is wrong or how evolution equate with atheism, but nothing to show that creationism is real and scientifically supported with evidences. No evidences to show that there is even a Creator out there, doing actual "creating"; all we do get is one fallacy after another.

 

[Thief]

What false claims have I made specifically?

perhaps you are misusing the word.....claim.....as follows

You claimed to have conclusive evidence of a specific beginning and God initiating that beginning, did you not? You claimed that "science" gets us to the Big Bang, yet you haven't provided any evidence that the Big Bang wasn't caused by some other natural event. Can you provide any?

I can only offer a line of thought
there will never be any evidence or proof

your demand for evidence is inappropriate

you already know.......all you can do is think about it

 

[Thief]

I still haven't seen a single VERIFIABLE evidence or a single source provided by creationists, in this thread.

There has only been whining about how evolution is wrong or how evolution equate with atheism, but nothing to show that creationism is real and scientifically supported with evidences. No evidences to show that there is even a Creator out there, doing actual "creating"; all we do get is one fallacy after another.

evolution is real
God did it

no proving required......such is faith

 

[Parsimony]

evolution is real
God did it

Thank you! Finally, someone else agreeing that you can believe in both evolution and God.

 

[james bond]

It seems you have demonstrated that it is ignorance, not dishonesty.

Perhaps one day you will be able to understand that you have not been discussing the ToE, but instead have been rambling and whining over strawmen and red herrings that are not the ToE.
Sadly, you have been told that very thing over and over and over...
But instead of trying to comprehend it, you pick yourself up, brush yourself off, and continue as if nothing happened.


Creation has nothing going for it except the lengths people will go to reveal their dishonesty and or ignorance.
As you have thoroughly demonstrated in this thread.

How do you expect to be taken seriously when you flaunt your dishonesty and ignorance like a proud mother shows off her new born baby?

I was right about you being full of complaints and criticisms. It has gone from strawmen and red herrings to dishonesty and ignorance. All opinions. Not one rebuttal to the points I brought up when you gave me the floor.

All right, I'll give you the floor. Give us a little spiel about ToE so the creation scientists here won't be ignorant.

 

[james bond]

Seriously? You are doubting that Neanderthals existed now? Even though we have their genome decoded (which is distinct from that of modern humans) and hundreds of their bones? That would require no less than a conspiracy. So now that you are positing a conspiracy, let's see the evidence for it.

Also, that "Nearly all experts agree that Lucy was a 3 foot tall chimpanzee" comment is a whopper of a claim. Can you provide a source backing up that statement? It sounds like it might be a reference to this

This is an example of quote-mining, another fallacy, which completely ignores that Lucy's pelvis was much more similar to that of humans than it was to that of chimpanzees.

The quote mining fallacy isn't from me, but the evos. Lucy did not walk upright. The skeleton is very sketchy if one examines it. It's more along the lines of the Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man.

You can explain about Neanderthals first since that is more ToE. Do we agree that Homo neanderthalensis, an extinct hominid, lived throughout most of Europe and parts of Asia and northern Africa?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Lucy did not walk upright.

Neither do broken down old people. So?

 

[gnostic]

evolution is real
God did it

Yes, evolution is real. It is supported by the evidences.

Saying "God did it", is not evidence that God did anything. All we see is nature doing its work, not of God creating or God doing any work. There are no connections between God and nature.

 

[jonathan180iq]

It would not. Perhaps you are puzzled by this, but look at it in a simplified situation. Let's suppose that our claim is this: If it rained, the ground will be wet.
So what do we know if the ground is wet? Some people may say that we know that it rained, but is this really true? Are there no other possible causes for wet ground? Maybe John washed his car. Maybe the sewer backed up. Maybe someone ran over a fire hydrant. Maybe someone left the sprinkers running too long. Maybe it hailed, and the hail has since melted. In short, there are multiple other possible reasons that the ground might be wet.

But what if there were no other known reasons for wet ground? Would that make the hypothesis of rain guaranteed? No, it would not. Tomorrow someone may come up with a new way that the ground can become wet–a way that we didn't know about before.

This is the problem with inductive reasoning. Even when all inputs are true, the conclusion may still be false.

Your approach to this is just bananas, man.

Genetically testing two samples for relation is in no way similar to guessing that it rained just because the ground is wet... The only way those two could be compared is if you tested the moisture in a dirt sample for definitive chemical evidence that the moisture came from rain water. The very reason that you test phenotypical assumptions of relatedness is to assure that you aren't falling into some of the traps that you're referring to. Continuing a detailed study based on faulty base data would be folly.

But despite all of that, the only thing you really need to do is show me an example of genetically related things that aren't actually genetically related. Show me a false positive.
If you're claiming that my simplistic breakdown of biological relatedness is purely based on inductive reasoning and nothing more, then please show me a genetically verified point of relation between any two organisms and then explain to me how they are not actually related. If you can't do that then you need to drop this angle of attack.

Would it really? How many white swans do I need to see before I know that all swans are white?
Perhaps you say that all grass is green. How would you respond to someone who said that all grass is grue? Don't all the data equally support the idea that grass is grue?

How can you determine between valid and invalid inductive conclusions?
If three girls are on a bus, and the bus is going south, when a new girl gets on the bus, will she also be going south? Most people would say yes.
But if three girls are on a bus, and all three were born in February, when a new girls gets on the bus, will she also be born in February? Most people would say no.

So how can you distinguish between a valid and an invalid inductive conclusion? Do you have a rule? If so, share it with us, please.

You test it... You test any of those conclusions with something that is not based on your reasoning. Genetic testing is not based on your guesses about the direction of the bus or the date of birth of any of it's occupants. It's based on the thousands/millions of points of raw data from the molecular level of any thing.

If I took 3 rocks and broke them all in half, how would you know which shard came from which parent rock?

You could look at them, certainly. You could make some pretty decent assumptions about which piece goes where, based on things like shape, color, or break pattern. But if we were going be very stringent in our testing and wanted to most accurately know which shard came from which rock, wouldn't you add a layer or two of testing? And wouldn't you base that testing on something a step or two removed from just your eyes - say, like chemical testing or maybe spectrometry?

How is genetic verification any different?

I find it shocking that you would say such a thing. How would you respond to a Christian who said, "I find it interesting that you tried to attack the argument by calling it superstitious writings of ancient primitive people rather than quoting another Bible verse that refutes my point?"

Gladly! If we were in a debate about Scriptural accuracy, then I would happily debate you on those grounds alone. I wouldn't need to simply input random opinion because that would be disingenuous of me, don't you think?

If we were debating Math, wouldn't you use Math to refute my claims?
If we were debating History, wouldn't you use Historical examples to critique my conclusions?
If we were debating Economics, wouldn't you use economic bases to support your assertions?

Yet in a debate about Science you aren't using science... why?

Wait... what? Physical traits that are not genetically related or organisms that are not genetically related? I think it entirely depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.

Either or

Oh, that's easy. All you have to do is look at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1631068312001960

However, I'd like to point out the logical fallacy that you are employing here. It's a subset of the argument from ignorance logical fallacy, but I'll call it the "Science of the Gaps" logical fallacy. Basically, you are saying that because there is a gap in knowledge, we are required to accept science's latest theory as valid and true.

How is this any difference from the God of the Gaps logical fallacy?

That article does nothing to address the challenge of finding a shared physical trait that is not genetically related... It's about questioning whether or not the appendix evolved base on diet, physical, or social factors. I would suggest you keep looking.

Side note - If anything, it causes me to point out the similarity of appendices in both humans and great apes. They are vastly different from those of smaller mammals, not only in function, but in tissue structure as well. (I'm guessing here that you chose the appendix because of the common argument about it's vestigial origin. I'm not of that camp. Don't assume as much.)

Also, I've never said such a thing.
Matching genetic markers indicate relatedness, and there's a whole slew of reasons why that is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_clock
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homology_(biology)#Orthology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudogene
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleic_acid_sequence

If you have a problem with that, I would like to hear something more definitive than just saying "Well - it's all a logical fallacy."

Genetic testing can tell you who your parents are, and how much DNA you share with your direct siblings, cousins, and distant relatives. It does the exact same thing for showing your relatedness to any other organism on the planet, using the exact same science...

What about that do you have a problem with?

 

[Zosimus]

Your approach to this is just bananas, man.

Genetically testing two samples for relation is in no way similar to guessing that it rained just because the ground is wet...

Yes it is. In fact, it's exactly the same.

The only way those two could be compared is if you tested the moisture in a dirt sample for definitive chemical evidence that the moisture came from rain water. The very reason that you test phenotypical assumptions of relatedness is to assure that you aren't falling into some of the traps that you're referring to. Continuing a detailed study based on faulty base data would be folly.

So are you saying that genetic testing is never faulty? What about or http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/9115916/The-case-against-DNA.html or http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-kukucka/forensic-evidence_b_3178848.html

But despite all of that, the only thing you really need to do is show me an example of genetically related things that aren't actually genetically related. Show me a false positive.
If you're claiming that my simplistic breakdown of biological relatedness is purely based on inductive reasoning and nothing more, then please show me a genetically verified point of relation between any two organisms and then explain to me how they are not actually related. If you can't do that then you need to drop this angle of attack.

I will be glad to, but first I require you to show me a logically valid argument that isn't logically valid. If you can't do so, then you need to drop this angle of attack.

You test it... You test any of those conclusions with something that is not based on your reasoning. Genetic testing is not based on your guesses about the direction of the bus or the date of birth of any of it's occupants. It's based on the thousands/millions of points of raw data from the molecular level of any thing.

How does all of this testing overcome the problems that I've outlined? Be specific.

If I took 3 rocks and broke them all in half, how would you know which shard came from which parent rock?

It's not possible to know.

You could look at them, certainly. You could make some pretty decent assumptions about which piece goes where, based on things like shape, color, or break pattern. But if we were going be very stringent in our testing and wanted to most accurately know which shard came from which rock, wouldn't you add a layer or two of testing? And wouldn't you base that testing on something a step or two removed from just your eyes - say, like chemical testing or maybe spectrometry?

Sure, you could do all of those things, but they would all be logically flawed. It doesn't matter how good your evidence is if you're using a method of reasoning that can produce false outputs even when all inputs are true.

Gladly! If we were in a debate about Scriptural accuracy, then I would happily debate you on those grounds alone. I wouldn't need to simply input random opinion because that would be disingenuous of me, don't you think?

If we were debating Math, wouldn't you use Math to refute my claims?
If we were debating History, wouldn't you use Historical examples to critique my conclusions?
If we were debating Economics, wouldn't you use economic bases to support your assertions?

Yet in a debate about Science you aren't using science... why?

All right. Let's have a debate about a scientific matter using nothing but science. However, during this debate, I will ignore all the rules of math. When it comes time to add, I will subtract. When I'm supposed to multiply, I will instead divide. However, since the debate is about science, you will be expressly forbidden from pointing out any mistakes in math. That wouldn't be kosher because we're talking about science, not math. Similarly, I will feel free to commit any sorts of logical fallacies, and you will be expressly forbidden from pointing those out. Deal?

That article does nothing to address the challenge of finding a shared physical trait that is not genetically related... It's about questioning whether or not the appendix evolved base on diet, physical, or social factors. I would suggest you keep looking.

Multiple species, each with an appendix, yet no genetic relation. This doesn't count? Why not?

Side note - If anything, it causes me to point out the similarity of appendices in both humans and great apes. They are vastly different from those of smaller mammals, not only in function, but in tissue structure as well. (I'm guessing here that you chose the appendix because of the common argument about it's vestigial origin. I'm not of that camp. Don't assume as much.)

So what? Humans and apes cannot synthesize vitamin C because of genetic mutations that have inactivated a crucial enzyme in their liver. Similarly fruit bats and guinea pigs cannot synthesize vitamin C. Do you conclude that humans, apes, fruit bats, and guinea pigs are closely-related species?

Also, I've never said such a thing.
Matching genetic markers indicate relatedness...

No, you are inferring relatedness.

..., and there's a whole slew of reasons why that is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_clock
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homology_(biology)#Orthology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudogene
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleic_acid_sequence

Wikipedia is not a valid source.

If you have a problem with that, I would like to hear something more definitive than just saying "Well - it's all a logical fallacy."

No problem. Well, since you cannot explain every detail of every event that ever happened in the past to my satisfaction, you must conclude that God created life in 6 days less than 6,000 years ago. Remember, of course, that you are forbidden from mentioning that the above is a logical fallacy. After all, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Genetic testing can tell you who your parents are, and how much DNA you share with your direct siblings, cousins, and distant relatives.

Speculation.

It does the exact same thing for showing your relatedness to any other organism on the planet, using the exact same science...

What about that do you have a problem with?

Well, this for starters.

 

[Parsimony]

The quote mining fallacy isn't from me, but the evos.

Evolutionists aren't the ones claiming that Lucy was a chimpanzee, so no, they aren't the ones doing the quote mining.

Lucy did not walk upright.

Existing evidence (analysis of the feet, knees and hips) suggests that the australopithecines did walk upright. Lucy wasn't the only Australopithecus fossil found. Many other have been as well.

The skeleton is very sketchy if one examines it.

Meaning what?

It's more along the lines of the Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man.

Piltdown Man was a hoax and Nebraska Man was a complete misinterpretation. The australopithecines were quite real and are represented by multiple fossils. Not at all comparable.

You can explain about Neanderthals first since that is more ToE. Do we agree that Homo neanderthalensis, an extinct hominid, lived throughout most of Europe and parts of Asia and northern Africa?

So you do agree that they existed? Good. I know they lived in Europe but haven't researched their distribution.

Now how about my other post? You going to respond to that?

 

[McBell]

I was right about you being full of complaints and criticisms. It has gone from strawmen and red herrings to dishonesty and ignorance. All opinions. Not one rebuttal to the points I brought up when you gave me the floor.

All right, I'll give you the floor. Give us a little spiel about ToE so the creation scientists here won't be ignorant.

There is no sense in rebutting the strawmen and red herrings you present from ignorance and or dishonesty.
Perhaps one day you will START talking about the ToE.
But until that day, you are not going to be taken seriously outside the choir.

You have successfully ignored everything presented to you thus far, what reason does anyone have to believe you are honestly interested in truth?

 

[Thief]

Yes, evolution is real. It is supported by the evidences.

Saying "God did it", is not evidence that God did anything. All we see is nature doing its work, not of God creating or God doing any work. There are no connections between God and nature.

I believe in Higher Intellect

no proof required

 

[leibowde84]

perhaps you are misusing the word.....claim.....as follows


I can only offer a line of thought
there will never be any evidence or proof

your demand for evidence is inappropriate

you already know.......all you can do is think about it

I assumed that your claim of "certainty" could be backed up with evidence. Without any evidence, how can you be certain?

 

[Segev Moran]

Cre·a·tion·ism
krēˈāSHəˌnizəm/
noun

1. the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.

Is there any? I often hear creationists lean on arguments from ignorance or the present lack of scientific understanding, but I've never heard of any verifiable evidence for it.

That's because there is none...
No.. scriptures are not evidence...
Not knowing something is not an evidence
"Feeling" and "knowing" it is not evidence...
So Nope... none whatsoever

 

[Segev Moran]

the definition has a built in pivot.
I say the big bang and evolution are evidence of God.

LOL..ehhhhhm... nope

 

[leibowde84]

the definition has a built in pivot.
I say the big bang and evolution are evidence of God.

How specifically?