Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[leibowde84]

linear.......Spirit first

Lol. Nope circular, as your evidence for your conclusion was your conclusion itself.

 

[Zosimus]

You are assuming your conclusion in your reasoning (assuming that God created all that is natural), which is merely circular reasoning/logic. Can you support the conclusion that God created all that is natural without resorting to circular logic?

Can you support whatever contention you have without resorting to circular logic?

 

[Revoltingest]

God created all that is natural
Spirit first

How many gods created it?
Who created these gods?
How does one know they didn't employ abiogenesis by mere stochastic chemistry processes?
Too many people "know" unverifiable things, & reject plausible alternatives out of hand.

 

[james bond]

Either I address everything you say and you complain that I'm typing too much or I don't address everything you say and you complain that I ignored one or more of your points. Sounds like I can't please you either way.

So you agree that the bone density mutation is beneficial? Good. We do know that it is in fact a mutation, as the location of the mutation was found in the genome. To quote from the earlier posted source:

I would also like to know what scientific evidence exists that the ancestors of modern humans had unbreakable bones. That is quite a big claim. You do call creation "creation science", so surely there is not only some scientific evidence of unbreakable bones in our past but also that the Earth and its ecosystems came into existence within the span of six days. Not five, not seven, but six exactly. I don't know of any applicable dating techniques that can tell the age of something down to the resolution of days.

But He didn't need to. That was my point. He could have simply commanded us to take a day off in the week for the sake of our rest. Likewise, He didn't have to use a worldwide flood to kill the sinners of Noah's day. He could have struck everyone dead in an instant. You never did supply an answer for why He would command Noah to take every kind of animal aboard the ark if He wanted some of them the become extinct in the flood.

How so?

Funny, so you'd rather I make claims without being able to back them up with a source? That's a very strange requirement for an argument. However, if you feel that it is okay to discard my links, I guess that means I can discard any links you post as well. It's only fair, right?

So how about them fallacies?

- "I can't imagine how a live bearing animal started." (Argument from incredulity. Your inability to imagine something has no bearing on reality.)
- "Birds didn't come from dinosaurs. There were birds during the time dinosaurs existed." (Non-sequitur. Descendant populations can coexist with ancestral populations, which is why white Americans and white Europeans both coexist today even though white Amercans can trace their ancestry back to Europe. Also, most dinosaurs did not evolve into birds in the first place.)
- "Atheists want to believe in positive mutations when all mutations are negative or neutral. There may be a positive benefit, but one can't remove the negative." (Moving the goalposts. Now how did I know that was going to happen? You very clearly stated that a mutation that increases bone density is beneficial. So either you were lying when you said you thought it was beneficial or you are changing your mind, hence moving the goalposts. This also verges on a red herring or straw-man because you single out atheists even though atheism and evolution have no need for each other.)
- "If you want me to start, then I'll say there is no explanation for how the single-cell, algae, bacteria, universe, or anything started. Evolution is dead." (Straw-man. Evolution isn't about abiogenesis or the origin of the universe.)
- "ToE is more than biology" (Straw-man. You've yet to provide any authoritative source giving a definition that encompasses more than biology.)
- "Evolution is a worldview" (Straw-man. If evolution is a worldview them so is "round Earthism".)
- "Would you rather smoke his or the GMO? If you rather smoke his, then give up the hypocrisy of GMO. Practice what you preach." (Another GMO red herring. Evolution need not exist for GMO's to exist or vice-versa.)
- "AFAIK no one has been able to breed two plants to make a flower." (Straw-man. Nobody said that flowers suddenly popped up by two plants breeding together.)

Total fallacies: 14

Reply to #2211

Bone density is good, but it's not a mutation as you would like. The natural state was bone density so our bones were unbreakable. Today, evo scientists discovered a genome that they think it's a cause for bone density and they think it can be mutated (?) (You have to help me out with this. I seem to remember reading something like this.) Here's a link to show that bone density was high in the past -- http://www.livescience.com/49236-bone-density-human-evolution.html . Just ignore the evo bs .

Genetic modification to cause mutation for bone density or whatever benefit will not be good because mutation will have some negative result as genetic information is lost. Change = something gained + something lost.

Some more hypotheses on mutations from creation science
Mutations have been observed that increase or decrease the size of some portion (or portions) of a living organism.
Mutations have been observed that change the shape of a living organism.
Mutations have been observed that duplicate existing features (cows with two heads, flies with extra wings, etc.).
No mutation has ever been observed that provides a new function (sight, hearing, smell, lactation, etc.) in a living organism that did not previously have that function.
Mutation and artificial selection have not been demonstrated to be sufficient to bring about new life forms from existing ones.

As for God, you seem to think that He is some large arm and hand that comes down from the sky to help or harm us. He is not physical in our world. If God was physical, then we would all believe in Him. He gave us free will, so we have to live with our decisions and its consequences. Clearly, it means that it's not heaven on earth anymore. Thus, the change or pain and punishment in an instant has to occur with what exists in our universe if God deems it. It took God or humans roughly 1600 years before Noah's Flood and life changed after that. Today, we see the results of that and we have to live with the consequences. We got the Ark Encounter now, so it should explain some of the questions we have about the flood. I, too, would like to see what they have to say. Finally, you do not believe what He said, so I can't address your mundane arguments against it. There are atheists who have read the Bible and blame God for the pain and suffering in this world. So, reading the Bible is what I would recommend if you want to get the creation side. Read the Bible, what the creation scientists say and compare. That's what I did, and before I was like everyone else and was led to believe in evolution. That evolution.berkeley.edu website is what I used as a learning tool.

 

[james bond]

your parrot act is all used up.
Might want to try a different approach.

Here's something for someone like you, evolution's flying spaghetti monster -- the walking fish! Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you tiktaalik the fish that came out of the water to breathe air and walk so he could become human. This is no fish story. So, you caught a fish that can walk on land? Let's see it. Not exactly. Tiktaalik is hundreds of millions of years old and we found its fossil. But after reconstruction, you can see it has the requisite appendages to be able to crawl on land. It has a shoulder, wrist and fin feet.

This is the science and fact of evolution, so you know it's true.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/060501_tiktaalik

 

[leibowde84]

Can you support whatever contention you have without resorting to circular logic?

My contention is that certainty, at this point in human understanding, as to whether God initiated the big bang is not possible due to a lack of evidence. This is true because we don't know nearly enough about what happened before time, as we know it, began or even that the BB was the starting point.

 

[Thief]

How many gods created it?
Who created these gods?
How does one know they didn't employ abiogenesis by mere stochastic chemistry processes?
Too many people "know" unverifiable things, & reject plausible alternatives out of hand.

I hear there is One Creator
Spirit first is the plausible scheme of things

otherwise...substance ALL of it created itself and ALL of it's behavior patterns (nature)
and you sir, are an accident beyond likelihood
as well as the other 7billion copies of that same 'accident'
(not plausible)

 

[Revoltingest]

I hear there is One Creator
Spirit first is the plausible scheme of things

otherwise...substance ALL of it created itself and ALL of it's behavior patterns (nature)
and you sir, are an accident beyond likelihood
as well as the other 7billion copies of that same 'accident'
(not plausible)

Me parents insisted I wasn't an accident!

 

[Thief]

Me parents insisted I wasn't an accident!

good for you
but I was speaking of the body as a creation

 

[Revoltingest]

good for you
but I was speaking of the body as a creation

Oh...."accident" seems the wrong word for results of a stochastic process.

 

[Thief]

Oh...."accident" seems the wrong word for results of a stochastic process.

and I believe the body to be a deliberate form.....
a form in turn, to form unique spirit on each occasion

there's no one else like you

thank God

 

[Revoltingest]

there's no one else like you
thank God

People are dang lucky for that!

 

[Thief]

People are dang lucky for that!

and your immediate formation IS allowed to chance!

you could have been something other than a Scotsman!

oooops

 

[leibowde84]

then all that you are certain of has been spooned fed to you by school teachers

and you can't think on your own

My only claim here has been that certainty is not possible in this context. I've asked you for evidence to the contrary but you have failed to provide any.

And, I think on my own all the time. I am skeptical of anyone who claims certainty, including teachers.

 

[Thief]

My only claim here has been that certainty is not possible in this context. I've asked you for evidence to the contrary but you have failed to provide any.

And, I think on my own all the time. I am skeptical of anyone who claims certainty, including teachers.

asking for evidence is a fail

consider my previous post more carefully

 

[james bond]

Why would anyone believe something without evidence? I think what qualifies as evidence might vary from person to person, but without evidence of some kind, belief seems foolish, right?

Believe something without evidence? It's called worldview, opinion, philosophy or religion (faith) so not everyone is foolish. Do you believe in aliens, transitional fossils, multiverses, dark matter, universe from invisible particles, man came from apes, abiogenesis, the universe is primed for life and the rest of evolution? I would label that FOOLISH.

 

[metis]

Believe something without evidence? It's called worldview, opinion, philosophy or religion (faith) so not everyone is foolish. Do you believe in aliens, transitional fossils, multiverses, dark matter, universe from invisible particles, man came from apes, abiogenesis, the universe is primed for life and the rest of evolution? I would label that FOOLISH.

There are myriads of "transitional fossils", man did not come from apes per se since both have evolved, and there is at least some evidence for dark matter.

 

[Shad]

Yes, Mr. I-can't-follow-the-argument. The point is that solipsism has the same predictive power as does science with fewer starting assumptions.

Solipsism has no predictive power, it can never have it. In order to have predictive power there must be a predication followed by either verification or falsification of that which was predicted. Fgure out what the terms you are using mean before you jump the shark. You confused predictive power with explanatory power

Thus, parsimony suggests that solipsism is a better theory.

No since theory is not a term used for solipsism. You play loose with your terms in order to create flawed arguments. Try again

So if you believe in parsimony (I don't), then explain why you don't believe in solipsism.

I do not hold with parsimony as complex answers can be correct rather than a simple answer

And don't say "science holds to an axiom in which solipsism is false." That is completely irrelevant.

Again you play loose with your terms then demand people ignore what the term means in context. Try again.

Both your argument and the one you responded to are flawed as parsimony. I have no need to follow an arguments which are flawed nor the respond to it following the same line of thought. Im just pointing out the arguments fails for both cases since the principle can never grant any probability for any case involved nor should it be relied upon for a conclusion

 

[leibowde84]

Believe something without evidence? It's called worldview, opinion, philosophy or religion (faith) so not everyone is foolish. Do you believe in aliens, transitional fossils, multiverses, dark matter, universe from invisible particles, man came from apes, abiogenesis, the universe is primed for life and the rest of evolution? I would label that FOOLISH.

I believe in the Theory of Evolution due to the plethora of verifiable evidence that supports it. I believe in my worldview because of the evidence I have come across throughout my experience in life. My philosophy is based on the experiences of myself and others who have come before me (historians, philosophers, teachers, leaders, etc.), which can certainly be considered to be evidence. I believe in Dark Matter because there is certainly evidence that supports the conclusion it exists.

If you are under the misconception that evidence requires certainty or only refers to empirical evidence, that is on you. There are many different forms of evidence and reasoning.

 

[Parsimony]

My bad. The statement should have read. Chimps "can't" do that. I didn't take it of context and change it.

So then you realize that there is no quote mining by evolutionists here?

I'm saying Lucy is not what the atheist scientists claim it to be and could be borderline fraud.

Stop saying “atheist scientists”. You are on the borderline of strawmanning evolution as being atheistic once again.

Australopithecus did not have the necessary hip joint for bipedalism. On Nova, Dr. Own Lovejoy reported that the anatomy of Lucy's hipbone was more like primate than human anatomy.
He presumed that this was because the pelvic bone was damaged and reshaped a cast of the bone to give it a more human shape. That's either dishonest or literally shaping the evidence to fit evo and then using circular reasoning by saying the skeleton shows evolution.

The original hip fossil was crushed and thus was not an accurate representation of its original shape. The reshaping was not done to the fossil but rather a copy made of it in an attempt to understand its real shape. There are only so many ways that bone fragments could be put back together. But what’s more compelling is that we have multiple fossils of Australopithecus. Lucy is not the only one with a hip joint present. See these fossils of Australopithecus sediba:

In the bottom-most picture, the center fossil is Lucy and the other two are A. sediba. The brown pieces represent the actual fossil remains. As you can see, the right hip joint and upper right femur are preserved in one specimen, and are definitely more similar to that of humans (which are broad and short) than to chimps (which are elongated). Below is a fossil of the pelvis of A. africanus

If you look at the museum figures of Lucy, it looks like it is walking upright, but was more like that of a chimpanzee.

With all of these hips and knees there is plenty of evidence supporting the idea of Australopithecines walking upright at least part of the time. The location of the foramen magnum in the Taung child suggested bipedal location as well. A metatarsal revealed arched feet, another feature found in humans that is an adaptation for bipedal walking.

The knee was found by itself, so we cannot be sure what it belonged to.

The majority of the left femur and the upper part of the right tibia of Lucy’s skeleton were found. These taken together make it easy to know what Lucy’s knee joint looked like. This would have allowed direct comparison with the 1973 knee, allowing scientists to know that it also belonged to an Australopithecus. It’s also interesting to note that a knee joint is present in one of the A. sediba fossils that I posted above. So we are hardly ignorant about the knees of the Australopithecines.

As for Neanderthals, just because AIG or creation scientists use the term does not mean that we coined it. It was given by the evos in 1856. For AIG: "Homo neanderthalensis was the scientific name given to an unusual ancient fossil (later to be called Neanderthal Man) found in the Neander Valley near Dusseldorf, Germany, in 1856." They also state that "It was later realized that fossils of H. neanderthalensis had been discovered earlier in Engis, Belgium, in 1830, and in Forbes’ Quarry, Gibraltar, in 1848. (For an extensive history of Neanderthal finds, see, for example, Trinkaus and Shipman 1993)." My point is these Neaderthals was used as examples of "apemen" by the evos which is not correct.

You are correct. So far as I can tell, Neanderthals were once thought to be much more primitive than we now know them to be. Today we know that they were very similar to other ancient humans.

Reply to #2211
Bone density is good, but it's not a mutation as you would like.

It most certainly is a mutation. I’ve found the scientific paper describing it. Here is a link if you want to see it for yourself. The mutation is a single nucleotide replacement; a guanine to thymine change. This results in an amino acid change from glycine to valine in the produced LRP5 protein. The total number of nucleotides is not changed nor is the total number of amino acids, so the total information content of the genome is the same.

The natural state was bone density so our bones were unbreakable.

This is, again, unevidenced. Please demonstrate that human bones were once unbreakable.

Here's a link to show that bone density was high in the past -- http://www.livescience.com/49236-bone-density-human-evolution.html . Just ignore the evo bs

I know that our bones were more dense in the past, but they weren’t unbreakable. There’s an important difference there. This mutation doesn’t make bones unbreakable either, just very hard.

Today, evo scientists discovered a genome that they think it's a cause for bone density and they think it can be mutated (?) (You have to help me out with this. I seem to remember reading something like this.)

It already is mutated. That’s why the bone density became higher to begin with.

Genetic modification to cause mutation for bone density or whatever benefit will not be good because mutation will have some negative result as genetic information is lost. Change = something gained + something lost.

Provide evidence that this mutation caused genetic information to be lost, preferably from some paper describing the mutation itself.

Some more hypotheses on mutations from creation science

Mutations have been observed that increase or decrease the size of some portion (or portions) of a living organism.

Correct.

Mutations have been observed that change the shape of a living organism.

Correct.

Mutations have been observed that duplicate existing features (cows with two heads, flies with extra wings, etc.).

Correct.

No mutation has ever been observed that provides a new function (sight, hearing, smell, lactation, etc.) in a living organism that did not previously have that function.

Incorrect. Pseudomonas and E.coli have both gain new metabolic functions in the lab from mutations (nylon degradation and aerobic citrate respiration).

Mutation and artificial selection have not been demonstrated to be sufficient to bring about new life forms from existing ones.

Every life form is a “new” life form, so I don’t know what you’re trying to say here.

As for God, you seem to think that He is some large arm and hand that comes down from the sky to help or harm us. He is not physical in our world.

I’m not sure where you got that idea. God is a spirit.

If God was physical, then we would all believe in Him. He gave us free will, so we have to live with our decisions and its consequences. Clearly, it means that it's not heaven on earth anymore. Thus, the change or pain and punishment in an instant has to occur with what exists in our universe if God deems it. It took God or humans roughly 1600 years before Noah's Flood and life changed after that. Today, we see the results of that and we have to live with the consequences. We got the Ark Encounter now, so it should explain some of the questions we have about the flood. I, too, would like to see what they have to say.

I don’t know what the relevance of this is. God has struck people dead in an instant before. Remember Ananias and Sapphira? King Herod? The man who touched the Ark of the Covenant? If He could strike them dead in an instant, then He could have done the same to all the sinners of Noah’s day and thus saved a lot of time, effort and suffering with that great flood.

Finally, you do not believe what He said, so I can't address your mundane arguments against it.

What makes you say that? Because I don’t believe the six days mentioned in Genesis were literal days? You’ll find that many Christians don’t think of it as literal. My belief or non-belief is also irrelevant to your ability to answer my questions or refute my claims.

There are atheists who have read the Bible and blame God for the pain and suffering in this world.

No they don’t. If they did, then they wouldn’t be atheists. They don’t believe there is a God to cause pain and suffering. Usually, atheists who say that are trying to argue that, if the God of the Bible did exist, He is not good. That’s a different argument.

So, reading the Bible is what I would recommend if you want to get the creation side. Read the Bible, what the creation scientists say and compare. That's what I did, and before I was like everyone else and was led to believe in evolution. That evolution.berkeley.edu website is what I used as a learning tool.

I do read the Bible regularly. I’m in the process of reading it the whole way through (I’m currently in 2 Kings). I’m well aware of the creationist side of things because I was a young Earth creationist for the majority of my life (over 2 decades). I’ve only been an evolutionist for about 3 years.

It's interesting that you mention that website, as that very same website defines evolution here. The definition given is strictly biological, with no reference to the Big Bang, stellar evolution or abiogenesis.