Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[leibowde84]

Is this your worldview, philosophy, religion, opinion or something else? You answered the question I asked in my last post, so please disregard.

I think it is more likely than not that there is some kind of alien life out there. That doesn't mean that we will find it in my lifetime. But, I certainly don't want to give up.

 

[james bond]

The quote mining statement is in regards to Nova, not the article.

He never once stated in the article that Lucy was a chimpanzee nor did he say that we evolved from chimpanzees. Again, a "chimp-like" creature is not the same thing as being a chimp. Lucy was chimp-like but was not a chimp. The article itself even states that Lucy walked upright.

Lucy is an Australopithecine, so we've been talking about them this whole time...

I will wait for you to address my remaining posts (A. sediba, A. africanus, nylonase, etc.) before I respond further. I don't want to get ahead of what needs to be addressed.

Stop assuming quote mining when you already admitted Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man were fraud. It's getting tedious and is a weak attack just like ad hominems. I'll assume you have nothing better to offer then.

I thought you had better intellectual chops, Parsimony. Professor C. Owen Lovejoy reconstructed Lucy. He says there isn't enough information there and said they reshaped the hip to be more human. He said Lucy was a chimpanzee-like ape despite being labeled Australopithecine (I have more to say about Austra, but this part's important). He also said he didn't think humans evolved from chimpanzee-like apes and that Ardipithecus provided more information. Lovejoy thought Ardipithecus offered more. What do you have to add about Ardi and what do you conclude from Ardi?

 

[james bond]

I think it is more likely than not that there is some kind of alien life out there. That doesn't mean that we will find it in my lifetime. But, I certainly don't want to give up.

Ok, leibowde. Point taken. I'll keep an open mind.

BTW do you want to hear what the Bible says about aliens?

 

[metis]

Are you sure it's evidence because I'm sure it's not? You mention research, but do you understand that creation scientists' theories are not accepted today and they will not be published in Nature and Science? Before the 1800s, the church ruled science. Do you think religious people created science and the scientific method, i.e. Sir Frances Bacon? Have you heard about God of the Gaps which was created by religious scientists? They wanted to warn religious scientists to not use God to prove their theories or when stuck for an answer. Faith in evolution is defined, "Evolutionism, as opposed to Creationism, is the advocacy of or belief in biological evolution." If evolution was fact, then I, any creationist or anyone could use it, but it isn't and we don't.

All I can say is maybe you didn't research enough and maybe being a pastor was not something you were meant to be. One has to study Noah's Flood and Genesis. I can show you experimentally that the fossil record may not be correct because sedimentary layers are not age layers.

This is a starting point. Basically, there are two main theories about the age of the Earth and the fossils found in the rock layers. The old-earth theory says that the Earth is a few billion years old, and most of the fossil-bearing rocks formed slowly over a long time. The young-earth theory says that the Earth is a few thousand years old, and most of the fossil-bearing rocks were formed rapidly in a world-wide flood.

Both these theories are based on faith. One is based on the idea that a divine being (an intelligent designer) miraculously created life instantaneously. The other is based on the belief that unseen, unknown, impersonal, natural forces miraculously created life over a long period of time. Both theories have been constructed to support one or the other of these two "religious" beliefs.

Anyway, here's the experiment by French scientist Guy Berthault. If you google stratification and Mt. St. Helens, it shows a natural proof of the stratification happening in a short period of time.

Since I not only ended up teaching anthropology ("physical anthropology" deals with human evolution) for 30 years, along with teaching Christian theology for 14 years, along with teaching a comparative religions course for two years so, ya, I've done the research.

There's not one shred of objectively-derived evidence for "intelligent design", and there's more than ample evidence and common sense that supports the basic ToE, and yet you believe in the former and not the latter? And you call that "research"?

And finally, the ToE does not include anything about a deity or deities one way or the other, so you can't even get that right. It neither claims there are no deities or that there are deities, so theistic causation is not out of the question when considering what the ToE actually does state versus what your denomination has told you. Most Christian theologians, according to surveys I've seen, don't see a conflict between the ToE and a belief in God. A problem with so many fundamentalist churches is that they teach a "we"/"they" approach, pretty much demonizing the "they", and usually the "they" include "evolutionists" and "atheistic scientists". Then the "we", of course, are the good guys who teach "the truth".

Ya-- been there-- done that-- left that nonsense almost 50 years ago.

 

[james bond]

Since I not only ended up teaching anthropology ("physical anthropology" deals with human evolution) for 30 years, along with teaching Christian theology for 14 years, along with teaching a comparative religions course for two years so, ya, I've done the research.

There's not one shred of objectively-derived evidence for "intelligent design", and there's more than ample evidence and common sense that supports the basic ToE, and yet you believe in the former and not the latter? And you call that "research"?

And finally, the ToE does not include anything about a deity or deities one way or the other, so you can't even get that right. It neither claims there are no deities or that there are deities, so theistic causation is not out of the question when considering what the ToE actually does state versus what your denomination has told you. Most Christian theologians, according to surveys I've seen, don't see a conflict between the ToE and a belief in God. A problem with so many fundamentalist churches is that they teach a "we"/"they" approach, pretty much demonizing the "they", and usually the "they" include "evolutionists" and "atheistic scientists". Then the "we", of course, are the good guys who teach "the truth".

Ya-- been there-- done that-- left that nonsense almost 50 years ago.

Certainly, those are fine credentials. The evidence for ID is the complexity and beauty in nature. We have mathematics which humans invented, but yet it's found in nature. It's a great mystery.

Finally, you ignored what I said in my last post. Are you sure you aren't wrong? I believe it will be important later when we are ready to meet our Maker

"Both these theories are based on faith. One is based on the idea that a divine being (an intelligent designer) miraculously created life instantaneously. The other is based on the belief that unseen, unknown, impersonal, natural forces miraculously created life over a long period of time. Both theories have been constructed to support one or the other of these two "religious" beliefs.".

 

[McBell]

"Both these theories are based on faith. One is based on the idea that a divine being (an intelligent designer) miraculously created life instantaneously. The other is based on the belief that unseen, unknown, impersonal, natural forces miraculously created life over a long period of time. Both theories have been constructed to support one or the other of these two "religious" beliefs.".

You are wrong in the second "theory" you propose in that you insist on revealing your bias, prejudice, and agenda with incorrectly using the word 'created'.
Perhaps if you were to better mask your bias agenda you could be taken more seriously?

 

[metis]

Certainly, those are fine credentials. The evidence for ID is the complexity and beauty in nature. We have mathematics which humans invented, but yet it's found in nature. It's a great mystery.

Finally, you ignored what I said in my last post. Are you sure you aren't wrong? I believe it will be important later when we are ready to meet our Maker

"Both these theories are based on faith. One is based on the idea that a divine being (an intelligent designer) miraculously created life instantaneously. The other is based on the belief that unseen, unknown, impersonal, natural forces miraculously created life over a long period of time. Both theories have been constructed to support one or the other of these two "religious" beliefs.".

First of all, check my signature at the bottom of this post.

Secondly, I cannot excuse your continued distortions as you further mischaracterize what the ToE says and doesn't say, especially the latter. Until you actually begin to do the research in this area objectively, you will continue to be open to being lied to and believing the lie.

Again, the ToE does not negate the possibility of a theistic causation, so let me recommend you ignore the brainwashing you've been subject to and actually do the theological as well as the scientific research. Here's maybe a start for you: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1018_041018_science_religion.html

 

[Parsimony]

Stop assuming quote mining when you already admitted Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man were fraud. It's getting tedious and is a weak attack just like ad hominems. I'll assume you have nothing better to offer then.

I thought you had better intellectual chops, Parsimony. Professor C. Owen Lovejoy reconstructed Lucy. He says there isn't enough information there and said they reshaped the hip to be more human. He said Lucy was a chimpanzee-like ape despite being labeled Australopithecine (I have more to say about Austra, but this part's important). He also said he didn't think humans evolved from chimpanzee-like apes and that Ardipithecus provided more information. Lovejoy thought Ardipithecus offered more. What do you have to add about Ardi and what do you conclude from Ardi?

I'll respond to this once you finish responding to my other posts (#2343 and parts of #2321), but the transcript that Sapiens posted in #2353 makes it pretty clear that the opinion Lovejoy expressed in Nova wasn't what you claimed it to be. That's quote mining. You might want to go back and read it.

EDIT: After going back and re-reading what you had said, it seems that I was mistaken. I thought you were trying to argue that Lovejoy thought Lucy was a quadruped, but it seems that I had mis-remebered. So I guess you didn't quote mine after all. My bad.

 

[Zosimus]

My point was clear.

No, it was not even remotely clear. You said:

"No. The conclusion that god is not the answer based on the principle does nothing to show the answer is acceptable. It is merely mimicking a method but leaving the details blank in order to justify a view. There is no work put forward to argue what the poster considers unwarranted assumptions. For all we know the user could have already assumed God is an unwarranted assumption as a presupposition which is not justified. Unless stated we have no standard, no real criteria other than something invoked as a rationalization. This makes the comment a statement not an argument for. Statements can be rejected without issue if one does nothing to defend a statement with argumentation. Merely invoking a principle is not an argument. Anyone can do it."
-----------------
I have no idea what you mean. All I can say is that the above verbal-muck has nothing to do with any point I have ever made on this forum or any other.

No it's a philosophical concept. Your supporting video was about empirical theories thus not applicable to Solipsism

No, solipsism is one of the many theories of mind. It seems that you do not understand the difference between a concept and a theory. A concept is a mental representation of something. A theory is a collection of claims or observations that purport to explain a certain topic. Solipsism purports to explain why the world is as it is. It resolves the problem of mind (other minds don't exist in solipsism). Georgias of Lethoni is credited with formalizing solipsism as three principle claims: 1. Nothing exists. 2. Even if something existed, we could never know anything about it. 3. Even if we somehow knew something about it, we could never communicate that knowledge to anyone.

This is not a mental representation of something. It is three separate claims that attempt to explain the world that we subjectively experience.

No he points out, as I have, that the philosophical principle can fail via another philosophical view point called solipsism. He is comparing methodologies, science and religion, claiming to be the better method via the razor then defeating both claims via simplicity.

In the video, the author questions whether simplicity and explanatory power are actually useful things that we want in our ontology. He concludes that "...instead of all converting to solipsism, we should just throw out Occam's Razor as a method for deciding debates like this."

Now if you look back, you'll see that my original claim was: "Since solipsism has fewer assumptions than does science, if you believe in parsimony, you should accept solipsism and reject science. However, I imagine that you don't. Why exactly is that?" You responded: "Solipsism...can never be a scientific theory as science holds to an axiom in which solipsism is false."

This counter-argument is no way addresses my argument (so what that it isn't a SCIENTIFIC theory? So what that science holds to an axiom in which solipsism is false?). If anything, your claim that science has an axiom (aka assumption) in which solipsism is false actually strengthens the idea that solipsism is more parsimonous than is science.

 

[Shad]

No, it was not even remotely clear. You said:

"No. The conclusion that god is not the answer based on the principle does nothing to show the answer is acceptable. It is merely mimicking a method but leaving the details blank in order to justify a view. There is no work put forward to argue what the poster considers unwarranted assumptions. For all we know the user could have already assumed God is an unwarranted assumption as a presupposition which is not justified. Unless stated we have no standard, no real criteria other than something invoked as a rationalization. This makes the comment a statement not an argument for. Statements can be rejected without issue if one does nothing to defend a statement with argumentation. Merely invoking a principle is not an argument. Anyone can do it."
-----------------
I have no idea what you mean. All I can say is that the above verbal-muck has nothing to do with any point I have ever made on this forum or any other.


No, solipsism is one of the many theories of mind. It seems that you do not understand the difference between a concept and a theory. A concept is a mental representation of something. A theory is a collection of claims or observations that purport to explain a certain topic. Solipsism purports to explain why the world is as it is. It resolves the problem of mind (other minds don't exist in solipsism). Georgias of Lethoni is credited with formalizing solipsism as three principle claims: 1. Nothing exists. 2. Even if something existed, we could never know anything about it. 3. Even if we somehow knew something about it, we could never communicate that knowledge to anyone.

This is not a mental representation of something. It is three separate claims that attempt to explain the world that we subjectively experience.


In the video, the author questions whether simplicity and explanatory power are actually useful things that we want in our ontology. He concludes that "...instead of all converting to solipsism, we should just throw out Occam's Razor as a method for deciding debates like this."

Now if you look back, you'll see that my original claim was: "Since solipsism has fewer assumptions than does science, if you believe in parsimony, you should accept solipsism and reject science. However, I imagine that you don't. Why exactly is that?" You responded: "Solipsism...can never be a scientific theory as science holds to an axiom in which solipsism is false."

This counter-argument is no way addresses my argument (so what that it isn't a SCIENTIFIC theory? So what that science holds to an axiom in which solipsism is false?). If anything, your claim that science has an axiom (aka assumption) in which solipsism is false actually strengthens the idea that solipsism is more parsimonous than is science.

1. You confused attacking your terminology with attacking the argument itself.

2. You allowed an unstated hypothesis to exist not only without question but without details leaving us with nothing to compare. Users are using the principle to reject the god hypothesis but not stating what they have accepted. This is a misapplication of the principle as there is a view that is accepted for each one that is rejected. For example one should say "I accept metaphysical naturalism over metaphysical necessity (a God argument)". You also let an ambiguous "god" to function as a hypothesis again without details or question.

3. I agreed with your conclusion but pointed out your arguments are misapplied, not wrong in proper context and arguments, since you have granted everything in 2 without justification. You allowed users to misapply the principle so your points regarding the flaws of the principle do not work as these users are not following the principle to begin with.

IE You have a point IF these users were actually following the principle. They are not following the principle merely mimicking it.

 

[james bond]

I'll respond to this once you finish responding to my other posts (#2343 and parts of #2321), but the transcript that Sapiens posted in #2353 makes it pretty clear that the opinion Lovejoy expressed in Nova wasn't what you claimed it to be. That's quote mining. You might want to go back and read it.

EDIT: After going back and re-reading what you had said, it seems that I was mistaken. I thought you were trying to argue that Lovejoy thought Lucy was a quadruped, but it seems that I had mis-remebered. So I guess you didn't quote mine after all. My bad.

Let's stick with Professor Lovejoy which is what I was trying to do. The article I posted is from Kent State U. Thus, he is on record with his statements. I found that he published a paper there on his theory after examining and this was published in Science. He said that after examing Ardipithecus that he concluded that humans did not evolve from chimpanzee-like apes. He concluded apes came from humans. http://digitalcommons.kent.edu/anthpubs/19/ .
If you can't read that try here http://science.sciencemag.org/content/326/5949/74.full . For the laymen in the audience here is a news article http://www.upi.com/Study-Man-did-not-evolve-from-apes/40881254412291/ .

I believe him when he says that Ardipithecus provides more information than Lucy. You say Lucy was an ape-man. I say it was a chimpanzee. The Professor says there isn't enough information to glean from the fossils, but considers it a chimpanzee-like ape. Yet, Ardi, which came 100 million years prior gives the information for his studies. From his study, he concluded that humans did not evolve from chimpanzee-like apes. What do you think of Ardipithecus now?

 

[Parsimony]

Let's stick with Professor Lovejoy which is what I was trying to do. The article I posted is from Kent State U. Thus, he is on record with his statements. I found that he published a paper there on his theory after examining and this was published in Science. He said that after examing Ardipithecus that he concluded that humans did not evolve from chimpanzee-like apes. He concluded apes came from humans. http://digitalcommons.kent.edu/anthpubs/19/ .
If you can't read that try here http://science.sciencemag.org/content/326/5949/74.full . For the laymen in the audience here is a news article http://www.upi.com/Study-Man-did-not-evolve-from-apes/40881254412291/ .

I believe him when he says that Ardipithecus provides more information than Lucy. You say Lucy was an ape-man. I say it was a chimpanzee. The Professor says there isn't enough information to glean from the fossils, but considers it a chimpanzee-like ape. Yet, Ardi, which came 100 million years prior gives the information for his studies. From his study, he concluded that humans did not evolve from chimpanzee-like apes. What do you think of Ardipithecus now?

Still waiting.

 

[Zosimus]

1. You confused attacking your terminology with attacking the argument itself.

2. You allowed an unstated hypothesis to exist not only without question but without details leaving us with nothing to compare. Users are using the principle to reject the god hypothesis but not stating what they have accepted. This is a misapplication of the principle as there is a view that is accepted for each one that is rejected. For example one should say "I accept metaphysical naturalism over metaphysical necessity (a God argument)". You also let an ambiguous "god" to function as a hypothesis again without details or question.

3. I agreed with your conclusion but pointed out your arguments are misapplied, not wrong in proper context and arguments, since you have granted everything in 2 without justification. You allowed users to misapply the principle so your points regarding the flaws of the principle do not work as these users are not following the principle to begin with.

IE You have a point IF these users were actually following the principle. They are not following the principle merely mimicking it.

Again, I have no idea what you're talking about. However, since you've stated, "I agreed with your conclusion..." I've decided to declare victory and move on with my life.

 

[viole]

Let's stick with Professor Lovejoy which is what I was trying to do. The article I posted is from Kent State U. Thus, he is on record with his statements. I found that he published a paper there on his theory after examining and this was published in Science. He said that after examing Ardipithecus that he concluded that humans did not evolve from chimpanzee-like apes. He concluded apes came from humans. http://digitalcommons.kent.edu/anthpubs/19/ .
If you can't read that try here http://science.sciencemag.org/content/326/5949/74.full . For the laymen in the audience here is a news article http://www.upi.com/Study-Man-did-not-evolve-from-apes/40881254412291/ .

I believe him when he says that Ardipithecus provides more information than Lucy. You say Lucy was an ape-man. I say it was a chimpanzee. The Professor says there isn't enough information to glean from the fossils, but considers it a chimpanzee-like ape. Yet, Ardi, which came 100 million years prior gives the information for his studies. From his study, he concluded that humans did not evolve from chimpanzee-like apes. What do you think of Ardipithecus now?

The question is why there is so much debate about this. If there is a real debate. Why did God make the pinnacle of His creation, the being in His image, the very being He created the whole Universe for, in such a way to make this discussion even possible?

Ciao

- viole

 

[gnostic]

I believe him when he says that Ardipithecus provides more information than Lucy.

Lucy has already being classified as an "Australopithecus", so this Professor Lovejoy of yours is a dumb ***.

More specifically Lucy is an Australopithecus afarensis.

There are enough of Lucy's pelvis and her femur, to indicate she was bipedal, so she was more human-like than chimpanzee-like.

Another site, in which 13 individual Australopithecus afarensis were discovered together, and lived roughly around the same time as Lucy (3.2 million years ago), found that they had arched feet, again demonstrated that they would have walked upright most of the time.

 

[Shad]

Again, I have no idea what you're talking about. However, since you've stated, "I agreed with your conclusion..." I've decided to declare victory and move on with my life.

Work on your reading comprehension, and vocal as well. Your inability to understand what you read and hear is a problem which ends up causing you to lash out when you can not process information. Otherwise you wouldn't have accepted unstated hypothesis from users here. That is your problem. You do not understand what your read, you mimic what YT video says.

The principle is about two equal explanations yet you allowed users to only state the one they rejected. Never once did you press for the accepted idea. Thus they never followed the principle and you didn't understand the principle. You ranted about using the principle to people that never actually used it.

Your YT video fails as it treated science and religion as equal but the last 2 centuries have shown that science is above religion in regards to it's reliability, prediction power and knowledge developed from it. So the comparison was false. The examples I provided covered the failure of the principle which covered at least one subject the average person has no issue with; atomic theory. There are also other criteria which you, and your YT video, avoided such as necessary assumptions thus failed as it only focused on simplicity, 1 part of the principle. This part of the principle is a key reason why people continued to develop atomic theory even after the appeal to simplicity to dismiss it. Atoms were considered a necessary assumption. This assumption was later shown to be correct.

Misapplication and not understanding the principle is typical here. It is merely invoked after the fact.

 

[metis]

Work on your [Zosimus] reading comprehension, and vocal as well. Your inability to understand what you read and hear is a problem which ends up causing you to lash out when you can not process information. Otherwise you wouldn't have accept unstated hypothesis from users here. That is your problem. You do not understand what your read, you mimic what YT video says.

I just had the same exact problem with him on another thread.

 

[gnostic]

Certainly, those are fine credentials. The evidence for ID is the complexity and beauty in nature. We have mathematics which humans invented, but yet it's found in nature. It's a great mystery.

Sorry, but there have been no evidences for Designer. For there to be evidences for ID, then you would have to provide evidences for Designer actually existing, and not merely using circular reasoning, which ID advocates often used.

Without evidences for the Desiger, then there is nothing to verify Intelligent Design's pseudoscience claims.

 

[metis]

Sorry, but there have been no evidences for Designer. For there to evidences for ID, then you would have to provide evidences for Designer actually existing, and not merely using circular reasoning, which ID advocates often used.

Without evidences for the Desiger, then there is nothing to verify Intelligent Design's pseudoscience claims.

This is why i.d. doesn't even qualify as a scientific hypothesis since such a hypothesis must include some evidence to indicate that it could be true.

An example is if I make the claim that the world is coming to an end tomorrow, but when you ask me what kind of evidence that I have for this, and I can't produce any but say that I just believe it's just gonna happen, this might be a personal hypothesis but it ain't a scientific hypothesis.

 

[gnostic]

For example, James Bond.

If ID advocates believed that the Designer is involved with DNA, then you have verifiable evidences to support that the Designer was actually responsible for designing the DNA, and not just on just hearsay.

The Designer has to be falsifiable. If you can't test the Designer, then it is just empty claim, and it's an unscientific one at that.