Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[McBell]

Go check Guinness. It doesn't matter. You'll complain about it anyway ha ha.

You mistake complaining with pointing out your appeal to numbers fallacy.
For all the whining you do about people pointing them out, you sure do seem to go out of your way to present them.

 

[Shad]

Wrong again. The Bible, the best selling book of NON-FICTION, has sold over 5 billion copies per Guinness Book of World Records. While creation scientists do use the Bible as a source, their science is based on science per the God of the Gaps warning.

I was talking about C.S. Lewis' pitiful arguments. The number of Bible's sold doesn't mean it is true.

 

[metis]

Eventually. I'm still on Ardipithecus. Why not expound your thinking on Ardipithecus while we're at it since that was huge on your list. Otherwise, we can assume Lucy was a chimp around 3' tall. Do you still say apeman (Prof. Lovejoy says chimpanzee-like ape)? I'm waiting to hear from Sapiens since he was there to listen to Donald Johanson. The creation scientists have what Johnson said.

No one who understands the basic differences between early humans and early chimps would confuse Lucy for a chimp. However, when Lucy was first found, there was a lack of human fossils that were that old besides her, so there was no pattern that they could rely on to indicate whether she was more ape or more human, although they were fairly certain she was human even then. Now we know with certainty because enough fossils going back that far and even further have made it abundantly clear that she is indeed an early human.

 

[Parsimony]

Eventually. I'm still on Ardipithecus. Why not expound your thinking on Ardipithecus while we're at it since that was huge on your list. Otherwise, we can assume Lucy was a chimp around 3' tall. Do you still say apeman (Prof. Lovejoy says chimpanzee-like ape)? I'm waiting to hear from Sapiens since he was there to listen to Donald Johanson. The creation scientists have what Johnson said.

For all I know, "eventually" might mean a month from now. I'll be plenty happy to talk about Ardipithecus once you address my previous posts: I made them before you brought up Ardi and so they need to be addressed first. They are still relevant to the discussion at hand, especially since you keep insisting that Australopithecus was a chimpanzee despite not responding at all to the evidence against this that I posted in #2320.

 

[viole]

Free will. Then, I guess you missed the entire 1800s when the creation scientists battled the uprising evolutionists and had your eyes and ears closed when learning about the Scopes trial, Epperson v. Arkansas and the battle for teaching creation in schools after the 1980s.

When you say 'teaching about creation" I suppose you mean at Sunday school. I have nothing against it, as long as it is not sold as science. In the same way the theory that serpents or donkeys can talk should not be taught as science, obviously. The same applies, of course, for people living three days inside a whale, that kids do not come from storks, and that Excalibur does not possess magical powers, among other things with comparable plausibility.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Zosimus]

Yet you completely missed the fact that people only used the principle to reject an idea rather than accepting one out of two ideas.



Read my points again. These made perfect sense once you spend the time reading what the principle is rather than an assumption of what it is.

Your hearing ie vocal communication from your YT video. If you need an example look up comprehensions of vocal communication



Your YT video link was vocal communication.




I guess your inability to understand anyone that does not use perfect English is a problem for you. You should fix that considering you are using a public international forum.

Regardless of singular or plural you missed the fact that people mimicked the principle rather than actually following it. This was further hammered home by your video which misapplies the principle. You are arguing pointless grammar and sentence structure which is nothing more than a dodging the point




You never pointed out the misapplication of the principle. There is no point is talking about a principle no one actually used. Your attacks on the idea were flawed and didn't support your conclusion regardless if the conclusion was right or not.




It completely failed since it only used simplicity as the criteria which is not the only criteria of the principle. Its not hard to follow which it I am referring to since there is a reference point right before it.




No I understood it made a poor argument based on a misapplication of the principle. The first was simplicity. The second was treating science and religion as equal. then injecting a third as if was equal to the others

My point about atomic theory was that simplicity was used to dismiss the idea as atom were an assumption required by the theory to work. Those that rejected the idea put forward that atoms were an unwarranted assumption with those that supported the theory put forward it was warranted.

Again your lack in reading comprehension failed you. My points about atomic theory were to demonstrated the appeal to simplicity is flawed. You assumed it was a rebuttal. It wasn't. This is not the first time I have said as much




Irrelevant really. Most people can easily figure out is/are issues and move on. Another dodge, nothing more.



Again you are inability to function out of your perfect english bubble is your problem. You are using your bubble as a dodge to cover your errors. Build a bridge and get over it.

I agree with the conclusion but your arguments do not support your conclusion since you, and your YT video, are not even applying it correctly. Hence why I provided actually examples when the appeal to simplicity failed.

The major issue with using this principle is subjectivity. People assign simplicity based on their view points. People will call God simply, or not, then invoke the principle. People will call God an unnecessary, or not, then invoke the principle. It is nothing but a rationalization of a previous view point rather than a conclusion based upon the principle

Well, you have babbled some more, but it still boils down to what I said at the beginning of the thread. It seems that you agree with me, so I am going to declare victory and move on. If you have other points to make and if you can find someone who understands your gibberish, have that person translate them into English, and I'll respond to them as well as I can.

 

[Shad]

Well, you have babbled some more, but it still boils down to what I said at the beginning of the thread. It seems that you agree with me, so I am going to declare victory and move on. If you have other points to make and if you can find someone who understands your gibberish, have that person translate them into English, and I'll respond to them as well as I can.

You couldn't think for a minute to figure out what I mean regarding unstated hypotheses. Singular or plural the point is the same as the keyword was unstated not the amount.... However this is beyond your ability so you hide behind it. Keep dodging with your red herrings.


I agree with the conclusion but your arguments never supported the conclusion, each missed the mark as did your video.

 

[Zosimus]

First of all, it's not my video. Second, the reason you think that the video never supported the conclusion is because you have erroneous a priori beliefs. This is shown by your claim that science is better than religion. Both science and religion are based on faith.

 

[james bond]

No one who understands the basic differences between early humans and early chimps would confuse Lucy for a chimp. However, when Lucy was first found, there was a lack of human fossils that were that old besides her, so there was no pattern that they could rely on to indicate whether she was more ape or more human, although they were fairly certain she was human even then. Now we know with certainty because enough fossils going back that far and even further have made it abundantly clear that she is indeed an early human.

So you still think there is enough information for Lucy? Ok, then why don't you tell me the order and how Lucy's fossils were found? What about the reshaping of the hips to make it look more human? What about Ardipithecus which came "100 million years" before?

You present no evidence to back up your statements, so answer my questions or I'll move on.

 

[james bond]

For all I know, "eventually" might mean a month from now. I'll be plenty happy to talk about Ardipithecus once you address my previous posts: I made them before you brought up Ardi and so they need to be addressed first. They are still relevant to the discussion at hand, especially since you keep insisting that Australopithecus was a chimpanzee despite not responding at all to the evidence against this that I posted in #2320.

Fair enough. No reason for me to talk about Ardi. It was another chimpanzee-like ape. What is a chimp-like ape anyway? It's a chimp.

Next, you forget that Lucy came 100 million years later. That we agreed upon. How do you explain that? In general, how do you explain apes living with humans in the "distant" past and today?

I'll ask you, too. In what order were Lucy's fossils found? How far apart were they found?

 

[james bond]

When you say 'teaching about creation" I suppose you mean at Sunday school. I have nothing against it, as long as it is not sold as science. In the same way the theory that serpents or donkeys can talk should not be taught as science, obviously. The same applies, of course, for people living three days inside a whale, that kids do not come from storks, and that Excalibur does not possess magical powers, among other things with comparable plausibility.

Ciao

- viole

I mean teaching creation science in public schools.

 

[leibowde84]

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

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

I know it doesn't say anything directly/specifically about alien life, but many see certain passages as having implications as to whether life exists outside of earth. All in all, since the authors of the Bible did not have any kind of scientific understanding of the vastness of our universe or even our solar system, it should not have any kind of bearing as to whether alien life actually does exist.

What implications do you think it makes?

 

[viole]

I mean teaching creation science in public schools.

Isn't that forbidden?

Ciao

- viole

 

[McBell]

I mean teaching creation science in public schools.

Feel free to teach your favorite mythology in mythology class.
Just keep it out of science class.

 

[Shad]

First of all, it's not my video. Second, the reason you think that the video never supported the conclusion is because you have erroneous a priori beliefs. This is shown by your claim that science is better than religion. Both science and religion are based on faith.

You linked it hence your video. The mistake he was the appeal to simplicity along with treating religion and science as equal. Swing and a miss. Religious faith is not the same as in the video. The problem of Induction is overblown by you and others since science is tentative and descriptive not prescriptive. His definition of knowledge is flawed and is wrong, or did you miss the part in which he defined it. Look up what knowledge is actually considered in philosophy. The whole video make no point due to these distortion. Yawn.

 

[metis]

So you still think there is enough information for Lucy? Ok, then why don't you tell me the order and how Lucy's fossils were found? What about the reshaping of the hips to make it look more human? What about Ardipithecus which came "100 million years" before?

You present no evidence to back up your statements, so answer my questions or I'll move on.

First of all, you might check this out because it appears you haven't: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus)

Secondly, when a body is laid down and eventually fossilized, because of the pressures that surround the body, bones can be somewhat distorted and fossilized that way. This is commonplace and does not in any way distract from the evaluation of the fossils themselves in most cases. In no way can Lucy be described as an ape if one knows what to look for, and we know that with absolute certainty unless one decides to try and redefine both terms.

The strong impression I get from you is that you seem to think that anthropologists, biologists, and paleontologists are either basically ignorant and/or dishonest. As one who came out of a fundamentalist Protestant church, I saw the evidence over five decades and even in the first decade of study I realized that the church simply was not telling the truth, and then I pursued and received a graduate degree in anthropology.

However, if you are not willing to do the homework, preferring instead to believe in non-truths, that's obviously your right.

 

[Milton Platt]

Do you believe the universe and life exist ? Doesn't that make them evidence of creation ? Their very nature is evidence


Genesis 1 is the creation, period. At law, an alternate theory supported by evidence can be considered equal to or superior to the primary theory. So impeachment of the alternate theory is a vital step in adoption of the primary theory. If I prove there is no other alternative, the evidence for the primary theory is given
the proper weight. What you believe most Christians believe is not relevant. The universe, the earth, and life were created in Genesis 1, not anywhere else

The fact that something exists is not proof of a god. It is only proof that something exists. If you want to assert that a being, or intelligence did the creating, you must support your assertion with evidence.

 

[shmogie]

The fact that something exists is not proof of a god. It is only proof that something exists. If you want to assert that a being, or intelligence did the creating, you must support your assertion with evidence.

If you have only two possible theories, and one can be proven false, then only one is left.
if that theory can be proven false, then the facts cannot be what is assumed. But, the facts are correct, the universe and life exist`the universe and life are becoming more and more clearly to have a first cause. The BB doesn't identify the first cause and abiogenesis singularly and spectacularly fails to account for the beginning of life. Abiogenesis cannot be proven, and can be disproven. So one is left to seek an alternative explanation, or one must throw hands in the air and say "I don't, nor can I know". I choose otherwise

 

[Skwim]

Abiogenesis cannot be proven, and can be disproven.

And no reasonable person has ever said that abiogenesis can be proven. Proof is only for mathematics, logic, and liquor. But, I am interested in this disproof of abiogenesis you speak of. What is it?


.

 

[gnostic]

It is very apparent that you either didn't read my reply or you have ignored it, where I have pointed out your error, regarding to the Ardipithecus and this silly "100 million years".

So you still think there is enough information for Lucy? Ok, then why don't you tell me the order and how Lucy's fossils were found? What about the reshaping of the hips to make it look more human? What about Ardipithecus which came "100 million years" before?

Next, you forget that Lucy came 100 million years later. That we agreed upon. How do you explain that? In general, how do you explain apes living with humans in the "distant" past and today?

Where did you get the "100 million years"?

Do you have a single scientific source that dated the Ardipithecus to "100 million years"?

Lucy has been dated to about 3.2 million years.

The Ardipithecus ramidus lived about 4.4 million years.

The oldest evidence they found of the Ardipithecus is the Ardipithecus kadabba, which lived around 5.5 million years ago.

If you do the maths, when comparing to that of Lucy, you don't get "100 million years".

The A. ramibus would be 1.2 million years older than Lucy, while A. kadabba is 2.3 million years older.

I don't know you got your sources for the Ardipithecus being "100 million years" from, but it is clearly wrong.

100 million years would put the Ardipithecus in the middle of Cretaceous period, the time of dinosaurs, when the Ardipithecus didn't exist.

If you keep repeating the same error, you are just compounding your errors.

And when you don't learn from errors, it make you look either wilfully ignorant, or worse, dishonest.

The 3rd option could be that you are very lousy at maths.