Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[metis]

One link's from the Smithsonian, but the Smithsonian is biased against creation scientists just like many secular scientists.

And can you supply one iota of evidence for that? Betcha can't.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Creation scientists don't actually do science though. They are, at best, an annoying thistle in the foot of actual science.

 

[metis]

Creation scientists don't actually do science though. They are, at best, an annoying thistle in the foot of actual science.

Exactly.

It is not science when one approaches looking for "evidence" in reverse, namely drawing a conclusion and then only considering any "evidence" needed to support the assumed conclusion. As you well know, the "scientific method" works the other way around and does so without cherry-picking the evidence or inventing evidence if it ain't there, which the creationists are fond of doing. Basically, it's lying in the name of God in order to support that which simply cannot be established, but as long as they're filling the pews and bringing in money, what do they care. Glad I left that church many decades ago.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Indeed. 'Science' conducted from the position of a fixed teleological position can never be 'science' at all, simply because it moves in reverse.

Science = evidence==>Hypothesis==>Experimentation/extrapolation==>Theory==>Conclusion(always subject to change and falsifiable)

Creation Science = Conclusion(not subject to change, not falsifiable)==>Evidence.

 

[McBell]

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

Yes, so all you are doing is filling in the blank with whatever suits your fancy.
That is not even a hypothesis, let alone a scientific theory.

You have no more objective empirical evidence supporting it was god than I do in saying it was unicorns.

 

[McBell]

Teaching religion is, but not creation science.

Thus the reason why creation is not taught in science class.
It matters not how you word it, what fancy labels you assign it, etc.
Creationism/ID is not science.

 

[gnostic]

I stand corrected. It could be I misread Lovejoy's article. It should be "1 million years" as you list above. The point was Ardi came before Lucy. Can we eliminate Lucy and focus on Ardi? Or do you have more to say about Australopithecus? I'll talk about Johanson in my next post, so you can reply to that.

Hey!

I am not the one who brought up Ardipithecus and Australopithecus. And I am not the one who brought up Lucy.

I am only responding to what you have written, and pointed out that you are clearly mistaken about the age of the Ardipithecus.

You are the who keep insisting Lucy is a chimpanzee or more chimpanzee-like.

And metis here is the (retired, but very experienced) anthropologist, not me...and certainly not you.

So I would leave anthropology, the fossils, the differences between Lucy and other specimens, to those who have expertise and experiences in area, like metis, and for him to point out your other errors.

 

[james bond]

Life from Earth would obviously not survive on the moon or in space, so why would they do that? That doesn't speak in any way to whether life exists elsewhere in the universe. Why would you even suggest that?

No one claims that life will be found in space. They claim that it might be found on other planets. Keplar just recently found 4 more earth like planets. Planets like those would be where they might start looking.

Why do you say that? I think plants and animals can survive in space or else why are we trying to colonize Mars (I rather colonize the moon), and the Russians, Chinese and Euros want to go to the moon and establish presence, maybe colonies. Why do the space experiments? In fact, I'm sure they took bacteria to the moon and it came back fine. Do you know why evo scientists do not talk about it? It's because it shows there is no life on the moon, but simple life can exist there.

We'll have to disagree on the second part. You provide no evidence except opi while I gave you Carl Sagan.

 

[james bond]

Again, you simply are working from older evaluations, many now established as being either false or needing to be tweeked, whereas we now know so much more about Lucy. It's like you are saying that there's been no advancements in psychology since Freud.

You're going mostly by outward appearances and not comparative physiology. On top of that, you are virtually ignoring the overwhelming consensus on Lucy from scientists around the world, instead playing the "Joe Schmoe say this..." card. I post links to consensus evaluations, which you virtually seem to ignore, so how can anyone have a serious discussion with you on that when you play these games? [rhetorical-- we can't]

It seems that somehow you feel threatened by Lucy being an early human, and it begs the question why. Even if one totally disregards Lucy, there's plenty more where she came from, and the "puzzle" is gradually become increasing clear in realizing what has been happening in human history over the last several million years.

Last point first. Why would I be threatened by the truth? The truth is in the Creation Museum at the Ark Encounter which opened this month. It has its own Lucy exhibit. Is that current enough for you?

Here's a pic of it.

Different strokes for different folks.

"The Lucy exhibit features one of the most famous fossils ever discovered—Australopithecus afarensis. Based on bones found in Ethiopia, secular museums worldwide have created hundreds of life–size models of this female primate. Lucy has been widely portrayed as the supreme example of a “missing link” between apes and humans. The main message of the exhibit in the Starting Points room is that biblical creationists and their evolutionary counterparts don’t disagree about the facts. Both sides have the same fossil evidences, the same data. The disagreements are more about assumptions and beliefs—our starting points. These differences lead to vastly different conclusions about what Lucy looked like.

The original concept for this exhibit was to show the evolutionary interpretation of Lucy side-by-side with the biblical interpretation. But when museum designers began researching evolutionary representations of Lucy, they did not find a consensus of what evolutionists think Lucy looked like. Instead, they found well over a hundred different interpretations, everything from perfectly ape-looking to almost human. Several were created following the very best methods of forensic reconstruction, but even they looked nothing like each other. The designers finally decided to have Lucy standing on a pile of photos of different evolutionary models, allowing visitors to pick their favorite if they disagree with our interpretation."

I gave you NOVA and Lovejoy. That was 1997. Then I gave his current update in 2009. I talked about Johanson. You didn't talk about Lovejoy, Johanson nor anything else except comparative anatomy theory. I thought you were a teacher (and retired anthropologist), so you should provide more scholarly evidence than wikipedia. Next, I named names and provided solid links. That's evidence and proof. Now, I gave you the Creation Museum's Lucy. What did you provide? Just opinion and wikipedia which is probably worth as much as the next person on the street with a smartphone.

I'm giving you a chance to explain more, but the evidence is that Lucy was a chimpanzee.

 

[james bond]

Hey!

I am not the one who brought up Ardipithecus and Australopithecus. And I am not the one who brought up Lucy.

I am only responding to what you have written, and pointed out that you are clearly mistaken about the age of the Ardipithecus.

You are the who keep insisting Lucy is a chimpanzee or more chimpanzee-like.

And metis here is the (retired, but very experienced) anthropologist, not me...and certainly not you.

So I would leave anthropology, the fossils, the differences between Lucy and other specimens, to those who have expertise and experiences in area, like metis, and for him to point out your other errors.

Hey! yourself.

If you do not want to discuss Ardipithecus or Australopithecuas, then you can just say so. Not get nasty about it.

 

[gnostic]

Why do you say that? I think plants and animals can survive in space or else why are we trying to colonize Mars (I rather colonize the moon), and the Russians, Chinese and Euros want to go to the moon and establish presence, maybe colonies. Why do the space experiments? In fact, I'm sure they took bacteria to the moon and it came back fine. Do you know why evo scientists do not talk about it? It's because it shows there is no life on the moon, but simple life can exist there.

We'll have to disagree on the second part. You provide no evidence except opi while I gave you Carl Sagan.

This reply of yours is absurd.

There has to be life in space before any biologist can study the effect of evolution on life.

None of the manned missions are long enough for people to carry out any experiments on life, except for the astronauts themselves, like how being in weightless effects for extended time have on the human bodies. But that's mostly physical and medical concerns, not evolution.

For there to be study and research of human evolution in space, the astronauts would have to mate and have offspring, and these offspring would have their own children...and so on, before we can study effect of environment upon each generation.

Having children and grandchildren on a space stations are not really vivable at this stage.

 

[leibowde84]

Why do you say that? I think plants and animals can survive in space or else why are we trying to colonize Mars (I rather colonize the moon), and the Russians, Chinese and Euros want to go to the moon and establish presence, maybe colonies. Why do the space experiments? In fact, I'm sure they took bacteria to the moon and it came back fine. Do you know why evo scientists do not talk about it? It's because it shows there is no life on the moon, but simple life can exist there.

We'll have to disagree on the second part. You provide no evidence except opi while I gave you Carl Sagan.

If they are in biospheres or something of the sort, sure. I thought you meant in the vacuum of space or just on the moon by themselves.

 

[leibowde84]

Last point first. Why would I be threatened by the truth? The truth is in the Creation Museum at the Ark Encounter which opened this month. It has its own Lucy exhibit. Is that current enough for you?

Here's a pic of it.

Different strokes for different folks.

"The Lucy exhibit features one of the most famous fossils ever discovered—Australopithecus afarensis. Based on bones found in Ethiopia, secular museums worldwide have created hundreds of life–size models of this female primate. Lucy has been widely portrayed as the supreme example of a “missing link” between apes and humans. The main message of the exhibit in the Starting Points room is that biblical creationists and their evolutionary counterparts don’t disagree about the facts. Both sides have the same fossil evidences, the same data. The disagreements are more about assumptions and beliefs—our starting points. These differences lead to vastly different conclusions about what Lucy looked like.

The original concept for this exhibit was to show the evolutionary interpretation of Lucy side-by-side with the biblical interpretation. But when museum designers began researching evolutionary representations of Lucy, they did not find a consensus of what evolutionists think Lucy looked like. Instead, they found well over a hundred different interpretations, everything from perfectly ape-looking to almost human. Several were created following the very best methods of forensic reconstruction, but even they looked nothing like each other. The designers finally decided to have Lucy standing on a pile of photos of different evolutionary models, allowing visitors to pick their favorite if they disagree with our interpretation."

I gave you NOVA and Lovejoy. That was 1997. Then I gave his current update in 2009. I talked about Johanson. You didn't talk about Lovejoy, Johanson nor anything else except comparative anatomy theory. I thought you were a teacher (and retired anthropologist), so you should provide more scholarly evidence than wikipedia. Next, I named names and provided solid links. That's evidence and proof. Now, I gave you the Creation Museum's Lucy. What did you provide? Just opinion and wikipedia which is probably worth as much as the next person on the street with a smartphone.

I'm giving you a chance to explain more, but the evidence is that Lucy was a chimpanzee.

I don't think this deserves a response. That museum is a travesty and amounts to child abuse, as it attempts to teach children things that are patently false. Let's just start with the age of the earth. But, this conversation is literally making me depressed that anyone actually takes this stuff seriously. I really feel sorry for you.

 

[metis]

Last point first. Why would I be threatened by the truth? The truth is in the Creation Museum at the Ark Encounter which opened this month. It has its own Lucy exhibit. Is that current enough for you?

You've gotta be kidding, right? This is some sort of joke you positing, right? By chance did you see the debate between Ham and Nye? Are you aware that a replica of the ark in Amsterdam Harbor cannot sail out because computer models show it to be way too unstable to float safely, whether it be loaded or empty.

And the rendition of Lucy in the "museum" is a total joke based on what has to be an intention distortion that panders to the uninformed on human evolution. As long as one believes in fairy tales renditions and distortions of reality, they will never understand nor grow. I am so happy I left that nonsense decades ago because I so much detest dishonesty being put out by snake-oil salesmen like Ham. But he's gonna make money on the uneducated who are too lazy or too brainwashed to do the homework using more objective sources.

One cannot be forced to see the lies perpetrated on them, but I can hope that someday they'll eventually realized how much they're being taken advantage of. Science self-corrects by its nature, the bad thing about theism is that there is no self-correcting mechanism built within it, and if one is not willing to do the actual studying from objective sources, they stand the chance pf being forever locked in a fairy-tale mythology.

There's nothing more I can say other than I hope you realize some day that you are being taken advantage of, and the only way you can find that out is to take the time to do the research from real science sources, not pseudo-science ones. But it's not easy as it was quite unsettling for me to realize I'd been hoodwinked for so long, leading to making the changes I had to make. I used to love the church I was in and the people in it, which is why I was thinking about going into the ministry. I began going to my wife's church, which I still attend now with her for around 40 years now, and thank God they don't teach the lies of my former church.

Take care.

 

[Shad]

Knowledge is justified true belief.

Except the video linked does not use this definition. Which is my point.

Science, as usually set out here, rests on the principle of induction. Therefore,

1. You accept induction on faith or
2. You think that induction is known to work.

You forgot about the hypothetico-deductive model

Since you deny that science is faith based, you will need to prove that reliance on the principle of induction is both true and justified.

It's axiom based.

No I do not as induction does not take a position of universal truth

[quoteI am waiting with baited breath.[/QUOTE]

While you are waiting maybe enroll in a philosophy class.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Last point first. Why would I be threatened by the truth? The truth is in the Creation Museum at the Ark Encounter which opened this month. It has its own Lucy exhibit. Is that current enough for you?

Here's a pic of it.

Different strokes for different folks.

"The Lucy exhibit features one of the most famous fossils ever discovered—Australopithecus afarensis. Based on bones found in Ethiopia, secular museums worldwide have created hundreds of life–size models of this female primate. Lucy has been widely portrayed as the supreme example of a “missing link” between apes and humans. The main message of the exhibit in the Starting Points room is that biblical creationists and their evolutionary counterparts don’t disagree about the facts. Both sides have the same fossil evidences, the same data. The disagreements are more about assumptions and beliefs—our starting points. These differences lead to vastly different conclusions about what Lucy looked like.

The original concept for this exhibit was to show the evolutionary interpretation of Lucy side-by-side with the biblical interpretation. But when museum designers began researching evolutionary representations of Lucy, they did not find a consensus of what evolutionists think Lucy looked like. Instead, they found well over a hundred different interpretations, everything from perfectly ape-looking to almost human. Several were created following the very best methods of forensic reconstruction, but even they looked nothing like each other. The designers finally decided to have Lucy standing on a pile of photos of different evolutionary models, allowing visitors to pick their favorite if they disagree with our interpretation."

I gave you NOVA and Lovejoy. That was 1997. Then I gave his current update in 2009. I talked about Johanson. You didn't talk about Lovejoy, Johanson nor anything else except comparative anatomy theory. I thought you were a teacher (and retired anthropologist), so you should provide more scholarly evidence than wikipedia. Next, I named names and provided solid links. That's evidence and proof. Now, I gave you the Creation Museum's Lucy. What did you provide? Just opinion and wikipedia which is probably worth as much as the next person on the street with a smartphone.

I'm giving you a chance to explain more, but the evidence is that Lucy was a chimpanzee.

You're joking, right?

 

[Shad]

Last point first. Why would I be threatened by the truth? The truth is in the Creation Museum at the Ark Encounter which opened this month. It has its own Lucy exhibit. Is that current enough for you?

Here's a pic of it.

Different strokes for different folks.

"The Lucy exhibit features one of the most famous fossils ever discovered—Australopithecus afarensis. Based on bones found in Ethiopia, secular museums worldwide have created hundreds of life–size models of this female primate. Lucy has been widely portrayed as the supreme example of a “missing link” between apes and humans. The main message of the exhibit in the Starting Points room is that biblical creationists and their evolutionary counterparts don’t disagree about the facts. Both sides have the same fossil evidences, the same data. The disagreements are more about assumptions and beliefs—our starting points. These differences lead to vastly different conclusions about what Lucy looked like.

The original concept for this exhibit was to show the evolutionary interpretation of Lucy side-by-side with the biblical interpretation. But when museum designers began researching evolutionary representations of Lucy, they did not find a consensus of what evolutionists think Lucy looked like. Instead, they found well over a hundred different interpretations, everything from perfectly ape-looking to almost human. Several were created following the very best methods of forensic reconstruction, but even they looked nothing like each other. The designers finally decided to have Lucy standing on a pile of photos of different evolutionary models, allowing visitors to pick their favorite if they disagree with our interpretation."

I gave you NOVA and Lovejoy. That was 1997. Then I gave his current update in 2009. I talked about Johanson. You didn't talk about Lovejoy, Johanson nor anything else except comparative anatomy theory. I thought you were a teacher (and retired anthropologist), so you should provide more scholarly evidence than wikipedia. Next, I named names and provided solid links. That's evidence and proof. Now, I gave you the Creation Museum's Lucy. What did you provide? Just opinion and wikipedia which is probably worth as much as the next person on the street with a smartphone.

I'm giving you a chance to explain more, but the evidence is that Lucy was a chimpanzee.

You are claiming a view from hacks is as credible as those educated in the relevant field. Geology, archaeology, paleontology, and anthropology (from the top of my head) all disagree with your layman views.

Lovejoy supports evolution. You are making an assumption that one view of his means he rejects evolution, he doesn't. He certainly doesn't support the nonsensical "religion" museum.

 

[Zosimus]

Except the video linked does not use this definition. Which is my point.

Sure it does. By ruling out assumptions, he is requiring that all premises be explicitly stated and supported.

You forgot about the hypothetico-deductive model

This model requires the very same faith-based assumptions as do other models, assumptions that were explicitly mentioned in the video you watched. You must assume that your senses and memory are reliable. You must assume that nature has immutable laws that it follows. You provide no proof for these assertions.

It's axiom based.

Merely claiming that something is axiom based is not enough. Someone could say that the statement "The Bible is inerrant" is not faith because it's axiom based.

While you are waiting maybe enroll in a philosophy class.

Practice what you preach.

 

[james bond]

I don't think this deserves a response. That museum is a travesty and amounts to child abuse, as it attempts to teach children things that are patently false. Let's just start with the age of the earth. But, this conversation is literally making me depressed that anyone actually takes this stuff seriously. I really feel sorry for you.

No need to feel depressed, but be happy for me. No need to feel blue about success. I took the time to read about evolution and believed in that at first. Then I compared it to creation science since 2012. Also, I started reading the Bible more and taking it seriously. CS and the Bible are more correct.

For someone who takes biological evolution seriously and science seriously, you have no evidence to back it up. No testable experiments nor repeatable processes while the creation scientists do have these things, use sources who give their names and credentials (when they're not in danger of losing their jobs or funding) and use the scientific method. Creationists invented science to show how great and wonderful God is. Today, we battle the mainstream evolution scientists and their closed-door policies.

The Creation Museum is successful and controversial due to evolution. It makes money though. It and the Ark Encounter are destination vacations now. I can post some vids showing how great it is, but your mind is already made up. I checked up on how the Lucy exhibition did as Ethiopia and Johanson went ahead and did an exhibit in Seattle in spite of the protests, but no love for Lucy. In 2009, "Halfway through the five-month exhibit, the Pacific Science Center faces a half-million-dollar loss resulting in layoffs of 8 percent of the staff, furloughs and a wage freeze, President Bryce Seidl said Friday."

I won't go see evo Lucy, but will still go to science museums and the Creation Museum and Ark Encounted. Would love to take the family. Just not evolution exhibits because I know they're false and fake.

Basically, all you have are some questionable fossils as we have been discussing. You have no evidence except your faith in evolution. I should feel sorry for you, but I don't. Why? Because I do not know what happens after you die and go past death and into the great beyond. I have theories about what happens after clinical death, but that's all. God said we won't know the beginning nor the end and we do not.

 

[james bond]

You've gotta be kidding, right? This is some sort of joke you positing, right? By chance did you see the debate between Ham and Nye? Are you aware that a replica of the ark in Amsterdam Harbor cannot sail out because computer models show it to be way too unstable to float safely, whether it be loaded or empty.

And the rendition of Lucy in the "museum" is a total joke based on what has to be an intention distortion that panders to the uninformed on human evolution. As long as one believes in fairy tales renditions and distortions of reality, they will never understand nor grow. I am so happy I left that nonsense decades ago because I so much detest dishonesty being put out by snake-oil salesmen like Ham. But he's gonna make money on the uneducated who are too lazy or too brainwashed to do the homework using more objective sources.

One cannot be forced to see the lies perpetrated on them, but I can hope that someday they'll eventually realized how much they're being taken advantage of. Science self-corrects by its nature, the bad thing about theism is that there is no self-correcting mechanism built within it, and if one is not willing to do the actual studying from objective sources, they stand the chance pf being forever locked in a fairy-tale mythology.

There's nothing more I can say other than I hope you realize some day that you are being taken advantage of, and the only way you can find that out is to take the time to do the research from real science sources, not pseudo-science ones. But it's not easy as it was quite unsettling for me to realize I'd been hoodwinked for so long, leading to making the changes I had to make. I used to love the church I was in and the people in it, which is why I was thinking about going into the ministry. I began going to my wife's church, which I still attend now with her for around 40 years now, and thank God they don't teach the lies of my former church.

Take care.

Some archaeologist and teacher. Your last post deserves my Joker laugh.

I saw the debate between Ham and Nye and thought Nye won the debate, but Ham scored points and got funding for his Ark Encounter. Nye is a celebrity host of science programs, but not a scientist. He has an engineering degree I think. Ham was a science teacher and is now founder of Answers in Genesis, the Creation Museum and Ark Encounter attractions. They're both popular and successful in their own ways.

Bye.