Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[james bond]

Does the Bible say that apes evolved from humans? That would entail that apes are the result of a microevolution from humans. Ergo, we would be the same kind, anyway. Unless, you turned into a macroevolutionist all of a sudden.

So, do you believe he is right? If not, why do you take seriously anything he is saying?

Ciao

- viole

The Bible does not discuss creation vs evolution, but it does have “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.” Romans 1:25.

 

[viole]

The Bible does not discuss creation vs evolution, but it does have “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.” Romans 1:25.

So, do you take seriously what that guy said?

Ciao

- viole

 

[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.

You haven't explained how a single-cell "evolved" to become Australopithecus or another Australopithecine. I guess I can't ask you to explain the single-cell from nothing, primordial soup or whatever as that would be beyond biological evolution.

 

[james bond]

So, do you take seriously what that guy said?

Ciao

- viole

Some things are verifiable such as the science parts which are being discussed heare. Others are verifiable through rational thinking, facts and historical research although it could be sketchy. The Bible itself is a historical document for a time before Noah's Flood. I should add the discussion for Australopithecines comes AFTER Noah's Flood.

 

[viole]

Some things are verifiable such as the science parts which are being discussed heare. Others are verifiable through rational thinking, facts and historical research although it could be sketchy. The Bible itself is a historical document for a time before Noah's Flood. I should add the discussion for Australopithecines comes AFTER Noah's Flood.

That does not address my question. This looks suspiciously like the usual noise that tries to avoid to take a position.

Do you, or do you not, take seriously the claim of that guy that apes evolved from humans? [yes/no]

Ciao

- viole

 

[Parsimony]

Lovejoy thinks chimpanzees and apes evolved from humans.

No, what he said is that modern apes evolved from "something that is more human-like". You are committing the equivocation fallacy once again by implying that something which is "X-like" is the same thing as "X".

The opposite of what evos believe.

Lovejoy is an evolutionist.

His earlier vid discussed STS-14 which corroborates what I said in beginning and which you tried to sidetrack by claiming quote mining.

Which video are you talking about? Can you link me? I hope you're not talking about either of the videos in this latest post of yours, as they do not mention STS-14 (please remember that STS-14 is not Lucy's pelvis, but the pelvis of a different Australopithecus).

The Laetoli footprints show that early hominids lived with Lucy and the other chimpanzee-like apes.

Lucy was an early hominid.

Otherwise, where are all the other australopithecina fossils? What do you have -- two fossils Lucy and Ardi?

There are many: KP29281, KP29285, AL333 ("the first family"), AL444-2, the Taung child, TM1512, STS-5, STS-14, MH-1, STW-537 and many others.

So what does nylonases being mutated mean? What are you claiming?

The nylonases are mutant variants of a pre-existing gene which did not have the ability to produce a nylon-degrading enzyme.

Certainly, not being interesting is why I limit our discussion.

So you ignore content from me that you do not find interesting? What if I did the same to you? Would you like that? Or do you think for some reason that you have a right that I do not have?

Why not just expand your points such as nylonase and we can discuss this instead of rambling about several topics?

You can if you want to, but if you fail to address my refutations then I can count that as a win for myself in regards to those particular topics.

The benefit I see from discussing mutations is that I think I've shown that the simple cell is not "simple," but complex and thus intelligently designed.

Non-sequitur. Something being complex doesn't make it intelligently designed. The argument from design is just a variant of the argument from ignorance.

This should take care of all your past posts and Lovejoy. Read #2352, as well.

Not really. You haven't told me where Lovejoy talked about the pelvis in the video you posted in #2504. You didn't tell me what link you were referring to when you said NEJOM. You didn't address how Lovejoy said that Australopithecus canines are different from chimpanzee canines. I did read #2352 and don't see any support in it for your claim that Australopithecines are chimpanzees. You also need to tell me specifically which video you are talking about where Lovejoy specifically mentions STS-14, because I can't find it.

You haven't explained how a single-cell "evolved" to become Australopithecus or another Australopithecine.

And here I was thinking that you wanted to pare the debate down instead of expanding it. That single cell would have evolved the same way that everything else has evolved, by mutation, natural selection and genetic drift among other factors. The order of the fossil record shows this, where prokaryotes came first, followed by single-celled eukaryotes, followed by colonial and multicellular eukaryotes and so on. The chronological increase in complexity over time is there to see.

I guess I can't ask you to explain the single-cell from nothing, primordial soup or whatever as that would be beyond biological evolution.

Correct, it is beyond the scope of evolution.

The Bible does not discuss creation vs evolution, but it does have “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.” Romans 1:25.

Paul was speaking in the past tense about people that were either alive back then or had already come before him. Therefore, he could not have even theoretically been talking about a theory that wouldn't be developed until over a thousand years after the book was written. If anything, he seems to be talking specifically about idolatry.

 

[james bond]

That does not address my question. This looks suspiciously like the usual noise that tries to avoid to take a position.

Do you, or do you not, take seriously the claim of that guy that apes evolved from humans? [yes/no]

Ciao

- viole

Ha ha. Jokes on me. I thought you were still talking about the Bible. So your point is Lovejoy. There is no evidence for either or else we would see men-apes. What Lovejoy does with his new hypothesis is expand the thinking of evolution. We need to see his timeline for the explanation of how this came to be in order to comment further.

Furthermore, it does explain why there are apes still around. How do the apes-to-humans people explain that?

 

[McBell]

Ha ha. Jokes on me. I thought you were still talking about the Bible. So your point is Lovejoy. There is no evidence for either or else we would see men-apes. What Lovejoy does with his new hypothesis is expand the thinking of evolution. We need to see his timeline for the explanation of how this came to be in order to comment further.

Furthermore, it does explain why there are apes still around. How do the apes-to-humans people explain that?

one wonders why you are unable to just answer the question

 

[james bond]

No, what he said is that modern apes evolved from "something that is more human-like". You are committing the equivocation fallacy once again by implying that something which is "X-like" is the same thing as "X".

Lovejoy is an evolutionist.

Which video are you talking about? Can you link me? I hope you're not talking about either of the videos in this latest post of yours, as they do not mention STS-14 (please remember that STS-14 is not Lucy's pelvis, but the pelvis of a different Australopithecus).

Lucy was an early hominid.

There are many: KP29281, KP29285, AL333 ("the first family"), AL444-2, the Taung child, TM1512, STS-5, STS-14, MH-1, STW-537 and many others.

The nylonases are mutant variants of a pre-existing gene which did not have the ability to produce a nylon-degrading enzyme.

So you ignore content from me that you do not find interesting? What if I did the same to you? Would you like that? Or do you think for some reason that you have a right that I do not have?

You can if you want to, but if you fail to address my refutations then I can count that as a win for myself in regards to those particular topics.

Non-sequitur. Something being complex doesn't make it intelligently designed. The argument from design is just a variant of the argument from ignorance.

Not really. You haven't told me where Lovejoy talked about the pelvis in the video you posted in #2504. You didn't tell me what link you were referring to when you said NEJOM. You didn't address how Lovejoy said that Australopithecus canines are different from chimpanzee canines. I did read #2352 and don't see any support in it for your claim that Australopithecines are chimpanzees. You also need to tell me specifically which video you are talking about where Lovejoy specifically mentions STS-14, because I can't find it.

And here I was thinking that you wanted to pare the debate down instead of expanding it. That single cell would have evolved the same way that everything else has evolved, by mutation, natural selection and genetic drift among other factors. The order of the fossil record shows this, where prokaryotes came first, followed by single-celled eukaryotes, followed by colonial and multicellular eukaryotes and so on. The chronological increase in complexity over time is there to see.

Correct, it is beyond the scope of evolution.

Paul was speaking in the past tense about people that were either alive back then or had already come before him. Therefore, he could not have even theoretically been talking about a theory that wouldn't be developed until over a thousand years after the book was written. If anything, he seems to be talking specifically about idolatry.

That's what Lovejoy says in his video and I know he's an evo, and you'll have to explain further about STS-14. How is it relevant to making your case?

Again, we'll agree to disagree about Lucy. Not what the evidence shows.

Go on about nylonase.

Now, you're quote mining. I end up ignoring your content because one statement begats more questions and comments that do not accomplish much, especially when you ignore links in answer to your questions or to back my statements up.

You're using circular reasoining. You'll have to prove that something complex just happened by chance, randomness or whatever. Please explain.

I did explain about the NEJOM, in order to back up my statement, but you forgot and then didn't read the entire link anyway. So why is it such a big deal to you when you just ignore it?

And I did post about Australopithecines being chimpanzees several times, so no point in repeating. Just re-read my comments including my last one from the Creation Museum. You probably just ignored them. This is another reason for tediousness besides you ignoring my links and explanation and taking a statement and making thirty separate comments about it.

That's not an explanation for the evolution of the single-cell. It's circular reasoning. What does mutation, natural selection and genetic drift have to do with it? And how do you know the fossil record backs what you state? Do you have an experiment to show how it happened?

I think Paul was speaking about people in general and it still applies today. You've read the Bible, probably more than I have, and you're not convinced of Creation nor Noah's Flood? Or are you convinced? I know you believe evolution.

 

[Parsimony]

That's what Lovejoy says in his video and I know he's an evo,

He said "human-like", not "human"

and you'll have to explain further about STS-14. How is it relevant to making your case?

Because it looks nothing like a chimpanzee pelvis. STS-14 is wider than it is tall (it's height is about 70% of its width), whereas a chimp's pelvis is taller than it is wide (it's height is about 117% of its width). How do you justify classifying STS-14 among the chimpanzees despite this great inconsistency?

Again, we'll agree to disagree about Lucy. Not what the evidence shows.

It's certainly not the same as a chimp, not with the inconsistencies in pelvis shape, canine teeth, toes, etc.

Go on about nylonase.

What more do you want to know?

Now, you're quote mining.

How so?

I end up ignoring your content because one statement begats more questions and comments that do not accomplish much

The same thing happens with your comments too.

especially when you ignore links in answer to your questions or to back my statements up.

Which ones did I ignore?

You're using circular reasoining.

Explain.

You'll have to prove that something complex just happened by chance, randomness or whatever. Please explain.

Mutations exist which increase complexity (the aerobic citrate mutation in E.coli being one). Many small complexity-increasing mutations over time lead to large increases in complexity. Even if we didn't know about genetics or mutations, the fossil record still shows things becoming increasingly complex over the first couple billion years, so we know that it did indeed happen.

I did explain about the NEJOM, in order to back up my statement, but you forgot and then didn't read the entire link anyway. So why is it such a big deal to you when you just ignore it?

How can I even know what you are talking about when you won't even tell me what NEJOM stands for? How can I even know what part of the debate you are making reference to if you won't explain the acronym? What post number is it in?

And I did post about Australopithecines being chimpanzees several times, so no point in repeating. Just re-read my comments including my last one from the Creation Museum. You probably just ignored them. This is another reason for tediousness besides you ignoring my links and explanation and taking a statement and making thirty separate comments about it.

You most certainly did say a lot of things about that but they all rested on fallacies (equivocation being a big one: something being chimp-like doesn't make it a chimp). Even that creation wiki you linked to classified Australopithecus among the Homini instead of among Panini with the chimpanzees.

That's not an explanation for the evolution of the single-cell. It's circular reasoning.

How so?

What does mutation, natural selection and genetic drift have to do with it?

That's how evolution works, you know?

And how do you know the fossil record backs what you state?

Radiometric dating of fossils, stratigraphy, genetic studies, biogeography...

Do you have an experiment to show how it happened?

The only experiment you need is to go look at the tested ages of the fossils, as well as genetic tests of living species.

I think Paul was speaking about people in general and it still applies today. You've read the Bible, probably more than I have, and you're not convinced of Creation nor Noah's Flood? Or are you convinced? I know you believe evolution.

I don't think there was a literal six days of creation, no. If Noah's Flood happened, then I think that it must have been a local one.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I can see no other purpose for evolution than to discredit the Bible and creation science.

It has always been a war since the 1800s and it has become a battle for the minds of our children since Scopes and the court rulings in 1967 (?) and the 1980s. Evolution started on the ideas of Charles Lyell and a Scottish farmer named James Hutton in 1795. They were both atheists. The battle escalated into a war in the 1800s and it continues today with creation science being excluded from science, the spawning of mutated products and the battle over our children's minds. All worth fighting for. I'll re-read some of your points and post again.

The "purpose" of evolution is to explain the diversity of life on earth, in light of the mountains of available evidence supporting it.

I don't know where you guys come up with this paranoid stuff.

 

[gnostic]

That's what Lovejoy says in his video and I know he's an evo, and you'll have to explain further about STS-14. How is it relevant to making your case?

Again, we'll agree to disagree about Lucy. Not what the evidence shows.

Go on about nylonase.

Now, you're quote mining. I end up ignoring your content because one statement begats more questions and comments that do not accomplish much, especially when you ignore links in answer to your questions or to back my statements up.

You're using circular reasoining. You'll have to prove that something complex just happened by chance, randomness or whatever. Please explain.

I did explain about the NEJOM, in order to back up my statement, but you forgot and then didn't read the entire link anyway. So why is it such a big deal to you when you just ignore it?

And I did post about Australopithecines being chimpanzees several times, so no point in repeating. Just re-read my comments including my last one from the Creation Museum. You probably just ignored them. This is another reason for tediousness besides you ignoring my links and explanation and taking a statement and making thirty separate comments about it.

That's not an explanation for the evolution of the single-cell. It's circular reasoning. What does mutation, natural selection and genetic drift have to do with it? And how do you know the fossil record backs what you state? Do you have an experiment to show how it happened?

I think Paul was speaking about people in general and it still applies today. You've read the Bible, probably more than I have, and you're not convinced of Creation nor Noah's Flood? Or are you convinced? I know you believe evolution.

The only people I see using circular reasoning, are you and other creationists.

And Paul don't speak of anything relating to biology, and especially not in Romans 1:25 that you have quoted from.

 

[james bond]

The only people I see using circular reasoning, are you and other creationists.

And Paul don't speak of anything relating to biology, and especially not in Romans 1:25 that you have quoted from.

You're quote mining.

 

[james bond]

The "purpose" of evolution is to explain the diversity of life on earth, in light of the mountains of available evidence supporting it.

I don't know where you guys come up with this paranoid stuff.

The purpose of creationism is to explain the diversity of life on earth, in light of the mountains of available evidence supporting it.

Why do the evolutionists not allow a forum for the creation scientists and their theories such as intelligent design or creation? Why can they lose their jobs or funding if they disagree with evolution? Why can't they teach creation science in public schools? The creationists are not the ones who are paranoid, but evolutionists.

 

[secret2]

The purpose of creationism is to explain the diversity of life on earth, in light of the mountains of available evidence supporting it.

Why do the evolutionists not allow a forum for the creation scientists and their theories such as intelligent design or creation? Why can they lose their jobs or funding if they disagree with evolution? Why can't they teach creation science in public schools? The creationists are not the ones who are paranoid, but evolutionists.

Of course one can doubt evolution and attempt to falsify it. In fact, people have been doing that . That's called scientific research. But the point is, that it has to be done according to some criteria. And no, that is not because of any 'hegemony' or 'conspiracy', but simply because the alternative you are proposing (close your eyes and make a wish) has long been demonstrated as useless at best, and harmful otherwise. The criteria of contemporary scientific research rarely meet any objection in many other areas, it's curious to think that biology is somehow special.

Similarly, creation myth can of course be taught in schools, it's just that it doesn't belong to the science curriculum.

 

[james bond]

He said "human-like", not "human"

Because it looks nothing like a chimpanzee pelvis. STS-14 is wider than it is tall (it's height is about 70% of its width), whereas a chimp's pelvis is taller than it is wide (it's height is about 117% of its width). How do you justify classifying STS-14 among the chimpanzees despite this great inconsistency?

It's certainly not the same as a chimp, not with the inconsistencies in pelvis shape, canine teeth, toes, etc.

What more do you want to know?

How so?

The same thing happens with your comments too.

Which ones did I ignore?

Explain.

Mutations exist which increase complexity (the aerobic citrate mutation in E.coli being one). Many small complexity-increasing mutations over time lead to large increases in complexity. Even if we didn't know about genetics or mutations, the fossil record still shows things becoming increasingly complex over the first couple billion years, so we know that it did indeed happen.

How can I even know what you are talking about when you won't even tell me what NEJOM stands for? How can I even know what part of the debate you are making reference to if you won't explain the acronym? What post number is it in?

You most certainly did say a lot of things about that but they all rested on fallacies (equivocation being a big one: something being chimp-like doesn't make it a chimp). Even that creation wiki you linked to classified Australopithecus among the Homini instead of among Panini with the chimpanzees.

How so?

That's how evolution works, you know?

Radiometric dating of fossils, stratigraphy, genetic studies, biogeography...

The only experiment you need is to go look at the tested ages of the fossils, as well as genetic tests of living species.

I don't think there was a literal six days of creation, no. If Noah's Flood happened, then I think that it must have been a local one.

It was a fat chimpanzee or ape. Do you remember the two criteria I gave you?

You're presenting a strawman -- "pelvis shape, canine teeth, toes, etc." Does not address the two criteria.

I think we're done with nylonase and whatever your point was about it. <shrugs shoulders>

Welp, you ignored the two most important criteria in discussing Australopithecines. The overwhelming evidence I provided against it. The Creation Museum. Argument for ID using beauty and complexity by CS Lewis. See my post #2385. And more including the links I post for you.

NEJM. Is that better? That's what they use. Why don't you go back and read the full article?

Chimpanzee-like ape aren't my terms. They're Lovejoy's.

If that's how it works, then it's a circular argument -- This is evo, this is how it works, this proves evo. People would disagree that it works, as well.

Radiometric dating isn't accurate. Show me that it's accurate. Use some real life examples such as the moon rocks.

I suppose you have no conclusive experiment? OTOH, I gave you how stratification works by Guy Berthault. See #2378.

 

[james bond]

Of course one can doubt evolution and attempt to falsify it. In fact, people have been doing that . That's called scientific research. But the point is, that it has to be done according to some criteria. And no, that is not because of any 'hegemony' or 'conspiracy', but simply because the alternative you are proposing (close your eyes and make a wish) has long been demonstrated as useless at best, and harmful otherwise. The criteria of contemporary scientific research rarely meet any objection in many other areas, it's curious to think that biology is somehow special.

Similarly, creation myth can of course be taught in schools, it's just that it doesn't belong to the science curriculum.

I think you are confused. It's not science vs religion. It's creation science vs evolution. Creation can be a scientific theory just like evolution. Only, creationists aren't allowed to present it as science. The religion part (taught as philosophy) can be left out of the science program.

You're also wrong in thinking creation is a myth. Evolution is a myth. There isn't evidence for it except natural selection which is part of creation science, as well. Who do you think invented the scientific method -- a Christian?

 

[Thief]

I think you are confused. It's not science vs religion. It's creation science vs evolution. Creation can be a scientific theory just like evolution. Only, creationists aren't allowed to present it as science. The religion part (taught as philosophy) can be left out of the science program.

You're also wrong in thinking creation is a myth. Evolution is a myth. There isn't evidence for it except natural selection which is part of creation science, as well. Who do you think invented the scientific method -- a Christian?

if you leave out the religious part.....how is it creationism?

I think of the garden event as manipulation
evolution was Day Six

 

[james bond]

if you leave out the religious part.....how is it creationism?

I think of the garden event as manipulation
evolution was Day Six

The religious part is Jesus Christ and most of the people parts in the Bible whereas Genesis (creation in six days) could be presented as a scientific theory. The Bible is considered a work of non-fiction and history catalog.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

128 pages and still no evidence.

<Sarcasm>SHOCKING</sarcasm>