Verifiable evidence for creationism?
Personally, I think the human body is onboard evidence, so to speak.
We are an extremely complex electrochemical, biological machine.
I don't think we happened by accident or coincidence.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Verifiable evidence for creationism?
Oh my good grief.
You went all that trouble of writing this long reply, only to ask me which one I was talking about?
Re-read my post, because it is very obvious who I am talking about, JB, so I am not going to dignify it with an answer...figure out yourself the context of my previous reply.
You realize that you're sunk, so you want to argue semantics. All right. Let's talk Popper from his own paper:Human senses can be, and have been, unreliable. Hence reviews, experiments and dialogue from other than a single person matters. Again your video changes knowledge to his own definition making it stacking the deck since only his definition
Stacking the deck
Irrelevant as it is never just one person's opinion regarding the topics we are discussing. Again, if using the video's definition of knowledge there is no point in rebutting the rest of the argument as the first premise is flawed. I do not agree with the defination nor it is a standard one used from philosophy.
Not really as anyone that has studied the philosophy of science would of realized a long time ago science produces models which are approximation of what we believe happens in the real world. Never read Popper have you?
None as many many be fooled by outdated thinking from someone that confuses a model as if it were a 100% fact of the real world or for that matter care. You want science to be absolute so your arguments appear to work. However since it isn't you are left with nothing.
Certainly, I agree with you that the human body is evidence of creation.
Personally, I think the human body is onboard evidence, so to speak.
We are an extremely complex electrochemical, biological machine.
I don't think we happened by accident or coincidence.
The problem is that it is evidence of a multitude of other theories as well.
- The proportions of the Australopithecus pelvis and those of the two chimpanzee species can be measured. Australopithecus is wider than it is tall and the chimps are taller than they are wide. If you don't believe me, feel free to digitally make the measurements for yourself: Australopithecus africanus pelvis, bonobo pelvis, common chimpanzee pelvis.
- The evidence for arched feet comes from the "First Family", which was a collection of fossil bones from 17 different individuals of Australopithecus afarensis. At least one of those bones was a curved metatarsal.
- In this image, you can see that the jaw of Australopithecus is less protruding than that of a chimp.
- The Australopithecus africanus fossil STS-52 has all of the teeth on one side of the face, clearly showing small canines. KP 29283 shows this as well.
- The knowledge of knee-locking mechanisms comes initially from the 1973 Hadar knee, but we've found other knees since then (including for Australopithecus sediba fossil MH1 and a knee from the "First Family" fossil collection of A. afarensis).
- The Taung Child shows the human-like foramen magnum.
- I'll get to the toe when I have more time, it's quite late here for me.
You might as well ask how the differences came about between chimps and gorillas: even similar species can have different adaptations to their environment.
Evolutionarily speaking, there is no hard-edge line where you can separate the two. "Ape" and "human" are just convenient terms.
Similarities in mutations in the GULO pseudogenes (which normally manufacture vitamin C) between humans and the great apes evidence common descent, since the likelihood of all of the ape species (along with humans) independently "breaking" their GULO genes and developing similar mutations are small. Also, ERV similarities (the remnants of past retrovirus infections) between humans and chimpanzees are far too large for uncommon descent to be plausible. Humans and chimps have the majority of their over 98,000 ERVs in the same loci (same places in the genome), whereas retroviruses insert their RNA into the genome of infected cells far too randomly to account for independent infection in both chimp and human lineages. Even two separately-infected cells from the same individual have very different loci for ERV insertions, which demonstrates that this can only be accounted for by inheritance of ERV patterns from a common ancestor.
I've watched that video more than once, actually. Ardipithecus did give us more information than Australopithecus in some ways since the hands and feet are more complete. Not sure what you thinking I'm "glossing over".
Ardipithecus is not Australopithecus so I don't know what the lack or presence of teeth in one has to do with the other. We do indeed have Australopithecus jaws where the canine teeth are indeed present, so it's not just a matter of "reconstructing fossils to fit the ToE". The fossil KP 29281 is of a lower jaw of Australopithecus anamensis and has all of its teeth. This one also has at least one canine tooth preserved.
Interesting that you say that, as there are many members of genus "Homo" that would fail to meet the 1,000 cc criteria you have given. Homo habilis had capacities ranging from 510 to 687 cc, much smaller than those of modern humans and only slightly larger than the largest known chimp brains (500 cc). Many members of Homo erectus would be excluded, because the average brain size for early members was 900 cc (some could go down to 750 cc). Homo ergaster had a similar range to Homo erectus. This includes the subspecies Homo erectus georgicus, which was much smaller at 546 to 600 cc. Homo naledi went from 465 to 560 cc.
What does being religious have to do with it? If creation science is a science, then there is no need to get religion involved at all.
Yes. I never argued otherwise.
What I lost my faith in was a literal interpretation of the creation story in Genesis, not the Bible itself. If I have "faith" in evolution then I also have "faith" in gravity, nuclear fusion, and criminal forensics.
Careful now, you're treading close to a generalization/equivocation/straw-man fallacy. Accepting evolution does not automatically entail accepting the others. I accept neither the existence or non-existence of aliens, abiogenesis, or multiverses. Could they exist? Yes. Do we know for sure? No. Science bringing the dead back to life might be possible some day but we definitely can't do it now (at least not for anything that is unambiguously dead). For dark matter and dark energy, something is definitely causing strange effects for which we can attribute those names, but we just don't know the cause yet.
Which is not evidence that any given scientific theory will become falsified in the future.
That's possible true for many, but not all. Our fellow board member and Christian Serenity7855 accepts evolution but seems to have fairly conservative views (if I recall correctly).
Yes, we are all well aware by now that you believe that.
Which part? The creation account? If it's true, then it's metaphor. The only similarity between a literal reading of Genesis and the Big Bang theory is that both propose that the universe had a beginning. In the Big Bang context, stars (including the Sun) came a long time (billions of years) before the Earth did. In a literal reading of Genesis, the Sun and stars were created after the Earth.
Okay, the basic concept of underdetermination can be explained thus:Could you expand on this? I'm not reading you on this point.
Okay, the basic concept of underdetermination can be explained thus:
Imagine that you are buying apples and oranges. Apples cost 3 and oranges cost 4. You spent 7. How many of each did you buy? The answer is simple: one apple and one orange.
But what if the amount you spent were 70? Yes, it's possible that you bought 10 apples and 10 oranges. But it's also possible that you bought 14 apples and 7 oranges or 6 apples and 13 oranges. Accordingly, we say that the problem is underdetermined. There are multiple possibilities.
Now, the human body is a marvel. Mine works very well, and when it gets broke it fixes itself. Is that evidence for a Creator? Sure. But couldn't it also be evidence for natural selection? Couldn't it also be evidence for ancient genetic-engineering aliens? Couldn't it also be evidence for the idea that it's all in your head and you're just dreaming? Yes, yes, and yes.
You see, your original argument said, "I don't think we happened by accident or [by] coincidence." Yes, few people think that the human body is accidental. However, this is not an exhaustive list of the explanations for the complexity of the human body.
Please be so kind as to explain why you think you are exempt from the above quoted verses?Proverbs 18:2
A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.
Proverbs 29:11
A fool gives full vent to his spirit, but a wise man quietly holds it back.
Proverbs 1:7
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.
How? Which creation story?I suppose what I am looking for are the nice diagrams and explanations of the beaks of Finches as in shown by natural selection. I just do not see that with apes-to-human. There is no need for an apeman or man-ape. And chimpanzees and other apes still exist today. Even Lovejoy had an alternative theory in since 1997 in 2009. At least that theory explains why we exist today with apes. Do we become the planet of the apes, Mr. Lovejoy? Evolutionists wil evo, creationists will crea.
To go against evolution. A creation scientist's beliefs may cause some discord within. It's basically unfair to be shut out of science since science today will not accept the supernatural, but the war wages on and eventually we should be able to teach creation in all schools without the religion.
Microevolution or natural selection happens.
The point you make about existence or non-existence is what creationists are saying. Could God exist? Yes. Do we know for sure? No. Until then it's philosophy or worldview. That said, God says in the Bible that we will not know the beginning or the end. Thus, we will never know the age of the universe or earth or how it will all end or what happens to someone in the great beyond. I even checked this out as near-death experiences which can be a topic for another day.
What made you think Genesis was a metaphor? Any evidence? Here's my explanation (except without the Big Bang) in a nutshell:
I agree about all the differing views of Christians. Just stereotyping.
You realize that you're sunk, so you want to argue semantics. All right. Let's talk Popper from his own paper:
http://dieoff.org/page126.htm
Here we have the empiricist's case, as it is still put by some of my positivist friends.
I shall try to show that this case is as little valid as Bacon's; that the answer to the question of the sources of knowledge goes against the empiricist; and, finally, that this whole question of ultimate sources - sources to which one may appeal, as one might to a higher court or a higher authority - must be rejected as based upon a mistake.
First I want to show that if you actually went on questioning The Times and its correspondents about the sources of their knowledge, you would in fact never arrive at all those observations by eyewitnesses in the existence of which the empiricist believes. You would find, rather, that with every single step you take, the need for further steps increases in snowball-like fashion.
Take as an example the sort of assertion for which reasonable people might simply accept as sufficient the answer 'I read it in The Times'; let us say the assertion 'The Prime Minister has decided to return to London several days ahead of schedule'. Now assume for a moment that somebody doubts this assertion, or feels the need to investigate its truth. What shall he do? If he has a friend in the Prime Minister's office, the simplest and most direct way would be to ring him up; and if this friend corroborates the message, then that is that.
In other words, the investigator will, if possible, try to check, or to examine, the asserted fact itself, rather than trace the source of the information. But according to the empiricist theory, the assertion 'I have read it in The Times' is merely a first step in a justification procedure consisting in tracing the ultimate source. What is the next step?
There are at least two next steps. One would be to reflect that 'I have read it in The Times' is also an assertion, and that we might ask 'What is the source of your knowledge that you read it in The Times and not, say, in a paper looking very similar to The Times?' The other is to ask The Times for the sources of its knowledge. The answer to the first question may be 'But we have only The Times on order and we always get it in the morning', which gives rise to a host of further questions about sources which we shall not pursue. The second question may elicit from the editor of The Times the answer: 'We had a telephone call from the Prime Minister's office.' Now according to the empiricist procedure, we should at this stage ask next: 'Who is the gentleman who received the telephone call?' and then get his observation report; but we should also have to ask that gentleman: 'What is the source of your knowledge that the voice you heard came from an official in the Prime Minister's office?', and so on.
There is a simple reason why this tedious sequence of questions never comes to a satisfactory conclusion. It is this. Every witness must always make ample use, in his report, of his knowledge of persons, places, things, linguistic usages, social conventions, and so on. He cannot rely merely upon his eyes or ears, especially if his report is to be of use in justifying any assertion worth justifying. But this fact must of course always raise new questions as to the sources of those elements of his knowledge which are not immediately observational.
This is why the programme of tracing back all knowledge to its ultimate source in observation is logically impossible to carry through: it leads to an infinite regress. (The doctrine that truth is manifest cuts off the regress. This is interesting because it may help to explain the attractiveness of that doctrine.)
------------------------------------------
Thus you see, at a certain point, you give up the infinite regress and take something on faith.
Type in "human evolution timeline" into Google image search and you'll find a lot of diagrams. This is one. However, these kinds of things tend to undergo revisions a lot as new fossils are discovered.I suppose what I am looking for are the nice diagrams and explanations of the beaks of Finches as in shown by natural selection. I just do not see that with apes-to-human. There is no need for an apeman or man-ape. And chimpanzees and other apes still exist today. Even Lovejoy had an alternative theory in since 1997 in 2009.
So do you still deny that there are differences?A. africanus lived in South Africa 3.2–1.8 Mya (Klein, 1999). Ricklan (1987) concluded from examination of 16 hand bones that A. africanus had a firm power grip and a strong capacity for ulnar deviation of the wrist, as occurs in clubbing. Well-developed muscles were present that could stabilize the wrist to prevent rebound of a club at impact. Wrist extension comparable to modern humans (Richmond & Strait, 2000) would have aided throwing efficiency. A styloid process on the third metacarpal, appearing for the first time, would have protected against hyperextension from throwing, and the capacity to rotate the second and fifth metacarpals during flexion (Ricklan, 1987) would have improved the throwing grip. A distal thumb phalanx with a broad apical tuft for support of a fingertip pad and a site for insertion of the flexor pollicis longus muscle (Marzke, 1997) would have aided both clubbing and throwing grips.
So does the Australopithecus theory: nowhere does it imply that all apes should have evolved into humans. Some evolved into humans while others evolved into other, non-human species of ape like gorillas, chimpanzees and orangutans. It’s just like the first cat species evolving into many different species of cats such as lions, caracals, lynxes, etc.At least that theory explains why we exist today with apes.
I think that’s rather mischaracterizing Lovejoy’s statements. He never implied anything of the sort.Do we become the planet of the apes, Mr. Lovejoy? Evolutionists wil evo, creationists will crea.
Thing is, the supernatural cannot be included in science because it makes no testable predictions. Science is all about testing hypotheses, but how can a supernatural hypothesis be tested? If you can find a way to test a supernatural claim, then you can include it in science. Simple as that.To go against evolution. A creation scientist's beliefs may cause some discord within. It's basically unfair to be shut out of science since science today will not accept the supernatural, but the war wages on and eventually we should be able to teach creation in all schools without the religion.
I don’t deny that.Microevolution or natural selection happens.
Heck, everyone who’s being logical, even atheists, would say that God could/ exist. If something can’t be disproven, then there is no way to know that it does not exist.The point you make about existence or non-existence is what creationists are saying. Could God exist? Yes. Do we know for sure? No.
I don’t think I would go quite that far. If someone says “A purple rock could exist under my house, but I don’t know for sure”, I don’t know anyone who would classify that as a philosophy or worldview. They’re just being honest about what could be and what they do not know.Until then it's philosophy or worldview.
Wait a minute, if we cannot know the age of the universe or Earth then why do so many creationists try to peg it at 6,000 years, give or take a little? I’d also like to see you quote those particular verses.That said, God says in the Bible that we will not know the beginning or the end. Thus, we will never know the age of the universe or earth or how it will all end or what happens to someone in the great beyond. I even checked this out as near-death experiences which can be a topic for another day.
A lack of consistency of a literal interpretation with existing knowledge.What made you think Genesis was a metaphor? Any evidence?
You're free to believe that if you want to, even though the video gets some things wrong about what the Big Bang theory claims (such as equivocating it with the theory of evolution and saying that light came into existence after the Earth did). What about the part where it says the universe wasn't created in six literal days? I thought you believed that it was?Here's my explanation (except without the Big Bang) in a nutshell:
I agree about all the differing views of Christians. Just stereotyping.
A much cleaner and more logical case can be made (and has been made) for evolution than for any form of creation.
Personally, I think the human body is onboard evidence, so to speak.
We are an extremely complex electrochemical, biological machine.
I don't think we happened by accident or coincidence.
No, the argument still works just fine against you.No I am correcting your misuse of terminology which causes you to make errors in your conclusion. You also project positivism on to me as it is the only way your argument works. If I reject it, and I do, you have no argument.
Of course I did, but his solution is flawed.Again if one rejects proof as a criteria, not to be confused with evidence, your argument is dead. Did you even read Popper's solution?
Laughable. The original text is right here in which he says: "If formulated in this sweeping way, [Darwin's theory] is not only refutable, but actually refuted. For not all organs serve a useful purpose; as Darwin himself points out, there are organs like the tail of the peacock, and behavioral programs like the peacock's display of his tail, which cannot be explained by their utility, and therefore not by natural selection."Obviously not... Did you read Popper's acceptance of evolution and how he was in error?
I'm not a creationist. I'm agnostic.No you stopped at one point and read nothing further. Read your source and you find your answers. You made the same mistake all creationist make in assuming Popper was correct. You misapply ultimate source of knowledge as if science is that source when I never claimed as such. You rely on projection of views I do not hold, nothing more.
Relevance?"What we should do, I suggest, is to give up the idea of ultimate sources of knowledge, and admit that all human knowledge is human: that it is mixed with our errors, our prejudices, our dreams, and our hopes: that all we can do is to grope for truth even though it be beyond our reach. We may admit that our groping is often inspired, but we must be on our guard against the belief, however deeply felt, that our inspiration carries any authority, divine or otherwise. If we thus admit that there is no authority beyond the reach of criticism to be found within the whole province of our knowledge, however far it may have penetrated into the unknown, then we can retain, without danger, the idea that truth is beyond human authority. And we must retain it. For without this idea there can be no objective standards of inquiry; no criticism of our conjectures; no groping for the unknown; no quest for knowledge."
I have no God speak. I'm agnostic. Who's the one projecting?You seem to think I reject this view. I don't. Again you reliance on projection creates issues for your argument. Popper cuts down your God speak as a solution but you never read that far.
"Cleaner" is a matter of opinion. However, no more logical case can be made for either choice. Both theories are underdetermined.A much cleaner and more logical case can be made (and has been made) for evolution than for any form of creation.
No, the argument still works just fine against you.
Of course I did, but his solution is flawed.
Laughable. The original text is right here in which he says: "If formulated in this sweeping way, [Darwin's theory] is not only refutable, but actually refuted. For not all organs serve a useful purpose; as Darwin himself points out, there are organs like the tail of the peacock, and behavioral programs like the peacock's display of his tail, which cannot be explained by their utility, and therefore not by natural selection."
So no, Popper didn't accept natural selection (not to be confused with evolution) and your claim is factually wrong.
I'm not a creationist. I'm agnostic.
Relevance?
I have no God speak. I'm agnostic. Who's the one projecting?
No, to the best of my knowledge I have never errors.No since you errors rendering you conclusion unsupported.
No, it applies to anyone who thinks that evidence can confirm a hypothesis regardless whether the person is a scientific realist.No as such a flaw only applies to scientific realism.
So I should accept a third-party over the original source? You're hilarious!A great example of your poor research skills even after I linked you a source with a citation. I will do so again
https://ncse.com/cej/6/2/what-did-karl-popper-really-say-evolution
You can only claim that by quoting him out of context.Except he did as pointed out above. Great research skills you have, you ignore sources that refute your claim. Im impressed.
No, you have a bad definition of agnostic. God is one possible explanation. I do not share your philosophical biases about natural explanations. God is not the only possible explanation, nor is he a proven explanation, but the explanation is as plausible as any other. Thus, I remain agnostic.You did propose God as an answer thus are not nearly as agnostic as you claim. Combined with making the same mistakes as creationist make, along with mirroring their arguments, leads me to believe your agnostic label is a facade.
Please be so kind as to explain why you think you are exempt from the above quoted verses?
How? Which creation story?
We do know the age of the universe and the earth. So I guess the Bible is wrong.
Type in "human evolution timeline" into Google image search and you'll find a lot of diagrams. This is one. However, these kinds of things tend to undergo revisions a lot as new fossils are discovered.
Regardless of that, I’ve provided you with the differences between chimps and australopithecus. Even the pelvis alone is practically impossible to deny as looking different from that of a chimp if you are even remotely intellectually honest with yourself. You can see them all right there. Surely you can tell (and measure) the proportion differences. Another difference I didn’t mention before was that Australopithecus africanus had styloid processes on its third metacarpals, something that chimpanzees lack:
So do you still deny that there are differences?
So does the Australopithecus theory: nowhere does it imply that all apes should have evolved into humans. Some evolved into humans while others evolved into other, non-human species of ape like gorillas, chimpanzees and orangutans. It’s just like the first cat species evolving into many different species of cats such as lions, caracals, lynxes, etc.
I think that’s rather mischaracterizing Lovejoy’s statements. He never implied anything of the sort.
Thing is, the supernatural cannot be included in science because it makes no testable predictions. Science is all about testing hypotheses, but how can a supernatural hypothesis be tested? If you can find a way to test a supernatural claim, then you can include it in science. Simple as that.
I don’t deny that.
Heck, everyone who’s being logical, even atheists, would say that God could/ exist. If something can’t be disproven, then there is no way to know that it does not exist.
I don’t think I would go quite that far. If someone says “A purple rock could exist under my house, but I don’t know for sure”, I don’t know anyone who would classify that as a philosophy or worldview. They’re just being honest about what could be and what they do not know.
Wait a minute, if we cannot know the age of the universe or Earth then why do so many creationists try to peg it at 6,000 years, give or take a little? I’d also like to see you quote those particular verses.
A lack of consistency of a literal interpretation with existing knowledge.
You're free to believe that if you want to, even though the video gets some things wrong about what the Big Bang theory claims (such as equivocating it with the theory of evolution and saying that light came into existence after the Earth did). What about the part where it says the universe wasn't created in six literal days? I thought you believed that it was?