• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Verifiable evidence for creationism?

Is there any verifiable evidence for creationism?

  • Yes

    Votes: 20 19.0%
  • No

    Votes: 85 81.0%

  • Total voters
    105

Parsimony

Well-Known Member
Approximately, how many fossils in each of those as shown in the infograph?
None, but images of the fossils are easy to find for anyone looking for them.
I'm sure there are differences, but it is natural selection at wprl.
Which means they are not the same as chimps. The common chimpanzee and the bonobo have pelvises that are much more similar to each other than either are to the Australopithecus pelvis.
Why can't apes remain apes and humans remain humans?
Some do. Gorillas and chimps are still apes.
What demonstrates that a macro change occurred?
At least two that I mentioned are ERVs and pseudogenes. I even explained how they are evidence for it.
He states that chimps could have evolved from humans in the vid and its on the Kent State website. Regardless, its another theory. I only point it out as an alternative theory.
He did not. He said that modern apes evolved from something that "is more human-like". You sure do love that equivocation fallacy, don't you?
The testable part was even questioned by Karl Popper (I think he changed his view) and GK Chesterton never meant that. Even today, the view is changing as it eliminates proposing dark matter and dark energy, multiverses and what not.
Are you talking about science in general or evolution? I hope you're not talking about evolution, as it has nothing to do with dark matter/energy or multiverses.
I got my Guy Berthault experiment vid and Mt. St. Helens as evidence
What that demonstrated is that layers can be deposited in quick succession, not that all layers are deposited in quick succession. Radiometric dating shows that layers do sometimes form over long periods of time.
but non-believers will not believe or refuse to accept the evidence or discussion.
I hope you don't mean "non-believer" as being the same as "non-Christian", since many Christians do accept an old Earth.
Science is very biased.
It's people that are biased.
 

McBell

Unbound
We will not know but we can continue to find out. If there is no way to tell, we can make a good guess-timate.

This relates to public schools. Both the teaching of creation or evolution involves "religion." Both are similar to religion (philosophy), but opposite in view. Some prefer teaching both theories and comparing the two. Others want to go the ID route, but you still have to account for both views. The main problem is creation is shut out of science altogether as the supernatural is discarded.
That is because creation is not science.
Not to hard to figure out why not science should not be in a science class.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
We will not know but we can continue to find out. If there is no way to tell, we can make a good guess-timate.

This relates to public schools. Both the teaching of creation or evolution involves "religion." Both are similar to religion (philosophy), but opposite in view. Some prefer teaching both theories and comparing the two. Others want to go the ID route, but you still have to account for both views. The main problem is creation is shut out of science altogether as the supernatural is discarded.
Evolution is not a religion. It's nothing like a religion. There are no deities worshipped. And it's not a worldview.

Creationism is not a scientific theory. It belongs in church and evolution belongs in science classrooms, because evolution is actually a scientific theory. There are hundreds, if not thousands of creation stories. Should we waste our time discussing all of them in a science classroom, or should we just do science in our science classrooms? How about if we want to learn about creation stories through a religious lens, we put that in a comparative religion classroom instead.

Go figure out how to demonstrate the existence of supernatural things, and then we can talk about putting it in a science classroom.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
No, to the best of my knowledge I have never errors.

You never bothered to read nor accept Popper' change of views. This undermines the conclusion you are making since the basis becomes false


No, it applies to anyone who thinks that evidence can confirm a hypothesis regardless whether the person is a scientific realist.

No it strictly applies scientific realism and other forms of realism, as it addresses certain/absolute knowledge.


So I should accept a third-party over the original source? You're hilarious!

You could easily look at the citation and confirm the quotes. Seems like you do not understand what citations are and how to confirm/reject any number of citations. You are not interest is not a defense, it is just admitting you are lazy

Additionally, most of the arguments contained in the article don't apply to me in the slightest. For example the link argues:

"First, natural selection being untestable is not the same as evolution being untestable."

You didn't bother to read the rest in which he stepped back from such statements and admits he was wrong.

What was my claim? I said: Natural selection is a tautology.... Not evolution, mind you, I clearly said natural selection. So what's the problem?

Again only reading the previous and rejected view and ignoring the change of views. Your claim was about Popper's view which I showed was dropped after an actually evaluation. He stepped back from the view that NS is tautology.

Your link carefully avoids mentioning the crux of Popper's argument. Let me repeat it for you:

"In its most daring and sweeping form, the theory of natural selection would assert that all organisms, and especially all those highly complex organs whose existence might be interpreted as evidence of design and, in addition, all forms of animal behavior, have evolved as the result of natural selection; that is, as the result of chance-like inheritable variations, of which the useless ones are weeded out, so that only the useful ones remain. If formulated in this sweeping way, the 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. Darwin explained them by the preference of the other sex, that is, by sexual selection. Of course one can get round this refutation by some verbal maneuver: one can get round any refutation of any theory. But then one gets near to rendering the theory tautological."

The source I prvoided showed that this line of thought from Popper was wrong and he admired it. Repeating a view no longer endorsed by Popper is a dead end


You can only claim that by quoting him out of context.

It wasn't out of context. You made provided a view Popper no longer endorses. By the fact that he accepts NS and evolution now undermines the argument he used to dismiss it. IE his own argument failed.


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 only provided two answers. One that is God and another that ends up force a conclusion to God. Infinite regress is a hallmark of God arguments. God is not an explanation since it provides no methods, no data, nothing. One might as well say Dr Who did it along with adding definitions as characteristics and attributes so Dr Who can be the answer. It amounts to "God did it" which is no better than "Nature did it"
 

gnostic

The Lost One
This relates to public schools. Both the teaching of creation or evolution involves "religion." Both are similar to religion (philosophy), but opposite in view. Some prefer teaching both theories and comparing the two. Others want to go the ID route, but you still have to account for both views. The main problem is creation is shut out of science altogether as the supernatural is discarded.
The theory of evolution is not a philosophy, nor is it a religion.

Evolution is biology,

If you want to learn about creationism, then that would fall under the subject relating to "theology" or even "comparative religions", not science. Or better yet, you can learn it from one of the churches or at Sunday schools.

The reason why creationism is supernatural, because it required faith in belief of god, angels, demons, spirits, miracles, resurrection, afterlife, talking donkey and serpent. None of these are testable, observable, falsifiable.

Like I said, Evolution is biology, and it explain why life change over period of generations, through one of the biological mechanisms:
  1. Natural Selection
  2. Gene Flow
  3. Genetic Drift
  4. Genetic Hitchhiking
  5. Mutation
Genesis 1, 2 & 3 don't explain. It just say God this or that, but nothing to explain HOW.

Science is supposed to explain the HOW. Creationism clearly doesn't.

To give you an example of Genesis' flaws.

Genesis 1:4 say that God created light, by simply saying "Let there be light." And then there was light.

But it doesn't explain WHAT is light or HOW the light was made? And WHERE is the source of light?

Light doesn't just appear out of no where or from nothing.

In physics, light is explained as electromagnetic waves, therefore it has frequency and wavelength, just like microwave, infrared radiation and ultraviolet radiation. But light has a dual property: it can be both a wave and a particle. As a particle, it is known as photon.

Light required some sort of matters to make it exist. For instance, light can come flame, so you might ignite some sort of gases (eg methane) with oxygen, causing to generate light and heat.

Another example is the ordinary electric light globe. In the old light globe, you could see inside a globe of core wire, but what you can't see upinside the globe is gas. When electricity is passed through the coil wire, the coil would glow, it will emit heat and light.

The star also generate light as well as heat, again another example of light requiring source for its existence. Astronomers explained that all the power and energy, as well as heat and light a star could generate, from the process known as stellar nucleosynthesis.

If you have studied physics before, you would know that nuclear frisson come where heavier element break down a larger element into smaller atoms (like atom bomb). Nuclear fusion, on the other, work in the opposite direction, fusing two lighter atoms to make a single heavier atom (eg hydrogen bomb), also known as thermonuclear chain reaction.

Getting back to the star example. Power and energy from the sun is derived from fusing two hydrogen atoms into a single helium atom, a process of thermonuclear fusion, or like I said earlier - stellar nucleosynthesis. This fusion is actually occurring at the sun's core. But what we can observed at the surface of the sun, is that plasma of hydrogen gases being flung about, and the heat from core cause the gases or plasma to be incandescent. All this generate light and other radiations.

Science and science textbook could explain each of my 3 examples, a lot clearer and better, and in more details. My point in those 3 examples are that light don't magically appear out of nowhere or from nothing, like God saying the magic words "Let there be light".

This is why the bible is delegated to that of a book of religion and myth, not science, BECAUSE CREATIONISM (including the the bible) DON'T AND CANNOT EXPLAIN WHAT THEY ARE DESCRIBING (eg sun, light, atmospheres, or biology of plants and animals) AND HOW THEY ALL WORK!!!

Compare to science, scriptures are just idiot books, filled with illogical superstitions and false belief about nature.

The only true worth of the scriptures, such as the bible, is the law and moral codes, but even then, laws and codes are sometimes outdated.
 

james bond

Well-Known Member
None, but images of the fossils are easy to find for anyone looking for them.

Which means they are not the same as chimps. The common chimpanzee and the bonobo have pelvises that are much more similar to each other than either are to the Australopithecus pelvis.

Some do. Gorillas and chimps are still apes.

At least two that I mentioned are ERVs and pseudogenes. I even explained how they are evidence for it.

He did not. He said that modern apes evolved from something that "is more human-like". You sure do love that equivocation fallacy, don't you?

Are you talking about science in general or evolution? I hope you're not talking about evolution, as it has nothing to do with dark matter/energy or multiverses.

What that demonstrated is that layers can be deposited in quick succession, not that all layers are deposited in quick succession. Radiometric dating shows that layers do sometimes form over long periods of time.

I hope you don't mean "non-believer" as being the same as "non-Christian", since many Christians do accept an old Earth.

It's people that are biased.

Overall, I think you're nitpicking an argument instead of providing the foundation for apemen as well as radiometric dating. If true, we should all be comfortable using the terms and being able to explain it. Instead, we have to be told in every news article how many millions or billions of years something is until some fact turns up to disprove it. This can be applied to what happened to me today. I was evaluating whether to purchase a work of art by Salvador Dali. It's not an expensive work, but one of his later works. He incorporates a lot of artistic design movements and concepts into his art. Not just from the art world, but from physical science and social science, as well. Afterward, I started investigating what he did during the 1970s since massive fraud had crept into his works by that time. He was well-known as an eccentric and successful artist and celebrity. One of the artistic commercial works he did during this period was to design art and illustrations for a tarot card set. (Not what I am contemplating buying.) Tarot cards are a set of 78 cards with pictures and symbols that is used to see what will happen in the future -- http://www.tarotpedia.com/wiki/Tarot_Cards . Whether you believe in them or not is not important. I'm just pointing out that we do not have apemen as something to tell our future. Neither do we have walking fish in our future either. Instead, evolution is based on uniformitarianism which does not tell us our future. The people who believe in apemen and walking fish cannot predict our future. So, that's another problem with evolution that I found. IOW, we have to have the future first before we can explain more about the past. In addition, scientists and scholars find that what evolution states of the past isn't exactly true either.
 

james bond

Well-Known Member
Evolution is not science. It's more a religion and the non-believing people here do not understand what a religion is. A religion does not have to have a deity to believe in. One of its definitions is "an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group." That's what evolution is. There is no proof of evolution. It's based on theories of uniformitarianism. It isn't a scientific fact or else all of use can use this fact. What am I going to use apemen and walking fish for? What can I use humans are fish and birds are dinosaurs for? Just something to explain our past, but we have creation to do that even better.
 

james bond

Well-Known Member
The theory of evolution is not a philosophy, nor is it a religion.

Evolution is biology,

If you want to learn about creationism, then that would fall under the subject relating to "theology" or even "comparative religions", not science. Or better yet, you can learn it from one of the churches or at Sunday schools.

The reason why creationism is supernatural, because it required faith in belief of god, angels, demons, spirits, miracles, resurrection, afterlife, talking donkey and serpent. None of these are testable, observable, falsifiable.

Like I said, Evolution is biology, and it explain why life change over period of generations, through one of the biological mechanisms:
  1. Natural Selection
  2. Gene Flow
  3. Genetic Drift
  4. Genetic Hitchhiking
  5. Mutation
Genesis 1, 2 & 3 don't explain. It just say God this or that, but nothing to explain HOW.

Science is supposed to explain the HOW. Creationism clearly doesn't.

To give you an example of Genesis' flaws.

Genesis 1:4 say that God created light, by simply saying "Let there be light." And then there was light.

But it doesn't explain WHAT is light or HOW the light was made? And WHERE is the source of light?

Light doesn't just appear out of no where or from nothing.

In physics, light is explained as electromagnetic waves, therefore it has frequency and wavelength, just like microwave, infrared radiation and ultraviolet radiation. But light has a dual property: it can be both a wave and a particle. As a particle, it is known as photon.

Light required some sort of matters to make it exist. For instance, light can come flame, so you might ignite some sort of gases (eg methane) with oxygen, causing to generate light and heat.

Another example is the ordinary electric light globe. In the old light globe, you could see inside a globe of core wire, but what you can't see upinside the globe is gas. When electricity is passed through the coil wire, the coil would glow, it will emit heat and light.

The star also generate light as well as heat, again another example of light requiring source for its existence. Astronomers explained that all the power and energy, as well as heat and light a star could generate, from the process known as stellar nucleosynthesis.

If you have studied physics before, you would know that nuclear frisson come where heavier element break down a larger element into smaller atoms (like atom bomb). Nuclear fusion, on the other, work in the opposite direction, fusing two lighter atoms to make a single heavier atom (eg hydrogen bomb), also known as thermonuclear chain reaction.

Getting back to the star example. Power and energy from the sun is derived from fusing two hydrogen atoms into a single helium atom, a process of thermonuclear fusion, or like I said earlier - stellar nucleosynthesis. This fusion is actually occurring at the sun's core. But what we can observed at the surface of the sun, is that plasma of hydrogen gases being flung about, and the heat from core cause the gases or plasma to be incandescent. All this generate light and other radiations.

Science and science textbook could explain each of my 3 examples, a lot clearer and better, and in more details. My point in those 3 examples are that light don't magically appear out of nowhere or from nothing, like God saying the magic words "Let there be light".

This is why the bible is delegated to that of a book of religion and myth, not science, BECAUSE CREATIONISM (including the the bible) DON'T AND CANNOT EXPLAIN WHAT THEY ARE DESCRIBING (eg sun, light, atmospheres, or biology of plants and animals) AND HOW THEY ALL WORK!!!

Compare to science, scriptures are just idiot books, filled with illogical superstitions and false belief about nature.

The only true worth of the scriptures, such as the bible, is the law and moral codes, but even then, laws and codes are sometimes outdated.

A lot of ignorance here. Again, you do not have to be condescending and explain ToE to me, and clearly you are ignorant of creationism. Is that what the evos and atheists taught you? I already posted my video to explain Genesis in a nutshell in #2586. The creationists are way ahead of you. We use electromagnetic force as propulsion for our new space systems to propel ships at or near the speed of light. All of that came from Genesis day 1. OTOH evolutionists cannot get past the second law of thermodynamics.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Evolution is not science. It's more a religion and the non-believing people here do not understand what a religion is. A religion does not have to have a deity to believe in. One of its definitions is "an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group." That's what evolution is. There is no proof of evolution. It's based on theories of uniformitarianism. It isn't a scientific fact or else all of use can use this fact. What am I going to use apemen and walking fish for? What can I use humans are fish and birds are dinosaurs for? Just something to explain our past, but we have creation to do that even better.
You're just wrong.

I don't know what else there is to say.
 

Zosimus

Active Member
You never bothered to read nor accept Popper' change of views. This undermines the conclusion you are making since the basis becomes false

The source I prvoided showed that this line of thought from Popper was wrong and he admired it. Repeating a view no longer endorsed by Popper is a dead end
First of all, Popper never admired it.

Second, your claim is factually wrong. The link you provided (https://ncse.com/cej/6/2/what-did-karl-popper-really-say-evolution ) in which Popper said:

"I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection..."

Is contained in the link I provided you with (http://www.informationphilosopher.c...ural_selection_and_the_emergence_of_mind.html )

"I still believe that natural selection works in this way as a research program. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and the logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little to the understanding of the status of natural selection....

"In its most daring and sweeping form, the theory of natural selection would assert that all organisms, and especially all those highly complex organs whose existence might be interpreted as evidence of design and, in addition, all forms of animal behavior, have evolved as the result of natural selection; that is, as the result of chance-like inheritable variations, of which the useless ones are weeded out, so that only the useful ones remain. If formulated in this sweeping way, the theory is not only refutable, but actually refuted."

------------------------------
Thus, your link selectively quotes Popper in order to make it seem as though he meant something that he did not mean. His true meaning is available to anyone who reads the entire speech. So, rather than accusing me of laziness, you should overcome your own laziness and read the speech in its entirety.
 

Parsimony

Well-Known Member
Overall, I think you're nitpicking an argument
Which one? The "human-like" vs. "human" thing? It's an important nit-pick because it has consequences. Saying that Lovejoy claims chimps evolved from humans would be paramount to saying the some species of Homo evolved into the two Pan species, which is not at all what he was saying.
instead of providing the foundation for apemen
What would you count as an "ape-man"? Something that looks human but has a small brain? An ape that can walk upright? If Australopithecines aren't human enough for you, then take a look at Homo naledi. It has traits intermediate between the Australopithecines and humans. It has, for example, a very small brain case but has a very human-looking foot (without the grasping big toe like chimps have).
as well as radiometric dating.
A good understanding of why radiometric dating can be trusted comes from isochron plots. Isochron plots allow us to know what the original amount of radionuclide was present in the rock strata at its formation (by looking at multiple types of minerals from the formation and putting them on a graph that measures ratios of stable isotopes to radioactive ones). You can also tell from an isochron plot whether the system has remained "closed" or not (if it has not remained closed, then it is highly probable that the slope of the graph would not form a straight line). The webpage explains it far better than I can in a single post, however.
If true, we should all be comfortable using the terms
Comfort is subjective and irrelevant to facts. If a giant asteroid were hurtling towards Earth, that would make a lot of people uncomfortable but that lack of comfort would have no impact on whether it was true or not.
and being able to explain it.
We understand many aspects of them pretty well, so what do you want explained?
Instead, we have to be told in every news article how many millions or billions of years something is until some fact turns up to disprove it.
Examples?
This can be applied to what happened to me today. I was evaluating whether to purchase a work of art by Salvador Dali. It's not an expensive work, but one of his later works. He incorporates a lot of artistic design movements and concepts into his art. Not just from the art world, but from physical science and social science, as well. Afterward, I started investigating what he did during the 1970s since massive fraud had crept into his works by that time. He was well-known as an eccentric and successful artist and celebrity. One of the artistic commercial works he did during this period was to design art and illustrations for a tarot card set. (Not what I am contemplating buying.) Tarot cards are a set of 78 cards with pictures and symbols that is used to see what will happen in the future -- http://www.tarotpedia.com/wiki/Tarot_Cards . Whether you believe in them or not is not important. I'm just pointing out that we do not have apemen as something to tell our future. Neither do we have walking fish in our future either. Instead, evolution is based on uniformitarianism which does not tell us our future. The people who believe in apemen and walking fish cannot predict our future. So, that's another problem with evolution that I found. IOW, we have to have the future first before we can explain more about the past.
What does predicting the future have anything at all to do with it? Chemistry doesn't predict the future either. Why should that be considered a problem?
In addition, scientists and scholars find that what evolution states of the past isn't exactly true either.
In my experience, those scientists and scholars you speak of are either (1) in the extreme minority or (2) have expertise unrelated to evolution (i.e. chemists or engineers). They also have a tendency to quote-mine in an attempt to "prove" things.
 

james bond

Well-Known Member
Proof apemen did not exist?

Humanzees: Ultimate Soviet Experiment

"MUMBAI: In a war-torn, forgotten remnant of the Soviet Union a battered laboratory stands, housing the remnants of twisted experiments.

Some of the surviving tenants — part of an attempt by the veterinary doctor Ilya Ivanovich Ivanov to breed a slave race of ape/human hybrids - have escaped into the surrounding forest, their whereabouts unknown.

We’re not making this up; this is happening right now at the once-famous Research Institute of Experimental Pathology and Therapy in Sukhumi, Abkhazia, a small nation-state on the Black Sea. The institute, the eyesore of many a Western eye was the first primate testing centre in the world."

http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/report-humanzees-ultimate-soviet-experiment-1159879
 

Parsimony

Well-Known Member
Proof apemen did not exist?

Humanzees: Ultimate Soviet Experiment

"MUMBAI: In a war-torn, forgotten remnant of the Soviet Union a battered laboratory stands, housing the remnants of twisted experiments.

Some of the surviving tenants — part of an attempt by the veterinary doctor Ilya Ivanovich Ivanov to breed a slave race of ape/human hybrids - have escaped into the surrounding forest, their whereabouts unknown.

We’re not making this up; this is happening right now at the once-famous Research Institute of Experimental Pathology and Therapy in Sukhumi, Abkhazia, a small nation-state on the Black Sea. The institute, the eyesore of many a Western eye was the first primate testing centre in the world."

http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/report-humanzees-ultimate-soviet-experiment-1159879
You do realize that a hybrid of a human and a modern ape species would be different from any human ancestor that is also called an "ape-man", right?
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
Evolution is not science. It's more a religion ...

I think that comparison is a little unfair... to religion

For me a true religion acknowledges faith. Evolutionists would have to do the same to raise their beliefs to the level of religion, as is it's more of a superstition- something simply accepted unquestioningly as truth with neither proof nor recognition of faith

Blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself as such.
 
Top