Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[Shad]

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:

My bad I meant admit, had a brain fart and never looked over my post. Point being he admitted his previous view was wrong.

"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 )

Funny, you complain about third party sources then use one yourself

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.

NS does not put forward useless changes are weeded out nor are beneficial changes the only changes that remain. This is a strawman of creationist. More so Popper formulated NS in a way he accepted and far more accurate.

"The theory of natural selection may be so formulated that it is far from tautological. In this case it is not only testable, but it turns out to be not strictly universally true. There seem to be exceptions, as with so many biological theories; and considering the random character of the variations on which natural selection operates, the occurrence of exceptions is not surprising. Thus not all phenomena of evolution are explained by natural selection alone. Yet in every particular case it is a challenging research program to show how far natural selection can possibly be held responsible for the evolution of a particular organ or behavioral program."

You are still are banging a drum despite the rejection of said view by Popper. After all you did say this

"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."

The citation by you and I both show this is wrong so your point has no merit. Notice how he changes the formulation of NS.....

 

[james bond]

It's just "amazing" how some people can ignore myriads of scientific evidence and yet blindly believe in something else.

Eh, what's your explanation then? I understand evo, so I asked the question since I do not have an explanation.

Actually, I do since I am a creationist. This continues to follow apes are apes, humans are humans line of thinking.

 

[james bond]

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.

Ha ha.

Blind faith? Explain the how life got started experiment and all the questions evo can't answer like the apeman or walking fish. How flowers came to be. All the questions that people in general cannot answer. Why did the Christians invent the scientific method? Not atheists. Hint: they invented evolution. OTOH, everyone knows that God created the world in six days. .

 

[james bond]

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?

That's why I asked the question. Where is your answer? It's something more for evo to overcome.

I got mine. Apes are apes and humans are humans and never shall the twain meet. The parsimonious answer is this.

What it shows is through designed natural selection (thanks, Alfred Russel Wallace), we can have a zerbra-horse hybrid in theory. May not happen naturally, but not surprising if it did.

http://www.oddee.com/item_96640.aspx

 

[Shad]

OTOH, everyone knows that God created the world in six days. .

Many fields of science completely disagree with your assertion. Physics and geology being the primary two.

 

[james bond]

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.

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).

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.

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.

We understand many aspects of them pretty well, so what do you want explained?

Examples?

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 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.

Isochron plots could contain contamination.

Homo naledi was considered an Australopithecus from its finder, Lee Berger. There were a lot of bones found and no animal bones, so likely it was a human burial site, and preliminary estimate it as being younger so it probably isn't Australopithecus.

Wrong use of comfort. People should be familiar with the terms and findings.

How about going back to Tiktaalik? What about the walking fish?

Examples here -- http://lmgtfy.com/?q=evolution+news+articles

People are interested in the future. So you do not know where evolution will lead us? Not very useful. I'm fine with design using artificial selection and probably crossbreeding. Not sure about crossbreeding mammals for the purpose of organ farming -- http://tiny.cc/sgqldy . You should know that I am against mutations, genetic modification (GM) and for GMO or GM foods labeling.

Not in the minority. I would say 50% according to Pew Research. They may not come out and make their views known though.

Christians who believe evolution probably have not thought it through. They have faith in a lot of assumptions.

A good argument against Christians who believe in evolution can be found here -- http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/common-arguments-against-a-7-day-creation-week/ .

 

[james bond]

Chemistry doesn't predict the future either. Why should that be considered a problem?

You are wrong. My ex-gf worked for chemical firm and it sure was tied to the FUTURE. She had wonderful perks and benefits.

Productivity in any science increases the chances for a country's future success. Napoleon thought there cannot be a great nation without mathematics.

 

[metis]

Eh, what's your explanation then? I understand evo, so I asked the question since I do not have an explanation.

Actually, I do since I am a creationist. This continues to follow apes are apes, humans are humans line of thinking.

When one ignores the massive amount of evidence that says otherwise, then that no longer is "thinking"-- it's "being brainwashed" to believe in an absurdity. Even theologically it really doesn't make sense because it posits the creation accounts as if they were to be found in a science textbook versus realizing the Jewish literature traditionally has used symbolism and allegory. Read Psalms or even Revelation as examples of that.

In all likelihood, because of its similarities in different areas, it appears that we took a Babylonian narrative and reworked it to put forth Jewish, not Babylonian, morals and values. This is what societies all over the world do, namely take ideas from other cultures and then rework them.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I do. You're wrong.

It's just "amazing" how some people can ignore myriads of scientific evidence and yet blindly believe in something else.

Baffling, frustrating, disappointing, bizarre ...

 

[jeager106]

@
james bond said: ↑
OTOH, everyone knows that God created the world in six days.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to look up and understand what a "Biblical day"
means in today's English language as it was intended in scripture.
Watcha' think?
Hint: It ain't a 24 hour day.
Educate yourself and broaden your Biblical understanding.
I.E. "spare the rod and spoil the child" does NOT mean to hit kids with a switch!
Look that up while you are broadening your Biblical understanding.

Or do you think you can read a physics book on relativity and be a scientist with
full understanding of advanced math and black holes?

 

[Parsimony]

That's why I asked the question. Where is your answer? It's something more for evo to overcome.

My answer is "no, it does not". Comparing human-chimp hybrids to human ancestors is comparing apples to oranges.

I got mine. Apes are apes and humans are humans and never shall the twain meet. The parsimonious answer is this.

Again, chimp-human hybrids are not what the theory of evolution says that we evolved from and so it's ridiculous to try to compare them to any human ancestors.

What it shows is through designed natural selection (thanks, Alfred Russel Wallace), we can have a zerbra-horse hybrid in theory. May not happen naturally, but not surprising if it did.

Again, not relevant.

Isochron plots could contain contamination.

That was explained in the link I gave you. Contamination would make the isochron plot fail to form a straight line, thus revealing the contamination.

Homo naledi was considered an Australopithecus from its finder, Lee Berger. There were a lot of bones found and no animal bones, so likely it was a human burial site, and preliminary estimate it as being younger so it probably isn't Australopithecus.

So do you think Homo naledi was a tiny-brained human or what?

Wrong use of comfort. People should be familiar with the terms and findings.

Which is a matter of education. I agree, people should be better educated about these matters.

How about going back to Tiktaalik? What about the walking fish?

What about it? I don't remember you saying anything to me about Tiktaalik before.

Examples here -- http://lmgtfy.com/?q=evolution+news+articles

Sorry, buy I don't see any news articles there about something being millions or billions of years old and then that claim later being retracted.

People are interested in the future. So you do not know where evolution will lead us? Not very useful. I'm fine with design using artificial selection and probably crossbreeding. Not sure about crossbreeding mammals for the purpose of organ farming -- http://tiny.cc/sgqldy . You should know that I am against mutations, genetic modification (GM) and for GMO or GM foods labeling.

Once again, the usefulness of something is not at all a measure of whether it exists or is true. Do you seriously believe that? Would you contest the existence of a rock beside the road just because it's not useful? Besides, evolutionary algorithms are useful and have been used to improve designs.

Not in the minority. I would say 50% according to Pew Research. They may not come out and make their views known though.

I didn't say "theists". Please go back and read again. I said those people in the relevant fields of expertise who doubt evolution are in the minority.

Christians who believe evolution probably have not thought it through. They have faith in a lot of assumptions.

Oh I've thought it through quite well.

A good argument against Christians who believe in evolution can be found here -- http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/common-arguments-against-a-7-day-creation-week/

Even if it did turn out that the creation account had to be taken literally, then I would just have to conclude that the Bible is fallible. It just isn't correct.

You are wrong. My ex-gf worked for chemical firm and it sure was tied to the FUTURE. She had wonderful perks and benefits.

Productivity in any science increases the chances for a country's future success. Napoleon thought there cannot be a great nation without mathematics.

No, you didn't say "tied" to the future, you said "predict".

The people who believe in apemen and walking fish cannot predict our future

Just about everything you can think of is tied to the future, but not everything can predict the future. How does chemistry predict the future?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Ha ha.

Blind faith? Explain the how life got started experiment and all the questions evo can't answer like the apeman or walking fish. How flowers came to be. All the questions that people in general cannot answer. Why did the Christians invent the scientific method? Not atheists. Hint: they invented evolution. OTOH, everyone knows that God created the world in six days. .

Yes, well, if a theory is attractive enough to somebody there is not much incentive to scrutinize it.

Darwinian evolution is attractive, simple, intuitive, satisfying, a comprehensive explanation for all living things, just as classical physics once was for all physical reality.

That the 'ultraviolet catastrophe' was so called, as opposed to say, the 'ultraviolet enlightenment'- is a great demonstration of academia's resistance to progressing past the simplest superficial explanation

How many times do you hear atheists say that God, or ID, or creationism, asks more questions than it answers? As if this is something to be shied away from! That's what real science does.

 

[gnostic]

Please supply us with a your definition of religion.

Religion (in my own words) involved people following and believing, but more importantly, WORSHIPPING someone or something that they considered holy or sacred.

("Someone" like YHWH, Allah, Satan, Zeus, Odin, Enki, Vishnu, Kali; or it could be heroes that have been "deified", like Heracles, Theseus, or the Roman emperors. And "something" like scriptures, a sacred objects (the head of John the Baptist, Shroud of Turin, or holy place, like Temple of Solomon, Kaaba, etc.)

The keyword in my definition above is WORSHIP.

Evolution is not a religion. It is biology.

I don't worship Evolution or Natural Selection or biology any more than I would worship gravity, mountains, seas, rivers, woods.

I don't worship Charles Darwin. He is a pioneer and one of the founders of Evolution by Natural Selection, but since his passing, his theory on evolution, have expanded into new areas (like Mutation, Genetic Drift and Gene Flow), and even his Natural Selection have been corrected, modified and updated.

I don't worship Darwin any more than I would worship Galileo, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein or Max Planck. I admired their contribution to their respective in science, but no worshipping are involved.

I think people are completely ignorant or just plain stupid when they confuse science with religion. And people are even dumber when they equate evolution with atheism.

 

[gnostic]

Yes, well, if a theory is attractive enough to somebody there is not much incentive to scrutinize it.

Darwinian evolution is attractive, simple, intuitive, satisfying, a comprehensive explanation for all living things, just as classical physics once was for all physical reality.

That the 'ultraviolet catastrophe' was so called, as opposed to say, the 'ultraviolet enlightenment'- is a great demonstration of academia's resistance to progressing past the simplest superficial explanation

How many times do you hear atheists say that God, or ID, or creationism, asks more questions than it answers? As if this is something to be shied away from! That's what real science does.

Good grief.

What a load of craps!

For one, there is no such thing as Darwinian evolution or even Darwinism. No one call it that, except dishonest and ignorant creationists.

For another, you are ignorant to a fault.

There are plenty of Christians here who accept evolution to explain how changes occurred at genetic level, through natural selection, mutation, gene flow or genetic drift. Each one is a mechanism that explain evolutionary changes. With Natural Selection, environmental changes are factors to hereditary changes.

Are you going to ignore Christians who do accept evolution as science?

Pope Francis is a big supporter of evolution, including Natural Selection. The official stance in the Roman Catholic Church.

Speaking of Catholic Church. You know what, Guy? You really are a big hypocrite.

For instance. You always bring up Georges Lemaître, the founder of the "expanding universe" model or the Big Bang theory, as a (Christian) Catholic monk and physicist, and yet you completely ignored Charles Darwin being a Christian too.

You keep associating evolution with atheism, and yet Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace are both Christians, who wrote about Natural Selection. And at one point, when there was criticism to Darwin's theory, Wallace defended it.

Only a fool, or worse, a liar would ignore that Wallace and Darwin both Christians and the earliest contributors to Natural Selection.

Your hypocrisy has been noted.

 

[james bond]

When one ignores the massive amount of evidence that says otherwise, then that no longer is "thinking"-- it's "being brainwashed" to believe in an absurdity. Even theologically it really doesn't make sense because it posits the creation accounts as if they were to be found in a science textbook versus realizing the Jewish literature traditionally has used symbolism and allegory. Read Psalms or even Revelation as examples of that.

In all likelihood, because of its similarities in different areas, it appears that we took a Babylonian narrative and reworked it to put forth Jewish, not Babylonian, morals and values. This is what societies all over the world do, namely take ideas from other cultures and then rework them.

The massive evidence you mention favors creation as I have been pointing out. Science ends up backing the Bible. OTOH science is molded to fit evolution. Very little science backs up evolution.

I would tend to agree we take ideas from other cultures and then rework them, but is it Babylonian? Did Abraham take their ideas and rework them? What evidence do you have?

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/abraham.html

 

[james bond]

Yes, well, if a theory is attractive enough to somebody there is not much incentive to scrutinize it.

Darwinian evolution is attractive, simple, intuitive, satisfying, a comprehensive explanation for all living things, just as classical physics once was for all physical reality.

That the 'ultraviolet catastrophe' was so called, as opposed to say, the 'ultraviolet enlightenment'- is a great demonstration of academia's resistance to progressing past the simplest superficial explanation

How many times do you hear atheists say that God, or ID, or creationism, asks more questions than it answers? As if this is something to be shied away from! That's what real science does.

Huh? Darwinism is based on natural selection which also in under creation science. Where we disagree is common descent. I think most evolutionists will disagree with you as they have progressed. The creationists disagree, too.

 

[james bond]

@
james bond said: ↑
OTOH, everyone knows that God created the world in six days.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to look up and understand what a "Biblical day"
means in today's English language as it was intended in scripture.
Watcha' think?
Hint: It ain't a 24 hour day.
Educate yourself and broaden your Biblical understanding.
I.E. "spare the rod and spoil the child" does NOT mean to hit kids with a switch!
Look that up while you are broadening your Biblical understanding.

Or do you think you can read a physics book on relativity and be a scientist with
full understanding of advanced math and black holes?

If one does a thorough examination of "yom" and the context in which it appears in Genesis will lead to the conclusion that “day” means a literal, 24-hour period of time.

 

[james bond]

My answer is "no, it does not". Comparing human-chimp hybrids to human ancestors is comparing apples to oranges.

Again, chimp-human hybrids are not what the theory of evolution says that we evolved from and so it's ridiculous to try to compare them to any human ancestors.

Again, not relevant.

That was explained in the link I gave you. Contamination would make the isochron plot fail to form a straight line, thus revealing the contamination.

So do you think Homo naledi was a tiny-brained human or what?

Which is a matter of education. I agree, people should be better educated about these matters.

What about it? I don't remember you saying anything to me about Tiktaalik before.

Sorry, buy I don't see any news articles there about something being millions or billions of years old and then that claim later being retracted.

Once again, the usefulness of something is not at all a measure of whether it exists or is true. Do you seriously believe that? Would you contest the existence of a rock beside the road just because it's not useful? Besides, evolutionary algorithms are useful and have been used to improve designs.

I didn't say "theists". Please go back and read again. I said those people in the relevant fields of expertise who doubt evolution are in the minority.

Oh I've thought it through quite well.

Even if it did turn out that the creation account had to be taken literally, then I would just have to conclude that the Bible is fallible. It just isn't correct.

No, you didn't say "tied" to the future, you said "predict".

Just about everything you can think of is tied to the future, but not everything can predict the future. How does chemistry predict the future?

You're fallacious in avoiding the issues or the question. The experiments demonstrated we can't have chimp-human hybrids to populate itself. You have to provide experiments to prove apemen which you can't. OTOH, it fits the theory that apes are apes and humans are humans. They can populate themselves just fine.

More avoiding the issues or questions fallacy. What do you mean not relevant? Natural selection is very relevant to Darwinism as well a creation. It just goes to show that intelligent design was behind it.

Not really. Isochron plots are fine as long as they conform to the ToE. If not, they are discarded even if they aren't contaminated. BTW most people would not understand isochron plots, so care to explain your argument so they do? You first and then I'll explain.

Don't know yet. Waiting for more information. Based on no other mammals were buried there, I'm guessing probably was human.

Do you agree Tiktaalik is important to evolution? If it is important, then you should want to discuss it and provide an argument for it. I'm still waiting for the mountain of evidence that evos keep referring to.

Ok, I don't know what you read but I'll post the next news articles I read as examples.

>>Once again, the usefulness of something is not at all a measure of whether it exists or is true.<<

I was referring to predictions based on science which is useful. The same with scientific knowledge and a country or group of people being more productive and successful. So are you saying now evolution is not useful? I agree with that wholeheartedly. Does that mean that people who believe evolution are not more productive and successful? The GM companies and the scientists who created mutations seem to have become very rich. They seem to be ones funding evolution (even though mutations did not cause evolution).

>>Even if it did turn out that the creation account had to be taken literally, then I would just have to conclude that the Bible is fallible. It just isn't correct.<<

I'm not sure of the people parts, but how is the Bible fallible? You said you do not take it literally, so are you arguing for an old earth?

Now you're arguing semantics to avoid the issue, a fallacy. This chemical company predicted their chemical processes and patents will make them successful and it did.

Uh, okay. You just meant a group of people who already were predisposed to believe in evolution. Remember, I said evolution came from atheists and their theories about the origins of the earth.

 

[james bond]

More stuff on MUTATIONS (foundation of "evolution"). It seems illegal drugs, cocaine, in this case, can cause mutations. What's interesting is they found a mutation to combat sensitivity to the illegal drugs, as well as alcohol. Since evos cannot predict what will happen, I, as a creationist will. If they develop a treatment, then it will have negative side effects. Sometimes the cure can be worse that the cause. Generally speaking, avoid mutants but practically, it is difficult to.

Cocaine, ecstasy cause DNA mutations, scientists say
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/06/1070625567019.html

Mutation to combat sensitivity to cocaine
https://www.drugabuse.gov/news-even...new-genetic-target-to-treat-cocaine-addiction

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6165/1508.full

Mutation to combat sensitivity to alcohol
http://www.scienceworldreport.com/a...on-cause-alcohol-abuse-excessive-drinking.htm

 

[jeager106]

All this bantering and diatribe about evolution verses special creation proves
absolutely nothing.
From my perspective how mankind got here is a moot point.
Mankind did get here.
Proving an all powerful, always existing, invisible, creator "god" isn't possible.
Proving God does not exist isn't possible.
I am educated, two science degrees, but in my opinion belief in a "god"
falls into the realm of..............
FAITH.
Faith is a belief in that which cannot be proven nor disproved.
I enjoy discussing and debating here and find it "mind food."
There are plenty of people that just will not feed their mind.
They are called .........................................Liberals.

O.K. It's a JOKE! Lighten up.
As an aside to this discussion:
Given the murdering zealots of this "modern" world wide society one wonders if
mankind would be better off believing in NO Gods?????? NO religions?