Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[gnostic]

Nothing that you have said has anything to do with any of the points I made.

Let's recap, shall we? You said:

"[I reject] the scientific impossibilities of events [such as]...that of the worldwide Flood,"

If we ignore the harm inflicted upon the English language by your drivel, we can see that you have claimed that a worldwide flood is a "scientific" impossibility (though I have no idea what the modifier "scientific" does to the word "impossibility").

It is not impossible. The ocean could cover the Earth to a depth of 2.5 km. Anyone with a calculator can figure that out. Even people without calculators who just google it can find that out. So I don't give a damn about Uruk, Nimrod, Cush, Ham, or Genesis.

It's not impossible. Nothing is impossible. Now you can claim that there are good reasons for rejecting the claim, but you cannot claim that it's impossible because impossible it is not.

I have been talking of all the impossible events that never occurred as stated in the bible, especially in Genesis (and in JOB), scientifically, historically and archaeologically, in post 2798.

You went out of your way to rebuff me on each of the point, in post 2799. But you responded not with any fact (no scientific, historical or archaeological evidences), but with what-if scenarios.

You say that a six-day creation is impossible, but I say that a supernatural being could sneeze out a universe exactly as we see it in a microsecond, and we'd never know the difference.

You say that a worldwide flood is impossible, but I say that if the land mass of the Earth were perfectly spherical, the water would cover the Earth and be 2.5 km deep everywhere (excluding calculations for tides). A worldwide flood is hardly impossible.

You say that it's impossible for people to speak one language one day and another language another day. Yet all of this is supposedly caused by a being that can create the entire universe out of thin air. Impossible? No.

So you don't like God's answers to Job. Personally, I've never read them. However, that doesn't mean that A) God couldn't have said them, B) God couldn't have said something else but gotten misquoted, or C) that the Book of Job is pure fabrication, but God still exists. Even if you could definitively prove that the entire book of Job was written by an insane guy high on opium, what would that prove about whether God exists? Nothing.

As for whether someone witnessed God's wager with Satan, assuming that such a wager existed, surely you realize that with our level of technology we can videotape things and play them back. What might God and his angels be capable of with their level of technology? Who can say? Or go back to the previous question and realize that even if the book of Job is pure fabrication, what does that say about whether God exists? Nothing.

I selected one of these scenarios of yours (post 2799), to explain to you that it didn't happen in reality, in the way Genesis narrated it. Choosing to expand on the global flood being a Genesis myth, a flood that didn't happen.

And in your usual fashion, you dismiss my points, as it had nothing to do with what I said earlier in post 2798 with the more recent post (post 2828).

Ok, you are refusing to look at Genesis at all, when I brought up the flood in the first place. Fine.

Then let just focus on your point only:

You say that a worldwide flood is impossible, but I say that if the land mass of the Earth were perfectly spherical, the water would cover the Earth and be 2.5 km deep everywhere (excluding calculations for tides). A worldwide flood is hardly impossible.

For one, the Earth have never been "perfectly spherical", and not at any point when humans have been around. So you are speaking of something hypothetical, not factual.

Can you provide any scientific sources, that the earth was perfect sphere?

Then you say, IF, and I must stressed "IF" the earth was perfectly spherical, you followed it with that it is possible for earth to be covered in 2.5 km of water.

The reason why I had brought up the 6-day creation, Noah's Flood and the Tower of Babel in the first place, is to show what are myths that didn't happen, and in attempts to find out if they did happen in the real world.

BUT, since you want leave out Genesis altogether, then I would have to ask you, did this 2.5 km flood occurred in human history? Did this flood occur at any point in the Neolithic period or the Bronze Age?

Show me your sources that there were ever 2.5 km high flood. Otherwise, your point is simply just mythological as the Genesis Deluge, hence unsubstantiated hypothesis.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Oh, I see. You have no actual argument. It's a matter of jutting out your jaw quite firmly as you say:

Allahu Akbar!!

Oh wait... you're not Muslim. I guess the battle cry is "Science never faileth!"

Or whatever other faith-based mantra you're trumpeting at the moment.

Never said those things either. Boy, you're really determined to put words in my mouth, aren't you.

I don't need an argument. The fact that we have gleaned so much knowledge through use of the scientific method speaks for itself. I don't know how someone can refute that. We didn't acquire all that information from reading ancient holy books, that's for sure.



Also, I don't really have much desire to interact with someone who speaks to people the way you do.

 

[viole]

Oh Viole, you would complain if I hung you with a new rope.

Let's try it again for the mathematically impaired.

Let's throw some numbers at it.

Let H = the ToE and let P(H) = 0.99 -- I think these are generous assumptions on your behalf. You can hardly claim that I am unfair by giving your crappy theory an a priori chance of 99 percent.

Let O = any observation that would not falsify evolution even if it came up false. Some cats are black, for example, theorized by some to be evidence for natual selection as black cats are harder to see at night and thus more easily able to stalk prey in the dark. We understand, of course, that even if white cats exist, that would not falsify the theory in question.

So let's run the numbers. We are seeking to find P(H|O)

So we know that P(O) = P(O|H) P(H) + P(O|~H) P(~H)

At this point I propose that P(O|H) be set to 100% but Viole objects! So we'll set it at 0.8 let's say. So now we know that:

1 = (0.8)(0.99) + P(O|~H)(0.01)

Therefore:

1 = 0.792 + P(O|~H)(0.01)
0.208 = P(O|~H)(0.01)
P(O|~H) = .208 ÷ 0.01

Therefore, the Probability of the Observation given the idea that evolution is false has jumped to (drumroll): 2,080%

Does that make any sense to you? Do you think that the probability of anything can be greater than 100 percent?

Obviously not, but let's take it a step further! Now that you have insisted that the P(O|H) should be less than 100 percent (I hope you weren't agitating for more than 100%) we can run the math:

P(H|O) = P(O|H) P(H) ÷ P(O)
P(H|O) = (0.8) (0.99) ÷ 1

Therefore:
P(H|O) = 0.792

In other words, this confirmation of your theory, under numbers that you have asked for (some P(H|O) less than 1) results in your theory ending up less likely than it was before.

Does that make any sense to you at all?

Viole please... don't take this the wrong way, but you have no idea what you're talking about. I have run the numbers in the most generous way possible for your side so that anyone can see that confirmations that have no chance of proving anything wrong similarly have no chance of proving anything right. Yet you complain.

Lol. And who would be so silly to set P(O) = 1 while P(H) < 1, while expecting sensible results? (Rethoric question). Do you really think that your black cat example entails that evolution is not falsifiable? (Slight chuckle).

But I am not surprised that you are using evolution now. This is really the thing you cannot digest, isn't it? What is the problem: you find it inconvenient to be catalogued as a great ape, or to share a common ancestor with chimps? Well, you don't need a lot of philosophy here. All you have to do is go to a zoo and see evolution staring you in the eyes and hoping that you give it a banana. The funny thing is that is likely that the chimp will see common parenthood where you don't, lol. Which would make it more qualified than you when it comes to evolution

By the way, I would not object, in this case, that P(O|H) = 1. For if H is true, then the probability to observe anything that does not disprove H, is obviously 1. A bit like Superman, remember? Conditional probability 101. So, please make an effort to think before guessing what I might object or not.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Oh, let me guess your logical process. I am giddy with anticipation.

If science works, then we will have wonderful new technology.
We have wonderful new technology.
Therefore, science works.

This is a classic example of the affirming the consequent logical fallacy. You have proved nothing.

When you are sick, where do you go? To a doctor or to a which doctor? Or do you pray to get healthy again? Or do you try to philosophize a way out of your sickness? What about the dispositions of stars in the sky? I am sure they tell you what to do.

What about having the job of calculating the periodic time calibration needed on GPS satellites? Your family is starving, and you can only get that job. What are you going to do, in order to be successful? Are you checking tea leaves? Or analyze the intestines of a dead animal? Or are you maybe checking what Aristoteles has to say about it? Playing dice, maybe?

Ciao

- viole

 

[james bond]

Your question/claim has been addressed. Evolution is not "just a theory."


I haven't stated anything that isn't factual, never mind delusional.

Is that the best you've got? Some lame attempt at an insult? No wonder it's so difficult to take you seriously.

I would agree it's not "just a theory." Most of evolution is still hypothesis to put it kindly (it's wrong). The only part that's a theory is natural selection and the difference between it and creation natural selection is the creation version is intelligently designed by a creator and not just a random natural process.

You haven't stated anything. We can add what you stated to the scrap pile of nothingness that evos like to gravitate to.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I would agree it's not "just a theory." Most of evolution is still hypothesis to put it kindly (it's wrong). The only part that's a theory is natural selection and the difference between it and creation natural selection is the creation version is intelligently designed by a creator and not just a random natural process.

It's not an hypothesis. It's a scientific theory. Your beliefs matter not, in that regard.It is creationism that is an hypothesis.

By the way, evolution does not exclude the possibility of god(s).

You haven't stated anything. We can add what you stated to the scrap pile of nothingness that evos like to gravitate to.

I have corrected your inaccurate description of evolution as "just a theory." That's all I had intended to do.

 

[james bond]

I agree, if someone told me this is not worth a reply, I would have the same hope.

Ciao

- viole

Did you say hope or rope (Zoismus mentioned hanging yourself presumably with your own postings)?

 

[viole]

Did you say hope or rope (Zoismus mentioned hanging yourself presumably with your own postings)?

Do you have something sensible to say about probability theory? Or do you just enjoy to be exposed to public ridicule, as well?

Ciao

- viole

 

[james bond]

It's not an hypothesis. It's a scientific theory. Your beliefs matter not, in that regard.It is creationism that is an hypothesis.

By the way, evolution does not exclude the possibility of god(s).


I have corrected your inaccurate description of evolution as "just a theory." That's all I had intended to do.

Last point first. To correct your correction. Evos only "think" it's a scientific theory as been demonstrated in this thread. It's more a worldview or philosophy.

I have to disagree with your first statement. Evo excludes the supernatural. It only deals with the natural. Why do you think that?

 

[james bond]

Do you have something sensible to say about probability theory? Or do you just enjoy to be exposed to public ridicule, as well?

Ciao

- viole

I think Zoismus is doing just fine with it. Probability theory takes me back some years. Today, I use its practical applications such as in my thought experiment to explain evolution (simplicity) and intelligent design (complexity). Also, it comes in handy when playing blackjack and counting cards. Or using analytics in fantasy baseball or basketball.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Last point first. To correct your correction. Evos only "think" it's a scientific theory as been demonstrated in this thread. It's more a worldview or philosophy.

No, it actually is a scientific theory. It's not a world view. It's not a religion. It's not a philosophy.

It's straight up, a scientific theory. That's just a fact.

I have to disagree with your first statement. Evo excludes the supernatural. It only deals with the natural. Why do you think that?

Evolution does not exclude the possibility of god(s) given the fact that plenty of people both accept evolution and believe in god(s).

It just doesn't get into the existence of god(s) or attribute it to god(s) because ....

The "supernatural" is not demonstrable, testable or measurable. If it were, it could fall into the realm of science. So please go out and find some way to test, demonstrate and measure the supernatural.

 

[ashkat1`]

I didn't say that, but add it to the other frauds and sketchy evidence and the theory becomes very shaky. Even the australopitecus exhibit was a failure.

If I am arrogant, then that's your opinion. Look at the stuff I get tossed. I can read and understand more than basic science. As for conspiracies, that's also opinion and usually people discuss as news. It's irrelevant to what we are discussing. Scientific theory is just that. Sometimes, it's the best theory that we have, it becomes law or principle or we glean scientific truths from it. Evolution is a theory and it can become pseudoscience, too. People were fooled and believed in pseudoscience in the past.

I know the theory of evolution is based on hard, scientific evidence, not frauds and sketchy evidence. And yes, you are arrogant. Look at all the stuff you toss out. Right here, you are trying to write off evolutionary science as all fraud and sketchy.

 

[ashkat1`]

Even if it came from a comic book, it's still a good infograph because comics can be used as a teaching tool for kids. The fact remains that there was fraud and embarrassment for the evos and creation scientists arguments are left our of science (they aren't published in Science or Nature).. Even ashkat1 admits there were suspicions from day1, sot do you have further explanations for it? Was there any protest lodged by the evolutionist community? What it further did was criticize the Christian leadership unfairly, and mislead a whole generation. Do you think that the scientists who investigated Piltdown Man deserved to be knighted? That's why today, we do not have a majority believing in evolution in my opinion. If true, the facts of evolution would speak for themselves instead of being rammed down our throats and dissenting voices squashed.

If you are so concerned about frauds, why don't you take a closer look at creation-science people. Try Ham, Missler, Hovind. Check out their phony degrees, charges of plagiarism, and prison sentences.
As I said before, Piltdown Man is not a central figure or really ever was in evolutionary thinking. Finding it to be a hoax maybe caused a minor embarrassment, but that's it. I say "minor" because there were tons of other, solid evidence to address. Evolution is probably one of the best-supported theories in modern science.
Creation-science propaganda has been amply addressed and debunked by the scientific community.

We don't have a majority believing in evolution? Majority of whom? It's a central concept in the world of modern science. The Public? You can't test the validity of a scientific theory by examining its public appeal.

 

[ashkat1`]

I would agree it's not "just a theory." Most of evolution is still hypothesis to put it kindly (it's wrong). The only part that's a theory is natural selection and the difference between it and creation natural selection is the creation version is intelligently designed by a creator and not just a random natural process.

You haven't stated anything. We can add what you stated to the scrap pile of nothingness that evos like to gravitate to.

I don't think you know how the term "theory" is used in science. A theory is two or more hypotheses joined together.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If you are so concerned about frauds, why don't you take a closer look at creation-science people. Try Ham, Missler, Hovind. Check out their phony degrees, charges of plagiarism, and prison sentences.
As I said before, Piltdown Man is not a central figure or really ever was in evolutionary thinking. Finding it to be a hoax maybe caused a minor embarrassment, but that's it. I say "minor" because there were tons of other, solid evidence to address. Evolution is probably one of the best-supported theories in modern science.
Creation-science propaganda has been amply addressed and debunked by the scientific community.

We don't have a majority believing in evolution? Majority of whom? It's a central concept in the world of modern science. The Public? You can't test the validity of a scientific theory by examining its public appeal.

I wish I could like this more than once.

 

[ashkat1`]

I wish I could like this more than once.

Thanks.

 

[McBell]

Has any shown up since I last dropped in?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Still waiting ...

 

[McBell]

Still waiting ...

Thanks for the update...

 

[SkepticThinker]

Thanks for the update...

Make sure you don't hold your breath.