Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[ashkat1`]

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

Your comment, in an earlier post, about the knighthoods handed out over Piltdown prompted me to ask you whether you, as a staunch supporter of creation-science, believe Kent Hovind deserves the title of Doctor. At least the knighthoods were real titles. Hovind, however, sports at least four phony doctorates. Also you can go right online and read his totally bogus dissertation, which he submitted to Pacific Bible College, a nonaccredited institution located in a modern-day fully functioning house trailer. I gather he is working on another dissertation during his 10-year stay in the clink for being a tax cheat. I am surprised that a person as concerned about fraud as you are would even think of embracing creation-science. Believe me, Hovind is just the tip of the phony ice berg here.

 

[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.

Look, you ought to clean up the mess in your own head first, before you sit in judgment on others. Since you are out to slay evolution, the burden falls upon you to demonstrate you can outsmart all these scientists by coming up with a viable alternative. Well, where is it? All you've done is rehash creation-science material; but creation science is right-wing religious propaganda, not real science. In an earlier post, you faulted evolution for being a "religion," but that is exactly the direction you have gone in. Any creation-science person will tell you they will not accept any scientific evidence that challenges their preconceived-of religious beliefs. The AIG (All Intelligence Gone) site tells you that in big, bold print. You need to do a far better job of it, or get out of the business.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Your comment, in an earlier post, about the knighthoods handed out over Piltdown prompted me to ask you whether you, as a staunch supporter of creation-science, believe Kent Hovind deserves the title of Doctor. At least the knighthoods were real titles. Hovind, however, sports at least four phony doctorates. Also you can go right online and read his totally bogus dissertation, which he submitted to Pacific Bible College, a nonaccredited institution located in a modern-day fully functioning house trailer. I gather he is working on another dissertation during his 10-year stay in the clink for being a tax cheat. I am surprised that a person as concerned about fraud as you are would even think of embracing creation-science. Believe me, Hovind is just the tip of the phony ice berg here.

He is absolutely a fraud, a phony and a master of the Gish Gallop.

And his dissertation is hilarious.

 

[ashkat1`]

He is absolutely a fraud, a phony and a master of the Gish Gallop.

And his dissertation is hilarious.

Amen to that.

 

[Zosimus]

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.

No, you said "scientific impossibilities." You didn't say "not supported by the evidence currently available."

Do you know the meaning of the word impossible?

Impossible: unable to be done or to happen : not possible

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.

Genesis is entirely irrelevant as to whether a global flood is possible.

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).

Because your points are off topic.

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

Genesis has nothing to do with whether a flood is possible.

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.

You have no idea what the Earth was like in the past. You are just guessing. It might have been a cube at some point in the past. You cannot say.

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

The argument from ignorance logical fallacy assumes that a conclusion or fact is true based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary. Why should I believe that the Earth has always been as it is now? You have provided no evidence that it is so. What the Earth was like in the past is unknown.

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.

Exactly right. That point refutes your claim that it is impossible that it could have happened. Go back and re-read the definition of impossible.

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.

So basically you claim that it is impossible for an omnipotent being to change everyone's language with a snap of the fingers?

Omnipotent: having virtually unlimited authority or influence

An omnipotent being, if one existed, would be able to do just about anything. Changing people's languages would be nothing to such a being.

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?

I don't know. You don't know. No one knows. That's the point of agnosticism. An agnostic is honest enough to admit that he or she doesn't know things. A scientist runs around pretending to know stuff that he or she doesn't.

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.

More irrelevant blubbering. I still don't see why you adhere to the myth of the Big Bang but you reject other people's myths.

 

[Zosimus]

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.

Again with the logical fallacies.

"I used science. I got knowledge. Science must have been the cause."

Whereas Buddhists say:

"I chanted. I got along better with my mother. Chanting must have been the cause."

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

Then stop posting. Do you think I desire to wake up every day to read logical fallacies from people who really ought to know better?

 

[Zosimus]

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

Is this your way of apologizing for having no skill at math?

You wonder who would be so silly [as] to set P(O)=1 but Darwin apologists try this nonsense every day.

Let's take a look at ERVs. Humans and chimps have some ERVs that share a loci. What does that mean? Neo-Darwinists say that it's evidence for evolution–that shared loci increase the likelihood that humans and chimps share a common ancestor.

But what if common ERVs are found in unrelated species? Well, that means nothing. What is ERVs are found shared between apes and chimps but not humans. Well, that means nothing either.

See what I mean? A test that cannot call a theory into question has no ability to confirm it either.

Why is simple logic so beyond your ken?

All one has to do is to imagine the other situation. Imagine that a Christian claims that a father's love for his child is proof of God's love for us. Perhaps he shows some newspaper article of a father throwing himself over his children and saving their lives at the cost of his own. Evidence, he claims, that God inspires love and greatness in us all.

But what of the stories of fathers who abandon their children or mothers who leave their children in dumpsters shortly after giving birth? Well, insists he, that means nothing at all.

We can all see that such a "test" is nothing more than horse manure. Yet when a faulty scientific test favors your preconceived notions, suddenly logic is thrown out the window.

Pathetic.

 

[viole]

Is this your way of apologizing for having no skill at math?

You wonder who would be so silly [as] to set P(O)=1 but Darwin apologists try this nonsense every day.

Let's take a look at ERVs. Humans and chimps have some ERVs that share a loci. What does that mean? Neo-Darwinists say that it's evidence for evolution–that shared loci increase the likelihood that humans and chimps share a common ancestor.

But what if common ERVs are found in unrelated species? Well, that means nothing. What is ERVs are found shared between apes and chimps but not humans. Well, that means nothing either.

See what I mean? A test that cannot call a theory into question has no ability to confirm it either.

Why is simple logic so beyond your ken?

All one has to do is to imagine the other situation. Imagine that a Christian claims that a father's love for his child is proof of God's love for us. Perhaps he shows some newspaper article of a father throwing himself over his children and saving their lives at the cost of his own. Evidence, he claims, that God inspires love and greatness in us all.

But what of the stories of fathers who abandon their children or mothers who leave their children in dumpsters shortly after giving birth? Well, insists he, that means nothing at all.

We can all see that such a "test" is nothing more than horse manure. Yet when a faulty scientific test favors your preconceived notions, suddenly logic is thrown out the window.

Pathetic.

Your losing your cool. Good, you are running out of arguments. If you were a Christian, you would probably remind me of my eternal destiny in Hell; they usually do that when they reach the same level of desperation.

You are creating a strawman of gigantic proportions. You resort to ridicolous examples like black cats, or brain scans or whatever, to show how evolution is not falsifiable. And your claim that there are "evolutionists" that claim that P(H) < 1 and P(O) = 1 is in your mind. As usual. It is a strange habit of yours of making up things without providing a shred of evidence of what you say. So, I will chalk that out as yet another product of your imagination (pending additional evidence) and as a product of your distaste of being called a great ape. Which you are, like all of us.

Look, it is very simple to destroy evolution. Find me a tiger, or a fossil thereof, that has the fossil of a dino in her belly. Or the other way round, find me a dino fossil with evidence that it died while digesting a cow. Or the fossil of a girl in the precambrian. And you would be in business.

Since the probability of these observations is not 1, if evolution is false, then it should be possible.

So, what have you got? Apart from some black cats, and chimps starving to death when mom dies

Ciao

- viole

 

[Zosimus]

When you are sick, where do you go?

When I get sick, I go to work as always.

To a doctor or to a which doctor?

The last time I went to a doctor was some 11 years ago. It was in the winter, and I had a cough. He told me that the problem was cold reaching my chest. He told me to bundle up very tightly and keep my chest warm at all costs. He forbade me to even take a shower for a week. I ignored his advice and got better on my own. He had studied at UCLA unless, of course, the diploma on the wall was printed at Azangaro.

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.

No, I normally try to eat healthily and to get lots of rest. You see, I have found that my body has ways of restoring its health all on its own. My wife, however, commonly passes an unboiled egg over my body. This is standard Peruvian treatment for sickness. When I feel better the next day, she is convinced that her theory has been verified. Since eggs cost about S/.0.40, it's a cheap way to keep her happy. I remain as skeptical of egg passing as I do of traditional medicine.

Are you aware, for example, that doctors are the third leading cause of death in the US? Imagine what it must be like in Peru!

What about having the job of calculating the periodic time calibration needed on GPS satellites?

Time calibration is not needed on GPS satellites. This is a myth.

Your family is starving

Untrue. My family has chacra. It can hardly starve.

and you can only get that job.

This job doesn't match my abilities. Can't you come up with a realistic situation? Why wouldn't I just teach the GMAT as I always do?

 

[viole]

This job doesn't match my abilities. Can't you come up with a realistic situation? Why wouldn't I just teach the GMAT as I always do?

It is obvious that it doesn't. If you believe that Newtonian physics is correct.

That was just a hypothetical situation, of course.

Ciao

- viole

P.S. What on earth is GMAT?

 

[Zosimus]

Your losing your cool. Good, you are running out of arguments. If you were a Christian, you would probably remind me of my eternal destiny in Hell; they usually do that when they reach the same level of desperation.

I'm not losing my cool. I'm trying to figure out which is more amazing: that you have no logical reasoning abilities to speak of or that you don't hesitate to go on a forum and afflict others with your baseless views.

You are creating a strawman of gigantic proportions. You resort to ridicolous examples like black cats, or brain scans or whatever, to show how evolution is not falsifiable.

You see? Bad reading comprehension. It's not a question of whether evolution is falsifiabile. Biological evolution, properly defined as a change in the frequency of alleles from generation to generation, could easily be shown false by simply finding one generation that has the same frequency of alleles as the previous generation. Black cats have nothing to do with whether evolution is falsifaible.

And your claim that there are "evolutionists" that claim that P(H) < 1 and P(O) = 1 is in your mind. As usual. It is a strange habit of yours of making up things without providing a shred of evidence of what you say. So, I will chalk that out as yet another product of your imagination (pending additional evidence) and as a product of your distaste of being called a great ape. Which you are, like all of us.

I have no feelings one way or another for meaningless classifications dreamed up by scientists. That someone thinks I am a great ape doesn't affect me any more than does a Muslim calling me kafir.

Look, it is very simple to destroy evolution. Find me a tiger, or a fossil thereof, that has the fossil of a dino in her belly. Or the other way round, find me a dino fossil with evidence that it died while digesting a cow. Or the fossil of a girl in the precambrian. And you would be in business.

This argument is tacking by disjunction. You might as well claim that Christianity is science because finding a dead Jew in a grave with a sign saying, "Here lies Jesus of Nazareth, crucified by Pilate" would falsify the theory.

 

[viole]

I'm not losing my cool. I'm trying to figure out which is more amazing: that you have no logical reasoning abilities to speak of or that you don't hesitate to go on a forum and afflict others with your baseless views.


You see? Bad reading comprehension. It's not a question of whether evolution is falsifiabile. Biological evolution, properly defined as a change in the frequency of alleles from generation to generation, could easily be shown false by simply finding one generation that has the same frequency of alleles as the previous generation. Black cats have nothing to do with whether evolution is falsifaible.


I have no feelings one way or another for meaningless classifications dreamed up by scientists. That someone thinks I am a great ape doesn't affect me any more than does a Muslim calling me kafir.


This argument is tacking by disjunction. You might as well claim that Christianity is science because finding a dead Jew in a grave with a sign saying, "Here lies Jesus of Nazareth, crucified by Pilate" would falsify the theory.

Nice reply. Lol. Although I am not sure how finding a grave with a sign saying "here lies Jesus, etc." would falsify Christianity.

Yet, that does not show evidence of your claim that "Darwinists" claim or act as if the probability of evolution is less then one, yet the probability of observing something that does not disprove evolution is one.

Where is it? (The current state of your brain and the beliefs inside don't count).

Ciao

- viole

 

[Zosimus]

It is obvious that it doesn't. If you believe that Newtonian physics is correct.

I have never claimed that Newtonian physics is correct. It is wrong—as are all scientific theories.

That was just a hypothetical situation, of course.

It was a ridiculous one. I might as well construct a hypothetical situation in which you were a mutant crossdressing prostitute given the chance to enter heaven by peforming fellatio on a demon. What would such a ridiculous scenario prove, if anything?

P.S. What on earth is GMAT?

The GMAT is the Graduate Management Admissions Test, a computer-adaptive test that one must take and pass in order to study an MBA in most universities in the world. The top score on the GMAT is 800.

The test is divided into two sections: Math and Verbal. The Math section involves calculations and a section called "Data Sufficiency," which measures your ability to determine whether the data are sufficient to draw a conclusion. The Verbal section involves reading comprehension, sentence correction, and critical reasoning.

The test is quite hard. Only about 30 people a year score perfect on it. Students typically pay thousands of dollars to big-name prep companies to learn how to do well on the test. Manhattan GMAT Prep, for example, pays its teachers $116 an hour. So I think it's pretty unlikely that I'll ever be scrimping trying to keep my family from starving while hoping to get some menial job recalibrating time clocks on satellites.

If you're interested, you can always download the software from MBA.com and take a practice test to see how you might score. Here's my latest result:

Perfect logic.
Perfect reading comprehension.
Perfect grammar.

Missed a point on math. Geometry. I guess I need to bone up on that.

 

[Zosimus]

Nice reply. Lol. Although I am not sure how finding a grave with a sign saying "here lies Jesus, etc." would falsify Christianity.

Yet, that does not show evidence of your claim that "Darwinists" claim or act as if the probability of evolution is less then one, yet the probability of observing something that does not disprove evolution is one.

Where is it? (The current state of your brain and the beliefs inside don't count).

Ciao

- viole

You seriously don't get how finding Jesus of Nazareth in a grave would falsify Christianity?!

 

[SkepticThinker]

Again with the logical fallacies.

"I used science. I got knowledge. Science must have been the cause."

Whereas Buddhists say:

"I chanted. I got along better with my mother. Chanting must have been the cause."


Then stop posting. Do you think I desire to wake up every day to read logical fallacies from people who really ought to know better?

Oh, please excuse us little peons for not measuring up to your genius. lol

The scientific method works. Deal with it.

If you've got some better way of gleaning knowledge about how our world works, I'd love to hear it. Reading ancient holy texts doesn't get us there.

 

[viole]

I have never claimed that Newtonian physics is correct. It is wrong—as are all scientific theories.

Point taken. So let me rephrase it.

It is obvious that it doesn't, if you believe that gravitational influence propagates at a speed higher than light's.

It was a ridiculous one. I might as well construct a hypothetical situation in which you were a mutant crossdressing prostitute given the chance to enter heaven by peforming fellatio on a demon. What would such a ridiculous scenario prove, if anything?

It would not prove anything. It would just show us what you think. And if it consistent.

So, if you had cancer, where would you go?

By the way: what does "peforming" mean?

The GMAT is the Graduate Management Admissions Test, a computer-adaptive test that one must take and pass in order to study an MBA in most universities in the world. The top score on the GMAT is 800.

The test is divided into two sections: Math and Verbal. The Math section involves calculations and a section called "Data Sufficiency," which measures your ability to determine whether the data are sufficient to draw a conclusion. The Verbal section involves reading comprehension, sentence correction, and critical reasoning.

The test is quite hard. Only about 30 people a year score perfect on it. Students typically pay thousands of dollars to big-name prep companies to learn how to do well on the test. Manhattan GMAT Prep, for example, pays its teachers $116 an hour. So I think it's pretty unlikely that I'll ever be scrimping trying to keep my family from starving while hoping to get some menial job recalibrating time clocks on satellites.

If you're interested, you can always download the software from MBA.com and take a practice test to see how you might score. Here's my latest result:

Perfect logic.
Perfect reading comprehension.
Perfect grammar.

Missed a point on math. Geometry. I guess I need to bone up on that.

Impressive. i make the assumption that neither physics, nor probability theory, nor English spelling skills are part of the program.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

You seriously don't get how finding Jesus of Nazareth in a grave would falsify Christianity?!

You are confused. You talked of a sign on a grave of a Jew, not of conclusive evidence that those bones belong to Jesus. I could invoke a hoax. Everybody could put such a sign on a grave.

Unless you believe that reading a sign on a grave is equivalent to definitive proof that that the sign says the truth. When was the last time you peRformed that GMAT, again?

Or is that again a problem with my reading comprehension?

Ciao

- viole

 

[james bond]

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.



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.

That's your worldview talking. Based on the criteria you apply to "supernatural" if demonstrable, testable or measurable, evolution fails. Else it would be cased closed and we can all use it. It's a worldview except for the natural selection part.

A couple of days ago, it was explained to me that anthropogenic global warming climate change, is not science but worldview. Our worldview is that anthropogenic warming will not happen again (although there are Christians who believe in anthropogenic global warming). The climate change that creation scientists believe happened is not man-made, but God-made. We had Noah's Flood which was the greatest catastrophic climate change which evos refuse to acknowldge. It's incredulous. The creation scientists look ahead for climate change and what it can do, but do not worry about flooding. I think it has to do with the atmosphere, but I don't have a good handle on it, so will have to stay abreast of it. BTW creation scientists are for being GREEN. We are not against going green. What they do not believe is anthropogenic warming. That's just part of nature. Don't worry. Be happy.

Supernatural God can be demonstrated by the Kalam Cosmological argument and others. God can be measured by the amount of faith people have in Him. I'm sure God is testable, but one has to have faith. In that sense, He is not testable to non-believers.

 

[james bond]

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.

You're back. I do admit creationists aren't perfect and what you said has happened, but we do not believe in things that are wrong. We believe in the truth and using science to help seek the truth and demonstrate the glory of God. That shows that God exists.

Yesterday, I found proof that we could not have evolved from chimpanzees. Case closed. There is no reason for apes to start bipedalism. They were already efficient with their own locomotion. Since humans are bipedal, we can't climb trees very well. I was thinking about rock climbing and tree climbing and this is the type of gear one has to get.

 

[tth1119]

I try to leave my replies simple, because I try to see everything for what it is, simple. So if everything is so simple, then what is the difference in evolution and creationism? There really isn't a difference. We are created, and we evolve, so what is the argument over? Where did we come from? We were created and we evolved from a single cell, a single energetic being eons of time ago. We were born into human form in this life, and we evolved from a sperm fertilizing an egg, from an embryo, from a fetus, from a baby, a toddler, a child, into an adult that we are. There is your proof for our evolution and creation. Why does this have to be argued over, you lived your life, you know you have evolved, why do you deny it? Do you deny yourself existing? Do you deny you were created? Well, how else do you exist?