Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[Guy Threepwood]

Can you support these claims with evidence?

These were the 'claims' of David Raup. Paleontologist and former curator and Dean of Science at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago-
based on the fossil record that he studied more deeply than either of us or most people on the planet.

 

[leibowde84]

These were the 'claims' of David Raup. Paleontologist and former curator and Dean of Science at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago-
based on the fossil record that he studied more deeply than either of us.

Can you provide a link? Is it's probably my fault, but I can't seem to find what you're talking to.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Can you provide a link? Is it's probably my fault, but I can't seem to find what you're talking to.

some here, but you should be able to find him quoted plenty other places

http://bevets.com/equotesr.htm

 

[leibowde84]

some here, but you should be able to find him quoted plenty other places

http://bevets.com/equotesr.htm

1. Raup was a proponent of evolution, and came up with various theories which explained the "descrepencies" you noted.

2. Where did you get the misconception that all evolutionary changes have to be beneficial? No one claims that natural selection is a perfect force, only allowing beneficial changes to be passed along. It merely explains a general trend. So, the mere fact that certain changes can't be explained as beneficial casts absolutely no doubt on the ToE itself.

 

[Ouroboros]

"There are very few cases where one can find a gradual transition from one species to another and very few cases where one can look at a part of the fossil record and actually see that organisms were improving in the sense of becoming better adapted. "
-- Raup

True. Only few cases. But one case is more than no case. Darwin believed there would be many cases, but he was wrong, we only have a few cases, but few cases is enough to know that the other cases also hold true.

 

[leibowde84]

some here, but you should be able to find him quoted plenty other places

http://bevets.com/equotesr.htm

I found this on the subject of Raup's contributions to the ToE.

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/07/16/david-m-raup-1933-2015/

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Btw, it seems that you are claiming that somehow you poking holes in the ToE actually supports your theory of creationism. Why would you think that? Are you under the misconception that there are only two options? Theories must be supported on their own merits.

well yes that was the question in the OP- though we have to weigh up both pros and cons of every theory...

The merit of ID is that it provides a unique capacity to account for what the record shows, the sudden appearance of highly evolved organisms with complex functional irreducible designs (which was it's prediction all along)
more specifically, the genesis of the staggeringly complex and vital 'hardware and software' chemical structures and DNA digital information, necessary to appear in perfect working order and in various completely independent 'platforms' of the major phyla.

We know what designed information systems look like, we recognize the fingerprint, and we know what random alterations to functioning complex information systems do. But we also use randomization in specific parameters and select for various fitness functions- to achieve a specific predetermined design goal.

I understand that evolutionists have various ideas about why the gaps, discrepancies, lack of direct evidence is as such- but this certainly does not stand in lieu of that evidence to qualify the ToE as 'indisputable undeniable fact'.

 

[leibowde84]

well yes that was the question in the OP- though we have to weigh up both pros and cons of every theory...

The merit of ID is that it provides a unique capacity to account for what the record shows, the sudden appearance of highly evolved organisms with complex functional irreducible designs (which was it's prediction all along)
more specifically, the genesis of the staggeringly complex and vital 'hardware and software' chemical structures and DNA digital information, necessary to appear in perfect working order and in various completely independent 'platforms' of the major phyla.

We know what designed information systems look like, we recognize the fingerprint, and we know what random alterations to functioning complex information systems do. But we also use randomization in specific parameters and select for various fitness functions- to achieve a specific predetermined design goal.

I understand that evolutionists have various ideas about why the gaps, discrepancies, lack of direct evidence is as such- but this certainly does stand in lieu of that evidence to qualify the ToE as 'indisputable undeniable fact'.

But, the comprehensiveness of a theory in no way supports it. External, verifiable evidence is necessary to support a hypothesis like ID. Is there any?

 

[james bond]

That isn't entirely true. There are single-celled organisms which thrive in extreme conditions. Even if you want to ignore them, the fact of the matter is that life as we know it requires these 'Goldilocks conditions'

What do you mean by your last statement and Goldilocks conditions? I agree there are single-celled organisms which thrive in extreme conditions. Are they only found on earth?

I was referring to quantum particles such as,

"Coupling constant for the strong nuclear force.
- With a +2% variance, protons become so “sticky”, that two protons can stick together to form a di-proton pair. The di-proton would be unstable and rapidly decay into deuterium. This would short circuit the slow deuterium formation process that occurred after the big bang and currently in the interior of stars. This leads to a universe devoid of hydrogen, since it all would have burnt up within minutes after the universe began.
- With a -5% variance, a proton & neutron will not stick to form deuterium, an essential step in the fusion of helium. This would prevent the formation of stable, long lived stars like the sun.

 

[james bond]

Again, I never said that small changes would not have made life impossible here. I am pointing out that isn't evidence of intelligent design.

Ok.

 

[leibowde84]

Ok.

So, you agree then?

 

[james bond]

What is the theory of evolution?
The theory of evolution explains the changes in heritable traits of biological organisms over generations due to natural selection, mutation, gene flow, and genetic drift. Also known as descent with modification. Over time these evolutionary processes lead to formation of new species (speciation), changes within lineages (anagenesis), and loss of species (extinction). "Evolution" is also another name for evolutionary biology, the subfield of biology concerned with studying evolutionary processes that produced the diversity of life on Earth.


"Theory" vs. "Scientific Theory" in regards to evolution. http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html ...

I recognize that there are definitions which deal with scientific theory and processes, so the following may make the issues between Creation vs Evolution more clearer.

The differences become apparent when looking at the evolutionary process that is taught in American public schools. It's not Evolution 101, but under a variety of sciences.

"A famous court case regarding whether or not evolution can be taught in public schools used the following six-part definition of “the theory of evolution.”

1. Emergence by naturalistic processes of the universe from disordered matter and emergence of life from nonlife;
2. The sufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds;
3. Emergence by mutation and natural selection of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds;
4. Emergence of man from a common ancestor with apes;
5. Explanation of the earth's geology and the evolutionary sequence by uniformitarianism; and
6. An inception several billion years ago of the earth and somewhat later of life."

 

[james bond]

So, you agree then?

No, I'm just acknowledging what you said.

 

[leibowde84]

I recognize that there are definitions which deal with scientific theory and processes, so the following may make the issues between Creation vs Evolution more clearer.

The differences become apparent when looking at the evolutionary process that is taught in American public schools. It's not Evolution 101, but under a variety of sciences.

"A famous court case regarding whether or not evolution can be taught in public schools used the following six-part definition of “the theory of evolution.”

1. Emergence by naturalistic processes of the universe from disordered matter and emergence of life from nonlife;
2. The sufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds;
3. Emergence by mutation and natural selection of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds;
4. Emergence of man from a common ancestor with apes;
5. Explanation of the earth's geology and the evolutionary sequence by uniformitarianism; and
6. An inception several billion years ago of the earth and somewhat later of life."

Can you provide a link to back this up? I've never seen this before. Where did you get this information from?

I can say, without doubt, it is a statement written by someone who has an extremely ignorant and incorrect understanding of what the ToE actually is.

 

[leibowde84]

No, I'm just acknowledging what you said.

Can you respond to it with a counter argument?

 

[leibowde84]

No, I'm just acknowledging what you said.

Correlation isn't causation. So, just because your "evidence" MIGHT point to a designer (based entirely on our current level of scientific understanding), it doesn't support any argument of intelligent design. It merely points to the fact that we are lucky. But, seeing how we now KNOW that there are literally trilions of planets in the visible universe that are "earth like", and might be able to house at least primitive life, maybe not so much.

My point is merely that it is crazy to assume that the fact we haven't found intelligent life in the miniscule portion of the cosmos we've explored even points to an incling that there isn't life outside earth.

I agree, I will wait on believing there is ET life until the evidence presents itself. But to assume it isn't there just because we haven't found it yet is nuts.

 

[leibowde84]

I recognize that there are definitions which deal with scientific theory and processes, so the following may make the issues between Creation vs Evolution more clearer.

The differences become apparent when looking at the evolutionary process that is taught in American public schools. It's not Evolution 101, but under a variety of sciences.

"A famous court case regarding whether or not evolution can be taught in public schools used the following six-part definition of “the theory of evolution.”

1. Emergence by naturalistic processes of the universe from disordered matter and emergence of life from nonlife;
2. The sufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds;
3. Emergence by mutation and natural selection of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds;
4. Emergence of man from a common ancestor with apes;
5. Explanation of the earth's geology and the evolutionary sequence by uniformitarianism; and
6. An inception several billion years ago of the earth and somewhat later of life."

In short, it is absolute fact that the ToE only deals with 2, 3 and 4. 1, 5 and 6 are irrelevant to the ToE.

 

[SkepticThinker]

we lack the transitionals to support speciation happening by a Darwinian process- to a sufficient degree to account for the diversity of life we see arising in such a short period of time., But again, whether or not anything happened accidentally or by design is the more fundamental question

Maybe if you only focus solely on the fossil record and ignore the rest of the evidence like genetics, for example.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Thanks. I only threw it together. Glad that it made some sense.

Spot on, as usual.

 

[james bond]

Can you respond to it with a counter argument?

You mean make a case for ID? Or do you mean give more arguments for fine tuning? Or both?