Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[james bond]

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.

What I stated is the big ball of wax that was brought out in the 1982 McLean vs Arkansas trial. All of the debate between creation vs evolution in the US is based on legal trials and teaching, i.e. what can be taught (I'm using the major ones). That's why the evolution.berkeley.edu website by evolutionists who want to teach Evo 101. It all started with the Scopes trial in 1925. You can't just pick and choose what you want and debate in the limited manner you are proposing.

Here is what the creationists had as definition for creationism:

"Creation science means the scientific evidences for creation and inferences from those evidences. Creation science includes the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate:

1. Sudden creation of the universe, energy and life from nothing.
2. The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds from a single organism.
3. Changes only with fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals.
4. Separate ancestry for man and apes.
5. Explanation of the earth's geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence of worldwide flood.
6. A relatively recent inception of the earth and living."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLean_v._Arkansas

 

[leibowde84]

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

Thus far, you haven't supported fine tuning, you have merely shown that minute changes to earth's conditions would have precluded life. I never claimed otherwise. I am asking for evidence supporting your jump from this to an intelligent designer necessarily being required.

 

[McBell]

What I stated is the big ball of wax that was brought out in the 1982 McLean vs Arkansas trial. All of the debate between creation vs evolution in the US is based on legal trials and teaching, i.e. what can be taught (I'm using the major ones). That's why the evolution.berkeley.edu website by evolutionists who want to teach Evo 101. It all started with the Scopes trial in 1925. You can't just pick and choose what you want and debate in the limited manner you are proposing.

Here is what the creationists had as definition for creationism:

"Creation science means the scientific evidences for creation and inferences from those evidences. Creation science includes the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate:

1. Sudden creation of the universe, energy and life from nothing.
2. The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds from a single organism.
3. Changes only with fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals.
4. Separate ancestry for man and apes.
5. Explanation of the earth's geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence of worldwide flood.
6. A relatively recent inception of the earth and living."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLean_v._Arkansas

So that is where Creationists get the whole "out of nothing" strawman from....

 

[leibowde84]

What I stated is the big ball of wax that was brought out in the 1982 McLean vs Arkansas trial. All of the debate between creation vs evolution in the US is based on legal trials and teaching, i.e. what can be taught (I'm using the major ones). That's why the evolution.berkeley.edu website by evolutionists who want to teach Evo 101. It all started with the Scopes trial in 1925. You can't just pick and choose what you want and debate in the limited manner you are proposing.

Here is what the creationists had as definition for creationism:

"Creation science means the scientific evidences for creation and inferences from those evidences. Creation science includes the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate:

1. Sudden creation of the universe, energy and life from nothing.
2. The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds from a single organism.
3. Changes only with fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals.
4. Separate ancestry for man and apes.
5. Explanation of the earth's geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence of worldwide flood.
6. A relatively recent inception of the earth and living."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLean_v._Arkansas

This is false. The theory of evolution is a matter of science and, as such, is not subject to case law from the seventies. Scientists in the field of evolutionary biology get to define the theory.

Also, can you provide a link to that opinion?

 

[Ouroboros]

1. Changes only with fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals.

The "fixed limits" should be possible to test. What are the fixed limits and what is controlling them in the DNA?

 

[Ouroboros]

Thus far, you haven't supported fine tuning, you have merely shown that minute changes to earth's conditions would have precluded life.

Funny thing that Earth's conditions have changed quite dramatically over time and life still continued. However, humans require a very specific and unique environment, and animals of our kind too, but most of that has only been for a short while in the history of Earth's life.

 

[Shad]

Your argument is wanting, as the definition excludes M-theory. Can you cite a scientific source that declares M Theory to be a scientific theory?

No it doesn't as M-theory is still theoretical as it is depend on math alone. Read your own source again.

 

[Shad]

I'm still not sure what you are talking about. You're accusing me of talking about God while I was talking about fine tuning and the Anthropic Principle (evolution). What I will point out is how science backs up the Bible. The Bible isn't a science book, but as time goes on, science ends up backing the Bible. This is wriiten up in articles in regular media such as the Business Insider.

Fine tuning is a God argument, that is the actual term used for the argument. Also fine tuning does more than suggest something had to tune the universe, it is begging the question. Science does not back up the Bible as Genesis is out of order in comparison. Archaeology, a soft science, certainly does not agree with the Bible. Business Insider is irrelevant, it is a magazine website.

 

[leibowde84]

No it doesn't as M-theory is still theoretical as it is depend on math alone. Read your own source again.

Read my comment again. My claim was that M Theory is NOT a scientific theory.

 

[Shad]

Read my comment again. My claim was that M Theory is NOT a scientific theory.

I didn't say it was a scientific theory. I said it was theoretical. There is a major difference.

 

[leibowde84]

I didn't say it was a scientific theory. I said it was theoretical. There is a major difference.

Buddy, I know. I never claimed you said it was a scientific theory. And my comment agreed with you. I previously in this thread provided a definition of the term scientific theory and explained why M Theory isn't one.

 

[viole]

1. Emergence by naturalistic processes of the universe from disordered matter and emergence of life from nonlife;

1. which has nothing to do with evolution, which assumes the exsitence of duplicating organisms.

1. The sufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds;

1. . Which is available.

1. Emergence by mutation and natural selection of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds;

1. ditto.

1. Emergence of man from a common ancestor with apes;

1. which is obvious. Unless God loves apes so much to make His own son look like a hairless one.

1. Explanation of the earth's geology and the evolutionary sequence by uniformitarianism; and
2. An inception several billion years ago of the earth and somewhat later of life."

All things with overwhelming evidence.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Shad]

Buddy, I know. I never claimed you said it was a scientific theory. And my comment agreed with you. I previously in this thread provided a definition of the term scientific theory and explained why M Theory isn't one.

Sorry my bad. I replied to the wrong comment. The page jumped to your post rather than James but I never took the time to look. My browser security does this at times as it loads what I allow piecemeal.

 

[james bond]

This is false. The theory of evolution is a matter of science and, as such, is not subject to case law from the seventies. Scientists in the field of evolutionary biology get to define the theory.

Also, can you provide a link to that opinion?

Not really just a matter of science. History has shown that what happens in religion and science eventually goes to law when what teaching becomes involved. It may have started in the US, but is discussed around the world (If some scientist around the globe finds something to contribute, then it is well noted). If that's not important to you, then I guess we're done discussing.

 

[james bond]

So that is where Creationists get the whole "out of nothing" strawman from....

It was referred to as creation ex nihilo. Since this is public school science teaching that is being discussed, creationists had to forego religion and theology.

The creationists lost that part of their argument.

 

[james bond]

The "fixed limits" should be possible to test. What are the fixed limits and what is controlling them in the DNA?

I'll have to read up on this and get back to you. During the trial which resulted in Arkansas law #590, the statement looks like it was taken from the Creation Research Society (CRS) which I am not totally comfortable with. It does say the definition appears to have been adapted from a nearly identical seven point scientific-creation model written three years earlier by lawyer Wendell R. Bird.

What is creation science? Partly based on Arkansas Act #590
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_statc.htm

 

[Ouroboros]

I'll have to read up on this and get back to you. During the trial which resulted in Arkansas law #590, the statement looks like it was taken from the Creation Research Society (CRS) which I am not totally comfortable with. It does say the definition appears to have been adapted from a nearly identical seven point scientific-creation model written three years earlier by lawyer Wendell R. Bird.

What is creation science? Partly based on Arkansas Act #590
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_statc.htm

Ok. Well, let me know how these fixed limits work, because so far, I don't know any scientific research or finding that confirms limits to how species evolve.

 

[leibowde84]

Sorry my bad. I replied to the wrong comment. The page jumped to your post rather than James but I never took the time to look. My browser security does this at times as it loads what I allow piecemeal.

No worries. I think that same thing has happened to me about a thousand times.

 

[leibowde84]

Not really just a matter of science. History has shown that what happens in religion and science eventually goes to law when what teaching becomes involved. It may have started in the US, but is discussed around the world (If some scientist around the globe finds something to contribute, then it is well noted). If that's not important to you, then I guess we're done discussing.

My point is that the ToE and the description in that 40 year old opinion are two very different things. The court has no authority to expand the theory, as they aren't in the field.

Can you provide a link to the opinion?

 

[james bond]

1. which has nothing to do with evolution, which assumes the exsitence of duplicating organisms.

1. . Which is available.

1. ditto.

1. which is obvious. Unless God loves apes so much to make His own son look like a hairless one.

All things with overwhelming evidence.

Ciao

- viole

Ok, I'll ack what you said. Since this was a trial, the ruling, if you're not familiar with, is here:

The legal decision was made by US District Court Judge William R. Overton in the case of McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education and on Mar 19, 1981, the Governor of Arkansas signed into law Act 590 of 1981, entitled "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act."

The two main areas that the legal decision discusses are the religious movement known as Fundamentalism and what is science. The court believed that “creation-science” as defined in Act 590 is simply not science. Several witnesses suggested definitions of science. A descriptive definition was said to be that science is what is “accepted by the scientific community” and is “what scientists do.”

More precisely, the essential characteristics of science are:

• It is guided by natural law;

• It has to be explanatory by reference to nature law;

• It is testable against the empirical world;

• Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and

• It is falsifiable. (Ruse and other science witnesses).

Using the above definition, it makes it more difficult to convince the court of creation science, but it isn't a death knell. The last one being is it falsifiable is being debated as it limits normal science. It's from Karl Popper, who took it from GK Chesterton. It isn't what Chesterton said which I will explain in a later post.