Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[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.

Just yo be clear, if the ToE actually did speak to "something from nothing" being supported by evidence, as the case you cited mistakenly claimed, I would not be in favor of teaching that aspect of it to children. No argument there.

Luckily, the ToE doesn't speak at all to the origin of life on earth, so there isn't actually a problem with it.

 

[leibowde84]

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.

That's because they can't support their "argument" with verifiable evidence. Thus, it in no way should be included as "science", as it disregards the scientific method.

 

[leibowde84]

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.

You must agree that unfalsifiable hypotheses cannot be considered in any way by science, right?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

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

Whenever I focus on genetics, I am told it's limitations are irrelevant because we have the fossil record.

Two inadequate sources of evidence do not create a whole one, I would argue the opposite, two shortcomings compound each other into greater doubt

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You must agree that unfalsifiable hypotheses cannot be considered in any way by science, right?

Are you talking about multiverses, string theory or global warming?

what is considered by 'science' depends on many things, often the very fact that it is ambiguous, difficult to study or falsify, but has ideological and political interest to somebody- that is the realm of academic science. To lend authority to opinions and sell glossy mags

Scientific concepts that are demonstrable, empirical are the realm of practical reality rather than academia, R&D engineering, product development etc

 

[james bond]

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.

Sorry, this ended up long.

Disregard the previous link "What is creation science?". (CRS is an older creationist organization and Dr. Duane Gish (deceased) may have been part of that group. He wrote papers for it.)

The following is from a creation scientist who testified at the trial, Duane Gish. He was the Senior VP of ICR which I am familiar with.

He wrote:

"III. All Present Living Kinds of Animals and Plants Have Remained Fixed Since Creation, Other than Extinctions, and Genetic Variation in Originally Created Kinds Has Only Occurred within Narrow Limits.

Systematic gaps occur between kinds in the fossil record.6 None of the intermediate fossils that would be expected on the basis of the evolution model have been found between single celled organisms and invertebrates, between invertebrates and vertebrates, between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and birds or mammals, or between "lower" mammals and primates.7 While evolutionists might assume that these intermediate forms existed at one time, none of the hundreds of millions of fossils found so far provide the missing links. The few suggested links such as Archoeopteryx and the horse series have been rendered questionable by more detailed data. Fossils and living organisms are readily subjected to the same criteria of classification. Thus present kinds of animals and plants apparently were created, as shown by the systematic fossil gaps and by the similarity of fossil forms to living forms. A kind may be defined as a generally interfertile group of organisms that possesses variant genes for a common set of traits but that does not interbreed with other groups of organisms under normal circumstances. Any evolutionary change between kinds (necessary for the emergence of complex from simple organisms) would require addition of entirely new traits to the common set and enormous expansion of the gene pool over time, and could not occur from mere ecologically adaptive variations of a given trait set (which the creation model recognizes).

6. E.g., Simpson, George G., "The History of Life," in Tax, Sol, ed. Evolution after Darwin: The Evolution of Life, Chicago:Univ. of Chicago Press, 1960 pp. 117, 149:"

http://www.icr.org/article/summary-scientific-evidence-for-creation/

What Gish covered the fossil record of all animal and plant life. Darwin himself claimed "the poverty of the fossil record." He said that the transitional forms, or "missing links," were really there somewhere but had not yet been found. He also claimed that many of the links were missing either because conditions had failed to result in their fossilization or that they had been eroded away and destroyed subsequent to fossilization. However, this has not proved to be the case.

One example I could find is that of the whale being tied to a land mammal.

"Just recently one of these evolutionary stories was headlined in newspaper and magazine articles that appeared all over the world. For example, an Associated Press article of April 15, 1983, appeared in the Detroit Free Press with the headline "Missing Link Fossils Tie Whales to Land Mammals." The article reported that scientists say they have discovered fifty-million year-old fossils of a six-foot long, land-dwelling creature they describe as a "missing link" between whales and land animals. The article went on to say that the fossil remains represent the oldest and most primitive form of a whale yet discovered, an amphibious mammal that lived and bred on land and fed in shallow sea waters. One should be immediately suspicious of the term "whale" being given to such a creature, whatever it was, since whales are totally incapable of living or breeding on land.

News of this kind, as tentative and unreliable as it might be, is no doubt most welcome to evolutionists since there is indeed, as is the case with all other mammalian orders, a huge gap between the order Cetacea (this order includes all creatures known inclusively as "whales"—, whales, dolphins and porpoises) and any supposed ancestral creatures. Speaking of whales, Colbert says "These mammals must have had an ancient origin, for no intermediate forms are apparent in the fossil record between the whales and the ancestral Cretaceous placentals. Like the bats, the whales (using the term in a general and inclusive sense) appear suddenly in early Tertiary times, fully adapted by profound modifications of the basic mammalian structure for a highly specialized mode of life. Indeed, the whales are even more isolated with relation to other mammals than the bats; they stand quite alone."5

But what about the material upon which the newspaper articles were based? Can this material be reasonably interpreted as cetacean? The articles were based on interviews with Dr. Philip Gingerich of the University of Michigan and an article published by Gingerich, Wells, Russell, and Shah in Science.6 The fossil material consists of the posterior portion of the cranium, two fragments of the lower jaw, and isolated upper and lower cheek teeth. The creature this material supposedly represents was named Pakicetus inachus (one can never be certain, of course, that scattered fossil material all belongs to the same species).

This fossil material was found in fluvial red sediments, or river-produced deposits colored by material leached from iron ores. This formation is thus a terrestrial or continental deposit. The fossil remains associated with Pakicetus is dominated by land mammals. Nonmammalian remains include other terrestrial remains such as snails, fishes (particularly catfish), turtles, and crocodiles. This evidence indicates a fluvial and continental rather than a marine environment as would be expected for a whale or whale-like creature.

The authors state that the basicranium (only the back portion of the cranium was found) is unequivocally that of a primitive cetacean. On the basis of the brief description given in the article (eight lines of the text) one has no way of knowing whether that is true other than the declaration by the authors. It seems highly significant in that respect, however, that the auditory mechanism of Pakicetus was that of a land mammal rather than that of a whale, since there is no evidence that it could hear directionally under water nor is there any evidence of vascularization of the middle ear to maintain pressure during diving.

The teeth of Pakicetus are said by the authors to resemble those of terrestrial mesonychid Condylarthra and also to be similar to teeth of middle Eocene archeocete Cetacea such as Protocetus and Indocetus. Mesonychids are thought to be terrestrial mammals that were hoofed and possibly fed on carrion, mollusks, or tough vegetable matter.7 The authors mention two other "primitive cetaceans," Gandakasia and Ichthyolestes, known only from teeth, as being found in the same formation with Pakicetus. These have been described by West,8 and had earlier been identified as land mammals (specifically mesonychids). West, however, reassigned them to the order Cetacea.

Not a single fragment of the postcranial skeleton of these creatures has been found, so we have no idea what they really looked like. The fact that their remains were found in a terrestrial fluvial deposit with fossils of many other land animals, their teeth were very similar to known land animals, and their auditory mechanism was obviously not that of a whale, would seem to indicate, to say the very least, that the claim that a missing link between whales and land mammals has been found is premature. We are reminded of the admission of Professor Derek Ager (no friend of creationists) that practically every evolutionary story he had learned as a student has now been debunked.9 We suggest that Pakicetus will eventually join the ranks of the debunked "missing links" which include Trueman's Ostrea/Gryphea, Carruther's Zaphrentis, Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Neanderthal Man, and the hominoid collarbone recently identified as a dolphin rib.10"

http://www.icr.org/article/216/

 

[McBell]

Sorry, this ended up long.

Disregard the previous link "What is creation science?". (CRS is an older creationist organization and Dr. Duane Gish (deceased) may have been part of that group. He wrote papers for it.)

The following is from a creation scientist who testified at the trial, Duane Gish. He was the Senior VP of ICR which I am familiar with.

He wrote:

"III. All Present Living Kinds of Animals and Plants Have Remained Fixed Since Creation, Other than Extinctions, and Genetic Variation in Originally Created Kinds Has Only Occurred within Narrow Limits.

Systematic gaps occur between kinds in the fossil record.6 None of the intermediate fossils that would be expected on the basis of the evolution model have been found between single celled organisms and invertebrates, between invertebrates and vertebrates, between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and birds or mammals, or between "lower" mammals and primates.7 While evolutionists might assume that these intermediate forms existed at one time, none of the hundreds of millions of fossils found so far provide the missing links. The few suggested links such as Archoeopteryx and the horse series have been rendered questionable by more detailed data. Fossils and living organisms are readily subjected to the same criteria of classification. Thus present kinds of animals and plants apparently were created, as shown by the systematic fossil gaps and by the similarity of fossil forms to living forms. A kind may be defined as a generally interfertile group of organisms that possesses variant genes for a common set of traits but that does not interbreed with other groups of organisms under normal circumstances. Any evolutionary change between kinds (necessary for the emergence of complex from simple organisms) would require addition of entirely new traits to the common set and enormous expansion of the gene pool over time, and could not occur from mere ecologically adaptive variations of a given trait set (which the creation model recognizes).

6. E.g., Simpson, George G., "The History of Life," in Tax, Sol, ed. Evolution after Darwin: The Evolution of Life, Chicago:Univ. of Chicago Press, 1960 pp. 117, 149:"

http://www.icr.org/article/summary-scientific-evidence-for-creation/

What Gish covered the fossil record of all animal and plant life. Darwin himself claimed "the poverty of the fossil record." He said that the transitional forms, or "missing links," were really there somewhere but had not yet been found. He also claimed that many of the links were missing either because conditions had failed to result in their fossilization or that they had been eroded away and destroyed subsequent to fossilization. However, this has not proved to be the case.

One example I could find is that of the whale being tied to a land mammal.

"Just recently one of these evolutionary stories was headlined in newspaper and magazine articles that appeared all over the world. For example, an Associated Press article of April 15, 1983, appeared in the Detroit Free Press with the headline "Missing Link Fossils Tie Whales to Land Mammals." The article reported that scientists say they have discovered fifty-million year-old fossils of a six-foot long, land-dwelling creature they describe as a "missing link" between whales and land animals. The article went on to say that the fossil remains represent the oldest and most primitive form of a whale yet discovered, an amphibious mammal that lived and bred on land and fed in shallow sea waters. One should be immediately suspicious of the term "whale" being given to such a creature, whatever it was, since whales are totally incapable of living or breeding on land.

News of this kind, as tentative and unreliable as it might be, is no doubt most welcome to evolutionists since there is indeed, as is the case with all other mammalian orders, a huge gap between the order Cetacea (this order includes all creatures known inclusively as "whales"—, whales, dolphins and porpoises) and any supposed ancestral creatures. Speaking of whales, Colbert says "These mammals must have had an ancient origin, for no intermediate forms are apparent in the fossil record between the whales and the ancestral Cretaceous placentals. Like the bats, the whales (using the term in a general and inclusive sense) appear suddenly in early Tertiary times, fully adapted by profound modifications of the basic mammalian structure for a highly specialized mode of life. Indeed, the whales are even more isolated with relation to other mammals than the bats; they stand quite alone."5

But what about the material upon which the newspaper articles were based? Can this material be reasonably interpreted as cetacean? The articles were based on interviews with Dr. Philip Gingerich of the University of Michigan and an article published by Gingerich, Wells, Russell, and Shah in Science.6 The fossil material consists of the posterior portion of the cranium, two fragments of the lower jaw, and isolated upper and lower cheek teeth. The creature this material supposedly represents was named Pakicetus inachus (one can never be certain, of course, that scattered fossil material all belongs to the same species).

This fossil material was found in fluvial red sediments, or river-produced deposits colored by material leached from iron ores. This formation is thus a terrestrial or continental deposit. The fossil remains associated with Pakicetus is dominated by land mammals. Nonmammalian remains include other terrestrial remains such as snails, fishes (particularly catfish), turtles, and crocodiles. This evidence indicates a fluvial and continental rather than a marine environment as would be expected for a whale or whale-like creature.

The authors state that the basicranium (only the back portion of the cranium was found) is unequivocally that of a primitive cetacean. On the basis of the brief description given in the article (eight lines of the text) one has no way of knowing whether that is true other than the declaration by the authors. It seems highly significant in that respect, however, that the auditory mechanism of Pakicetus was that of a land mammal rather than that of a whale, since there is no evidence that it could hear directionally under water nor is there any evidence of vascularization of the middle ear to maintain pressure during diving.

The teeth of Pakicetus are said by the authors to resemble those of terrestrial mesonychid Condylarthra and also to be similar to teeth of middle Eocene archeocete Cetacea such as Protocetus and Indocetus. Mesonychids are thought to be terrestrial mammals that were hoofed and possibly fed on carrion, mollusks, or tough vegetable matter.7 The authors mention two other "primitive cetaceans," Gandakasia and Ichthyolestes, known only from teeth, as being found in the same formation with Pakicetus. These have been described by West,8 and had earlier been identified as land mammals (specifically mesonychids). West, however, reassigned them to the order Cetacea.

Not a single fragment of the postcranial skeleton of these creatures has been found, so we have no idea what they really looked like. The fact that their remains were found in a terrestrial fluvial deposit with fossils of many other land animals, their teeth were very similar to known land animals, and their auditory mechanism was obviously not that of a whale, would seem to indicate, to say the very least, that the claim that a missing link between whales and land mammals has been found is premature. We are reminded of the admission of Professor Derek Ager (no friend of creationists) that practically every evolutionary story he had learned as a student has now been debunked.9 We suggest that Pakicetus will eventually join the ranks of the debunked "missing links" which include Trueman's Ostrea/Gryphea, Carruther's Zaphrentis, Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Neanderthal Man, and the hominoid collarbone recently identified as a dolphin rib.10"

http://www.icr.org/article/216/

Define "kinds".

 

[Ouroboros]

Sorry, this ended up long.

Disregard the previous link "What is creation science?". (CRS is an older creationist organization and Dr. Duane Gish (deceased) may have been part of that group. He wrote papers for it.)

The following is from a creation scientist who testified at the trial, Duane Gish. He was the Senior VP of ICR which I am familiar with.

He wrote:

"III. All Present Living Kinds of Animals and Plants Have Remained Fixed Since Creation, Other than Extinctions, and Genetic Variation in Originally Created Kinds Has Only Occurred within Narrow Limits.

Systematic gaps occur between kinds in the fossil record.6 None of the intermediate fossils that would be expected on the basis of the evolution model have been found between single celled organisms and invertebrates, between invertebrates and vertebrates, between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and birds or mammals, or between "lower" mammals and primates.7 While evolutionists might assume that these intermediate forms existed at one time, none of the hundreds of millions of fossils found so far provide the missing links. The few suggested links such as Archoeopteryx and the horse series have been rendered questionable by more detailed data. Fossils and living organisms are readily subjected to the same criteria of classification. Thus present kinds of animals and plants apparently were created, as shown by the systematic fossil gaps and by the similarity of fossil forms to living forms. A kind may be defined as a generally interfertile group of organisms that possesses variant genes for a common set of traits but that does not interbreed with other groups of organisms under normal circumstances. Any evolutionary change between kinds (necessary for the emergence of complex from simple organisms) would require addition of entirely new traits to the common set and enormous expansion of the gene pool over time, and could not occur from mere ecologically adaptive variations of a given trait set (which the creation model recognizes).

6. E.g., Simpson, George G., "The History of Life," in Tax, Sol, ed. Evolution after Darwin: The Evolution of Life, Chicago:Univ. of Chicago Press, 1960 pp. 117, 149:"

http://www.icr.org/article/summary-scientific-evidence-for-creation/

What Gish covered the fossil record of all animal and plant life. Darwin himself claimed "the poverty of the fossil record." He said that the transitional forms, or "missing links," were really there somewhere but had not yet been found. He also claimed that many of the links were missing either because conditions had failed to result in their fossilization or that they had been eroded away and destroyed subsequent to fossilization. However, this has not proved to be the case.

One example I could find is that of the whale being tied to a land mammal.

"Just recently one of these evolutionary stories was headlined in newspaper and magazine articles that appeared all over the world. For example, an Associated Press article of April 15, 1983, appeared in the Detroit Free Press with the headline "Missing Link Fossils Tie Whales to Land Mammals." The article reported that scientists say they have discovered fifty-million year-old fossils of a six-foot long, land-dwelling creature they describe as a "missing link" between whales and land animals. The article went on to say that the fossil remains represent the oldest and most primitive form of a whale yet discovered, an amphibious mammal that lived and bred on land and fed in shallow sea waters. One should be immediately suspicious of the term "whale" being given to such a creature, whatever it was, since whales are totally incapable of living or breeding on land.

News of this kind, as tentative and unreliable as it might be, is no doubt most welcome to evolutionists since there is indeed, as is the case with all other mammalian orders, a huge gap between the order Cetacea (this order includes all creatures known inclusively as "whales"—, whales, dolphins and porpoises) and any supposed ancestral creatures. Speaking of whales, Colbert says "These mammals must have had an ancient origin, for no intermediate forms are apparent in the fossil record between the whales and the ancestral Cretaceous placentals. Like the bats, the whales (using the term in a general and inclusive sense) appear suddenly in early Tertiary times, fully adapted by profound modifications of the basic mammalian structure for a highly specialized mode of life. Indeed, the whales are even more isolated with relation to other mammals than the bats; they stand quite alone."5

But what about the material upon which the newspaper articles were based? Can this material be reasonably interpreted as cetacean? The articles were based on interviews with Dr. Philip Gingerich of the University of Michigan and an article published by Gingerich, Wells, Russell, and Shah in Science.6 The fossil material consists of the posterior portion of the cranium, two fragments of the lower jaw, and isolated upper and lower cheek teeth. The creature this material supposedly represents was named Pakicetus inachus (one can never be certain, of course, that scattered fossil material all belongs to the same species).

This fossil material was found in fluvial red sediments, or river-produced deposits colored by material leached from iron ores. This formation is thus a terrestrial or continental deposit. The fossil remains associated with Pakicetus is dominated by land mammals. Nonmammalian remains include other terrestrial remains such as snails, fishes (particularly catfish), turtles, and crocodiles. This evidence indicates a fluvial and continental rather than a marine environment as would be expected for a whale or whale-like creature.

The authors state that the basicranium (only the back portion of the cranium was found) is unequivocally that of a primitive cetacean. On the basis of the brief description given in the article (eight lines of the text) one has no way of knowing whether that is true other than the declaration by the authors. It seems highly significant in that respect, however, that the auditory mechanism of Pakicetus was that of a land mammal rather than that of a whale, since there is no evidence that it could hear directionally under water nor is there any evidence of vascularization of the middle ear to maintain pressure during diving.

The teeth of Pakicetus are said by the authors to resemble those of terrestrial mesonychid Condylarthra and also to be similar to teeth of middle Eocene archeocete Cetacea such as Protocetus and Indocetus. Mesonychids are thought to be terrestrial mammals that were hoofed and possibly fed on carrion, mollusks, or tough vegetable matter.7 The authors mention two other "primitive cetaceans," Gandakasia and Ichthyolestes, known only from teeth, as being found in the same formation with Pakicetus. These have been described by West,8 and had earlier been identified as land mammals (specifically mesonychids). West, however, reassigned them to the order Cetacea.

Not a single fragment of the postcranial skeleton of these creatures has been found, so we have no idea what they really looked like. The fact that their remains were found in a terrestrial fluvial deposit with fossils of many other land animals, their teeth were very similar to known land animals, and their auditory mechanism was obviously not that of a whale, would seem to indicate, to say the very least, that the claim that a missing link between whales and land mammals has been found is premature. We are reminded of the admission of Professor Derek Ager (no friend of creationists) that practically every evolutionary story he had learned as a student has now been debunked.9 We suggest that Pakicetus will eventually join the ranks of the debunked "missing links" which include Trueman's Ostrea/Gryphea, Carruther's Zaphrentis, Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Neanderthal Man, and the hominoid collarbone recently identified as a dolphin rib.10"

http://www.icr.org/article/216/

This is just an reiterating of the supposed observations and the suggested claims behind it, but there's nothing in there in how or what is supposedly fixing the limits or how to measure what a limit is supposed to be. Is a dog different that a wolf? Why or why not?

 

[leibowde84]

Are you talking about multiverses, string theory or global warming?

what is considered by 'science' depends on many things, often the very fact that it is ambiguous, difficult to study or falsify, but has ideological and political interest to somebody- that is the realm of academic science. To lend authority to opinions and sell glossy mags

Scientific concepts that are demonstrable, empirical are the realm of practical reality rather than academia, R&D engineering, product development etc

Yours is an extremely rare perspective, but that doesn't mean it's false. I agree. But, you must be ignorant as to what the theories actually mean and how they might be, theoretically, mathematically and/or physically tested/supported

Evidence for a Multiverse (http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=5907):
Scientists studied radiation data gathered by Planck telescope
Claim anomalies show gravitational pull from other universes
Could be the first real evidence to support controversial theory

The first 'hard evidence' that other universes exist has been found by scientists.

Cosmologists studying a map of the universe from data gathered by the Planck spacecraft have concluded that it shows anomalies that can only have been caused by the gravitational pull of other universes.

The map shows radiation from the Big Bang 13.8billion years ago that is still detectable in the universe - known as cosmic microwave radiation.

Multiverse:
The evidence:
Scientists had predicted that it should be evenly distributed, but the map shows a stronger concentration in the south half of the sky and a 'cold spot' that cannot be explained by current understanding of physics.

Laura Mersini-Houghton, theoretical physicist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Richard Holman, professor at Carnegie Mellon University, predicted that anomalies in radiation existed and were caused by the pull from other universes in 2005.

Is this what the Big Bang looked like? Astronomical image shows the split-second after universe began... and reveals the 'oldest light' ever cast on the sky
Telescope catches the moment a 40kg rock hits the moon and creates a giant ball of light which could be seen from Earth
Now that she has studied the Planck data, Dr Mersini-Houghton believes her hypothesis has been proven.

Her findings imply there could be an infinite number of universes outside of our own.

She said: 'These anomalies were caused by other universes pulling on our universe as it formed during the Big Bang.

'They are the first hard evidence for the existence of other universes that we have seen.'

Last year, scientists were able to create a map of light from when the universe was just 380,000 years old
Last year, scientists were able to create a map of light from when the universe was just 380,000 years old
Better quality: Previous maps of radiation (left) were not as detailed as the recent Planck map (right)
Better quality: Previous maps of radiation (left) were not as detailed as the recent Planck map (right)
Although some scientists remain sceptical about the theory of other universes, these findings may be a step towards changing views on physics.

The European Space Agency, which runs the £515million Planck telescope, said: 'Because precision of Planck’s map is so high, it made it possible to reveal some peculiar unexplained features that may well require new physics to be understood.'

Cambridge professor of theoretical physics Malcolm Perry told the Sunday Times that the findings could be real evidence of the existence of other universes.

While George Efstathiou, professor of astrophysics at the university, told the newspaper: 'Such ideas may sound wacky now, just like the Big Bang theory did three generations ago. But then we got evidence and now it has changed the whole way we think about the universe'.

Evidence for String Theory:
(http://m.phys.org/news/2014-01-scientists-theory.html) — Scientists at Towson University in Towson, Maryland, have identified a practical, yet overlooked, test of string theory based on the motions of planets, moons and asteroids, reminiscent of Galileo's famed test of gravity by dropping balls from the Tower of Pisa.

String theory is infamous as an eloquent theoretical framework to understand all forces in the universe —- a so-called "theory of everything" —- that can't be tested with current instrumentation because the energy level and size scale to see the effects of string theory are too extreme.

Yet inspired by Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton, Towson University scientists say that precise measurements of the positions of solar-system bodies could reveal very slight discrepancies in what is predicted by the theory of general relativity and the equivalence principle, or establish new upper limits for measuring the effects of string theory.

The Towson-based team presents its finding today, January 6, 2014, between 10 a.m. and 11:30 a.m., at the 223rd meeting of the American Astronomical Society, in Washington, D.C. The work also appears in the journal Classical and Quantum Gravity.

String theory hopes to provide a bridge between two well-tested yet incompatible theories that describe all known physics: Einstein's general relativity, our reigning theory of gravity; and the standard model of particle physics, or quantum field theory, which explains all the forces other than gravity

Evidence for Climate Change (Scientific American - http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/climate-change-facts-versus-opinions/):

Climate Change: Facts Versus Opinions
When it comes to climate change, can "facts" be distinguished from "opinions"?
By John Horgan on October 1, 2015

It is a fact, not an opinion, that human consumption of fossil fuels has boosted global temperatures over the last century. Source: NASA, http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

CLIMATE-CHANGE FACTS
FACT: Carbon dioxide, a byproduct of fossil-fuel combustion, is a greenhouse gas, which traps solar radiation in the atmosphere. (Sources for my first seven “facts” include NASA and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.)
FACT: Increased human fossil-fuel consumption over the past two centuries has increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Atmospheric CO2 recently surpassed 400 parts per million, the highest level in more than 800,000 years.
FACT: As a result of increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide, global surface temperatures have increased by about one degree centigrade since 1880. The 10 warmest years ever recorded—with the exception of 1998—have occurred since 2000. 2014 was the warmest year ever recorded.
FACT: Arctic ice and glaciers around the world have shrunk markedly in recent decades, although in 2014 “ice surrounding Antarctica reached a new record high,” according to NASA.
FACT: Sea levels have risen 6.7 inches over the past century as a result of human-induced global warming. This sea-level rise, which is accelerating, makes coastal storms more destructive.
FACT: Reasonable extrapolations from current trends suggest that unchecked fossil-fuel consumption will increase the risk of coastal flooding, droughts, severe storms, heat waves, food and water shortages and other harmful effects.
FACT: A consensus of scientific experts believes that fossil-fuel consumption is driving global warming.
FACT: Scientific experts can be wrong.
FACT: Some influential criticism of the scientific consensus on climate change has been motivated by pro-capitalist, anti-socialist ideology.
FACT: Not all those who doubt the scientific consensus on climate change are ideologues or idiots.
FACT: Some left-wing activists have used climate change to promote a socialist agenda.
FACT: Fossil-fuel consumption was key to the industrial revolution, which over the past two centuries has boosted average global incomes six-fold and decreased the proportion of people living in extreme poverty.
FACT: The United States, historically, has been the biggest emitter of carbon dioxide and hence bears the greatest responsibility for climate change.
FACT: Those who agree that climate change poses a threat vehemently disagree about how severe the threat is, how it should be countered and how it should be discussed in public.
CLIMATE-CHANGE OPINIONS:
OPINION: If humanity does not take dramatic steps to curtail fossil-fuel consumption, civilization may collapse.
OPINION: Climate change could make armed conflict, including wars over water, more likely.
OPINION: Global warming is already causing “extreme” weather events, such as hurricanes Katrina and Sandy and the current drought in California.
OPINION: Nuclear energy is necessary for countering climate change.
OPINION: The natural-gas boom, made possible by advances in fracking, has on balance been good for the environment, because it has reduced reliance on coal, a far more damaging pollutant.
OPINION: Optimism is a more constructive approach than pessimism to countering the climate change and other threats to humanity.
Addendum: More facts/opinions:
FACT: Coal pollution leads to hundreds of thousands of premature deaths each year.
OPINION: Al Gore's efforts to counter global warming have hurt that cause by associating it in the minds of many Americans with a liberal political perspective. (Some of my colleagues at Stevens Institute of Technology have voiced this opinion.)
Correction: The 10 warmest years ever recorded—with the exception of 1998—have occurred since 2000, not within the last decade (as previous draft stated).

Are you talking about multiverses, string theory or global warming?

what is considered by 'science' depends on many things, often the very fact that it is ambiguous, difficult to study or falsify, but has ideological and political interest to somebody- that is the realm of academic science. To lend authority to opinions and sell glossy mags

Scientific concepts that are demonstrable, empirical are the realm of practical reality rather than academia, R&D engineering, product development etc

Yours is an extremely rare perspective, but that doesn't mean it's false. I agree. But, you must be ignorant as to what the theories actually mean and how they might be, theoretically, tested.

Evidence for Multiverse:

Evidence for String Theory:

Evidence for Climate Change:

 

[Thief]

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.

heard a scientist say.....
the earth had a poisonous atmosphere long time ago.
the air 'evolved' because of the abundant sea life using up that poison.
resulting in an atmosphere more suited to mammals

seems the earth was being 'prepped' for something greater.....by....
Something Greater

you can't really create dialog that will take away the Creator

 

[Ouroboros]

heard a scientist say.....
the earth had a poisonous atmosphere long time ago.
the air 'evolved' because of the abundant sea life using up that poison.
resulting in an atmosphere more suited to mammals

seems the earth was being 'prepped' for something greater.....by....
Something Greater

you can't really create dialog that will take away the Creator

Or perhaps we're the ones prepping for some greater beings?

Isn't it strange that God needed billions of years to "prep" for a human species that would only exist for a few thousand years? Such a waste!

 

[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.

If the theory starts with the assumption that it's premise (the Bible is accurate) is true, looking for evidence that supports it, that is not utilizing the scientific method. If creation is to be considered a theory, there must be an experiment where the outcome will either support or contradict said theory. Then repeated experiments of this kind must be produced, with the outcomes repeatedly confirming the said theory.

Where are the exoeriments?

 

[johnhanks]

Sorry, this ended up long.

Disregard the previous link "What is creation science?". (CRS is an older creationist organization and Dr. Duane Gish (deceased) may have been part of that group. He wrote papers for it.)

The following is from a creation scientist who testified at the trial, Duane Gish. He was the Senior VP of ICR which I am familiar with.

He wrote:

"III. All Present Living Kinds of Animals and Plants Have Remained Fixed Since Creation, Other than Extinctions, and Genetic Variation in Originally Created Kinds Has Only Occurred within Narrow Limits.

Systematic gaps occur between kinds in the fossil record.6 None of the intermediate fossils that would be expected on the basis of the evolution model have been found between single celled organisms and invertebrates, between invertebrates and vertebrates, between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and birds or mammals, or between "lower" mammals and primates.7 While evolutionists might assume that these intermediate forms existed at one time, none of the hundreds of millions of fossils found so far provide the missing links. The few suggested links such as Archoeopteryx and the horse series have been rendered questionable by more detailed data. Fossils and living organisms are readily subjected to the same criteria of classification. Thus present kinds of animals and plants apparently were created, as shown by the systematic fossil gaps and by the similarity of fossil forms to living forms. A kind may be defined as a generally interfertile group of organisms that possesses variant genes for a common set of traits but that does not interbreed with other groups of organisms under normal circumstances. Any evolutionary change between kinds (necessary for the emergence of complex from simple organisms) would require addition of entirely new traits to the common set and enormous expansion of the gene pool over time, and could not occur from mere ecologically adaptive variations of a given trait set (which the creation model recognizes).

6. E.g., Simpson, George G., "The History of Life," in Tax, Sol, ed. Evolution after Darwin: The Evolution of Life, Chicago:Univ. of Chicago Press, 1960 pp. 117, 149:"

http://www.icr.org/article/summary-scientific-evidence-for-creation/

What Gish covered the fossil record of all animal and plant life. Darwin himself claimed "the poverty of the fossil record." He said that the transitional forms, or "missing links," were really there somewhere but had not yet been found. He also claimed that many of the links were missing either because conditions had failed to result in their fossilization or that they had been eroded away and destroyed subsequent to fossilization. However, this has not proved to be the case.

One example I could find is that of the whale being tied to a land mammal.

"Just recently one of these evolutionary stories was headlined in newspaper and magazine articles that appeared all over the world. For example, an Associated Press article of April 15, 1983, appeared in the Detroit Free Press with the headline "Missing Link Fossils Tie Whales to Land Mammals." The article reported that scientists say they have discovered fifty-million year-old fossils of a six-foot long, land-dwelling creature they describe as a "missing link" between whales and land animals. The article went on to say that the fossil remains represent the oldest and most primitive form of a whale yet discovered, an amphibious mammal that lived and bred on land and fed in shallow sea waters. One should be immediately suspicious of the term "whale" being given to such a creature, whatever it was, since whales are totally incapable of living or breeding on land.

News of this kind, as tentative and unreliable as it might be, is no doubt most welcome to evolutionists since there is indeed, as is the case with all other mammalian orders, a huge gap between the order Cetacea (this order includes all creatures known inclusively as "whales"—, whales, dolphins and porpoises) and any supposed ancestral creatures. Speaking of whales, Colbert says "These mammals must have had an ancient origin, for no intermediate forms are apparent in the fossil record between the whales and the ancestral Cretaceous placentals. Like the bats, the whales (using the term in a general and inclusive sense) appear suddenly in early Tertiary times, fully adapted by profound modifications of the basic mammalian structure for a highly specialized mode of life. Indeed, the whales are even more isolated with relation to other mammals than the bats; they stand quite alone."5

But what about the material upon which the newspaper articles were based? Can this material be reasonably interpreted as cetacean? The articles were based on interviews with Dr. Philip Gingerich of the University of Michigan and an article published by Gingerich, Wells, Russell, and Shah in Science.6 The fossil material consists of the posterior portion of the cranium, two fragments of the lower jaw, and isolated upper and lower cheek teeth. The creature this material supposedly represents was named Pakicetus inachus (one can never be certain, of course, that scattered fossil material all belongs to the same species).

This fossil material was found in fluvial red sediments, or river-produced deposits colored by material leached from iron ores. This formation is thus a terrestrial or continental deposit. The fossil remains associated with Pakicetus is dominated by land mammals. Nonmammalian remains include other terrestrial remains such as snails, fishes (particularly catfish), turtles, and crocodiles. This evidence indicates a fluvial and continental rather than a marine environment as would be expected for a whale or whale-like creature.

The authors state that the basicranium (only the back portion of the cranium was found) is unequivocally that of a primitive cetacean. On the basis of the brief description given in the article (eight lines of the text) one has no way of knowing whether that is true other than the declaration by the authors. It seems highly significant in that respect, however, that the auditory mechanism of Pakicetus was that of a land mammal rather than that of a whale, since there is no evidence that it could hear directionally under water nor is there any evidence of vascularization of the middle ear to maintain pressure during diving.

The teeth of Pakicetus are said by the authors to resemble those of terrestrial mesonychid Condylarthra and also to be similar to teeth of middle Eocene archeocete Cetacea such as Protocetus and Indocetus. Mesonychids are thought to be terrestrial mammals that were hoofed and possibly fed on carrion, mollusks, or tough vegetable matter.7 The authors mention two other "primitive cetaceans," Gandakasia and Ichthyolestes, known only from teeth, as being found in the same formation with Pakicetus. These have been described by West,8 and had earlier been identified as land mammals (specifically mesonychids). West, however, reassigned them to the order Cetacea.

Not a single fragment of the postcranial skeleton of these creatures has been found, so we have no idea what they really looked like. The fact that their remains were found in a terrestrial fluvial deposit with fossils of many other land animals, their teeth were very similar to known land animals, and their auditory mechanism was obviously not that of a whale, would seem to indicate, to say the very least, that the claim that a missing link between whales and land mammals has been found is premature. We are reminded of the admission of Professor Derek Ager (no friend of creationists) that practically every evolutionary story he had learned as a student has now been debunked.9 We suggest that Pakicetus will eventually join the ranks of the debunked "missing links" which include Trueman's Ostrea/Gryphea, Carruther's Zaphrentis, Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Neanderthal Man, and the hominoid collarbone recently identified as a dolphin rib.10"

http://www.icr.org/article/216/

Remarkable. Ouroboros asks you to explain "how these fixed limits work", and you respond with a huge cut-and-paste of other people's words, none of which address the question at all.

Evolution involves change in populations' gene pools over time, that is changes in the sequence and arrangement of long chains of ATCG base pairs in their DNA. Since we know that such changes occur, and that the only salient difference between a zygote that will develop into (say) a cat and one that will develop a dog is in the base sequence of their genome, what is to prevent the base sequence of a cat population changing, over a long enough period, into that of a dog? (No, I am not suggesting dogs actually evolved from cats, or vice versa: both probably emerged from ancestral miacid populations.) If you wish to defend the idea that such a change is impossible, you must explain what it is that puts a limit on how far genomes can change. Without such a limit (and none has so far been detected) evolutionary change is assured.

PS: it is amusing that the best 'authority' you could cut-and-paste on whale evolution manages to write such a huge screed without once mentioning Ambulocetus.

 

[james bond]

Define "kinds".

Kind usually means class.

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Kind

 

[McBell]

Kind usually means class.

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Kind

define "kinds" in the context of the article presented.

Your own links reveals the problem with the word...
It can mean:

Race;
genus;
species;
generic class;
phylum;
domain;
order;
kingdom;
style;
character;
sort;
fashion;
manner;
variety;
description;
class​

and more.

 

[james bond]

This is just an reiterating of the supposed observations and the suggested claims behind it, but there's nothing in there in how or what is supposedly fixing the limits or how to measure what a limit is supposed to be. Is a dog different that a wolf? Why or why not?

These are the same arguments from long time ago. Gish and Morris were defining creation science for the court so it would go in the record, and it goes to show that the Creation vs Evolution argument is based on what each side wants to get into the public school system and they have created a course for it.

As to your definition of limit, I assume you mean class. The variation in species is not in question. Class is important to evolutionists, but not so much creation science. Class is limited there. Would you like to know what they are for CS ?

If you're looking for an argument, creation science does not say birds are reptiles (or dinosaurs) and did not come from dinosaurs since they were created on the 5th day. Land animals were created on the 6th.

(Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying this is it because the Bible says so. I am keeping an open mind. In my studies, it's been a question of which side has prone to be wrong. The Bible can't change, but science keeps on changing. It has been demonstrated that science ends up backing the Bible.)

 

[james bond]

define "kinds" in the context of the article presented.

Your own links reveals the problem with the word...
It can mean:

Race;
genus;
species;
generic class;
phylum;
domain;
order;
kingdom;
style;
character;
sort;
fashion;
manner;
variety;
description;
class​

and more.

It usually means class depending on the context. See my #1076 post as class isn't that important for CS.

 

[Ouroboros]

These are the same arguments from long time ago. Gish and Morris were defining creation science for the court so it would go in the record, and it goes to show that the Creation vs Evolution argument is based on what each side wants to get into the public school system and they have created a course for it.

As to your definition of limit, I assume you mean class. The variation in species is not in question. Class is important to evolutionists, but not so much creation science. Class is limited there. Would you like to know what they are for CS ?

If you're looking for an argument, creation science does not say birds are reptiles (or dinosaurs) and did not come from dinosaurs since they were created on the 5th day. Land animals were created on the 6th.

(Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying this is it because the Bible says so. I am keeping an open mind. In my studies, it's been a question of which side has prone to be wrong. The Bible can't change, but science keeps on changing. It has been demonstrated that science ends up backing the Bible.)

Still doesn't define what CS means with limits or what kind of control mechanism behind it.

Besides, Gish is only famous for one thing, Gish gallop. Gish wasn't a great contributor to evolutionary science. It's like using Dawkins as a source to argue Bible themes.

Put it this way, whenever I see the name Gish used in an argument against evolution, I immediately stop reading. There's nothing there of value.

 

[james bond]

Before I go on, here is what the creation scientists originally had listed as the "classes" of animals.

creeping things of the ground
birds of the sky
clean animals
cattle
beasts of the earth

From there, they are defining these different classes of animals.

 

[james bond]

Still doesn't define what CS means with limits or what kind of control mechanism behind it.

Besides, Gish is only famous for one thing, Gish gallop. Gish wasn't a great contributor to evolutionary science. It's like using Dawkins as a source to argue Bible themes.

Put it this way, whenever I see the name Gish used in an argument against evolution, I immediately stop reading. There's nothing there of value.

See my post #1079. It is further being developed. Creation scientists do know what evolution scientists are doing. However, they do not do the same thing as there is no reason to.

If you want to disregard Gish, then go do so, but he was a very knowledgeable man and wrote many papers some of which I will bring up in my talks or arguments. His arguments are valid even if they do not subscribe to evolutionary views. It's on the same level as I were to disregard Darwin which creation scientists do except for natural selection if one were to give CD credit for that.

I have found science is science and both sides use the same data. The only difference is the worldview and how they approach things.

I think God of the Gaps was originally a warning to scientists who were religious and working for the church in medieval times. It said to not refer to God when you can't solve something, and I think to not use God as a source for science. However, the term was usurped by atheist scientists when arguing the Big Bang theory.