Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[Ouroboros]

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.

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.

Those are extremely broad classes of your "limits" but without any explanation to why those limits are decided as that. And there's no information about how these limits are set in the DNA or otherwise. The question is still, how and why those limits are there or work that way. Is there any scientific research, testing, experiments that show how these limits work?

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 read Gish many years ago as a Christian and YEC, but years later, now with more knowledge under my belt, I can't see how his views are even remotely valid.

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 can agree with that.

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.

If God created nature as an autonomous thing (supposedly designed), then natural explanations explains natural phenomena.

 

[james bond]

Here's one complaint I have evo science. Let's look at how the dinosaurs became extinct in the K-Pg period. I've read several articles in Nature and Science over the years first on how the Deccan Traps volcanoes did them in. Then it was the Chicxulub asteroid. I think this was taught as fact to elementary school children. The working concept behind this is catastrophism usurped from creation science, so they added this happened 65 billions of years ago. Now, I think it a combination of the asteroid, volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis and climate change. It tooks thousands of years, but what's a thousand years compared to millions. The evo scientists had to get unifamilitarianism in there someway. They are going to drill the crater left by the asteroid to see if they can "build on what is already known: that this enormous deposit of sediment happened over a very short period of time, possibly only a matter of days. Again, this is catastrophism. The drilling will also help paint a picture of how life recovered by looking at the types of fossils that appear. Some scientists think that the asteroid impact would have lowered the pH of the oceans, so the fossilized remains of animals that can endure greater acidity would be of particular interest."

Here's a news article on it. Of course, they throw in a artist rendition of the impact to let people know these evo guys are right <eyeroll> .

Notice what's in all of these types of news articles:
- The artist rendition
- The 65 millions of years (This one is 66 millions years ago because the extinction took time after the asteroid)
- Iridium (to show it came from space and distinguish it from a sinkhole)
- Words like "global catastrophe"
- May have been a billion times more powerful that the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima
- Effects probably included widespread forest fires, global cooling from debris in the atmosphere, and then a period of high temperatures caused by an increase in atmospheric CO2

The above is mostly BS. Where is the evidence? Iridium?

Dinosaur Killer Chicxulub Crater To Be Drilled For First Time
http://www.universetoday.com/127778/dinosaur-killer-chicxulub-crater-to-be-drilled-for-first-time/

In contrast, this is the type of scientific report we get from an actual catastrophic event, but not enough to cause any extinction.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2000/fs036-00/

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

That is scientific .... how?

 

[james bond]

That is scientific .... how?

Are you, Quoboros or anyone else a biologist or have background in biology? I'll try to address it more in depth later as it's not one of the areas I've investigated. The part I wrote is taken from the Bible, probably left sea creatures out, but the creation science is baraminology. It is based on Frank Lewis Marsh's term "baramin" from the Hebrew words bara (create) and min (kind). The works may not be complete or up to date to modern standards and needs further peer-review. It attempts to identify the listed created classes using statistics and mathematical formulas to identify categories of creatures.

A Refined Baramin Concept
http://www.creationbiology.org/content.aspx?page_id=22&club_id=201240&module_id=36952

 

[SkepticThinker]

Are you, Quoboros or anyone else a biologist or have background in biology? I'll try to address it more in depth later as it's not one of the areas I've investigated. The part I wrote is taken from the Bible, probably left sea creatures out, but the creation science is baraminology. It is based on Frank Lewis Marsh's term "baramin" from the Hebrew words bara (create) and min (kind). The works may not be complete or up to date to modern standards and needs further peer-review. It attempts to identify the listed created classes using statistics and mathematical formulas to identify categories of creatures.

A Refined Baramin Concept
http://www.creationbiology.org/content.aspx?page_id=22&club_id=201240&module_id=36952

This guy?

"In his book Fundamental Biology, Marsh described himself as a "fundamentalist scientist". He argued that modern human races are degenerate forms of first-created man and warned that the living world is the scene of a cosmic struggle between the Creator and Satan. Marsh claimed that Satan is a "master geneticist" and speculated that amalgamation and hybridization are his ways of destroying the original harmony and perfection among living things. Marsh viewed dark skin color as one the "abnormalities" engineered in this way.[2]

In Fundamental Biology, Marsh coined the term baramin for the Genesis "kind".[3] In Evolution or Special Creation? (1947), Marsh argued for the scientific accuracy of the Bible and concluded: "surely the time is ripe for a return to the fundamentals of true science, the science of creationism". From the publication of this work onward, Marsh avoided mentioning Ellen G. White, co-founder of Seventh-day Adventism, as he believed such references would repel non-Adventist readers.[2]

Marsh concluded finally that "The Bible knows nothing about organic evolution. It regards the origin of man by special creation as a historical fact... In view of the subjectivity of the evidence upon which a decision on the matter of origins must be made, creationism and evolutionism should be respected as alternate viewpoints".[4]

His creationist views have been criticized by biologists for having no scientific basis.[5][6][7]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Lewis_Marsh

 

[Ouroboros]

Are you, Quoboros or anyone else a biologist or have background in biology?

Not in biology per se, but a minor science degree where I studied biology and anthropolgy as part of it.

Do you have a degree in biology?

 

[johnhanks]

Are you, Quoboros or anyone else a biologist or have background in biology?

For what it's worth, I have a biology degree and taught high school biology for some decades. And in post 1073 I put a highly salient biological point to you, to which you have not responded. So let's try again.

Evolutionary change consists of alterations in the ATCG base sequences of a population's gene pool over the generations. The only difference between the gene pool of (say) a cat population and a dog population lies in the sequence and arrangement of these bases, which we observe to change over time. If you wish to present speciation and larger-scale evolutionary change as impossible, you need to explain what limits the extent to which gene pools can be altered over many generations.

Over to you.

 

[Tiberius]

In my view, saying that the things I mentioned below, and millions of others, were not designed, is tantamount to saying a house found in the woods built itself. Such complexity and evident design proves a Creator to me. Science may describe the complexity but cannot explain satisfactorily how it happened apart from a Creator, despite decades of trying.

• Air conditioning in termite mounds
• The anchoring skill of the razor clam
• The navigation skill of the dung beetle
• The storage ability of DNA

So argument from incredulity.

 

[Tiberius]

Just read the prophesy at Daniel 9:24-26, and then google "destruction of Jerusalem." The fact of Jesus Christ coming as the Messiah ( mentioned in the prophecy) is documented history. Since portions of Daniel were found in the Dead Sea scrolls and dated to the first century B.C.E., it is obvious Daniel was not written after the events prophesied occurred. The writing of Daniel was completed around 536,B.C.E.

Sorry, but I'm not convinced.

"Scholars are largely agreed that Daniel’s “prophecies” are actually prophecies after the event." SOURCE

Also this. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_prophecies#Daniel.27s_Seventy_Weeks_Prophecy

 

[james bond]

For what it's worth, I have a biology degree and taught high school biology for some decades. And in post 1073 I put a highly salient biological point to you, to which you have not responded. So let's try again.

Evolutionary change consists of alterations in the ATCG base sequences of a population's gene pool over the generations. The only difference between the gene pool of (say) a cat population and a dog population lies in the sequence and arrangement of these bases, which we observe to change over time. If you wish to present speciation and larger-scale evolutionary change as impossible, you need to explain what limits the extent to which gene pools can be altered over many generations.

Over to you.

Awesome. I've been enjoying my weekend and tonight we're moving forward one-hour, so will have to be brief. I'll need time to look over your posts, but I never said speciation or change via natural selection was an issue. My background is computer science and what I know of biology is based on high school and college required courses. What I have pointed out is this creation vs science debate is based on what has been taught in public schools and what should be taught in public schools. My posts referring to the Theory of Evolution is based on that, or what the law ultimately decided was ToE from the trials. Thus, I get my evolution science from evolution.berkeley.edu website which appears to what evolutionists want to teach as Evolution 101.

 

[james bond]

Here's one complaint I have evo science. Let's look at how the dinosaurs became extinct in the K-Pg period. I've read several articles in Nature and Science over the years first on how the Deccan Traps volcanoes did them in. Then it was the Chicxulub asteroid. I think this was taught as fact to elementary school children. The working concept behind this is catastrophism usurped from creation science, so they added this happened 65 billions of years ago. Now, I think it a combination of the asteroid, volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis and climate change. It tooks thousands of years, but what's a thousand years compared to millions. The evo scientists had to get unifamilitarianism in there someway. They are going to drill the crater left by the asteroid to see if they can "build on what is already known: that this enormous deposit of sediment happened over a very short period of time, possibly only a matter of days. Again, this is catastrophism. The drilling will also help paint a picture of how life recovered by looking at the types of fossils that appear. Some scientists think that the asteroid impact would have lowered the pH of the oceans, so the fossilized remains of animals that can endure greater acidity would be of particular interest."

Here's a news article on it. Of course, they throw in a artist rendition of the impact to let people know these evo guys are right <eyeroll> .

Notice what's in all of these types of news articles:
- The artist rendition
- The 65 millions of years (This one is 66 millions years ago because the extinction took time after the asteroid)
- Iridium (to show it came from space and distinguish it from a sinkhole)
- Words like "global catastrophe"
- May have been a billion times more powerful that the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima
- Effects probably included widespread forest fires, global cooling from debris in the atmosphere, and then a period of high temperatures caused by an increase in atmospheric CO2

The above is mostly BS. Where is the evidence? Iridium?

Dinosaur Killer Chicxulub Crater To Be Drilled For First Time
http://www.universetoday.com/127778/dinosaur-killer-chicxulub-crater-to-be-drilled-for-first-time/

In contrast, this is the type of scientific report we get from an actual catastrophic event, but not enough to cause any extinction.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2000/fs036-00/

The difference between a typical news article like I posted above and what actually happens is night and day. Many people just accept that 65 millions years ago, dinosaurs became extinct. This is based on a way of evolutionary thinking called unifamilitarianism. Creation scientists think more along the lines of catastrophism as what shaped our Earth. In the K-Pg Extinction, now they started using catastrophism and unifamilitarianism to explain what happened.

Let's look at our own catastrophe to see what actually happens. It doesn't happen the evo geologists way. Catastrophes change our Earth in dramatic fashion and in a relatively short period of time. Changes should be noted within a year. With Mt. St. Helens, we noticed devastation, but bits of life started to return in short time. It does not take a hundred nor a thousand years for a worldwide extinction. For a species to become extinct, it happens rapidly. Look at the creatures that went extinct in our lifetime.

Here's a layman's video showing the before and after what has happened.

 

[Shad]

Different scope of catastrophes. One was a global event, one was not.

 

[Ouroboros]

@james bond ,

May I ask, so I get a little better understanding of where you're coming from, are you a young earth creationist (since you're bringing up baramins) or are you more of the old earth creationist, intelligent design, and/or theistic evolutionist?

 

[Ouroboros]

Here's one complaint I have evo science. Let's look at how the dinosaurs became extinct in the K-Pg period. I've read several articles in Nature and Science over the years first on how the Deccan Traps volcanoes did them in. Then it was the Chicxulub asteroid. I think this was taught as fact to elementary school children. The working concept behind this is catastrophism usurped from creation science, so they added this happened 65 billions of years ago. Now, I think it a combination of the asteroid, volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis and climate change. It tooks thousands of years, but what's a thousand years compared to millions. The evo scientists had to get unifamilitarianism in there someway. They are going to drill the crater left by the asteroid to see if they can "build on what is already known: that this enormous deposit of sediment happened over a very short period of time, possibly only a matter of days. Again, this is catastrophism. The drilling will also help paint a picture of how life recovered by looking at the types of fossils that appear. Some scientists think that the asteroid impact would have lowered the pH of the oceans, so the fossilized remains of animals that can endure greater acidity would be of particular interest."

Here's a news article on it. Of course, they throw in a artist rendition of the impact to let people know these evo guys are right <eyeroll> .

Notice what's in all of these types of news articles:
- The artist rendition
- The 65 millions of years (This one is 66 millions years ago because the extinction took time after the asteroid)
- Iridium (to show it came from space and distinguish it from a sinkhole)
- Words like "global catastrophe"
- May have been a billion times more powerful that the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima
- Effects probably included widespread forest fires, global cooling from debris in the atmosphere, and then a period of high temperatures caused by an increase in atmospheric CO2

The above is mostly BS. Where is the evidence? Iridium?

Dinosaur Killer Chicxulub Crater To Be Drilled For First Time
http://www.universetoday.com/127778/dinosaur-killer-chicxulub-crater-to-be-drilled-for-first-time/

In contrast, this is the type of scientific report we get from an actual catastrophic event, but not enough to cause any extinction.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2000/fs036-00/

From what I've read, it's not clear and there's no consensus to what did the dinosaurs in. It was more likely a chain of unlucky events that all together brought them to their knees. After all, they were all doing great for 150 million years before things went south, and then it took quite a while before they were gone. But, also, they're not completely gone, they're still around today (or a subspecies of them at least). The climate changed. The oxygen levels dropped. And so on, so probably the real answer is that several things did it, not just a single event or a single volcano eruption or so on. It was just a "perfect storm" essentially to take them out. There's a lot of speculation, but as you know, a scientific mind can speculate but in the end you have to keep a skeptical mind.

Here's another article from another gov site: https://www.lanl.gov/quarterly/q_spring03/asteroid_text.shtml

Interesting that 10 km asteroid at the speed of 15-20 km/s would equal 300 million nuclear weapons. That's a big difference to Mt Helen. Just so you start thinking about the difference in size and impact and many degrees of magnitude.

 

[leibowde84]

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.

Using the lack of current scientific understanding in any way to evidence God's existence is logically fallacious, and completely invalid. And, it applies to much more than merely the Big Bang.

God of the gaps (or a divine fallacy) is logical fallacy that occurs when Goddidit (or a variant) is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument). "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting "we don't know yet" as an alternative that works better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]

The god of the gaps is a didit fallacy and an ad hoc fallacy, as well as an argument from incredulity or an argument from ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy.

 

[james bond]

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.

The cut and paste explains one of the points for creation science. It shows who made the testimony and that was Dr. Duane Gish (deceased). Quroboros discredits the work of Gish when he is one of the main people who has formulated CS. See my post #1080.

Furthermore, I don't think he's going to go into details of how far genomes can change at a trial. Suffice it to say once he elaborated enough to for his point to stand muster, then it is sufficient. If it was necessary, then it probably would have been brought up.

You bring up some points I'll have to read up on. I'm familiar with ATCG base pairs and of common descent (which I think isn't relevant for most part to CS). I'll see if there's something more to discuss with whales, too.

 

[johnhanks]

Furthermore, I don't think he's going to go into details of how far genomes can change at a trial. Suffice it to say once he elaborated enough to for his point to stand muster, then it is sufficient. If it was necessary, then it probably would have been brought up.

It has been brought up here, now. We are not asking the late Duane Gish anything: we are asking you.

In post 1057 Ouroboros asked you how the "fixed limits" referred to in the link you posted would work. Instead of answering, you cut-and-pasted (post 1066) a long screed about whale fossils (which ingeniously avoided mentioning the most significant of them), and asked us to "disregard" the previous link. Does this mean you no longer believe these fixed limits apply? If you believe they do, please proceed to explain how they work.

 

[leibowde84]

It has been brought up here, now. We are not asking the late Duane Gish anything: we are asking you.

In post 1057 Ouroboros asked you how the "fixed limits" referred to in the creation science definition given in the link you posted would work. Instead of answering, you cut-and-pasted (post 1066) a long screed about whale fossils (which ingeniously avoided mentioning the most significant of them), and asked us to "disregard" the previous link. Does this mean you no longer believe these fixed limits apply? If you believe they do, please proceed to explain how they work.

Well put, my friend. Well-put.

 

[Thief]

limitations?...of course there are....

set chemistry into motion and turn it loose....
it will abide by the limits of it's form.

as time goes by the environment will shift....the earth continues to churn
the chemistry must change to continue

limits of change?.....no....of course not.
limits to how much change can happen right now?....of course there is.

unless you are willing to accept alteration by intelligent intent
See Chapter Two of Genesis

 

[leibowde84]

limitations?...of course there are....

set chemistry into motion and turn it loose....
it will abide by the limits of it's form.

as time goes by the environment will shift....the earth continues to churn
the chemistry must change to continue

limits of change?.....no....of course not.
limits to how much change can happen right now?....of course there is.

unless you are willing to accept alteration by intelligent intent
See Chapter Two of Genesis

But, evolution is dependent on an extremely long timescale. So, what's your point?