Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[Dante Writer]

I've already explained plenty in my own words. You just brush it off and continue to say "impossible!"
There are a lot of problems with the math you are attempting to submit (but refuse to calculate) so I refer you to scientists who know what they're talking about. (Like I said, this is a very old conversation around here.)

I said improbable not impossible- learn the difference and do not put quotes on words I did not use.

I did not submit any math. I showed you why math was not necessary to answer the question.

You posted links to avoid debating with your own words.

You may have been successful trolling and driving off people in the past but as you can see that does not work with me.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I said improbable not impossible- learn the difference and do not put quotes on words I did not use.


I did not submit any math. I showed you why math was not necessary to answer the question.


You posted links to avoid debating with your own words.


You may have been successful trolling and driving off people in the past but as you can see that does not work with me.

You're painting it as impossible. Gimme a break. And in the face of evidence to the contrary, no less.

As you said yourself, "Now you do the math and tell us what the odds are of a bunch of watch parts in a box forming a functioning watch with no intervention.” You haven’t demonstrated that the math is not necessary. All you’ve demonstrated is that you can make claims without backing them up. I posted those links to demonstrate to you why your math, that you won’t calculate, is not accurate in the first place. The second one had a very thorough explanation that didn’t need to be restated.


I’ve been posting in this thread long before you showed up.

I’m not sure you actually know what a troll is.

 

[Dante Writer]

You're painting it as impossible. Gimme a break. And in the face of evidence to the contrary, no less.

As you said yourself, "Now you do the math and tell us what the odds are of a bunch of watch parts in a box forming a functioning watch with no intervention.” You haven’t demonstrated that the math is not necessary. All you’ve demonstrated is that you can make claims without backing them up. I posted those links to demonstrate to you why your math, that you won’t calculate, is not accurate in the first place. The second one had a very thorough explanation that didn’t need to be restated.


I’ve been posting in this thread long before you showed up.

I’m not sure you actually know what a troll is.

No- you are painting it as impossible for your own agenda.

Nothing I said required math to deduce as it should be obvious through your natural intellect that a box of watch parts forming a functioning watch is as improbable as you surviving a jump off the empire state building.

Some things just do not require math to answer but you persisted because that is how you can avoid addressing the reality of what was proposed because it goes against your own theories and you wanted to look smart.

Being here longer or being a paying member means nothing to me. You are not special and the term for a organism that just stays and does not evolve is called a stabilmorph.

If you did not like my posts you are welcome to ignore my posts in the future.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No- you are painting it as impossible for your own agenda.

I think you're in need of a mirror.

Nothing I said required math to deduce as it should be obvious through your natural intellect that a box of watch parts forming a functioning watch is as improbable as you surviving a jump off the empire state building.

I explained what's wrong with the watch parts analogy. Others on the thread have as well.

Some things just do not require math to answer but you persisted because that is how you can avoid addressing the reality of what was proposed because it goes against your own theories and you wanted to look smart.

They do if you're going to use them to make assertions, especially when the math is incorrect.

Being here longer or being a paying member means nothing to me. You are not special and the term for a organism that just stays and does not evolve is called a stabilmorph.

It does when you accuse me of trolling a thread I've made multiple posts in, long before you got here.

I didn't say I was special because I've been on the board longer. Don't bother trying to twist my words.

If you did not like my posts you are welcome to ignore my posts in the future.

Thank you for explaining to me how forums work. I was lost without you.

 

[Dante Writer]

I think you're in need of a mirror.


I explained what's wrong with the watch parts analogy. Others on the thread have as well.


They do if you're going to use them to make assertions, especially when the math is incorrect.
It does when you accuse me of trolling a thread I've made multiple posts in, long before you got here.

I didn't say I was special because I've been on the board longer. Don't bother trying to twist my words.

Thank you for explaining to me how forums work. I was lost without you.

You explained nothing and tried a cheap tactic to divert to math because you could not make any logical argument and still can't.

How can the math be incorrect when no math was used?

I deal with anyone that wants to debate me so don't point at other trolls as your justification for trolling.

You twisted probable into impossible and now you don't want your words twisted lol!

Look kid- I know you thought you would score some cheap points from your buddies but I am not someone you want to try that with because as you can see you are way outmatched.

So you can either ignore my posts or next time come with some substance and debate me like a man because this chickensquat stuff is just juvenile and not worth my time.

 

[SkepticThinker]

LOL What a joke.

Internet bullies are hilariously lame.

 

[Dante Writer]

LOL What a joke.

Internet bullies are hilariously lame.

Come on back when you can debate like an adult!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Nothing I said required math to deduce as it should be obvious through your natural intellect that a box of watch parts forming a functioning watch is as improbable as you surviving a jump off the empire state building.

What does that have to do with anything? Are you aware of why this analogy doesn't work?

Some things just do not require math to answer

They do if they are assertions of probability. Probability is a mathematical expression of likelihood, so to assert "x is more probable than y" does require a mathematical explanation.

but you persisted because that is how you can avoid addressing the reality of what was proposed because it goes against your own theories and you wanted to look smart.

Word of advice: accusing others of trying to look smart when the best argument you can offer is the watch in a box analogy doesn't reflect well on you. I suggest you look into statistical mechanics to understand exactly how and why any supposed "probability calculation" for the formation of life or evolution is essentially bogus. You can calculate anything to be unimaginably improbable if the only factor your calculation takes account of is "random chance" without any other potential variables that can (and do) influence the occurrence of such events. It's like calculating the probability of a rubber ball bouncing on the surface of the earth without factoring in the force of gravity - it's meaningless.

 

[Dante Writer]

What does that have to do with anything? Are you aware of why this analogy doesn't work?


They do if they are assertions of probability. Probability is a mathematical expression of likelihood, so to assert "x is more probable than y" does require a mathematical explanation.


Word of advice: accusing others of trying to look smart when the best argument you can offer is the watch in a box analogy doesn't reflect well on you. I suggest you look into statistical mechanics to understand exactly how and why any supposed "probability calculation" for the formation of life or evolution is essentially bogus. You can calculate anything to be unimaginably improbable if the only factor your calculation takes account of is "random chance" without any other potential variables that can (and do) influence the occurrence of such events. It's like calculating the probability of a rubber ball bouncing on the surface of the earth without factoring in the force of gravity - it's meaningless.

Word of advice: stop trolling and badgering people when you can not respond to the post because it deflates your own theory. If you want to prove anything I said is wrong mathematically then I gave you the process for determining odds and you are welcome to do that.

Until then all you are doing is blathering!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Word of advice: stop trolling and badgering people when you can not respond to the post because it deflates your own theory. If you want to prove anything I said is wrong mathematically then I gave you the process for determining odds and you are welcome to do that.

Until then all you are doing is blathering!

Ad hominems do not help your case. If you can't debate like an adult and support your claims when you make them, then don't enter these debate forums.

 

[Dante Writer]

Ad hominems do not help your case. If you can't debate like an adult and support your claims when you make them, then don't enter these debate forums.

"Ad hominems do not help your case. If you can't debate like an adult and support your claims when you make them, then don't enter these debate forums."

Then why do you use them in every single one of your posts?

"If you can't debate like an adult"

That is an ad hominem attack.

"then don't enter these debate forums"

Are you now master of this forum and making the rules as to who can join and participate?

It is pretty clear to me that you don't want anyone new challenging your opinions and agenda s you try to run them off.

 

[james bond]

JB, you are clearly cherry-picking and quote mining Popper when viewed from the perspective of his life's work (this is cribbed from: "Index to Creationist Claims"edited by Mark Isaak):

1. Popper's statement of nonfalsifiability was pretty mild, not as extensive as it is often taken. He applied it only to natural selection, not evolution as a whole, and he allowed that some testing of natural selection was possible, just not a significant amount.
   
   Moreover, he said that natural selection is a useful theory. A "metaphysical research programme" was to him not a bad thing; it is an essential part of science, as it guides productive research by suggesting predictions. He said of Darwinism,And yet, the theory is invaluable. I do not see how, without it, our knowledge could have grown as it has done since Darwin. In trying to explain experiments with bacteria which become adapted to, say, penicillin, it is quite clear that we are greatly helped by the theory of natural selection. Although it is metaphysical, it sheds much light upon very concrete and very practical researches. It allows us to study adaptation to a new environment (such as a penicillin-infested environment) in a rational way: it suggests the existence of a mechanism of adaptation, and it allows us even to study in detail the mechanism at work. And it is the only theory so far which does all that. (Popper 1976, 171-172)Finally, Popper notes that theism as an explanation of adaptation "was worse than an open admission of failure, for it created the impression that an ultimate explanation had been reached" (Popper 1976, 172).
2. Popper later changed his mind and recognized that natural selection is testable. Here is an excerpt from a later writing on "Natural Selection and Its Scientific Status" (Miller 1985, 241-243; see also Popper 1978):When speaking here of Darwinism, I shall speak always of today's theory - that is Darwin's own theory of natural selection supported by the Mendelian theory of heredity, by the theory of the mutation and recombination of genes in a gene pool, and by the decoded genetic code. This is an immensely impressive and powerful theory. The claim that it completely explains evolution is of course a bold claim, and very far from being established. All scientific theories are conjectures, even those that have successfully passed many severe and varied tests. The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested, and so has the theory of evolution which says that all terrestrial life has evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single organism.
   
   However, Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test. There are some tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous phenomenon known as 'industrial melanism', we can observe natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were. Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry.
   
   The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology. A tautology like 'All tables are tables' is not, of course, testable; nor has it any explanatory power. It is therefore most surprising to hear that some of the greatest contemporary Darwinists themselves formulate the theory in such a way that it amounts to the tautology that those organisms that leave most offspring leave most offspring. C. H. Waddington says somewhere (and he defends this view in other places) that 'Natural selection . . . turns out ... to be a tautology' ..4 However, he attributes at the same place to the theory an 'enormous power. ... of explanation'. Since the explanatory power of a tautology is obviously zero, something must be wrong here.
   
   Yet similar passages can be found in the works of such great Darwinists as Ronald Fisher, J. B. S. Haldane, and George Gaylord Simpson; and others.
   
   I mention this problem because I too belong among the culprits. Influenced by what these authorities say, I have in the past described the theory as 'almost tautological', and I have tried to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme. It raises detailed problems in many fields, and it tells us what we would expect of an acceptable solution of these problems.
   
   I still believe that natural selection works in this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and the logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little to the understanding of the status of natural selection.

Personally I find Popper to be selective in his knowledge and surprisingly unfamiliar with some critical work on evolution that provides clear and observable proof of natural selection that passes the test of falsification (e.g., Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution. 46:1214-1220). We should, however, forgive Popper for living long (he died at 92, two years after Weinberg's paper), but not long enough, to have witnessed the major changes in biological sciences that would have amplified Popper's late-in-life view that: "I have in the past described the theory as 'almost tautological', and I have tried to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme. It raises detailed problems in many fields, and it tells us what we would expect of an acceptable solution of these problems." It does Popper's memory a disservice to remember him for that which can be, retrospectively, seen as erroneous views that he was on the path to correcting in an almost prescient fashion at his death. Rather let us remember him for the valuable contributions that he did make, those that have stood the test of time.


Lamarck had the right idea, but the wrong mechanism. A simplification: the long necks of giraffes evolved as giraffes with longer necks were favored reproductively over those who could not reach higher leaves.

But you are begging the question. He OP asked, "Is there any verifiable evidence for creationism." It would appear that the answer is a firm and resounding "no!" All that you seem to be able to do is pick at evolution and fail to falsify it, so you fall back on old and discredited statements.

Interesting about Popper and Lamarck. Will have to read both again when I have more time. What it does show is that science is usually wrong, in the sense that it does not get it right in the first try.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That is an ad hominem attack.

No it isn't, it's a statement of fact. If you can't debate like an adult, don't debate.

Are you now master of this forum and making the rules as to who can join and participate?

Nope, it's a suggestion. If you can't debate maturely, don't debate.

It is pretty clear to me that you don't want anyone new challenging your opinions and agenda s you try to run them off.

And it's pretty clear to me that you aren't interested in any kind of actual reasonable debate or engaging with any other opinion, hence why you reduce the debate to personal attacks and statements like the above rather than actually addressing the arguments with regards to evolution vs. creationism, because you know you can't win.

 

[Dante Writer]

No it isn't, it's a statement of fact. If you can't debate like an adult, don't debate.


Nope, it's a suggestion. If you can't debate maturely, don't debate.


And it's pretty clear to me that you aren't interested in any kind of actual reasonable debate or engaging with any other opinion, hence why you reduce the debate to personal attacks and statements like the above rather than actually addressing the arguments with regards to evolution vs. creationism, because you know you can't win.

The immature person in this debate is you. You did not address my posts with any substance and just ad hominem attacks and now telling me to leave because you don't like you opinions challenged.

You may notice I have posted 3 new discussions and have had many long discussion threads with other members and lots of likes on my posts.

There is no winning and losing in a discussion and if that is your goal it is immature and this is a forum for discussion not a game where you win.

You are welcome to ignore my posts!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The immature person in this debate is you. You did not address my posts with any substance and just ad hominem attacks and now telling me to leave because you don't like you opinions challenged.

Here is my first post in this thread, with the "substance" highlighted in red:

What does that have to do with anything? Are you aware of why this analogy doesn't work?

They do if they are assertions of probability. Probability is a mathematical expression of likelihood, so to assert "x is more probable than y" does require a mathematical explanation.

Word of advice: accusing others of trying to look smart when the best argument you can offer is the watch in a box analogy doesn't reflect well on you. I suggest you look into statistical mechanics to understand exactly how and why any supposed "probability calculation" for the formation of life or evolution is essentially bogus. You can calculate anything to be unimaginably improbable if the only factor your calculation takes account of is "random chance" without any other potential variables that can (and do) influence the occurrence of such events. It's like calculating the probability of a rubber ball bouncing on the surface of the earth without factoring in the force of gravity - it's meaningless.

You have yet to respond to a single point I raised in this post. Instead, you simply accused me of "badgering" and "blathering". Real mature.

You may notice I have posted 3 new discussions and have had many long discussion threads with other members and lots of likes on my posts.

You must be very proud.

There is no winning and losing in a discussion and if that is your goal it is immature and this is a forum for discussion not a game where you win.

This isn't a discussion, it's a debate. You are making incorrect statements, and I am correcting them. You are wrong, I am right. You are losing this debate.

You are welcome to ignore my posts!

Now you are trying to protect your opinions from me. Why can't you take anyone challenging your opinion?

 

[james bond]

BTW I've been gone for about a week due to my browser being hijacked to aspie's.

 

[Shad]

BTW I've been gone for about a week due to my browser being hijacked to aspie's.

An Aspie forum? If so I had that as well. It was a cookie issue that seems to be resolved.

 

[Dante Writer]

Here is my first post in this thread, with the "substance" highlighted in red:

What does that have to do with anything? Are you aware of why this analogy doesn't work?

They do if they are assertions of probability. Probability is a mathematical expression of likelihood, so to assert "x is more probable than y" does require a mathematical explanation.

Word of advice: accusing others of trying to look smart when the best argument you can offer is the watch in a box analogy doesn't reflect well on you. I suggest you look into statistical mechanics to understand exactly how and why any supposed "probability calculation" for the formation of life or evolution is essentially bogus. You can calculate anything to be unimaginably improbable if the only factor your calculation takes account of is "random chance" without any other potential variables that can (and do) influence the occurrence of such events. It's like calculating the probability of a rubber ball bouncing on the surface of the earth without factoring in the force of gravity - it's meaningless.

You have yet to respond to a single point I raised in this post. Instead, you simply accused me of "badgering" and "blathering". Real mature.


You must be very proud.


This isn't a discussion, it's a debate. You are making incorrect statements, and I am correcting them. You are wrong, I am right. You are losing this debate.


Now you are trying to protect your opinions from me. Why can't you take anyone challenging your opinion?

This line of debate is now finished- go start your own discussion instead of trolling my posts.

 

[Sapiens]

Interesting about Popper and Lamarck. Will have to read both again when I have more time. What it does show is that science is usually wrong, in the sense that it does not get it right in the first try.

That is how science is supposed to work, be self correcting as the knowledge base increases. It is interesting to note, for example, that Darwin has had remarkable staying power and has required very little correction over the last 150 years.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Come on back when you can debate like an adult!

You're on a debate forum. Learn what that means.