Where is the evidence for non- creationism?

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

If you determine that the Rosetta stone required intelligent design, is that a supernatural explanation?

If the Rosetta stone was filled with errors, just how intelligent would the designers be?

it is not restricted to 'natural' being the only possible explanation

But humans writing something is down is both designed and natural, as we aren't supernatural agents, or at least the method of writing it down wasn't. If you had evidence the Rosetta stone was carved via ESP, then you'd have something interesting to talk about.

I don't understand creationism and its insistence that things can't be natural in terms of creation. God is often characterized in the bible as some sort of craftsman, like a potter. Potters only play with the mud, they don't make it. Ok, technically I guess you could say they took dirt and water and made mud, but that's still not creating, just crafting.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

If the Rosetta stone was filled with errors, just how intelligent would the designers be?

A caveman might look at a smart phone, and think, I could design a way better arrow head than that! Volcanoes, meteors, earthquakes used to be considered 'bad design' before we understood their crucial roles in supporting life on Earth.

There will always be shadows the light of science has not illuminated, where we can point to something we don't understand as 'bad design'

atheism of the gaps?

But humans writing something is down is both designed and natural, as we aren't supernatural agents, or at least the method of writing it down wasn't. If you had evidence the Rosetta stone was carved via ESP, then you'd have something interesting to talk about.

Or if you had evidence the Rosetta stone was carved by an invisible unintelligent force- is that more or less supernatural?

When a rabbit appears out of a hat, which is the more 'supernatural' explanation- that it really spontaneously materialized for no particular reason? Or that it was simply put there on purpose?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Your point about rate of fossil preservation and discovery raises an interesting question about evolution. What The Hon. Galahad* and we are really debating concerns the rate at which evolutionary processes occur, something that we only discern imperfectly from the fossil record.

I suppose the punctuated equilibrium idea is a recognition that evolution can proceed quite fast when conditions drive it hard enough - a lot faster than the smoothed out average rate one sees for a typical family of species over very long periods of geological time.

It looks as if the IDers are trying to latch onto the long period average rate of change in order to claim that anything faster must be a Goddidit.

*Hon. Galahad Threepwood, a P G Wodehouse character.

species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin.

 

[Subduction Zone]

species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin.

Of course they do. Well, there us a touch of punctuated equilibria, but that was something that even he predicted.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A caveman might look at a smart phone, and think, I could design a way better arrow head than that! Volcanoes, meteors, earthquakes used to be considered 'bad design' before we understood their crucial roles in supporting life on Earth.

There will always be shadows the light of science has not illuminated, where we can point to something we don't understand as 'bad design'

atheism of the gaps?

You have that backwards as usual. The "God of the Gaps" keeps getting smaller and weaker where in your version the atheism of the gaps would keep getting larger and stronger.

Or if you had evidence the Rosetta stone was carved by an invisible unintelligent force- is that more or less supernatural?

That would be evidence for a god. Why do you ask? There could be almost endless evidence for a god and yet we don't see any. Are you arguing our points for us?

When a rabbit appears out of a hat, which is the more 'supernatural' explanation- that it really spontaneously materialized for no particular reason? Or that it was simply put there on purpose?

You are conflating stage magic, an attempt to deceive, with your God. You must be an atheist.

 

[ChristineM]

There was a time, before science discovered more about our solar system, when non creationists, basically were sure, that the close universe would be teeming with life.

What they found, were a bunch of inhospitable planets.

Life from elsewhere, theory, the best at the time, took a big hit.

The further away the proposed, "source", for the plants etc, on earth, the more unlikely

The proposed earth timeline, even taken to extremes, is problematic for the fabled "primordial swamp", and now the distance for interplanetary probability is surpassing sci-fi believability.



Where is the evidence for anything besides creationism?

Interestingly there is as much evidence for god (and consequently god magic) as there is for alien life.

But that may change in the near future as more and more planets suitable to sustain life (as we understand it) are discovered.

 

[exchemist]

species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin.

My point, in the post you are responding to, was that we are still learning more about the rate at which evolutionary processes occur.

The fact that there is modern evidence they can run on occasion faster than Darwin originally thought, back in 1865, just illustrates how science moves forward over time. You seem to be simply pointing out that theory of evolution has not been static since Darwin first put it forward. It would be pretty shocking if we had not learnt any more since then. (Even Behe and Snoke accidentally demonstrated how evolution can run faster than they thought, in the computer simulation they reported in 2004.)

By the way, how are you getting on with examples of those "many specific predictions" of ID that you claim to exist, as I requested in post 78? That was over a week ago now.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

My point, in the post you are responding to, was that we are still learning more about the rate at which evolutionary processes occur.

The fact that there is modern evidence they can run on occasion faster than Darwin originally thought, back in 1865, just illustrates how science moves forward over time. You seem to be simply pointing out that theory of evolution has not been static since Darwin first put it forward. It would be pretty shocking if we had not learnt any more since then. (Even Behe and Snoke accidentally demonstrated how evolution can run faster than they thought, in the computer simulation they reported in 2004.)

By the way, how are you getting on with examples of those "many specific predictions" of ID that you claim to exist, as I requested in post 78? That was over a week ago now.

Of course we have learned more, and validated predictions on one side at least

the Cambrian and other explosions of sophistication in life were real events, as skeptics predicted, not just artifacts of an incomplete record as Darwin predicted

The cell is not a simple blob of protoplasm that replicates by simple chemical processes, but by an uncannily computer like digital information system, which we only know one verifiable means of origin for.

Lab experiments nor even computer sims have been able to demonstrate marco evolution occurring even granted DNA. abiogenesis remains a mystery


Just a few to get you started!

any luck finding that short necked Giraffe ancestor yet? I've been waiting months for that one!

 

[exchemist]

Of course we have learned more, and validated predictions on one side at least

the Cambrian and other explosions of sophistication in life were real events, as skeptics predicted, not just artifacts of an incomplete record as Darwin predicted

The cell is not a simple blob of protoplasm that replicates by simple chemical processes, but by an uncannily computer like digital information system, which we only know one verifiable means of origin for.

Lab experiments nor even computer sims have been able to demonstrate marco evolution occurring even granted DNA. abiogenesis remains a mystery


Just a few to get you started!

any luck finding that short necked Giraffe ancestor yet? I've been waiting months for that one!

Here's your giraffe ancestor: Samotherium - Wikipedia.
And here is more on what happened in between Samotherium and modern giraffes:
Fossils Shed New Light on Evolution of Elongated Giraffe Neck | Paleontology | Sci-News.com.

It took 30 seconds to find on the internet.

And you have not offered any specific prediction of ID. All you have given is a bunch of unsupported assertions. A prediction is something like the evolutionary prediction that there should be fossils of creatures intermediate between terrestrial mammals and whales, if whales indeed evolved from them. A scientific theory predicts what observations should be found in nature.

P.S. Prof Higgs and his boson would be a classic.

 

[ChristineM]

atheism of the gaps?

Tell me here the gaps are in

disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Considering no evidence has ever been put forward to prove a god or gods i'd say its pretty gapless

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course we have learned more, and validated predictions on one side at least

the Cambrian and other explosions of sophistication in life were real events, as skeptics predicted, not just artifacts of an incomplete record as Darwin predicted

The cell is not a simple blob of protoplasm that replicates by simple chemical processes, but by an uncannily computer like digital information system, which we only know one verifiable means of origin for.

Lab experiments nor even computer sims have been able to demonstrate marco evolution occurring even granted DNA. abiogenesis remains a mystery


Just a few to get you started!

any luck finding that short necked Giraffe ancestor yet? I've been waiting months for that one!

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/category/bone/

Samotherium - Wikipedia

Like others that have refuted Guy one time to many, he is probably ignoring me. Typical creationist response. When shown to be wrong, put that person on ignore.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Tell me here the gaps are in

disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Considering no evidence has ever been put forward to prove a god or gods i'd say its pretty gapless

"God of the gaps" is the observation that saying "god did it" is an every shrinking category. Gods used to do everything. Not so much any longer. There is no need for a rain god, a lightning god, a sun god, etc.

Meanwhile what we know about the universe is every growing. Meaning that if anything the ability of atheists to explain things has grown.

 

[ChristineM]

"God of the gaps" is the observation that saying "god did it" is an every shrinking category. Gods used to do everything. Not so much any longer. There is no need for a rain god, a lightning god, a sun god, etc.

Meanwhile what we know about the universe is every growing. Meaning that if anything the ability of atheists to explain things has grown.

As knowledge increased the need for god magic reduces. However, my point was Guy's gap statement totally irrelevant to atheism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As knowledge increased the need for god magic reduces. However, my point was Guy's gap statement totally irrelevant to atheism.

I know, and I agree. He aimed at his feet and fired again. He picked an example where "god" is continually getting weaker and "atheism" is continually getting stronger.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Here's your giraffe ancestor: Samotherium - Wikipedia.
And here is more on what happened in between Samotherium and modern giraffes:
Fossils Shed New Light on Evolution of Elongated Giraffe Neck | Paleontology | Sci-News.com.

It took 30 seconds to find on the internet.

and if you spent another 30 secs, you might have found this

'Detailed anatomical analysis suggested that Samotherium is not an ancestor of the giraffes'
7-Million-Year-Old Fossils Show How the Giraffe Got Its Long Neck

And you have not offered any specific prediction of ID. All you have given is a bunch of unsupported assertions. A prediction is something like the evolutionary prediction that there should be fossils of creatures intermediate between terrestrial mammals and whales, if whales indeed evolved from them. A scientific theory predicts what observations should be found in nature.

P.S. Prof Higgs and his boson would be a classic.

ID predicts that life did not develop by slow gradual incremental changes as predicted by Darwin and expected by accumulation of random copying errors , but explosive appearances of new, significantly enhanced designs at just the right time and place- as expected from goal oriented design changes. The more we learn, the more evidence is pointing to the latter. To the point that even evolutionary biologists have splintered into 'punctuated equilibrium' which at least acknowledges the phenomena, if not offering an actual explanation for it. ID does.

It also predicts that DNA will display more known fingerprints specific to intelligently designed information systems rather than naturally occurring mechanisms, there are many, one example being the use of parity bit error checking.

 

[Subduction Zone]

and if you spent another 30 secs, you might have found this

'Detailed anatomical analysis suggested that Samotherium is not an ancestor of the giraffes'
7-Million-Year-Old Fossils Show How the Giraffe Got Its Long Neck



ID predicts that life did not develop by slow gradual incremental changes as predicted by Darwin and expected by accumulation of random copying errors , but explosive appearances of new, significantly enhanced designs at just the right time and place- as expected from goal oriented design changes. The more we learn, the more evidence is pointing to the latter. To the point that even evolutionary biologists have splintered into 'punctuated equilibrium' which at least acknowledges the phenomena, if not offering an actual explanation for it. ID does.

It also predicts that DNA will display more known fingerprints specific to intelligently designed information systems rather than naturally occurring mechanisms, there are many, one example being the use of parity bit error checking.

It is good enough. It is a transitional fossil and much more evidence for evolution than has ever been given for creationism, and this is just one tine piece of evidence. An honest person, while saying that it was not a direct ancestor would have also have quoted this:

' "It's near the direct ancestor," Solounias said. "But the direct ancestor has not been found yet." '

And where does ID make any predictions? Please link the appropriate peer reviewed journal article where they did so.

 

[exchemist]

and if you spent another 30 secs, you might have found this

'Detailed anatomical analysis suggested that Samotherium is not an ancestor of the giraffes'
7-Million-Year-Old Fossils Show How the Giraffe Got Its Long Neck



ID predicts that life did not develop by slow gradual incremental changes as predicted by Darwin and expected by accumulation of random copying errors , but explosive appearances of new, significantly enhanced designs at just the right time and place- as expected from goal oriented design changes. The more we learn, the more evidence is pointing to the latter. To the point that even evolutionary biologists have splintered into 'punctuated equilibrium' which at least acknowledges the phenomena, if not offering an actual explanation for it. ID does.

It also predicts that DNA will display more known fingerprints specific to intelligently designed information systems rather than naturally occurring mechanisms, there are many, one example being the use of parity bit error checking.

Nice piece of quote-mining, but let's have the whole section, shall we?

"The researchers also noted that S. major is not a direct ancestor of the giraffe. "It's near the direct ancestor," Solounias said. "But the direct ancestor has not been found yet."

The finding is "very important," said Donald Prothero, a research associate in vertebrate paleontology at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, who was not involved with the new study."

"Contrary to what some creationists say, we do have transitional fossils that show how one kind of animal evolved from another," Prothero told Live Science. "We finally have fossils that show how giraffes got their long neck from short-necked ancestors, which most fossil giraffids were."

So there we are: a close relative in the same family with an intermediate length neck, as evolution predicts should have existed. It is not, apparently, the direct ancestor, but that is not surprising, in view of the rarity with which fossilisation of animals occurs and the rarity with which these rare fossils are subsequently discovered, but it is so close as to leave little doubt as to the process.

Again you are showing you do not understand what a prediction is. ID's "prediction" that life developed by "explosive appearances of new, significantly enhanced designs at just the right time and place- as expected from goal oriented design changes" is not a prediction at all. That is a hypothesis. A prediction needs to be an observation in nature that the hypothesis says should be be possible to make, as a test of the hypothesis. As Prof. Higgs predicted his boson should be possible to find.

The past existence of fossils like Samotherium is what evolution predicts should be out there somewhere, if only we can find one. And we have. That is a specific prediction, of an observation in nature, that we should be able to make if evolution is right. You have given nothing like that on the part of ID.

 

[Milton Platt]

There was a time, before science discovered more about our solar system, when non creationists, basically were sure, that the close universe would be teeming with life.

What they found, were a bunch of inhospitable planets.

Life from elsewhere, theory, the best at the time, took a big hit.

The further away the proposed, "source", for the plants etc, on earth, the more unlikely

The proposed earth timeline, even taken to extremes, is problematic for the fabled "primordial swamp", and now the distance for interplanetary probability is surpassing sci-fi believability.



Where is the evidence for anything besides creationism?

Your post is hard to understand.
But to make a few comments.....We don't know how exactly how many hospitable and/or inhospitable planets there are in the universe, but there are hundreds of billions..
The source for the amino acids,etc. can come from meteors and comets, which are abundant in our local galaxy.
I have never seen a research paper that referenced a "primordial swamp".
Provide evidence that the currently accepted age of the earth provides insufficient time for life to develop. Go ahead....that's Nobel Prize stuff.

 

[exchemist]

That's the premise. In absence of evidence for something else, you choose the most likely option, no matter how speculative it might be.

Or, you can choose unknown.
I don't have a problem with speculation, even absent of any other evidence.

I will say that the premise may or may not include evidence for creationism, from a persons standpoint

You most certainly do NOT do this, if you approach the subject from a science point of view.

In science we are happy to have loose ends and say "we don't know", until such time as we can come up with a scientific hypothesis. There is no pressure at all to invent a half-baked answer before we have enough evidence to put a proper hypothesis together.

I agree speculations are fine, as part of the creative process that can lead to testable hypotheses.

In the case of abiogenesis we don't have nearly enough observations yet to put forward a complete hypothesis for the origin of life. We have a growing number of clues, however, which is encouraging. What we most definitely do not have is observational evidence of creationism. The argument for creationism continues to be simply the "God of the Gaps", as it always has been in the past: we don't understand something, ergo Goddidit. The old mediaeval "act of God", used as an attribution of last resort.

The "God of the Gaps" has historically been applied by creationists to explain many things for which we now have scientific explanations. So we have strong evidence that the argument is a lousy one. Apart from that, it is a science stopper. So no inquisitive scientist is going to entertain it for a moment.

 

[Desert Snake]

You most certainly do NOT do this, if you approach the subject from a science point of view.

In science we are happy to have loose ends and say "we don't know", until such time as we can come up with a scientific hypothesis. There is no pressure at all to invent a half-baked answer before we have enough evidence to put a proper hypothesis together.

I agree speculations are fine, as part of the creative process that can lead to testable hypotheses.

In the case of abiogenesis we don't have nearly enough observations yet to put forward a complete hypothesis for the origin of life. We have a growing number of clues, however, which is encouraging. What we most definitely do not have is observational evidence of creationism. The argument for creationism continues to be simply the "God of the Gaps", as it always has been in the past: we don't understand something, ergo Goddidit. The old mediaeval "act of God", used as an attribution of last resort.

The "God of the Gaps" has historically been applied by creationists to explain many things for which we now have scientific explanations. So we have strong evidence that the argument is a lousy one. Apart from that, it is a science stopper. So no inquisitive scientist is going to entertain it for a moment.

Speak for yourself. You are saying that you don't know, and that's all you need to say.