Verifiable evidence for creationism?

james bond said:

Furthermore, it does explain why there are apes still around. How do the apes-to-humans people explain that?

Click to expand...

In the same way Prof. Lovejoy explains why there are still humans around, I guess.

Ciao

- viole

Parsimony said:

He said "human-like", not "human"

Because it looks nothing like a chimpanzee pelvis. STS-14 is wider than it is tall (it's height is about 70% of its width), whereas a chimp's pelvis is taller than it is wide (it's height is about 117% of its width). How do you justify classifying STS-14 among the chimpanzees despite this great inconsistency?

It's certainly not the same as a chimp, not with the inconsistencies in pelvis shape, canine teeth, toes, etc.

What more do you want to know?

How so?

The same thing happens with your comments too.

Which ones did I ignore?

Explain.

Mutations exist which increase complexity (the aerobic citrate mutation in E.coli being one). Many small complexity-increasing mutations over time lead to large increases in complexity. Even if we didn't know about genetics or mutations, the fossil record still shows things becoming increasingly complex over the first couple billion years, so we know that it did indeed happen.

How can I even know what you are talking about when you won't even tell me what NEJOM stands for? How can I even know what part of the debate you are making reference to if you won't explain the acronym? What post number is it in?

You most certainly did say a lot of things about that but they all rested on fallacies (equivocation being a big one: something being chimp-like doesn't make it a chimp). Even that creation wiki you linked to classified Australopithecus among the Homini instead of among Panini with the chimpanzees.

How so?

That's how evolution works, you know?

Radiometric dating of fossils, stratigraphy, genetic studies, biogeography...

The only experiment you need is to go look at the tested ages of the fossils, as well as genetic tests of living species.

I don't think there was a literal six days of creation, no. If Noah's Flood happened, then I think that it must have been a local one.

Click to expand...

I neglected to cover a couple of your points as I didn't have time or it needed research.

>>I don't think there was a literal six days of creation, no. If Noah's Flood happened, then I think that it must have been a local one.<<

What did you think when you first read about the six days of creation and Noah's Flood? Did you think what you just stated? I thought Noah's Flood was a myth and then a local one (from Robert Ballard -- http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/ev...t-flood-noahs-time-happened/story?id=17884533) to a global flood.

I couldn't find the post for the NEJM link, but I think it started from your Yale Univ. link about LRP5 mutation. I responded, "These people have a genetic disease that causes deformities in the mouth, which probably make eating difficult. While one effect is increased bone density, the fact that the mutation also causes deformities in the mandible (lower jaw) makes it likely that the higher bone density is at least partly responsible for the deformities. To call this a beneficial mutation, without saying anything about the deformities, is at best poor scholarship and at worst deliberate fraud." You wanted to have the evidence which is found in the NEJM link had you read the entire article. Care to read the entire article now -- http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa013444 ?

viole said:

In the same way Prof. Lovejoy explains why there are still humans around, I guess.

Ciao

- viole

Click to expand...

Ha ha.

There was some discussion about complexity and here is some more evidence for creationism.

james bond said:

There was some discussion about complexity and here is some more evidence for creationism.

Click to expand...

May I ask why you did not use an example of irreducible complexity which is applicable to humans?

Ciao

- viole

james bond said:

The purpose of creationism is to explain the diversity of life on earth, in light of the mountains of available evidence supporting it.

Click to expand...

What evidence?

The purpose of creationism is to try to back up and support the stories found in ancient holy books. It fails miserably.

james bond said:

Why do the evolutionists not allow a forum for the creation scientists and their theories such as intelligent design or creation? Why can they lose their jobs or funding if they disagree with evolution? Why can't they teach creation science in public schools? The creationists are not the ones who are paranoid, but evolutionists.

Click to expand...

This thread is called "verifiable evidence for creationism." And yet it appears we're still waiting for this evidence to make an appearance. Maybe if that ever happens, it can be taken seriously as a scientific theory and taught in science classrooms.
Until then, it should remain in Sunday School, where it belongs.

How about I come to your church and teach evolution?

Evolution wasn't thought up to discredit the Bible and creation science. It came into being as a result of Darwin's (and many others') observations of the diversity of plant and animal life on this planet. It has since been cemented as a scientific theory by the abundance of evidence in its favour that has been amassed over the last 150+ years since it was first introduced. No conspiracy required.

Sapiens said:

In fact,we humans are so chimp like that Homo sapiens is often referred to as the "third chimpanzee." Were aliens doing the classifying, we'd undoubtedly be Pan sapiens.

Click to expand...

Similar does not mean the same. I was told that by Parsimony when it suited his argument. A small difference means a lot.

Zosimus said:

I'm agnostic. You don't have to prove anything to be agnostic.

However, if you'd like an exact calculation, I'll give it to you.

First, someone suggests that God exists. I reason that there are two possibilities.

God exists.
God does not exist.

Since I'm an unbiased kind of guy, I consider that there's a 50% chance that God exists and a 50% chance that he doesn't exist. This is called the Principle of Maximum Entropy.

So then I start thinking, what possible test could be applied to determine whether God is more likely to exist or less likely to exist? None. I cannot think of a test, nor has anyone else presented a test to me that could be performed that would make it more likely or less likely that God existed.

So I stay at 50%

Click to expand...

Let's see, I can think of MIRACLES, but no.

• In 1 Kings 18:39 after God miraculously consumed Elijah’s sacrifice with fire from heaven, the Israelites proclaimed, “The Lord, He is God! The Lord, He is God!” But the prophets of Baal apparently did not submit to the Lord God, and they were executed in verse 40.
• Rahab was saved by faith (Hebrews 11:31) and the rest of Jericho was destroyed because of their unbelief. Why did they remain in unbelief even though they were still terrified of Israel 40 years after the miraculous plagues in Egypt (Joshua 2:9–11)?
• After Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, many Jews believed on Jesus (John 11:45), but the chief priests and Pharisees tried to kill Lazarus to cover up the evidence (John 12:10–11).
• It is amazing that after seeing the dumb speak, the blind see, the lame walk, the sick healed, devils cast out, and the dead raised, that the Pharisees attributed Christ’s miracles to the devil (Matthew 12:24) and plotted to have Him killed (Matthew 26:4). In light of those miracles and Pilate finding no fault in Him, it doesn’t make sense that so many people cried out for him to be crucified (Matthew 27:23).
• In Acts 4:16 after Peter healed the lame man, the religious leaders admitted a notable miracle had been done—they could not deny it—but they responded in continued unbelief and threatened the disciples not to preach Jesus anymore.

PHYSICAL PROOF: He shows up at your door and does miracles, but people will think it's a hoax or magic tricks. Lawrence Krauss said if he rearranged the stars to spell out, "I am here," but some other atheist said that those on the other side of the planet would not see and thus it wouldn't be proof. We may not have the physical, but we can look at the other evidence to see such as using science, logic and reasoning, facts and history backs up what is stated in the Bible.

PAIN AND SUFFERING: Yes. However, in this world it will be explained away as something that happens whether there is a God or not.

So, in effect, you're right. What tips the scale is Faith or belief that God exists.

james bond said:

It was a fat chimpanzee or ape.

Click to expand...

So now you say that it was fat? How can you possibly know?

Do you remember the two criteria I gave you?

Click to expand...

You have only two criteria for determining whether an animal is a chimpanzee or not? Just two? No taxonomist would rely on a measly two criteria to categorize an animal. They would look at all of the different aspects of its morphology (dentition, pelvis, cranium, joints, limb proportions and so on) and how they are similar and different from other existing animals. You and your sources have pointed out the similarities between Australopithecus and chimpanzees many times. Indeed there are many similarities between the two. Australopithecines are chimp-like. No doubt about it. However, you seem to ignore the differences between them, This is where your classification argument messes up. You can't look at the similarities and ignore the differences: you have to look at both of them at once. If you only paid attention to the similarities between gorillas, orangutans and chimpanzees while ignoring their differences, you could just as easily argue that gorillas and orangutans are chimps as well. We know that they are not chimps, however, because there are also differences in addition to similarities. Let's do some comparing:

Similarities between genus Pan and genus Australopithecus
-Both have similar brain case sizes (up to 500 cc).
-Australopithecus was probably covered with fur like chimps are.
-Both have long arms and curved fingers good for grasping and climbing.
-Both have arms longer than their legs.
-Both were/are social animals.
-A. afarensis may have had some ability to knuckle-walk like chimps.
-Some Australopithecus were similar in size to chimps.

Differences between genus Pan and genus Australopithecus
-Australopithecus pelvises are wider than they are tall, chimp pelvises are taller than they are wide.
-Australopithecus had knees that could lock, chimps do not.
-Australopithecus does not have adductable toes, whereas chimps do.
-Australopithecus has smaller canines than chimps.
-Australopithecus had a less prognathic (protruding) jaw than chimps.
-Australopithecus had arched feet, chimps do not.
-Australopithecus had a foramen magnum closer to the base of the skull than chimps.

So I'm willing to acknowledge both the similarities and the differences. What about you? What, specifically, are your two criteria?

You're presenting a strawman -- "pelvis shape, canine teeth, toes, etc." Does not address the two criteria.

Click to expand...

I don't think you know what a straw-man is. A straw-man is a misrepresentation of an argument such that it appears to be arguing something that it is not. You are indeed arguing that Australopithecines are chimpanzees. I can quote the many times you have said this if need be. If you think they are chimpanzees, then you must also think that their anatomy is consistent with genus "Pan" (which is the genus to which chimpanzees belong) and therefore that they should be reclassified as Pan africanus, Pan afarensis, etc. instead of Australopithecus. If you do not think this should be done, then you are admitting that the morphological differences are large enough to warrant inclusion in their own distinct genus separate from Pan.

I think we're done with nylonase and whatever your point was about it. <shrugs shoulders>

Click to expand...

Then I was correct in that you have no argument against it being a mutation which creates a new function (the ability to digest nylon polymers).

Welp, you ignored the two most important criteria in discussing Australopithecines. The overwhelming evidence I provided against it. The Creation Museum. Argument for ID using beauty and complexity by CS Lewis. See my post #2385. And more including the links I post for you.

Click to expand...

I don't recall any of the your links or videos stating that Australopithecus was a chimpanzee. Plenty stated that it was an ape or chimp-like. Indeed, both of those statements are true. But none stated that it was a chimp. If they did, please quote the exact sentence where they said it was.

NEJM. Is that better? That's what they use. Why don't you go back and read the full article?

I couldn't find the post for the NEJM link, but I think it started from your Yale Univ. link about LRP5 mutation. I responded, "These people have a genetic disease that causes deformities in the mouth, which probably make eating difficult. While one effect is increased bone density, the fact that the mutation also causes deformities in the mandible (lower jaw) makes it likely that the higher bone density is at least partly responsible for the deformities. To call this a beneficial mutation, without saying anything about the deformities, is at best poor scholarship and at worst deliberate fraud." You wanted to have the evidence which is found in the NEJM link had you read the entire article. Care to read the entire article now -- http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa013444 ?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you think I missed in it. I'm well aware of the deformities you are talking about. If they do not interfere with survival and reproduction, then they are not disadvantageous. You never did provide any statements from medical professionals or from people who had the mutation that it was harder for them to eat.

Chimpanzee-like ape aren't my terms. They're Lovejoy's.

Click to expand...

He's right, it is a chimpanzee-like ape. That's not the same as saying it's a chimp.

If that's how it works, then it's a circular argument -- This is evo, this is how it works, this proves evo. People would disagree that it works, as well.

Click to expand...

Circular reasoning would be if an argument is used to support itself. The argument, however, is supported by physical evidence such as genetics (pseudogenes and ERVs being good ones), the fossil record and biogeography.

Radiometric dating isn't accurate. Show me that it's accurate. Use some real life examples such as the moon rocks.

Click to expand...

Here is one. It demonstrates that several different dating techniques yield consistent dates for the same event. Here is another one showing radiometric dating to be consistent with stratigraphy.

What did you think when you first read about the six days of creation and Noah's Flood?

Click to expand...

I was a small child at the time and I took it literally.

Did you think what you just stated?

Click to expand...

No, I've changed my mind since I first read it. That was a very long time ago.

I thought Noah's Flood was a myth and then a local one (from Robert Ballard -- http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/ev...t-flood-noahs-time-happened/story?id=17884533) to a global flood.

Click to expand...

A bunch of floods happening all over the world is not the same as a flood that is so large that it covers every square inch of dry land, including mountaintops. Your link provides no evidence of such being the case. What about the dates being mentioned in the article? Do you believe those?

I suppose you have no conclusive experiment? OTOH, I gave you how stratification works by Guy Berthault. See #2378.

Click to expand...

I've already told you the experiments: DNA studies, dating techniques, biogeographic studies.

james bond said:

Lovejoy thinks chimpanzees and apes evolved from humans. The opposite of what evos believe. His earlier vid discussed STS-14 which corroborates what I said in beginning and which you tried to sidetrack by claiming quote mining..

Click to expand...

No he said human-like, watch your own video... Also note he is still talking about evolution and never once states it is false. You are creating a non-sequitur in order to support ID, nothing more.

james bond said:

The religious part is Jesus Christ and most of the people parts in the Bible whereas Genesis (creation in six days) could be presented as a scientific theory. The Bible is considered a work of non-fiction and history catalog.

Click to expand...

we agree on the Chapter Two episode a science

the rest of the book is history and nonfiction....but...
there is also a lot of Godly action that can only be accepted with faith in play

The human vs chimp discussion in bizarre at the base, but for human ego and taxocentrism we'd be Pan sapiens, the third chimpanzee.

james bond said:

I think you are confused. It's not science vs religion. It's creation science vs evolution. Creation can be a scientific theory just like evolution. Only, creationists aren't allowed to present it as science. The religion part (taught as philosophy) can be left out of the science program.

You're also wrong in thinking creation is a myth. Evolution is a myth. There isn't evidence for it except natural selection which is part of creation science, as well. Who do you think invented the scientific method -- a Christian?

Click to expand...

OK, let's play along this line of thinking. Distilling the non-religious portion from the hotchpotch, and call this 'creation science'. What would that be like?
- Different species were created "as is" since the beginning of life. What was the mechanism behind? Without the religious fairy tale overlay, you don't have an explanation.
- The concept of "species" corresponds to natural kinds akin to the concept of chemical elements. This flies in the face of empirical observations.
- Species are static and do not change in time. This flies in the face of empirical observations.

Conclusion: The case for teaching "creation science" in classrooms is even weaker than the case for teaching creation myths.

Thief said:

we agree on the Chapter Two episode a science

Click to expand...

What science?

Genesis 2 explains nothing.

It borrowed already ancient myths, and modified it to suit Hebrew audience. That Christian creationists still believe in such superstitious nonsense as fact, only demonstrated their incompetency with science.

Genesis 3 introduced more fiction, with a fable of talking serpent. How is that chapter being more credible than other ancient myths of talking animals, or the more recent Doctor Dolittle or Harry Potter? Where is the science in this episode?

If that's what you called "Creation Science", then no wonder creationists are laughingstocks.

james bond said:

There was some discussion about complexity and here is some more evidence for creationism.

Click to expand...

Debunked a long time ago. Didn't hold up in science, didn't standup in court.

gnostic said:

What science?

Genesis 2 explains nothing.

It borrowed already ancient myths, and modified it to suit Hebrew audience. That Christian creationists still believe in such superstitious nonsense as fact, only demonstrated their incompetency with science.

Genesis 3 introduced more fiction, with a fable of talking serpent. How is that chapter being more credible than other ancient myths of talking animals, or the more recent Doctor Dolittle or Harry Potter? Where is the science in this episode?

If that's what you called "Creation Science", then no wonder creationists are laughingstocks.

Click to expand...

ok ....you don't see it.....
too bad for you

your emotional reaction and denial are noted

Thief said:

ok ....you don't see it.....
too bad for you

your emotional reaction and denial are noted

Click to expand...

Perhaps you could dazzle us all by actually presenting the "science" you see in Genesis 2?

I mean, you were flat out asked "What science"?
To dadge that question makes it appear you made a bold empty claim, know it is a bold empty claim, yet are going to move on as though your bluff was not called.

Or is this "science in Genesis 2" another "faith" based claim?

Mestemia said:

Perhaps you could dazzle us all by actually presenting the "science" you see in Genesis 2?

I mean, you were flat out asked "What science"?
To dadge that question makes it appear you made a bold empty claim, know it is a bold empty claim, yet are going to move on as though your bluff was not called.

Or is this "science in Genesis 2" another "faith" based claim?

Click to expand...

you know my rendition....
chosen specimen
ideal living conditions
immediate care and handling
anesthesia
surgery
cloning
genetic manipulation

Adam is a chosen son of God
Eve is a clone.....not born of woman......no navel
Adam was given his twin sister for a bride

Thief said:

you know my rendition....
chosen specimen
ideal living conditions
immediate care and handling
anesthesia
surgery
cloning
genetic manipulation

Adam is a chosen son of God
Eve is a clone.....not born of woman......no navel
Adam was given his twin sister for a bride

Click to expand...

hells bells, that isn't even enough for the Forer Effect....

Though it does explain quite a bit behind your claims of using "science" to get you to your god.....

Shad said:

Why? I never made an such statement so have no need in defending it.

Click to expand...

Let's go back to the beginning.


This is the video in question. In this video (at about 1:02) he points out that even if you do the gravitational acceleration principle yourself, you still are assuming that your senses and reason are reliable.

To make it simple, let's just say "Shad's senses are reliable."
Is this knowledge? Is this justified true belief? How can you justify this statement?

WQB requirements make it possible for a student to follow their major while still gaining credits from philosophy courses without extra workload or time. The issue is many students choose other courses such as history or literature. A drop would be expected given the unfavorable view philosophy in public education and pop culture. I expect a grandfathering of the term would be used if such a change was made. Perhaps an alternative to mandatory courses would be to develop a simply divide so many other fields have between developers and technicians similar to job positions.

Click to expand...

I think you misunderstand the point of my comment. Anyone who has studied much philosophy realizes that science is on very, very shaky ground. I wonder how many scientists there would be if every scientist had to confront the fact that science is about as reliable as a two-legged stool.