For creationists: Show evidences for creation of man

[Thermos aquaticus]

No. There are proposed theories, but I am not sure they are testable without bias.

Just to be clear, you are agreeing that the creationist explanation for the origin of man is not testable?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. There are proposed theories, but I am not sure they are testable without bias. As an example, a monkey has arms, legs , a brain etc,,etc. and shares some DNA with humans. The extrapolation is made that they are related and at some point came from the same family tree. On the other hand, just as jumbo jets and and tiny experimental craft share the some features, they are not the same. A crude example. If one were to design monkeys and humans, and for whatever reasons it is found that specific design features are best for both, that doesn´t mean they are related, it means they share common attributes and those were use for their creation.

Not understanding how a theory can be tested does not mean that it can't be tested. Creationist "tests" would instead of confirming the theory of evolution, would tend to refute it.

Here is a simple one. The theory of evolution predicts that life will fall into nested hierarchies. Find a violation of phylogeny and you will have refuted the theory. Meanwhile there is no reason that a creator needs to follow the observed nested hierarchies of life. Don't you find it the least bit strange that all of the scientific evidence out there supports the theory of evolution?

 

[shmogie]

Science does not do proof. You cant name a scientific theory that cannot be tested.

Your are playing equivocation with the word "faith". Surely you know that.
At least choose which meaning you have in mind.

Careful on the name calling.

I didn´t call you anything. Here are two, the big bang theory and specifically itś singularity, and abiogenesis. Get back to me when you have tested them and I will give you more. I know I will hear back, I have faith in you. BTW, do you have a dictionary ? Look up the word faith.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just to be clear, you are agreeing that the creationist explanation for the origin of man is not testable?

I think that he is trying to make the false claim that the theory of evolution cannot be tested.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I think that he is trying to make the false claim that the theory of evolution cannot be tested.

That would be an attempt to weasel out of answering the question in the opening post.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I didn´t call you anything. Here are two, the big bang theory and specifically itś singularity, and abiogenesis. Get back to me when you have tested them and I will give you more. I know I will hear back, I have faith in you. BTW, do you have a dictionary ? Look up the word faith.

Under the definition of faith, would it list the creationist explanation for the origin of man?

 

[shmogie]

Just to be clear, you are agreeing that the creationist explanation for the origin of man is not testable?

It is just as testable as the origin of that first life¨that you spoke of that is alleged to have gotten the whole ball rolling.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didn´t call you anything. Here are two, the big bang theory and specifically itś singularity, and abiogenesis. Get back to me when you have tested them and I will give you more. I know I will hear back, I have faith in you. BTW, do you have a dictionary ? Look up the word faith.

For testing the Big Bang you should be asking @Polymath257 . There are two tests that I know of that it passed. You should have known of at least one of them. A theory like the Big Bang theory is tested through the predictions that it makes. The Cosmic Background Radiation was predicted long before we were able to detect it. If once we had developed the ability to detect such radiation and it did not exist that would have been a huge strike against the theory. It passed that test. Another prediction that was made before we had the technology to answer it was the relative proportions of hydrogen, helium, lithium, and beryllium. That two was confirmed after the theory was made. Those are two tests that it passed.

 

[shmogie]

That would be an attempt to weasel out of answering the question in the opening post.

Nope, the evidence can be interpreted, tested, with resultant different conclusions. My career was built on gathering and presenting evidence in criminal cases. Evidence can be interpreted by the prosecution and come to a theory of a case. The defense can use the same evidence, or evidence seemingly ignored by the prosecution, to reach a different theory of the case.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is just as testable as the origin of that first life¨that you spoke of that is alleged to have gotten the whole ball rolling.

Since we can reproduce quite a few of the steps along the way for abiogenesis and no one has any clue on how to reproduce the creation event your claim is obviously not corrrect.

 

[Audie]

I didn´t call you anything. Here are two, the big bang theory and specifically itś singularity, and abiogenesis. Get back to me when you have tested them and I will give you more. I know I will hear back, I have faith in you. BTW, do you have a dictionary ? Look up the word faith.

you were talking about calling me odious, so I suggested you back off.

BB is data based, and any of the data involved can be checked.

Abio is not a theory.

"Faith" is a woman's name, so I will assume that is the meaning you have in mind. And no theory I ever heard of is based on her.

You forgot to mentoin that you learned that science does not do proof.

A simple oversight, no doubt.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope, the evidence can be interpreted, tested, with resultant different conclusions. My career was built on gathering and presenting evidence in criminal cases. Evidence can be interpreted by the prosecution and come to a theory of a case. The defense can use the same evidence, or evidence seemingly ignored by the prosecution, to reach a different theory of the case.

That may be correct, in law. In science you need a testable idea to even be considered evidence. I am not sure if the defense could get away with creationist style "evidence". I don't now if their ideas needs to be testable as well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

you were talking about calling me odious, so I suggested you back off.

BB is data based, and any of the data involved can be checked.

Abio is not a theory.

"Faith" is a woman's name, so I will assume that is the meaning you have in mind. And no theory I ever heard of is based on her.

Individual hypotheses in abiogenesis can be tested, but each one only answers part of the question. There is no overarching theory yet so there is evidence for the various hypotheses of abiogensis, there is no evidence for a theory since it does not exist, as of yet. And from what I hear there are now thought to be multiple pathways to life, none of which can be confirmed as the one path that life took. So we will have evidence for abiogenesis in general, but a specific theory of abiogenesis will probably never occur.

Meanwhile there still is no scientific evidence at all for a creationist myth. It appears that the current strategy is instead of owning up to ones own lack of evidence make incorrect claims about the evidence that others have.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

It is just as testable as the origin of that first life¨that you spoke of that is alleged to have gotten the whole ball rolling.

The creationist explanation for the origin of man is not testable. Yes/No?

 

[shmogie]

For testing the Big Bang you should be asking @Polymath257 . There are two tests that I know of that it passed. You should have known of at least one of them. A theory like the Big Bang theory is tested through the predictions that it makes. The Cosmic Background Radiation was predicted long before we were able to detect it. If once we had developed the ability to detect such radiation and it did not exist that would have been a huge strike against the theory. It passed that test. Another prediction that was made before we had the technology to answer it was the relative proportions of hydrogen, helium, lithium, and beryllium. That two was confirmed after the theory was made. Those are two tests that it passed.

I know about both and they are superb evidence for the big bang. You misread what I asked. I asked that the poster to test the theory of a pre bang singularity,

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Nope, the evidence can be interpreted, tested, with resultant different conclusions.

How is the creationist explanation for the origin of man testable?

 

[Jose Fly]

It is just as testable as the origin of that first life¨that you spoke of that is alleged to have gotten the whole ball rolling.

CLICK HERE to see a formal test of whether humans arose via common ancestry with other primates or arose separately.

I probably don't need to tell you which came out the clear winner.

 

[ecco]

...Atheist science de facto says that any explanation for anything can only be formulated by purely natural processes. No other possibility can be entertained. ....



So what if creation scientists "have a Christian slant" ?


What you are saying is that one set of biases are "Gospel" (no pun intended) and another set are categorically unacceptable.

It's the science that counts, not perceived biases isn't it ?

OK. Let's try it your way. Let's bias science with a bent towards an omni-all creator. You specified "a Christian slant". Why a christian slant? There are many other religious views.

Should we give serious consideration to the following and research its validity?

People did not always live on the surface of the earth. At one time people and animals lived underneath the earth with Kaang (Käng), the Great Master and Lord of All Life. In this place people and animals lived together peacefully. They understood each other. No one ever wanted for anything and it was always light even though there wasn't any sun. During this time of bliss Kaang began to plan the wonders he would put in the world above.
​

Perhaps we should investigate the claims that the Universe was created Last Thursday?

 

[Audie]

Individual hypotheses in abiogenesis can be tested, but each one only answers part of the question. There is no overarching theory yet so there is evidence for the various hypotheses of abiogensis, there is no evidence for a theory since it does not exist, as of yet. And from what I hear there are now thought to be multiple pathways to life, none of which can be confirmed as the one path that life took. So we will have evidence for abiogenesis in general, but a specific theory of abiogenesis will probably never occur.

Meanwhile there still is no scientific evidence at all for a creationist myth. It appears that the current strategy is instead of owning up to ones own lack of evidence make incorrect claims about the evidence that others have.

IOW-
"Abio" is not a theory, as I said.

 

[Polymath257]

Nope. You said your first parents were composed of air, I simply accepted YOUR explanation of where YOU came from. You have the right to believe anything you choose. I categorically deny that air, rocks, meteors, water, or any other non living material was responsible for that ¨ first life¨, that idea is just as fanciful as talking pink unicorns who inhabit the moon. As to evolution, I believe the evidence is weak for organisms, in one classified family, to change into a member of another family.

Do you realize that 'non-living material' is responsible for life *today*? ALL life is made out of non-living atoms. There is no difference in the atoms in a living thing that the same type of atom in a non-living thing. The only difference is how they are arranged.