• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Place for Creationists to post their "reasonable tests" for their position

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
but can be. Certainly the astrophysicists, cosmologists, biologists et al that I quoted believe it is. It is simply a position that "some" people ascribe to.

1. the millions of scientists that you did NOT quote, don't "believe" so.

2. what scientists "believe" is about as relevant as what you or I "believe".
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Well.... duh!!! That is what I have been saying from the beginning... there are NO testable evidence for any theory on how it came about.

That is just false.

Are you really this ignorant, or are you lying again, like when you claimed to have "reasonable tests" for your creationists beliefs?
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Well ya, if I may again shortly say, they're not actually fans of tests , or providing the tests of Evolution. Faith In Evolution is paramount to essential tenants of the Nazi party. Where do Scientists actually come from? What is science in the popular media really, that itself is its own cult following , I got a street gang named E=MC^2 that sort of thing. Where did Einstein come from? Germany! The Germans measured his "Jewish" head for smallness and inability and flunked him for Jewishness, none of his peers understood how he didn't want to be a soldier for Germany, and plus, he worked in a patent office, the teacher probably didn't understand his math operations, and he left Germany, he's a total pig though, I mean divorce in that timeperiod. Scientists don't want to have to worry about Creationism, or al Religion, its not their theory. Scientists are not interested in the Book Burning anywhere.

If you used such measures you are using such as leading figures approve of it, then for 10,000 years you are a creationist , and in the last 30 years you are an evolutionist right, if you are using the intellectual level of arguments presented.

I think the predestination of Human divinity is important to a functioning allied humanbeing. Well, if you ask basic philosophical curious questions on that then family point you at Nitzche and German Nazis, then you are essentially a Nazi talking about questionable Design on humanity.

What the heck are you babbling about...................

Ugh, I'll provide this test of Creationism. The Bible agrees God made all of the World in Genesis. Oh wait, is it assumed you are not religious, or not a believer in that creationism?

Mere assertions aren't tests of anything.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
F
What do they test anyway, they find bones and they say we have a series of bones that go from one point to another, Ape, to Man, correct? Anybody? I got this from a cartoon? Is that what we test?

Ya, you're informed.......... :rolleyes:

If you think this is what paleontologists, molecular biologists, geneticists, evolutionary biologists, etc etc etc do all day, then I got news for you......................................................
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Because it is too orderly IN MY VIEWPOINT. Things too dependent on each other, the laws too precise and life too fragile to name a few.

So, really.... it's just a huge argument from incredulity / ignorance....


"I don't understand or know how this would come about naturally, therefore, it didn't come about naturally".


Thanks for playing.


Now, as for the OP.... where are your "more reasonable tests"?
 

RabbiO

הרב יונה בן זכריה
Well you didn't like it, so I deleted it. Simple. Other boards didn't like me and I get kicked. I'm not sure how to fix it, do you happen to know? .......
Have you given any thought to learning English? That may sound sarcastic or, perhaps, unkind - especially if English is your native language - but there is no getting around the fact that your posts tend to be incoherent.
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
What do they test anyway, they find bones and they say we have a series of bones that go from one point to another, Ape, to Man, correct? Anybody? I got this from a cartoon? Is that what we test?

Your insights are amazing and beyond reproach. Well, not really.

OK. Here is my case, along with the evidence (hate to be the broken record):

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I forget now who originally posted these on this forum, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it - I have posted this more than a dozen times for creationists who claim that there is no evidence for evolution:

The tested methodology:


Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.



We can hereby ASSUME that the results of an application of those methods have merit.


Application of the tested methodology:


Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONCLUSION:

This evidence lays out the results of employing a tested methodology on the question of Primate evolution. The same general criteria/methods have been used on nearly all facets of the evolution of living things. Other than bland, predictable, and rather lame attempts to undermine the evidence by citing 'worst-case scenario experiments' and the like, no creationist has ever mounted a relelevant, much less scientific rebuttal. And, of course, no creationsit has ever offered real evidence in support of a biblical-style creation.
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
This whole thread reminds one of the birth of our country...

Yeah, totally - like that time Ben Franklin claimed to have more reasonable tests for the success of the colonies being independent than for them remaining under British rule, and after being asked to present them, he hemmed and hawed and ultimately could only provide a list of quotes.
 
Last edited:
Top