Putting the JW Stand on Evolution in Perspective

[nPeace]

The theory of Evolution draws evidence from practically every field of science there is.

Is there a methodology you can recommend which doesn't have any kind of limits?

So you agree? Cool.

I've got one! Pulling out a bible and saying that its myths actually happened!

Wrong. If this got a mark, it wouldn't be an F, it would be a Z.

I'm interested in your answer to their question, though, so if you don't mind I ask a slightly different version of the same question.

Let us say that you are presented with two objects, and I tell you one object is designed and the other is not. You have no idea of the origin or function of either object. What methods or methodology could you apply to determine which object was designed and which was not?

Good question.
I'd go first of all, by what is understood to be design.
Then using that understanding, I would determine if the product meets that standard.
If it does, I'd give it an A, if it doesn't, and there is no other way I can determine if it is or not, I would leave it as it is, until it can be verified... if it can.
Now your turn. How do you determine what is design?

This analogy doesn't really work. For example, let's say that, along with the one eyewitness, several others come forward - each of them stating that they saw a different person commit the crime in a different way. Who would you trust in that scenario?

And, in this case, literally all possible avenues of evidence all unanimously point towards evolution being the only reasonable conclusion.

I was by no means suggesting that the testimony be accepted without investigating.
This is what I was referring to...
In his haughtiness, the wicked man makes no investigation; All his thoughts are: “There is no God.” Psalm 10:4

Selectively quoting scientific sources which don't actually support your conclusions is dishonest. Here is the conclusion of the article:

"When a retrovirus reproduces, identical copies of LTR sequences are created on either side of the retroviral element; the divergence of LTR sequences within a species can be used to estimate the age of an initial infection. Eichler and colleagues estimate that gorillas and chimps were infected about 3-4 million years ago, and baboon and macaque about 1.5 million years ago. The disconnect between the evolutionary history of the retrovirus and the primates, the authors conclude, could be explained if the Old World monkeys were infected by "several diverged viruses" while gorilla and chimpanzee were infected by a single, though unknown, source.

As for how this retroviral infection bypassed orangutans and humans, the authors offer a number of possible scenarios but dismiss geographic isolation: even though Asian and African apes were mostly isolated during the Miocene era (spanning 24 to 5 million years ago), humans and African apes did overlap. It could be that African apes evolved a susceptibility to infection, for example, or that humans and Asian apes evolved resistance. A better understanding of the evolutionary history and population genetics of great apes will help identify the most likely scenarios. And knowing how these retroviral elements infiltrated some apes while sparing others could provide valuable insights into the process of evolution itself."

Nowhere in this article does it suggest ERV's aren't an indicator of common lineage, and your dismissal of them as evidence doesn't change the simple, mathematical impossibility of humans and chimps sharing dozens of ERV's without common ancestry.

Why did I quote the article? What was my conclusion?
Apparently, from your comment, you don't seem to know.

Given your amazing science background and knowledge of genetics, is it your learned opinion that PTERV1 is the only kind of ERV there is?

i don't know where you got both those ideas, but perhaps you know, and can tell me.

Please note the text you quoted indicates that they found ONE, that does not occur in humans. ONE. This is out of dozens of others that do occur in both the targeted apes and humans, and again, in the same specific locations, and the same viruses.

And the one they found is a scenario that one might certainly expect once the lineage that includes humans had branched off on its own. If humans were already immune to the virus PTERV1 by the time it was making its way through other ape populations, this could be one explanation. Or, alternatively, if the other apes besides humans during that span of infection had developed a susceptibility, this could also explain it. Regardless, there are plenty of possible, realistic scenarios that could see something like this happening. I believe I read the exact article you're referencing recently, and if so, it made some of these same points I believe.

You can't just choose ONE virus that doesn't manifest as a match between these species, and conclude that it eradicates the evidence of dozens of others that ARE all matches. That's essentially what you're trying to say, and it reeks of desperation.

Apparently you missed my point. Perhaps reading it again might help.
How long do I have to put up with these accusation? Perhaps as long as I don't agree with you guys.
well we are used to it. A student is not greater than his teacher.
If people have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more those of his household? Matthew 10:25

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So you agree? Cool.

Can you answer the question?

Good question.
I'd go first of all, by what is understood to be design.
Then using that understanding, I would determine if the product meets that standard.
If it does, I'd give it an A, if it doesn't, and there is no other way I can determine if it is or not, I would leave it as it is, until it can be verified... if it can.

You've not actually explained your methodology. You simply said "I would determine if it meets that standard". My question is HOW.

Now your turn. How do you determine what is design?

By contrasting with nature and having an understanding of the development process involved.

I was by no means suggesting that the testimony be accepted without investigating.

Then you must admit that testimony alone is never sufficient, so your analogy still fails.

 

[nPeace]

Sounds good so far.

And with good reason - eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.

The Trouble with Eyewitness Identification Testimony in Criminal Cases

"To protect the public from wrongful convictions based on an eyewitness misidentification, it is important that both law enforcement and the courts take notice of recent developments on the issue in the social sciences. The courts must be aware of the malleable nature of human memory and the lineup practices used by law enforcement in the jurisdiction. Although they are downstream of the primary problem, the courts have the power and duty to properly instruct jurors, the ability to refuse to admit evidence that does not meet a fundamental level of trustworthiness, and the ability to work with justice system partners to improve the criminal justice system."


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8d0625d82190

"Over the past quarter-century, more than 1,400 people convicted of serious crimes have been proved innocent, according to the University of Michigan Law School’s National Registry of Exonerations. But why were these people wrongly convicted? In a great many cases, one significant factor was faulty eyewitness identifications."




If the testimony is contrary to more empirical sources of evidence, why not?


How ironic! In your little 'example', YOU are dismissing 2 kinds of empirical evidence in favor of someone's testimony! Yet we do not know if the witness actually saw anything, if the witness was biased, etc.

Typical.

I said they just proudly dismissed the testimony. On what basis did they dismiss it?

Which anti-evolution site did you copy-paste that from, out of curiosity?

The link is there. I'm tempted to LOL, but I take it you are not joking.

 

[Jainarayan]

Every person was spawned from single pair of adults living up to 200,000 years ago, scientists claim | Daily Mail Online

This post piqued my interest, having had a DNA test and begun dabbling in it.

That headline is more than a little misleading. Those two people need not have lived at the same time or even within 10,000 years, or 100 years of each other, nor were they necessarily the only two humans on Earth. It works like this...

Every person has two sex chromosomes. Females have XX, males have XY. We inherit the X from our mothers and the Y from our fathers. These two chromosomes are passed in a direct line from mother to child and from father to son. Women have to infer their Y-DNA from their father, grandfather, brother, paternal uncle or paternal male cousin. Every couple of 10,000 years a mutation occurs on the X or Y making it sufficiently different to be classed as a new haplogroup.

So... I have an X chromosome (haplogroup HV4, totally unremarkable, in keeping with my mother's family ) from a woman who lived about 35,000 years ago in the Caucasus area. I have a Y chromosome (haplogroup T-M184, which I'm quite proud of due to its history ) from a man who lived about 40,000 years ago in western Asia, Red Sea area. These are my own genetic Adam and Eve. Repeat that for every person who has ever lived and ever will live, and then it's correct to say every person who ever lived or will ever live on Earth descends from two people.

 

[Subduction Zone]

First of all, the definition is not mine.
Secondly do you even know what design is?
Thirdly I am quite sure that you don't even know what ignorant means, because you use it the same way a two year old would.

The problem is that it is a failed definition. It does not matter whose definition it is.
As to what design is that depends upon context. You are trying to claim that life shows design and no creationist has managed to do that. And please, you know that I understand what "ignorant" means. It means that you lack knowledge of the topic that you are prating about.

You have attempted to shift the burden of proof because your arguments repeatedly fail. Once more can you properly define "design"? If you can use it to support your claims.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Apparently you missed my point. Perhaps reading it again might help.
How long do I have to put up with these accusation? Perhaps as long as I don't agree with you guys.
well we are used to it. A student is not greater than his teacher.
If people have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more those of his household? Matthew 10:25

The fact that you proceeded to quote me some garbage text about "Beelzebub" honestly tells me that you had no point worth actually trying to defend... because that is not, in any way, a defense of what you originally said. It's garbage. G A R B A G E.

Here's what you said that you're apparently trying to get me to accept as your "point":

The assumptions regarding ERVs, are just an added serious of assumptions to support the assumption of evolution from common descent. Consider PTERVs1. What assumptions do they arrive at, and why?
... It appears therefore that the sequences have not been conserved from a common ancestor, but are specific to each lineage.

The conclusion line (in bold above) does NOT (as you seem to think it does) refute or deny that humans and other apes arise from a common ancestor. All it says is that the specific PTERV1 sequences "have not been conserved from a common ancestor", and that they are therefore specific to each lineage. THOSE SPECIFIC SEQUENCES OF THE DNA. That's all.

And pray tell - what conclusions should we draw from the dozens upon dozens of other virus sequences that are present in over 100,000 places in the human genome that match precisely by virus and location with the other apes? There is NO "ASSUMPTION" NEEDED there.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The assumptions regarding ERVs, are just an added serious of assumptions to support the assumption of evolution from common descent. Consider PTERVs1. What assumptions do they arrive at, and why?
Chimp genome reveals a retroviral invasion in primate evolution
In a new study, Evan Eichler and colleagues scanned finished chimpanzee genome sequence for endogenous retroviral elements, and found one (called PTERV1) that does not occur in humans. Searching the genomes of a subset of apes and monkeys revealed that the retrovirus had integrated into the germline of African great apes and Old World monkeys -- but did not infect humans and Asian apes (orangutan, siamang, and gibbon). This undermines the notion that an ancient infection invaded an ancestral primate lineage, since great apes (including humans) share a common ancestor with Old World monkeys.

Eichler and colleagues found over 100 copies of PTERV1 in each African ape (chimp and gorilla) and Old World monkey (baboon and macaque) species. The authors compared the sites of viral integration in each of these primates and found that few if any of these insertion sites were shared among the primates. It appears therefore that the sequences have not been conserved from a common ancestor, but are specific to each lineage.

Ironically you accused me of misusing the word "ignorant" when here you misuse the word "assumption". You demonstrate that not only do you not understand what the word "assumption" means, or else you are being incredibly dishonest, you do not now what evidence is either. By claiming the word "assumption" you put the burden of proof upon yourself to demonstrate that there is an assumption.

And as to evidence I can help you with that concept. The evidence exists. That can't be denied. Because even scientists are human they came up with a working definition of evidence so that deniers, like you, could be exposed as such. Creationists cannot afford to let themselves understand the concept of evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The fact that you proceeded to quote me some garbage text about "Beelzebub" honestly tells me that you had no point worth actually trying to defend... because that is not, in any way, a defense of what you originally said. It's garbage. G A R B A G E.

Here's what you said that you're apparently trying to get me to accept as your "point":

The conclusion line (in bold above) does NOT (as you seem to think it does) refute or deny that humans and other apes arise from a common ancestor. All it says is that the specific PTERV1 sequences "have not been conserved from a common ancestor", and that they are therefore specific to each lineage. THOSE SPECIFIC SEQUENCES OF THE DNA. That's all.

And pray tell - what conclusions should we draw from the dozens upon dozens of other virus sequences that are present in over 100,000 places in the human genome that match precisely by virus and location with the other apes? There is NO "ASSUMPTION" NEEDED there.

"Assumption" is one of the favorite false claims of creationists. Whenever challenged they can't seem to demonstrate that their is an assumption.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The fact that you proceeded to quote me some garbage text about "Beelzebub" honestly tells me that you had no point worth actually trying to defend... because that is not, in any way, a defense of what you originally said. It's garbage. G A R B A G E.

Here's what you said that you're apparently trying to get me to accept as your "point":

The conclusion line (in bold above) does NOT (as you seem to think it does) refute or deny that humans and other apes arise from a common ancestor. All it says is that the specific PTERV1 sequences "have not been conserved from a common ancestor", and that they are therefore specific to each lineage. THOSE SPECIFIC SEQUENCES OF THE DNA. That's all.

And pray tell - what conclusions should we draw from the dozens upon dozens of other virus sequences that are present in over 100,000 places in the human genome that match precisely by virus and location with the other apes? There is NO "ASSUMPTION" NEEDED there.

"Assumption" is one of the favorite false claims of creationists. Whenever challenged they can't seem to demonstrate that their is an assumption.

 

[Jose Fly]

It should be obvious to everyone by now that when you try to show science to one of our resident Jehovah's Witnesses, all they'll do is scan through it, looking for words such as "likely" that they then use as an excuse to dismiss the entirety of the work as mere "assumption".

Like I keep saying....it's like offering a ham sandwich to an Orthodox Jew. In both cases, the person is fundamentally opposed to what you're trying to give them.

 

[tas8831]

I wouldn't mind hearing your take on it (definition of direct evidence), sure. Do you accept that Mt. Vesuvius erupted in 79 A.D.? If yes, what direct evidence do you think exists for that event?

There is none.
Do you know that mountains erupt? Yes or no.

No, mountains do not erupt. Volcanoes do.

Say you did not know, How would you find out?

Well, in the case of volcanic eruptions, were I a volcanologist, I would know what evidence volcanic eruptions leave behind. And were I digging around and came across what looked like the same kind of evidence I know eruptions produce but buried deep in the ground, I might make an hypothesis that what I was seeing is the result of a volcanic eruption in he past (because of the law of superposition).

You?

Let us say that you never saw mountains erupt, and it takes millions of years.

Nobody has ever seen a mountain erupt, but we do experience volcanic eruptions and they do not take millions of years.

I thought you were going to define "direct evidence" for me?

And from this diversion, I am assuming that you do not think Vesuvius erupted in 19 A.D.?

Would you mind demonstrating that you would not have to interpret, and make suppositions, in order to draw conclusions.

Are you saying that the conclusions of volcanologists and geologists regarding the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 A.D. was based on 'suppositions'?

Do tell me which ones. You have used this term before, but I want you to tell me what suppositions went into determining that Vesuvius erupted in 79 A. D.

Can you say that your conclusions are 100% correct?

I could say that conclusions regarding the 79 A.D. eruption of Vesuvius is quite close to 100% correct based on the evidence.

Here is one.
You never saw a plane in your life.
Out of the blue, you saw one.
How would you go about figuring out how it came to be?

Well, I would look at it and I would notice that it shows evidence of manufacture - screws, welding joints, rivets, etc. I would look inside and note that it appears to have been made for humans, and since I know that humans weld and screw and rivet metal, I would conclude that humans made it.

Since you are desperately avoiding providing a simple answer to my question, allow me to also insert a digression -

Say you looked in a microscope for the first time and saw some cells. How would you determine what they were and where they came form?
Your response will tell us whether or not you are serious in this 'debate.'

What?
If there is evidence there is no need for supposition. Do you not get that?

No I don't. Explain it to me please.

To start, I don't think you actually know what supposition means:

A belief held without proof or certain knowledge; an assumption or hypothesis.
‘they were working on the supposition that his death was murder’

If you had supposed that his death was murder (using the dictionary example), then found evidence that the dead person had been shot 3 times in the back and strangled, it is no longer supposition, is it?

Until it loses support with further research that turns that support on its head. Then what? We continue our research. That's science, right?

Unless is a better word choice. Yes, science keeps chugging along while religion stays right in the 3 millenium B.C. Not all hypotheses are overturned. The major theories we have in science today (relativity, evolution, cell theory, etc.), we have because the broad sweep of their evidence and applications have NOT been falsified.

Keep in mind that falsifiable does not mean falsified - funny how little so many creationists understand these things. I once had a creationist bring up Popper and the falsification criterion, and this creationist declared that evolution was false because it had not been falsified. He thought that you had to falsify something in order to accept it.
Funny.

Science knowledge is subject to change in the light of new evidence or new interpretation of existing evidence.

Yes, but see above.
I note that your belief system refuses to be altered by new evidence or interpretations.
Which is better? The system that 'admits' it is imperfect and is willing to adjust as needed, or the system that denies contrary findings no matter what?

May I ask, are you a scientist? Why are you asking me this?

Yes, I am, though no longer a very active one (research-wise). I asked because YOU brought it up.

A supported (correct) hypothesis is in and of itself not 'an argument.' It may be used AS evidence in an argument for something else, but a 'proven' hypothesis is just that.

If a hypothesis is correct, why does it need to change,

It doesn't need to. It might have to if new evidence is found that better explains the phenomenon.
One example from a non-contested science - Gravity. Newton's theory of gravity broke down in the case of certain planetary orbits, which were later better explained by relativity.
Does this mean that we are now free to float about if we wish because 'the theory of gravity was falsified'? No - Newton's gravity (if I can call it that) still works for most applications, and when it doesn't, we have relativity/quantum mechanics (physicists please correct my loose terminology as needed).

Back to hypotheses - you do understand that an hypothesis is not a 'theory' in today's scientific usage of the term, right? Because that is what your line of questioning is starting to hint at. And if so, then
I think your line of questioning belies the naivete in your understanding of science.

and would it being used as evidence, not mean that, ideas are being use as evidence - even though these ideas are really only being supported by other ideas?

You keep leaving out the evidence.

Thank you for honestly putting proven in inverted commas.

I also put 'an argument' in 'inverted commas.'

See above.

So no argument, then.

The point I made was that you were taking the content of a press release, in which the author of the press release used the sort of sensationalist language that a layman would use, as 'evidence' that pelvic bones in whales have a function and thus are not vestigial.

The issue is that why should whales have pelvic bones at all if they were 'created' to live in the oceans? Evolution explains why they have these bones. Creationism makes farcical assertions.

Did the whale need these bones on land, or in the ocean?

When the whale's ancestors were terrestrial, they used them to ambulate.

I thought it was the ocean, therefore, I don't see how creation is ruled out.

Creation can never be ruled out emotionally because one can always posit 'the creator's whim' for an absurdity like the platypus (according to creationist lawyer Phil Johnson) or that 'the creator did it, so it is all good' as with these vestigial pelvi.
But scientifically, there is simply no reason to posit a creator in the first place.

Dolphins have them also, don't they?

I presume so, but I don;t know for certain. I know that a percentage of Minke whales are born with not only rudimentary pelvic bones but femurs, as well. And I know that the embryos of dolphins exhibit hind limb buds early in development, which are then resorbed. And I know that as mammals, whales and in fact all other vertebrates exhibit shockingly similar early developmental patters in things like their vertebral columns, circulatory system, basic brain structure, etc. All of which adds weight to the evolutionary explanation.

Sorry about that. I plan on doing things a bit differently, but there were two links, and I don't think you commented on the second.

And you did not comment on any of mine. In case you have not read many of my posts, be aware that I have been involved in this 'debate' for almost 30 years. I have a dozen creationist books on the shelf behind me, along with several volumes of creation 'science' journals. I have seen 2 professional creationist lectures/debates. I have in my archives hundreds of creationist essays, web articles, etc. And I have also published original research in the field of evolutionary biology and have taught related classes at the university level for 20 years. I have exchanged emails with many 'professional' creationists over the years, to INCLUDE Jeff Tomkins (who I had to reach through an intermediary - I asked when he planned to assess the DNA relationships within the created kinds - he did not answer but told me he was right about chimps... whatever..). Point is - there is very little you can present to me from creationists that I have not already encountered and if it is in my field, debunked.

I see evidence, as information gathered primarily through the senses, which can lead one to believe something.
So while you may think, or believe that you have evidence for evolution, by examining that information, another person may look at that same information and say that evidence does not support evolution - to them it supports something entirely different.

And literally every time I have been told this and then given examples, the only interpretation the creationist has is that they believe it shows God did it. Never an actual explanation of any kind - but far far more frequently, all I get is the sort of nonsense Tomkins puts out.

So why do you think you are right in calling the person a liar? Would the person not be right to return that "compliment"?

Were I lying, yes.
That person merely dismisses the evidence, claiming it to be 'guesses' and the like, but the person is totally incompetent - by her own admission - to even understand the evidence. But that does not stop her from making the same lie over and over about there being no evidence of revolution.

Say I claimed there to be no evidence for the global flood. That I was well versed in all the claimed evidence for a global flood, and that I know that it is all guesses and suppositions and nonsense, and you presented some material that you felt supported the claim that the flood really happened. And rather than delve into the material and try to assess it, I instead asked you to dumb-it-down for me, so I could understand what you had presented. And then I simply ignored it and wrote again later that there is no evidence for the flood?

And that this type of exchange happened repeatedly, over the course of years. Would you consider me an honest person?
I should hope not.

Yes, thank you. I was asking how these parasites that depends on a host, survived.

I cannot speak for all parasites, as that is not my field, but I believe that there is some genetic evidence in tape worms that they experienced mutations that basically caused their digestive systems to become non-functional. They may have started out as just crawling inside creatures now and then for food, but as their digestive systems became non-functional, had to simply stay in their host. Again, not my area, so I don't know the details.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It seems to me you do not know the definition of evidence. There are many fields for gathering and analyzing evidence.
Science is limited in it's scope.
How many times was this explained to you. Why don't you understand it yet?

Amazing, you continually demonstrate that you do not understand the concept of evidence. Would you like to discuss the nature of it? I have yet to meet a creationist that can honestly discuss what is and what is not evidence.

 

[John53]

Facts and evidence that lead where? To other conclusions perhaps.

A better understanding of the world we live in. Sure there can be other conclusions, in fact it's encouraged and not threatened by dis-fellowship and missing out on paradise if you don't accept the conclusion of others.

How do you know it was the blood transfusion that saved your life, may I ask?

Because I had an autologous stem cell transplant so they could treat my relapsed non-Hodgkins lymphoma with high dose chemo. Without the blood transfusion (and other blood products) I would not have been able to have the SCT and I'd be dead. 17 years and 18 days since the SCT and I'm still here and no more relapses.

For example,
Some have been given a blood transfusion and died.
Some have refused a blood transfusion ad lived.

So what? Some like me have been given blood transfusions and lived, some have refused blood transfusions and died. That's just mumbo jumbo trying to take the attention away from the untrue statement that blood transfusions do not save lives. (Untrue is being kind, it could be called a blatant lie).

Come on. No one is saying that.

I think your sense of humour chip needs servicing.

 

[nPeace]

Then please define it for us all.

What? You don't either? My pleasure.
Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.
Don't thank me, thank Google, and Wikipedia, and WWW, and technology, and the one who gave us life, and a brain to go with it, and the fact you are able to use it, because unfortunately some can't - no fault of their own.

Examples, please. And maybe a note on their success rates?

There are many examples but it will likely take me 24 hours to gather all for you, so please do not consider the below as exhausted.
First, let me refer you to a post of mine, that shows why the research Christians use is superior.
Advantage of religion over science.
Please just consider a small change to the second line. Religion uses science and is not incompatible with it true science. Also please do not miss the success rates mention in that post, and then return to ask for them. Some tend to do that, so I though I'd give you a heads up.

The below post also contains very important methods, and success rates.
God is spirit - Can't be seen or felt physically, how does one test or detect God?

Below are methods that science itself uses, but are also used by Christian and unqualified scientists.
I'm am going to hold my breath, and swear that you won't ask for the success rate for these.
1. Logic.
2. Empirical evidence is the information received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation.
3. Qualitative research is a scientific method of observation to gather non-numerical data. This type of research "refers to the meanings, concepts definitions, characteristics, metaphors, symbols, and description of things" and not to their "counts or measures." Qualitative research approaches are employed across many academic disciplines, focusing particularly on the human elements of the social and natural sciences; in less academic contexts, areas of application include qualitative market research, business, service demonstrations by non-profits, and journalism.

As a field of study, qualitative approaches include research concepts and methods from multiple established academic fields. The aim of a qualitative research project may vary with the disciplinary background, such as a psychologist seeking in-depth understanding of human behavior and the reasons that govern such behavior for example. Qualitative methods are best for researching many of the why and how questions of human experience, in making a decision for example (not just what, where, when, or "who"); and have a strong basis in the field of sociology to understand government and social programs. Qualitative research is widely used by political science, social work, and education researchers.

Most things are. Science cannot address that for which no evidence exists,this is true. But what about the analysis of events for which there should be evidence, but there isn't? Say, a world-wide flood? Say, contemporary corroboration of the sky going black, earthquakes, and the dead rising from their graves when Jesus died?

Self-reflection is not that hard.

Too bad. That's their problem, not mine.
There are a lot of things I know are true, which I don't have the evidence at hand, but do you think a scientist will ask to barge in my house to see that evidence? Do you think they care?
Do you think scientists are concerned with whether God is or not, or whether Jesus rose from the dead or not?
The only ones that care about that are the atheistic scientists and the Creationist scientists... and the later are good with the evidence they have.
The atheistic ones however, don't seem to be too happy with that.
Scientists are concerned with doing science, not disproving God, correct?
In fact, scientists know that science proves nothing, much more is incapable of disproving any supernatural being.

 

[nPeace]

Do you believe that if two people observe the same evidence and come to different conclusions that both a equally likely to be correct? What do you call the methodology we use to determine which interpretation of the evidence is more likely to be correct?

Or are they both somehow correct?

1. It depends on the conclusions reached doesn't it?
If two people stabbed up one man, and two investigators looked at the evidence, and each fingered different suspects, both are right - though they don't have everything right, but reached two different conclusions.

2. Would that be by using qualitative and quantitative methods? You tell me.

3. Not necessarily.

Some have been shot in the head and died.
Some have been shot in the head and survived.
Some have never been shot in the head and died.

If you can accept the above facts and yet still understand how being shot in the head can and does regularly lead to death, you should be aware of how the exact same medical expertise goes into determining the importance of blood transfusions and how vital they can be in saving lives.

Are you a doctor?
You talk about all the good science do right, and yet you seem to show a lack of confidence when it comes to this topic, why?
Is it because it interferes with your world-view?

GOING UNDER THE KNIFE'' NOW CAN MEAN BLOODLESS BRAIN SURGERY
Not too long ago, bloodless brain surgery was shrugged off as science fiction. Only five years ago, 21-year-old Jessica Adams, who suffers from a brain disorder called arteriovenous malformation (AVM), would have had to choose between doing nothing and undergoing invasive brain surgery. Both carry risks.

Doing nothing would have increased Jessica''s chance of suffering hemorrhagic stroke, or bleeding in the brain, by 50 percent by the time she is 35. Undergoing open-skull surgery at 21 was not much of an alternative, either.

Last week, Jessica went under the knife--the gamma knife that is -- at Barnes - Jewish Hospital, which took care of her problem in about 22 minutes. That same day, Jessica went home.

Bloodless Pressure: More Surgery Without Transfusions
Bloodless surgery - operations performed without the use of donated blood - has been done for years on patients with religious objections to transfusions. Now, hospitals are embracing the practice more widely, saying it is cheaper and better for patients to avoid transfusions whenever possible.

Bloodless surgery in a Jehovah's Witness patient with a 12.7-kg uterine leiomyosarcoma.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION:
Bloodless surgery aims to optimize outcomes in patients undergoing surgical procedures who wish to avoid allogeneic transfusion. Using a series of interventions and management strategies related to this goal, patients who were previously considered extremely high risk or inoperable without a blood transfusion can now undergo complex surgical procedures with acceptable outcomes. The techniques of bloodless surgery have been incorporated in order to care for a patient with a large uterine sarcoma with involvement and invasion into adjacent organs.

CASE:
A 52-year-old female Jehovah's Witness patient refusing allogeneic blood transfusion presented to the gynecologic oncology division with a 40-cm pelvic mass and anemia. She was enrolled into the bloodless surgery program at the authors' institution and subsequently underwent surgical resection of a 12.7-kg uterine leiomyosarcoma. Although her intraoperative course was significant for severe anemia with a hemoglobin of 2.5 g/dl and her postoperative course required long-term hospitalization, the patient regained full function to her preoperative performance status.

CONCLUSIONS:
Bloodless surgery in patients with a potential for large-volume intraoperative blood loss requires a well-organized systematic, multidisciplinary approach to achieve the best possible outcome.

I'm not even going to mention how you ran out on me and left me without even returning to answer the question I posed to you on this topic.

 

[nPeace]

Can you answer the question?

Is there a methodology you can recommend which doesn't have any kind of limits?
No. That's why many are used together.

You've not actually explained your methodology. You simply said "I would determine if it meets that standard". My question is HOW.

Then you need to work on HOW you ask questions.
Your question was...
What methods or methodology could you apply to determine which object was designed and which was not?
WHAT does not mean HOW.

Besides, I explained HOW.

I'd go first of all, by what is understood to be design.
Then using that understanding, I would determine if the product meets that standard.

By examining the product, based on my understanding of design, I determine if the product meets the standard of design.

By contrasting with nature and having an understanding of the development process involved.

You determine design by contrasting the product with nature and having an understanding of the development process involved.
I don't understand that. Could you please explain and give an example.

Then you must admit that testimony alone is never sufficient, so your analogy still fails.

There is a primary source, and a secondary source is necessary to verify. That is where investigation comes in.

 

[nPeace]

No, mountains do not erupt. Volcanoes do.

This is a case of two statements being right, but one wants to get technical. Mountains do erupt, but I see no reason to argue over technicalities of expressions or words.

Well, in the case of volcanic eruptions, were I a volcanologist, I would know what evidence volcanic eruptions leave behind. And were I digging around and came across what looked like the same kind of evidence I know eruptions produce but buried deep in the ground, I might make an hypothesis that what I was seeing is the result of a volcanic eruption in he past (because of the law of superposition).

You?

Nobody has ever seen a mountain erupt, but we do experience volcanic eruptions and they do not take millions of years.

I thought you were going to define "direct evidence" for me?

And from this diversion, I am assuming that you do not think Vesuvius erupted in 19 A.D.?

No no.
The question(s) went like this...
Say you did not know, How would you find out?
Let us say that you never saw mountains erupt, and it takes millions of years. Would you mind demonstrating that you would not have to interpret, and make suppositions, in order to draw conclusions.
Can you say that your conclusions are 100% correct?

Are you saying that the conclusions of volcanologists and geologists regarding the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 A.D. was based on 'suppositions'?

Do tell me which ones. You have used this term before, but I want you to tell me what suppositions went into determining that Vesuvius erupted in 79 A. D.

I could say that conclusions regarding the 79 A.D. eruption of Vesuvius is quite close to 100% correct based on the evidence.

No. Apparently you don't understand what I am asking you do do.
It seems more like this here is the diversion.

Well, I would look at it and I would notice that it shows evidence of manufacture - screws, welding joints, rivets, etc. I would look inside and note that it appears to have been made for humans, and since I know that humans weld and screw and rivet metal, I would conclude that humans made it.

So in order to arrive at a reasonable conclusion, you used prior knowledge - what you know - that is, 1) anything that has joints fixed in place by screws, nuts and bolts, rivets, (you may not be able to see the welding, since everyone doesn't do a bad job) is evidence it was manufactured, 2) by (it doesn't have to be humans, just) a skilled crafter (I guess that rules out monkeys).
You can do that without seeing the manufacturer.

What if all the rivets, etc., were cleverly covered over with a seamless material, would you still be able to tell? That may be a bit more difficult, but by taking a closer look - looking at its components the evidence is revealed. Good.

Explain to me the difference here please.
When we look at, for example, a "biological" cell, and we examine its working components, carrying out particular functions, satisfying a set of specific rules and instructions, intended to reach particular goals, our prior knowledge, of factories, machines, computer programs, etc., - the fact that they are designed with an intended goal by a mind with a plan, leads us to reasonably conclude that these "living factories, machines, and programs of life", were designed by one with a intelligent mind.
We know it's not a human design, therefore logically, the intelligent mind is greater.

Since you are desperately avoiding providing a simple answer to my question, allow me to also insert a digression -

Say you looked in a microscope for the first time and saw some cells. How would you determine what they were and where they came form?
Your response will tell us whether or not you are serious in this 'debate.'

I am not avoiding anything.
You cannot determine that I am serious about debating, by your own standards, which may be totally biased, and this may be just a way to worm your way out of the debate, so I'll see.
I am very serious when I am debating evolutionist - dead serious.
I think you can see that clearly.

To start, I don't think you actually know what supposition means:

A belief held without proof or certain knowledge; an assumption or hypothesis.
‘they were working on the supposition that his death was murder’

If you had supposed that his death was murder (using the dictionary example), then found evidence that the dead person had been shot 3 times in the back and strangled, it is no longer supposition, is it?

I don't think you seriously believe what you said.
Yes. If you made a supposition, you have made a supposition.
So if you supposed that someone was murdered, before looking at the evidence - just making an assumption, you have made a supposition.
After you found out that the person was shot three times in the back, and you assumed the person was murdered, on the basis that you have no proof, or certain knowledge, you have made another assumption. You may have missed the three dents in the metal plate on the wall, where the bullets ricocheted, and lack the knowledge that the man was a marksman, and faked his "murder".

You see, things are not as simple as we try to make them.
So you have some evidence, but still not enough to prevent you assuming, and making suppositions, and because the evidence is circumstantial evidence, you have to make inference. You don't always arrive at the correct conclusion.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly - i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.

On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation.

A Brief Explanation About Direct Evidence Along With Examples
[Direct evidence] should directly prove or disprove a fact without making any assumption or inference. If it does resort to assumption or inference, then it will be circumstantial evidence. In other words, it should be based on facts, not coincidences. Secondly, it should be based on personal knowledge or observation, not hearsay.

The basic difference between direct and circumstantial evidence is that, the latter relies on inference or assumption. In fact, circumstantial evidence almost always has more than one explanation.

Unless is a better word choice. Yes, science keeps chugging along while religion stays right in the 3 millenium B.C. Not all hypotheses are overturned. The major theories we have in science today (relativity, evolution, cell theory, etc.), we have because the broad sweep of their evidence and applications have NOT been falsified.

Keep in mind that falsifiable does not mean falsified - funny how little so many creationists understand these things. I once had a creationist bring up Popper and the falsification criterion, and this creationist declared that evolution was false because it had not been falsified. He thought that you had to falsify something in order to accept it.
Funny.

Yes, but see above.
I note that your belief system refuses to be altered by new evidence or interpretations.
Which is better? The system that 'admits' it is imperfect and is willing to adjust as needed, or the system that denies contrary findings no matter what?

I agree with the system that admits it is imperfect and is willing to adjust as needed.
I don't know where you got the impression that religion doesn't do that. We do, all the time.

Yes, I am, though no longer a very active one (research-wise). I asked because YOU brought it up.

It doesn't need to. It might have to if new evidence is found that better explains the phenomenon.

Therefore it was not correct. True?

One example from a non-contested science - Gravity. Newton's theory of gravity broke down in the case of certain planetary orbits, which were later better explained by relativity.
Does this mean that we are now free to float about if we wish because 'the theory of gravity was falsified'? No - Newton's gravity (if I can call it that) still works for most applications, and when it doesn't, we have relativity/quantum mechanics (physicists please correct my loose terminology as needed).

Yes I understand that some theories are not completely overturned.

Back to hypotheses - you do understand that an hypothesis is not a 'theory' in today's scientific usage of the term, right? Because that is what your line of questioning is starting to hint at. And if so, then
I think your line of questioning belies the naivete in your understanding of science.

You guys do like to do that don't you?
I always wonder what gets people to that stage.
Is it that PhDs go to one's head, and they suddenly think that no one else has a brain, to read and understand?

I know the difference, and throughout this post you have jumped to numerous wrong conclusions, but it does demonstrate why you ask people for definitions, and claim they don't know, when everyone has access to free dictionaries, better yet WWW.

 

[nPeace]

You keep leaving out the evidence.

I also put 'an argument' in 'inverted commas.'
So no argument, then.


When the whale's ancestors were terrestrial, they used them to ambulate.

So the claim goes.

Creation can never be ruled out emotionally because one can always posit 'the creator's whim' for an absurdity like the platypus (according to creationist lawyer Phil Johnson) or that 'the creator did it, so it is all good' as with these vestigial pelvi.
But scientifically, there is simply no reason to posit a creator in the first place.

Not sure what your point is here.

I presume so, but I don;t know for certain. I know that a percentage of Minke whales are born with not only rudimentary pelvic bones but femurs, as well. And I know that the embryos of dolphins exhibit hind limb buds early in development, which are then resorbed. And I know that as mammals, whales and in fact all other vertebrates exhibit shockingly similar early developmental patters in things like their vertebral columns, circulatory system, basic brain structure, etc. All of which adds weight to the evolutionary explanation.

Researchers studying the pelvic bones of dolphins and whales reveal that these seemingly useless remnants of an ancient landlubber lifestyle actually have a purpose.

Hip bone morphometrics of bottlenose dolphins

And you did not comment on any of mine. In case you have not read many of my posts, be aware that I have been involved in this 'debate' for almost 30 years. I have a dozen creationist books on the shelf behind me, along with several volumes of creation 'science' journals. I have seen 2 professional creationist lectures/debates. I have in my archives hundreds of creationist essays, web articles, etc. And I have also published original research in the field of evolutionary biology and have taught related classes at the university level for 20 years. I have exchanged emails with many 'professional' creationists over the years, to INCLUDE Jeff Tomkins (who I had to reach through an intermediary - I asked when he planned to assess the DNA relationships within the created kinds - he did not answer but told me he was right about chimps... whatever..). Point is - there is very little you can present to me from creationists that I have not already encountered and if it is in my field, debunked.

Should I be

And literally every time I have been told this and then given examples, the only interpretation the creationist has is that they believe it shows God did it. Never an actual explanation of any kind - but far far more frequently, all I get is the sort of nonsense Tomkins puts out.

What exactly are you looking for?

Were I lying, yes.
That person merely dismisses the evidence, claiming it to be 'guesses' and the like, but the person is totally incompetent - by her own admission - to even understand the evidence. But that does not stop her from making the same lie over and over about there being no evidence of revolution.

Anyone who doesn't believe as you do, or are not "on your level" is incompetent, isn't that true?
Have you argued with scientists who did not agree with you?
Do you consider them competent?
Yes? I rest my case.
Evidently you are wrong though.

Say I claimed there to be no evidence for the global flood. That I was well versed in all the claimed evidence for a global flood, and that I know that it is all guesses and suppositions and nonsense, and you presented some material that you felt supported the claim that the flood really happened. And rather than delve into the material and try to assess it, I instead asked you to dumb-it-down for me, so I could understand what you had presented. And then I simply ignored it and wrote again later that there is no evidence for the flood?

And that this type of exchange happened repeatedly, over the course of years. Would you consider me an honest person?
I should hope not.

How could I judge you as being dishonest?
Are you aware that there are people who believe something different to another person, not because they don't want to believe it, but because they have good reason to believe otherwise.

Since we are on judging, let me go ahead and make one.
You know what I think. I think you guys just want to feel superior, and because persons are not submitting to you - bowing down on their knees, or fleeing in terror,or just simply cowering in a corner and keeping quiet, you feel threatened, and your egos have been stamped on, so what do you do? You lash out in an attempt to feel mighty, and fuel your ego, by calling the person dishonest, or ignorant, etc.
Am I right? Why am I asking you? I know I am.

I cannot speak for all parasites, as that is not my field, but I believe that there is some genetic evidence in tape worms that they experienced mutations that basically caused their digestive systems to become non-functional. They may have started out as just crawling inside creatures now and then for food, but as their digestive systems became non-functional, had to simply stay in their host. Again, not my area, so I don't know the details.

What field of science have you practiced, may I ask?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What? You don't either? My pleasure.
Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.
Don't thank me, thank Google, and Wikipedia, and WWW, and technology, and the one who gave us life, and a brain to go with it, and the fact you are able to use it, because unfortunately some can't - no fault of their own.

And this is a rather flawed definition because people, like you, will still deny evidence. A much better definition of evidence is the definition for scientific evidence, especially since we are having a scientific debate. I can find more than one source, but the Wiki source is perhaps the best on this matter:

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

Creationists do not like this definition since there is no doubt that countless observations are in accordance with the theory of evolution and creationists are afraid to even try to come up with a testable hypothesis.

There are many examples but it will likely take me 24 hours to gather all for you, so please do not consider the below as exhausted.
First, let me refer you to a post of mine, that shows why the research Christians use is superior.
Advantage of religion over science.
Please just consider a small change to the second line. Religion uses science and is not incompatible with it true science. Also please do not miss the success rates mention in that post, and then return to ask for them. Some tend to do that, so I though I'd give you a heads up.

The below post also contains very important methods, and success rates.
God is spirit - Can't be seen or felt physically, how does one test or detect God?

Below are methods that science itself uses, but are also used by Christian and unqualified scientists.
I'm am going to hold my breath, and swear that you won't ask for the success rate for these.
1. Logic.
2. Empirical evidence is the information received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation.
3. Qualitative research is a scientific method of observation to gather non-numerical data. This type of research "refers to the meanings, concepts definitions, characteristics, metaphors, symbols, and description of things" and not to their "counts or measures." Qualitative research approaches are employed across many academic disciplines, focusing particularly on the human elements of the social and natural sciences; in less academic contexts, areas of application include qualitative market research, business, service demonstrations by non-profits, and journalism.

All of those support the theory of evolution. None of them support your god beliefs.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

1. It depends on the conclusions reached doesn't it?
If two people stabbed up one man, and two investigators looked at the evidence, and each fingered different suspects, both are right - though they don't have everything right, but reached two different conclusions.

2. Would that be by using qualitative and quantitative methods? You tell me.

3. Not necessarily.

Why can't you answer simple, straightforward questions?

Are you a doctor?

How is that relevant?

You talk about all the good science do right, and yet you seem to show a lack of confidence when it comes to this topic, why?
Is it because it interferes with your world-view?

GOING UNDER THE KNIFE'' NOW CAN MEAN BLOODLESS BRAIN SURGERY
Not too long ago, bloodless brain surgery was shrugged off as science fiction. Only five years ago, 21-year-old Jessica Adams, who suffers from a brain disorder called arteriovenous malformation (AVM), would have had to choose between doing nothing and undergoing invasive brain surgery. Both carry risks.

Doing nothing would have increased Jessica''s chance of suffering hemorrhagic stroke, or bleeding in the brain, by 50 percent by the time she is 35. Undergoing open-skull surgery at 21 was not much of an alternative, either.

Last week, Jessica went under the knife--the gamma knife that is -- at Barnes - Jewish Hospital, which took care of her problem in about 22 minutes. That same day, Jessica went home.

Bloodless Pressure: More Surgery Without Transfusions
Bloodless surgery - operations performed without the use of donated blood - has been done for years on patients with religious objections to transfusions. Now, hospitals are embracing the practice more widely, saying it is cheaper and better for patients to avoid transfusions whenever possible.

Bloodless surgery in a Jehovah's Witness patient with a 12.7-kg uterine leiomyosarcoma.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION:
Bloodless surgery aims to optimize outcomes in patients undergoing surgical procedures who wish to avoid allogeneic transfusion. Using a series of interventions and management strategies related to this goal, patients who were previously considered extremely high risk or inoperable without a blood transfusion can now undergo complex surgical procedures with acceptable outcomes. The techniques of bloodless surgery have been incorporated in order to care for a patient with a large uterine sarcoma with involvement and invasion into adjacent organs.

CASE:
A 52-year-old female Jehovah's Witness patient refusing allogeneic blood transfusion presented to the gynecologic oncology division with a 40-cm pelvic mass and anemia. She was enrolled into the bloodless surgery program at the authors' institution and subsequently underwent surgical resection of a 12.7-kg uterine leiomyosarcoma. Although her intraoperative course was significant for severe anemia with a hemoglobin of 2.5 g/dl and her postoperative course required long-term hospitalization, the patient regained full function to her preoperative performance status.

CONCLUSIONS:
Bloodless surgery in patients with a potential for large-volume intraoperative blood loss requires a well-organized systematic, multidisciplinary approach to achieve the best possible outcome.

Actually, it's completely irrelevant to my worldview or the point I was making. Why are you so desperate to avoid acknowledging the simple fact that blood transfusions can and do save lives?

I'm not even going to mention how you ran out on me and left me without even returning to answer the question I posed to you on this topic.

How ironic.