I'm going to skip most everything else you misunderstood, and hone in on one casual challenge you threw.
Evolution could be falsified in any number of ways. Just one [properly observed and documented] fossil out of place would be enough.
I doubt that you really believed this when you said it. "In the Grand Canyon, in Venezuela, and in Guyana, spores of ferns and pollen from flowering plants are found in Cambrianh and Precambriani rocks--rocks deposited before life supposedly evolved." - these were documented in the following places:
. R. M. Stainforth, "Occurrence of Pollen and Spores in the Roraima Formation of Venezuela and British Guiana," Nature, Vol. 210, 16 April 1966, pp. 292-294.
. George F. Howe et al., "A Pollen Analysis of Hakatai Shale and Other Grand Canyon Rocks," Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 24, March 1988, pp. 173-182.
Then there's also the many living fossils that remain mostly unchanged, yet were thought to be extinct many millions of years ago.
Anyway, that's just one example. I found a list of 20+ such fossils, and that was just with a very quick search, I'm sure you can find more than enough to falsify evolution in your mind by searching google with "out of place fossils".
So skipping the rest (since I think it's important that you think evolution can be falsified), I'll wait for your response on this.
I must say, I'm glad you are not the poster I was responding to, otherwise I'd have to accuse you of changing your story.
Well, it is. In this case our observation is that life of some form arose under the conditions prevalant on earth around 3.8 billion years ago. Other observations - such as the current composition of life forms - provide more observations; the laws of physics provide constraints. Hypotheses can be tested against these.
Under no language, or any law of logic or rational could anyone say that we've observed the formation of life 3.8 billion years ago. You are just playing with the word "observation" here, trying to make it sound like it was in context. We can observe and repeat a number of experiments today that can provide clues into the past, but that does not constitute an observation of the past.
Then that person is no longer a scientist. Supernatural explanations automatically disqualify you; as to preconceptions.
I suggest you relook at this. I'm saying that these are people who practice science, and believe in the origin of the universe was from God. I didn't say that they believe they use science to observe and repeat the unobservable, unrepeatable past. I simply said they were scientists who believe in creation. I don't care who you are - they have Ph.D's and they're recognised as scientists. Besides, atheists and naturalists have a preconceived notion of no God - they too are biased.
Well, if I'm ever up on trial for murder, I hope you're in the Jury. After all, we can't know anything from 'unrepeatable history', can we?
We can examine history scientifically. Observations can be repeated, and tested against present day processes and laws. Experiments can be done to test hypotheses; and predictions of future discovery made. This is science, as much as chemistry or physics is.
Evolutionists go to great lengths to prove creationism isn't scientific. Their proof - we can't provide a theory that is falsifiable. That same problem exists with the theory of evolution we disagree with.
Now try to understand this - while I do not believe the method of science can explain the past, I *do* believe in logic and rational. The realm of philosophy and reason uses scientific data to prove it's point. Ie, that method is not itself scientific, but it uses science. If you were on trial for murder, I wouldn't apply the principles of science because it wouldn't be appropriate. I'd use logic to deduce whether you were guilty or not.
The only reason I quibble over the meaning of these words is because of that devious tendancy of evolutionists to accuse creationism of being unscientific when their beloved theory falls by the same sword.
Can I encourage you not to post anonymously? There are other creationists around, and we'd love to put a name with arguments:) My karma has stayed at excellent, no matter how many times my creationist comments are modded down.
If it annoys you, perhaps it is because your understanding is incorrect.
It's not some meaningless blief in God that saves you.
It is faith in Him to trust you. Much like saying to a friend "I trust you with my life" in a dangerous situation.
The reason why you and I would go to hell without Him, is because each of us has sinned, and the wages of sin is death. Of course few today realise how grave it is to rebel against God. Once realised though how deep ones corruption goes, that is when one realises that they, you and I, are in need of His forgiveness. Like a friend you have wronged and you ask them to forgive you - except our crimes are much worse.
Your first link is out of date (1996), new research was discovered afterwards indicating the much younger age of 6,000 years for mitochondrial eve.
The problem with the calculations in your first article is that they were calibrated by evolutionary expectations. ie, they weren't grounded in fact but rather what the experimenters thought it would say.
Your second article is also using the outdated information, likely from the first source.
As for the third one, it has more details - however, the main crux of his argument is "it does not agree with our evolutionary expectations, so these are the reasons why it could be incorrect" - never assuming for a moment that the estimates could be right.
Btw, posting links does not constitute "refuting". And the archaeological record certainly does not back you up. Please provide an example of how it does.
Didn't God say he would destroy Tyre "for ever"? (Tyre was never overthrown, and still exists albeit under a different name). There are loads of other humorous mistakes like that.
Please provide the verse. I don't trust the paraphrasing of those who reject the Scriptures.
Which account of Creationism are you trying to prove? The one where the fowls were created out of the water, or the one where they were created out of the land? Rabbits don't chew cuds and bats aren't birds.
This has been answered elsewhere:
However, the Hebrew phrase for 'chew the cud' simply means 'raising up what has been swallowed'. Coneys and rabbits go through such similar motions to ruminants that Linnaeus, the father of modern classification (and a creationist), at first classified them as ruminants. Also, rabbits and hares practise refection, which is essentially the same principle as rumination, and does indeed 'raise up what has been swallowed'. The food goes right through the rabbit and is passed out as a special type of dropping. These are re-eaten, and can now nourish the rabbit as they have already been partly digested.
- "Do rabbits chew their cud?" by Jonathan Sarfati, Creation 20(4):56, September-November 1998
There's no way any SANE human can hold the Bible up to be fact, 100% error free and reliable.
Either you or I am insane then, since I accept the Bible in it's original form was 100% error free and reliable. I disagree though, a sane person can believe this.
You went to great lengths to explain to me the proper scientific method, then you present this. In Darwin's origin of species, where does he describe how his theory may be falsified? I've heard one say, "if a creature were to spontaneously come into existence it would falsify evolution". Would it really? I don't think so. For this would explain for evolutionists quite nicely how the first simple single celled life came into existence.
Tell me how evolution can be falsified, else it is not a scientific theory. Tell me, according to your previous article, how we can repeatedly test evolution.
I'm afraid like most evolutionists you don't really understand the creationist position. We believe in natural selection. It's proven, tested, and observable. It's maths, a fact of life and logic. We don't dispute that. Your list of four points, we agree with them all. And this is not where our dispute with evolution lies. It lies with the fact that simple single celled life could *never* produce more information to become complex lifeforms like we see today for many reasons. Among those reasons are the amazing odds against it, the irreducible complexity of many creatures, and the greatest of all - the fact that no information producing mutations have been observed that could explain it. The theory of evolution as presented by those who believe in long ages has not had the mechanism it needs observed. The simple single celled life would never become something other than what it is.
If you think that the Galapagos finches are evidence of what he [Darwin] taught, then you are mistaken. I don't really know how much you already know about the creation theory, but I suggest it's not enough at any rate.
I'm looking for the falsifiable theory that explains simple single celled life->today. So much of evolutionary theory, and it's history, is based not on science, but on things that cannot be repeated or observed - such as the evolution of supposed intermediary creatures in the past.
And regarding those 29+ evidences of evolution - every single one of them has already been addressed by a creationist. You will find on the talkorigins website a link to a response by one of their own to the creationist's response. On that creationists website you will find a response of the response to the response:) A long chain, but needless to say, it's been dealt with and we don't need to go into that.
Not a thing here I disagree with. I understand that the "science" of origins is not based in the scientific method. I don't think I ever claimed that. A creation scientist is one who practices science and believes the origin story as presented in the Bible. It's not because they believe they can scientifically examine unrepeatable history.
PS: this is getting ugly, you may now have the last word.
Thankyou for the honor. (sincerely)
The fact that you don't understand how they did it, doesn't mean they didn't do it. Please accept that when scientists produce theories that get accepted by other scientists after torrough investigation, thoste theories are scientifically valid.
By shouting form the rooftops they aren't you only demonstrate your failure to understand; you're not contributing to constructive scientific discussion in any way.You can only contibute by proposing a theory that's better then the one you reject. (And no, creationism is not a better theory scientifically speaking.)
My point is simple. A scientific theory is a theory which, in it's description, shows how the theory can be falsified. For the Archaeopteryx, there is no scientific theory that can be falsified which states it is the descendent of dinosaurs and the ancestor of birds. How can that theory be falsified? It is simply not science. Regarding K/Ar, that method is based on a number of assumptions that have not been proven correct. In fact most/all of these assumptions have been shown to be false in a number of cases. Hence, that theory has been falsified. I'm not a scientist, I haven't made great contributions. But I don't need to to comment on these things - It's simple facts. If you can prove me wrong on them, then the information should be there. But I stand by what I've just said (obviously). I'm interested in facts - I don't just accept blindly what scientists say, because they have been wrong many times. Enough said on this anyway. Since you won't be responding, I won't go in too much depth.
This is the nonsensical claim of all creationsts. What you're all saying is analogous to stating if you mix the letters of the alphabet randomly you can never create new words, only words that already exist or gibberish. Fortunately, language evolves (just like life).
This betrays a misunderstanding of what I said. The analogy you provided is totally incorrect. The correct analogy would be to start with a single letter, and over time have additional letters form and randomly organise themselves into words that make sense. I'm not saying shuffling of letters can't produce new words. I'm saying that the problem lies with how those letters arrived there in the first place. And that's something anyone can understand.
On the topic of mixing existing letters, you will find no true beneficial mutations - all mutations that can be argued as beneficial also include some disadvantage or loss. That is exactly what you find with bacteria(?) which is claimed as evidence of evolution - they don't truly evolve in the same way that simple->complex evolution requires. Their evolution is like the mixing of letters as you describe, and their change in information harms them in other ways. There's plenty of research done about this. I can direct anyone who is curious to them.
In the western world, it was the alchemists who started what we today call science. Most alchemists where not Christians but Hermeticists, and were persecuted by Christians for their beliefs. What where those beliefs? Almost exactly what you write above, except their God was Hermes Trismegistus, not Yahwe. Also, in the medieval times it was a heracy to claim man is capable of discovering the meaning behind Gods actions. Please don't propagandize historical lies.
I am sorry, you are right - I have erred here a little, but not entirely. Science itself was not begun by Christians, since it has been practiced in some form or another for thousands of years. However, it was Christians in the West who began the scientific move from an a priori belief that the universe makes sense, the result in the belief that it was created by an intelligent designer. One can search google for such topics as "origin of science" to find out history. So I had erred, but I still see in history that it was Christians who brought about the
I understood perfectly you were saying naturalism will never come up with a supernatural explanation - that is precisely why I asked you later for a scientific statement by which we could test evolution.
Next topic, I said: How many scientists do you know that have checked whether the decay rate of K/Ar is constant over millions of years? How many scientists do you know have checked to make sure that the Archaeopteryx really was the ancestor of birds?
You replied, Believe me, lots of them did. A scientist doesn't have to check every other theory for himself, that's what the peer review process is for. Theories that have been reviewed lots of times in the past have a high probability of predicting stuff accurately. The point is a scientist *could* review every scientific theory out there, it's just more productive to check new theories then to check theories that have already reached the state of "scientific law".
You missed my point. Not a single scientist has verified those claims I made. Not a single scientist can prove, scientifically, that the Archaeopteryx is the descendant of dinosaurs and the ancestor of birds. Not a single scientist can prove (or at least has proven), scientifically, that K/Ar has decayed at a constant rate over the last, say, 50Ma. That was my point. You claim scientists check the facts. Evolution is based on thousands of stories that are purely conjecture, and not at all science. At least not by the definition of science that evolutionists try to hold the creation theory to.
If you are closing up, then I will make this statement rather than pursuing another question. Your attempt at a scientific theory of evolution was nothing more than a "which do you think is more likely scenario". That has nothing to do with science. It's not testable in any way. I cannot look at what you wrote and say, "Yes, looking at that I can see how we can falsify evolution". The challenge will remain up, to provide a scientific falsifiable theory of evolution that causes the controversy.
Besides, the answer to your question is (b), but your wording portrays a view that we don't hold - namely, that we see the changes occurring but ignore the possibility that these changes could produce something largely different...as if we watched stones rolling off a mountain and believed that the mountain could never fully erode away.
The reason we reject mutations leading to new creatures as evolution requires, is because the mechanism to produce that has never been observed. Ever. All we've seen is inheritence of already existing traits, or the modification of existing data. We have not seen what can bring new information that could possibly change a simple celled single life into something more complex. The philosophy of evolution as presented by talkorigins.org and everywhere else in the world is untested. It cannot be tested. The mechanisms it requires have not been observed, nor have they been tested.
Regarding the supernatural. I believe the supernatural realm has power over the physical/natural world. It was Christians who began science, believing, perhaps a priori, that the world is rational and can be explained by rational means. Having been created by an intelligent being, it must make sense. I extend that view to the supernatural realm too - though it's laws are perhaps above the physical realm, it does have laws of it's own which it must follow. It is not some chaotic place of lawlessness. When the supernatural crosses into the natural, it produces changes in the natural. And though we cannot observe or test the supernatural cause, we can observe and test the changes it preserves. To use an example from roleplaying games, if a wizard cast a fireball, though we could not explain or understand the creation of that fireball, we can measure and test the results it produces.
Well then, I see the Biblical history being proven true as indisputable evidence of God. For the very fact that we cannot think of an atheistic naturalistic explanation. You think people will come up with solutions - I'll tell you what those alternatives will be. They will range from polytheism to monotheism, and weirder spiritual ideas - but they will all involve some sort of god/gods. Creation being proven true would eliminate the already minority view of atheism.
Tell me, can you think of anything even remotely feasible that could explain the existence of the world if creation account was proven true?
Not to mention the enormous respect that would be given to the Bible for having given an accurate historical record.
But that's your choice to make. As the old saying goes, (was it by the imaginary Sherlock Holmes or someone else?) - "If, after having eliminated the impossible, then what is left must be the truth no matter how unbelievable" - in my own words. If evolution is proven false, then creation is the only alternative. Propose something else if you like, but until then, the consequences of evolution being proven false (proving creation true also disproves evolution, obviously) is that one must accept creation.
This is just how science works, a scientist is a professional sceptic that only accepts explanations (theories) that are as simple as possible but still explain as much as possible, and perhaps more important, only accepts explanations he can check for himself.
Hahaha:) How many scientists do you know that have checked whether the decay rate of K/Ar is constant over millions of years? How many scientists do you know have checked to make sure that the Archaeopteryx really was the ancestor of birds? None of the old earth dating techniques have been observed or tested scientifically. None of the claims about the supposed ancesotrs, missing links, etc, are scientific. They are hypothetical guesses. Evolution is founded on unscientific methods. I extend the challenge to you that evolutionists are so quick to give to creationists - what is the scientific theory of evolution by which we may test the theory? (Note: Do not quote the talkorigins.org statement, creationists do not dispute with that, nor does that definition encompass the evolution of simple celled life->today's life). Then we can test it and see if it's true.
Don't talk to us about questionable science, and babble about including God makes it unscientific. I am yet to see the scientific nature of the theory of evolution - by the standards that evolutionists claim creation is not scientific. If you can produce a scientific statement by which evolution can be tested, then I will produce a scientific statement for creation in the same manner. But I can't do that until I see what sort of test you consider scientific. Everyone has his own definition of science:)
This is why including God produces questionable science, one can always find an explanation that doesn't involve the supernatural. The best of these physical explanations would have to be very, very unlikely to make explanations involving the supernatural more likely.
You hold a lot of faith in naturalism. Take the time and look around. I stand with the skeptics society in condemning so-called psychic powers, etc. But you will find some instances in the world of supernatural occurances that defy natural explanation. One need but do some research. Anyway, that's up to you to take the initiative to look outside of how you perceive the world to be made up.
By the way, saying that the best of these "physical explanations would have to be..." - aren't you basically saying that if creation were proven true, then you would consider it almost certain that God existed? Since, in this case, the supernatural explanation is far simpler and has far greater explanatory power than the (nonexistent) physical alternative?
Then tell me, if all the history of the Bible was shown true - 6,000 year old earth, origination of all species from two initial kinds (Adam & Eve the original two for humans) - then how could that possibly *not* prove God? In other words, what possible naturalistic atheistic explanation is there?
Grandma may appear to be going backwards to me, but that's only because I'm using myself as a point of reference. If we consider the beginning of the universe as the reference point, then we will see that every piece of time is moving forwards, won't we? Just at different speeds. And thats the point I'm trying to make - I don't care if event a appears to occur before event b, just that one of them *did* occur first relative to the beginning of time.
If you understand that proof of creationism is proof of God - then I encourage you to examine the issue with an open mind. Most or all evolutionists I have encountered simply do not understand our position. Having been brought up in an evolutionary world, it is easier for me to understand the theory of evolution, but for one outside it is not easy to consider something new.
I understand your point about a "creator" - but the difference I was trying to make was between intelligent design and random choices. I know you think intelligence is still random, but I'm guessing you *know* what I mean, and that's the kind of intelligence I'm referring to. It has the ability to organise things in a way that it desires, while random processes do not. Ah, I still see you are going to see that as random:) For me it is a great evidence of God and the fact that we are created beings - because our ability to comprehend our environment is beyond the scope of evolution. As your position proves, it reduces us to mindless, meaningless entities in which there is no morality. That is not only something I would fight and die to stop, but seems completely irrational. I agree with you that it is the logical conclusion of an evolutionary mindframe - but that *should* be cause enough for you, having seen that, to consider whether evolution really does make sense. We see a dice rolled, and that dice has no power to comprehend its activities. At what point did we gain this understanding? Does it make sense that we ever should?
On the other hand, if you feel, as many "creation scientists" do, that the universe, the earth, life and man all were created in late October, 4004 BCE, there is a great deal of hard evidence against you. Such a belief is not a simple matter of faith, but a more complicated matter of blind faith. A faith that demands that you close your eyes to the world around you doesn't strike me as healthy, or likely to be true. It certainly doesn't count as science, or as something I'd want to see children being taught.
It's exactly comments like this that I buck against. Evolutionists are so very quick to pronounce the existence of "hard facts", or "mountains of evidence", or "overwhelming proof". Show me it! I've looked and considered creation and evolution for a long time. I believe that evolution is like an old wives fable that has been told so many times, and has so much circumstantial evidence built up around it (eg, those one in a million chance things) that people hear these tired stories so many times they come to believe it - "it's a widely believed fact" as Fry said in Futurama. I'm not interested in blanket statements. You tell me, what proof is there of evolution? Even better! What is the scientific theory of evolution by which we can test the theory? What is the scientific theory of evolution which creationists disagree with - that all life evolved from simple single celled life. Show me something we can test.
You are making assumptions about what we may or may not care about.
If we can demonstrate creationism as being true apart from God - ie, that the history given in the Bible was in fact correct, from Adam & Eve, age of the earth, flood, history of the nations, etc. Then would that prove God as existing? Note what I'm saying - we've simply proven that the events recorded in the Bible did occur. If that happened, would God's existence be verified?
Here's a link to the response to Camp's critique. It explains the strawman arguements that he used.
Lucky for me, I can post links too, a defence of the criticisms given in the link you just posted. My link is newer, do I win?
Or would you rather stop link posting, and we look at one example in detail ourselves, rather than hoping on the most recent rebuttal of others?
First, I said *virtually*. Also, most of those few scientists who disagree are not working in the fields related to evolution - they are speaking outside of their expertise. Or, to quote, "Take me out of my field of study and I'm just another guy sitting on a barstool".
First of all, though the strict theory of evolution is biological only, it also relies on a number of assumptions in other fields without which it would be impossible. For example, we cannot discuss the creation of a palace on a mountain if the mountain itself does not exist. You cannot avoid that - so the questions of geology and other fields in relation to evolution are vitally important.
Secondly, there are a number of creation biologists. But I know your response - this list is small. I know a Christian biologist who has never even thought about creationism. He just accepted evolution because that is what he was taught. I am betting that most biologists today are evolutionists purely because that is what they have been told - and I'm betting that most of them have never considered creation or looked into it. So to me, the numbers of biologists is largely irrelevant. The fact is, there are some creation biologists, and that is significant.
Doing what is right? Give me a break! I would say refuting creationist lies and falsehoods is doing right.
Call a spade a spade. I'm happy for you to refute creationist lies and falsehoods. But I doubt that you are informed enough to recognise them. Do you want to look at any specific area in detail with me and find out who is right? I asked you a question: have you bothered to look past the propaganda of talkorigins and mainstream media to consider whether creationism is right? Or have you always approached it from the angle of "these poor misguided religious zealots, why can't they see the truth?" - or whatever stance it is you take.
And as far as bullying goes, I would say that some creationists attitudes that Christians who accept that the theory of evolution is correct are not real Christians and will burn in hell is far worse than anything that the T.O regulars have done.
We are the Church of God, Creator of the Heavens and the Earth. He has saved us, and called us to judge each other. You as an outsider cannot tell us how we should run our affairs. We listen to Him alone, and He requires us to guard carefully that which He gave us. I personally do not condemn evolutionist christians as unsaved. I do chastise Christians who believe evolution - I give them the benefit of the doubt, that they have not considered what they believe. But once having understood what is truly at stake in the creation evolution controversy, they must ultimately make a choice.
I assume it is due to the type of equipment or proceedure that they use. But to abuse that like Austin did raises ethics questions on his part - that is the *real* root question.
Be careful what you assume. This is *exactly* the problem I'm talking about. You talk about how Austin acted deceitfully, or unethically, but you don't even know why they can't date less than 2Ma!! And the answer to that question demonstrates beyond doubt that Austin acted with integrity, and his point was affirmed and strengthened. Do you care why? In fact, this experiment is one of the simplest demonstrations of the complete bankruptcy of evolution, yet so many fail to see. I wonder if thats because one needs a blind attitude in orde
Ok...I have no problem with that. What he was trying to say is that events do not occur in a specific order. What the theory actually says is that the order of events cannot be reliably determined.
There is a world of difference in those two things.
Ok, you may have proved it is impossible on a cosmic scale. That still doesn't eliminate a first cause. All you've done is shown our weakness in determining the precise order of events.
If God interacts with the physical realm, it does not imply He is at least physical. I believe the physical can be manipulated by spiritual means. Besides, this is all moot. When God incarnated as Jesus the Christ He became part physical. He was fully human and fully God. We don't fully comprehend this, but the two are not mutually exclusive - just beyond our understanding. You are making a number of claims and assumptions that don't seem to be possible to back up.
Now your treatment of the scientific community confuses me. Explain more fully why creationism being demonstrated as true would not prove God's existence?
I'm starting to get a bit concerned...it sounds like you are saying a number of catch phrases with no meaning or unfounded assumptions. Please - get straight to the point. What's your argument and the evidence for it or the reasoning behind it? What do you mean by not being able to prove God by reasoning about Him exclusively? What does that mean? Why wouldn't I want God proven scientifically? What are you saying?
Your example of the gunshots merely proves that we have difficulty determining what events occurred first, not that both occured simultaneously first and last. The first guy *did* fire first, whether you stand 2 miles from him or 1 mile. The differences is in your perception of who fired first.
You need to explain in more detail why proving creationism true proves that God is physical and therefore not infinite? Here is why creationism would affirm God's existence: 1. It would show that the history in the Bible was accurate and true 2. Having demonstrated this as true, we would then understand that God was the creator 3. There is no atheistic/materialistic/naturalistic option for a creation theory - that the earth is ~6000 years, began with two of each kind, etc.
One could not deny the existence of God if creationism was proven true. I fail to see how this would prove God is physical and therefore not infinite. It seems to be a common claim of atheists that you cannot prove the existence of God. However, they base that claim (as I suspect you do) solely on the assumption that evolution is true - for if evolution is true, then there is no way to be certain if God guided it or if it occurred apart from Him. But if we eliminate evolution and have creation theory upheld, then there is no option but to acknowledge His existence.
I think the irritation of the 'k' extends more than just a mortal kombat reminder. The 'g' is sometimes pronounced softly, like in gnome. It flows smoothly half the time. Whereas 'k' is always pronounced with a sudden gush of wind from the mouth. I find it very, very irritating - a lack of diversity.
Not to mention I find 'k's to look worse than 'g's. I also hate the incorrect spelling it encourages when a 'c' is the correct letter.
Worst of all, for *all* the characters, is alphabetical listing. I despise having 50% of my apps in a list all starting with the same letter.
You will have to explain why time being relative means that there cannot be a first cause. It is possible for a train to be moving at 30km or 60km, but only ever being able to move forward. As such, there will never be a point where two different events occur in a different sequence. In other words, I don't understand what you are saying.
Your assurances that the theory in 2000 years will not be creationism do little to persuade me, as you can probably guess.
If creationism is demonstrated true, then God's existence is proven. Or do you say that creationism being proven would not necessarily prove the existence of God?
A fool looks at a watch and says that it has no creator. Evolutionists ask me to believe in the possible as if it were rational. And yet it is *we* who are accused of believing fairy tales and myths.
Slashdot Mirror
Evolution could be falsified in any number of ways. Just one [properly observed and documented] fossil out of place would be enough.
I doubt that you really believed this when you said it. "In the Grand Canyon, in Venezuela, and in Guyana, spores of ferns and pollen from flowering plants are found in Cambrianh and Precambriani rocks--rocks deposited before life supposedly evolved." - these were documented in the following places:
. R. M. Stainforth, "Occurrence of Pollen and Spores in the Roraima Formation of Venezuela and British Guiana," Nature, Vol. 210, 16 April 1966, pp. 292-294.
. George F. Howe et al., "A Pollen Analysis of Hakatai Shale and Other Grand Canyon Rocks," Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 24, March 1988, pp. 173-182.
Then there's also the many living fossils that remain mostly unchanged, yet were thought to be extinct many millions of years ago.
Anyway, that's just one example. I found a list of 20+ such fossils, and that was just with a very quick search, I'm sure you can find more than enough to falsify evolution in your mind by searching google with "out of place fossils".
So skipping the rest (since I think it's important that you think evolution can be falsified), I'll wait for your response on this.
Well, it is. In this case our observation is that life of some form arose under the conditions prevalant on earth around 3.8 billion years ago. Other observations - such as the current composition of life forms - provide more observations; the laws of physics provide constraints. Hypotheses can be tested against these.
Under no language, or any law of logic or rational could anyone say that we've observed the formation of life 3.8 billion years ago. You are just playing with the word "observation" here, trying to make it sound like it was in context. We can observe and repeat a number of experiments today that can provide clues into the past, but that does not constitute an observation of the past.
Then that person is no longer a scientist. Supernatural explanations automatically disqualify you; as to preconceptions.
I suggest you relook at this. I'm saying that these are people who practice science, and believe in the origin of the universe was from God. I didn't say that they believe they use science to observe and repeat the unobservable, unrepeatable past. I simply said they were scientists who believe in creation. I don't care who you are - they have Ph.D's and they're recognised as scientists. Besides, atheists and naturalists have a preconceived notion of no God - they too are biased.
Well, if I'm ever up on trial for murder, I hope you're in the Jury. After all, we can't know anything from 'unrepeatable history', can we?
We can examine history scientifically. Observations can be repeated, and tested against present day processes and laws. Experiments can be done to test hypotheses; and predictions of future discovery made. This is science, as much as chemistry or physics is.
Evolutionists go to great lengths to prove creationism isn't scientific. Their proof - we can't provide a theory that is falsifiable. That same problem exists with the theory of evolution we disagree with.
Now try to understand this - while I do not believe the method of science can explain the past, I *do* believe in logic and rational. The realm of philosophy and reason uses scientific data to prove it's point. Ie, that method is not itself scientific, but it uses science. If you were on trial for murder, I wouldn't apply the principles of science because it wouldn't be appropriate. I'd use logic to deduce whether you were guilty or not.
The only reason I quibble over the meaning of these words is because of that devious tendancy of evolutionists to accuse creationism of being unscientific when their beloved theory falls by the same sword.
No, he posted a link to trueorigins.org.
Can I encourage you not to post anonymously? There are other creationists around, and we'd love to put a name with arguments :) My karma has stayed at excellent, no matter how many times my creationist comments are modded down.
If it annoys you, perhaps it is because your understanding is incorrect.
It's not some meaningless blief in God that saves you.
It is faith in Him to trust you. Much like saying to a friend "I trust you with my life" in a dangerous situation.
The reason why you and I would go to hell without Him, is because each of us has sinned, and the wages of sin is death. Of course few today realise how grave it is to rebel against God. Once realised though how deep ones corruption goes, that is when one realises that they, you and I, are in need of His forgiveness. Like a friend you have wronged and you ask them to forgive you - except our crimes are much worse.
The Bible in fact implies that the earth is circular:
"It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers..." - Isaiah 40:11a
Where does it imply that it is flat? Please quote references.
Your first link is out of date (1996), new research was discovered afterwards indicating the much younger age of 6,000 years for mitochondrial eve.
The problem with the calculations in your first article is that they were calibrated by evolutionary expectations. ie, they weren't grounded in fact but rather what the experimenters thought it would say.
Your second article is also using the outdated information, likely from the first source.
As for the third one, it has more details - however, the main crux of his argument is "it does not agree with our evolutionary expectations, so these are the reasons why it could be incorrect" - never assuming for a moment that the estimates could be right.
Btw, posting links does not constitute "refuting". And the archaeological record certainly does not back you up. Please provide an example of how it does.
Please provide the verse. I don't trust the paraphrasing of those who reject the Scriptures.
Which account of Creationism are you trying to prove? The one where the fowls were created out of the water, or the one where they were created out of the land? Rabbits don't chew cuds and bats aren't birds.
This has been answered elsewhere:
- "Do rabbits chew their cud?" by Jonathan Sarfati, Creation 20(4):56, September-November 1998There's no way any SANE human can hold the Bible up to be fact, 100% error free and reliable.
Either you or I am insane then, since I accept the Bible in it's original form was 100% error free and reliable. I disagree though, a sane person can believe this.
You went to great lengths to explain to me the proper scientific method, then you present this. In Darwin's origin of species, where does he describe how his theory may be falsified? I've heard one say, "if a creature were to spontaneously come into existence it would falsify evolution". Would it really? I don't think so. For this would explain for evolutionists quite nicely how the first simple single celled life came into existence.
Tell me how evolution can be falsified, else it is not a scientific theory. Tell me, according to your previous article, how we can repeatedly test evolution.
I'm afraid like most evolutionists you don't really understand the creationist position. We believe in natural selection. It's proven, tested, and observable. It's maths, a fact of life and logic. We don't dispute that. Your list of four points, we agree with them all. And this is not where our dispute with evolution lies. It lies with the fact that simple single celled life could *never* produce more information to become complex lifeforms like we see today for many reasons. Among those reasons are the amazing odds against it, the irreducible complexity of many creatures, and the greatest of all - the fact that no information producing mutations have been observed that could explain it. The theory of evolution as presented by those who believe in long ages has not had the mechanism it needs observed. The simple single celled life would never become something other than what it is.
If you think that the Galapagos finches are evidence of what he [Darwin] taught, then you are mistaken. I don't really know how much you already know about the creation theory, but I suggest it's not enough at any rate.
I'm looking for the falsifiable theory that explains simple single celled life->today. So much of evolutionary theory, and it's history, is based not on science, but on things that cannot be repeated or observed - such as the evolution of supposed intermediary creatures in the past.
And regarding those 29+ evidences of evolution - every single one of them has already been addressed by a creationist. You will find on the talkorigins website a link to a response by one of their own to the creationist's response. On that creationists website you will find a response of the response to the response :) A long chain, but needless to say, it's been dealt with and we don't need to go into that.
Not a thing here I disagree with. I understand that the "science" of origins is not based in the scientific method. I don't think I ever claimed that. A creation scientist is one who practices science and believes the origin story as presented in the Bible. It's not because they believe they can scientifically examine unrepeatable history.
Thankyou for the honor. (sincerely)
The fact that you don't understand how they did it, doesn't mean they didn't do it. Please accept that when scientists produce theories that get accepted by other scientists after torrough investigation, thoste theories are scientifically valid.
By shouting form the rooftops they aren't you only demonstrate your failure to understand; you're not contributing to constructive scientific discussion in any way.You can only contibute by proposing a theory that's better then the one you reject. (And no, creationism is not a better theory scientifically speaking.)
My point is simple. A scientific theory is a theory which, in it's description, shows how the theory can be falsified. For the Archaeopteryx, there is no scientific theory that can be falsified which states it is the descendent of dinosaurs and the ancestor of birds. How can that theory be falsified? It is simply not science. Regarding K/Ar, that method is based on a number of assumptions that have not been proven correct. In fact most/all of these assumptions have been shown to be false in a number of cases. Hence, that theory has been falsified. I'm not a scientist, I haven't made great contributions. But I don't need to to comment on these things - It's simple facts. If you can prove me wrong on them, then the information should be there. But I stand by what I've just said (obviously). I'm interested in facts - I don't just accept blindly what scientists say, because they have been wrong many times. Enough said on this anyway. Since you won't be responding, I won't go in too much depth.
This is the nonsensical claim of all creationsts. What you're all saying is analogous to stating if you mix the letters of the alphabet randomly you can never create new words, only words that already exist or gibberish. Fortunately, language evolves (just like life).
This betrays a misunderstanding of what I said. The analogy you provided is totally incorrect. The correct analogy would be to start with a single letter, and over time have additional letters form and randomly organise themselves into words that make sense. I'm not saying shuffling of letters can't produce new words. I'm saying that the problem lies with how those letters arrived there in the first place. And that's something anyone can understand.
On the topic of mixing existing letters, you will find no true beneficial mutations - all mutations that can be argued as beneficial also include some disadvantage or loss. That is exactly what you find with bacteria(?) which is claimed as evidence of evolution - they don't truly evolve in the same way that simple->complex evolution requires. Their evolution is like the mixing of letters as you describe, and their change in information harms them in other ways. There's plenty of research done about this. I can direct anyone who is curious to them.
In the western world, it was the alchemists who started what we today call science. Most alchemists where not Christians but Hermeticists, and were persecuted by Christians for their beliefs. What where those beliefs? Almost exactly what you write above, except their God was Hermes Trismegistus, not Yahwe. Also, in the medieval times it was a heracy to claim man is capable of discovering the meaning behind Gods actions. Please don't propagandize historical lies.
I am sorry, you are right - I have erred here a little, but not entirely. Science itself was not begun by Christians, since it has been practiced in some form or another for thousands of years. However, it was Christians in the West who began the scientific move from an a priori belief that the universe makes sense, the result in the belief that it was created by an intelligent designer. One can search google for such topics as "origin of science" to find out history. So I had erred, but I still see in history that it was Christians who brought about the
I understood perfectly you were saying naturalism will never come up with a supernatural explanation - that is precisely why I asked you later for a scientific statement by which we could test evolution.
Next topic, I said: How many scientists do you know that have checked whether the decay rate of K/Ar is constant over millions of years? How many scientists do you know have checked to make sure that the Archaeopteryx really was the ancestor of birds?
You replied, Believe me, lots of them did. A scientist doesn't have to check every other theory for himself, that's what the peer review process is for. Theories that have been reviewed lots of times in the past have a high probability of predicting stuff accurately. The point is a scientist *could* review every scientific theory out there, it's just more productive to check new theories then to check theories that have already reached the state of "scientific law".
You missed my point. Not a single scientist has verified those claims I made. Not a single scientist can prove, scientifically, that the Archaeopteryx is the descendant of dinosaurs and the ancestor of birds. Not a single scientist can prove (or at least has proven), scientifically, that K/Ar has decayed at a constant rate over the last, say, 50Ma. That was my point. You claim scientists check the facts. Evolution is based on thousands of stories that are purely conjecture, and not at all science. At least not by the definition of science that evolutionists try to hold the creation theory to.
If you are closing up, then I will make this statement rather than pursuing another question. Your attempt at a scientific theory of evolution was nothing more than a "which do you think is more likely scenario". That has nothing to do with science. It's not testable in any way. I cannot look at what you wrote and say, "Yes, looking at that I can see how we can falsify evolution". The challenge will remain up, to provide a scientific falsifiable theory of evolution that causes the controversy.
Besides, the answer to your question is (b), but your wording portrays a view that we don't hold - namely, that we see the changes occurring but ignore the possibility that these changes could produce something largely different...as if we watched stones rolling off a mountain and believed that the mountain could never fully erode away.
The reason we reject mutations leading to new creatures as evolution requires, is because the mechanism to produce that has never been observed. Ever. All we've seen is inheritence of already existing traits, or the modification of existing data. We have not seen what can bring new information that could possibly change a simple celled single life into something more complex. The philosophy of evolution as presented by talkorigins.org and everywhere else in the world is untested. It cannot be tested. The mechanisms it requires have not been observed, nor have they been tested.
Regarding the supernatural. I believe the supernatural realm has power over the physical/natural world. It was Christians who began science, believing, perhaps a priori, that the world is rational and can be explained by rational means. Having been created by an intelligent being, it must make sense. I extend that view to the supernatural realm too - though it's laws are perhaps above the physical realm, it does have laws of it's own which it must follow. It is not some chaotic place of lawlessness. When the supernatural crosses into the natural, it produces changes in the natural. And though we cannot observe or test the supernatural cause, we can observe and test the changes it preserves. To use an example from roleplaying games, if a wizard cast a fireball, though we could not explain or understand the creation of that fireball, we can measure and test the results it produces.
Tell me, can you think of anything even remotely feasible that could explain the existence of the world if creation account was proven true?
Not to mention the enormous respect that would be given to the Bible for having given an accurate historical record.
But that's your choice to make. As the old saying goes, (was it by the imaginary Sherlock Holmes or someone else?) - "If, after having eliminated the impossible, then what is left must be the truth no matter how unbelievable" - in my own words. If evolution is proven false, then creation is the only alternative. Propose something else if you like, but until then, the consequences of evolution being proven false (proving creation true also disproves evolution, obviously) is that one must accept creation.
This is just how science works, a scientist is a professional sceptic that only accepts explanations (theories) that are as simple as possible but still explain as much as possible, and perhaps more important, only accepts explanations he can check for himself.
Hahaha :) How many scientists do you know that have checked whether the decay rate of K/Ar is constant over millions of years? How many scientists do you know have checked to make sure that the Archaeopteryx really was the ancestor of birds? None of the old earth dating techniques have been observed or tested scientifically. None of the claims about the supposed ancesotrs, missing links, etc, are scientific. They are hypothetical guesses. Evolution is founded on unscientific methods. I extend the challenge to you that evolutionists are so quick to give to creationists - what is the scientific theory of evolution by which we may test the theory? (Note: Do not quote the talkorigins.org statement, creationists do not dispute with that, nor does that definition encompass the evolution of simple celled life->today's life). Then we can test it and see if it's true.
Don't talk to us about questionable science, and babble about including God makes it unscientific. I am yet to see the scientific nature of the theory of evolution - by the standards that evolutionists claim creation is not scientific. If you can produce a scientific statement by which evolution can be tested, then I will produce a scientific statement for creation in the same manner. But I can't do that until I see what sort of test you consider scientific. Everyone has his own definition of science :)
This is why including God produces questionable science, one can always find an explanation that doesn't involve the supernatural. The best of these physical explanations would have to be very, very unlikely to make explanations involving the supernatural more likely.
You hold a lot of faith in naturalism. Take the time and look around. I stand with the skeptics society in condemning so-called psychic powers, etc. But you will find some instances in the world of supernatural occurances that defy natural explanation. One need but do some research. Anyway, that's up to you to take the initiative to look outside of how you perceive the world to be made up.
By the way, saying that the best of these "physical explanations would have to be..." - aren't you basically saying that if creation were proven true, then you would consider it almost certain that God existed? Since, in this case, the supernatural explanation is far simpler and has far greater explanatory power than the (nonexistent) physical alternative?
Then tell me, if all the history of the Bible was shown true - 6,000 year old earth, origination of all species from two initial kinds (Adam & Eve the original two for humans) - then how could that possibly *not* prove God? In other words, what possible naturalistic atheistic explanation is there?
If you understand that proof of creationism is proof of God - then I encourage you to examine the issue with an open mind. Most or all evolutionists I have encountered simply do not understand our position. Having been brought up in an evolutionary world, it is easier for me to understand the theory of evolution, but for one outside it is not easy to consider something new.
I understand your point about a "creator" - but the difference I was trying to make was between intelligent design and random choices. I know you think intelligence is still random, but I'm guessing you *know* what I mean, and that's the kind of intelligence I'm referring to. It has the ability to organise things in a way that it desires, while random processes do not. Ah, I still see you are going to see that as random :) For me it is a great evidence of God and the fact that we are created beings - because our ability to comprehend our environment is beyond the scope of evolution. As your position proves, it reduces us to mindless, meaningless entities in which there is no morality. That is not only something I would fight and die to stop, but seems completely irrational. I agree with you that it is the logical conclusion of an evolutionary mindframe - but that *should* be cause enough for you, having seen that, to consider whether evolution really does make sense. We see a dice rolled, and that dice has no power to comprehend its activities. At what point did we gain this understanding? Does it make sense that we ever should?
It's exactly comments like this that I buck against. Evolutionists are so very quick to pronounce the existence of "hard facts", or "mountains of evidence", or "overwhelming proof". Show me it! I've looked and considered creation and evolution for a long time. I believe that evolution is like an old wives fable that has been told so many times, and has so much circumstantial evidence built up around it (eg, those one in a million chance things) that people hear these tired stories so many times they come to believe it - "it's a widely believed fact" as Fry said in Futurama. I'm not interested in blanket statements. You tell me, what proof is there of evolution? Even better! What is the scientific theory of evolution by which we can test the theory? What is the scientific theory of evolution which creationists disagree with - that all life evolved from simple single celled life. Show me something we can test.
If we can demonstrate creationism as being true apart from God - ie, that the history given in the Bible was in fact correct, from Adam & Eve, age of the earth, flood, history of the nations, etc. Then would that prove God as existing? Note what I'm saying - we've simply proven that the events recorded in the Bible did occur. If that happened, would God's existence be verified?
Lucky for me, I can post links too, a defence of the criticisms given in the link you just posted. My link is newer, do I win?
Or would you rather stop link posting, and we look at one example in detail ourselves, rather than hoping on the most recent rebuttal of others?
First, I said *virtually*. Also, most of those few scientists who disagree are not working in the fields related to evolution - they are speaking outside of their expertise. Or, to quote, "Take me out of my field of study and I'm just another guy sitting on a barstool".
First of all, though the strict theory of evolution is biological only, it also relies on a number of assumptions in other fields without which it would be impossible. For example, we cannot discuss the creation of a palace on a mountain if the mountain itself does not exist. You cannot avoid that - so the questions of geology and other fields in relation to evolution are vitally important.
Secondly, there are a number of creation biologists. But I know your response - this list is small. I know a Christian biologist who has never even thought about creationism. He just accepted evolution because that is what he was taught. I am betting that most biologists today are evolutionists purely because that is what they have been told - and I'm betting that most of them have never considered creation or looked into it. So to me, the numbers of biologists is largely irrelevant. The fact is, there are some creation biologists, and that is significant.
Doing what is right? Give me a break! I would say refuting creationist lies and falsehoods is doing right.
Call a spade a spade. I'm happy for you to refute creationist lies and falsehoods. But I doubt that you are informed enough to recognise them. Do you want to look at any specific area in detail with me and find out who is right? I asked you a question: have you bothered to look past the propaganda of talkorigins and mainstream media to consider whether creationism is right? Or have you always approached it from the angle of "these poor misguided religious zealots, why can't they see the truth?" - or whatever stance it is you take.
And as far as bullying goes, I would say that some creationists attitudes that Christians who accept that the theory of evolution is correct are not real Christians and will burn in hell is far worse than anything that the T.O regulars have done.
We are the Church of God, Creator of the Heavens and the Earth. He has saved us, and called us to judge each other. You as an outsider cannot tell us how we should run our affairs. We listen to Him alone, and He requires us to guard carefully that which He gave us. I personally do not condemn evolutionist christians as unsaved. I do chastise Christians who believe evolution - I give them the benefit of the doubt, that they have not considered what they believe. But once having understood what is truly at stake in the creation evolution controversy, they must ultimately make a choice.
I assume it is due to the type of equipment or proceedure that they use. But to abuse that like Austin did raises ethics questions on his part - that is the *real* root question.
Be careful what you assume. This is *exactly* the problem I'm talking about. You talk about how Austin acted deceitfully, or unethically, but you don't even know why they can't date less than 2Ma!! And the answer to that question demonstrates beyond doubt that Austin acted with integrity, and his point was affirmed and strengthened. Do you care why? In fact, this experiment is one of the simplest demonstrations of the complete bankruptcy of evolution, yet so many fail to see. I wonder if thats because one needs a blind attitude in orde
Hmm, I think you replied to the wrong person. Thanks for your thoughts anyway.
Ok...I have no problem with that. What he was trying to say is that events do not occur in a specific order. What the theory actually says is that the order of events cannot be reliably determined.
There is a world of difference in those two things.
I'll read it later, right now I'm pretty tired. If you could tell me what he's right about though I would appreciate that.
Ok, you may have proved it is impossible on a cosmic scale. That still doesn't eliminate a first cause. All you've done is shown our weakness in determining the precise order of events.
If God interacts with the physical realm, it does not imply He is at least physical. I believe the physical can be manipulated by spiritual means. Besides, this is all moot. When God incarnated as Jesus the Christ He became part physical. He was fully human and fully God. We don't fully comprehend this, but the two are not mutually exclusive - just beyond our understanding. You are making a number of claims and assumptions that don't seem to be possible to back up.
Now your treatment of the scientific community confuses me. Explain more fully why creationism being demonstrated as true would not prove God's existence?
I'm starting to get a bit concerned...it sounds like you are saying a number of catch phrases with no meaning or unfounded assumptions. Please - get straight to the point. What's your argument and the evidence for it or the reasoning behind it? What do you mean by not being able to prove God by reasoning about Him exclusively? What does that mean? Why wouldn't I want God proven scientifically? What are you saying?
Your example of the gunshots merely proves that we have difficulty determining what events occurred first, not that both occured simultaneously first and last. The first guy *did* fire first, whether you stand 2 miles from him or 1 mile. The differences is in your perception of who fired first.
You need to explain in more detail why proving creationism true proves that God is physical and therefore not infinite?
Here is why creationism would affirm God's existence:
1. It would show that the history in the Bible was accurate and true
2. Having demonstrated this as true, we would then understand that God was the creator
3. There is no atheistic/materialistic/naturalistic option for a creation theory - that the earth is ~6000 years, began with two of each kind, etc.
One could not deny the existence of God if creationism was proven true. I fail to see how this would prove God is physical and therefore not infinite.
It seems to be a common claim of atheists that you cannot prove the existence of God. However, they base that claim (as I suspect you do) solely on the assumption that evolution is true - for if evolution is true, then there is no way to be certain if God guided it or if it occurred apart from Him. But if we eliminate evolution and have creation theory upheld, then there is no option but to acknowledge His existence.
I think the irritation of the 'k' extends more than just a mortal kombat reminder. The 'g' is sometimes pronounced softly, like in gnome. It flows smoothly half the time. Whereas 'k' is always pronounced with a sudden gush of wind from the mouth. I find it very, very irritating - a lack of diversity.
Not to mention I find 'k's to look worse than 'g's. I also hate the incorrect spelling it encourages when a 'c' is the correct letter.
Worst of all, for *all* the characters, is alphabetical listing. I despise having 50% of my apps in a list all starting with the same letter.
You will have to explain why time being relative means that there cannot be a first cause. It is possible for a train to be moving at 30km or 60km, but only ever being able to move forward. As such, there will never be a point where two different events occur in a different sequence. In other words, I don't understand what you are saying.
Your assurances that the theory in 2000 years will not be creationism do little to persuade me, as you can probably guess.
If creationism is demonstrated true, then God's existence is proven. Or do you say that creationism being proven would not necessarily prove the existence of God?
A fool looks at a watch and says that it has no creator. Evolutionists ask me to believe in the possible as if it were rational. And yet it is *we* who are accused of believing fairy tales and myths.