NATURE IS SUPERNATURAL. nature shouldn't exist, but it does. Therefore I come to the conclusion that IT HAD A SUPERNATURAL CREATOR. the fact that THINGS EXIST crys out the fact that SUPERNATURAL ACTIVITY IS GOING ON BEHIND THE SCENES OF OUR EVERYDAY LIFE.
@RespectMyHate Nature is NATURAL devoid of any intelligence or supernatural tinkering or pupet strings . Only wishful thinking superimposes a cosmic intelligence behind the scene (its a mental construct only) . Nature gets everything done SANS miracle or divine intervention . The universe runs on mechanical laws and explanations. The unknowns dont make Thor or Zeus real either .
Send me a website where I can see transitional fossils, I will refute every one of them.
Just because the majority of scientists don't believe in ID doesn't make them right. the majority of the time following the crown is usually a bad thing.
The evidence is clear GOD CREATED ALL LIFE, and if life is so simple and it evolved from simpler life forms, why can't scientist create life in their million dollar labs. and please don't bring up Venter.
@RespectMyHate The word proof or prove is not correct to use in confirming /validating science (I'll let you look up why its the wrong volcabulary ) .The short answer is proof only applies to mathmatics . In court cases the word prove is used but not in science .
@RespectMyHate Evolution micro and macro has been confirmed and is considered factual from the fossil record , from biological life observed speciation over 3 centuries and observation in the field amd lab . Genome mapping DNA trumps fossils .Fossil evidence is still enough however .
@RespectMyHate Mainstream science dosent recognise / validate ID because it (ID) isnt science or use the scientific method . ID is politicly motivated theology masqarading as science .Belief means to accept without evidence ,the wrong word to use with science .
@RespectMyHate Because science cant recreate life quickly in small containers doesnt mean life needed a supernatural miracle or imply that is the correct alternative .Prayers wont recreate life in small aquarium tanks either . The oceans where vast with trillions of proto life chemicals combining every second for millions of years . All phonomena known has natural origins .Supernatural claims seem dreamy without evidence .
@flyingscience you could fill the entire universe up with organic material for all eternity and you will never get life. do you think if you filled the entire ocean up with watch parts after 1 million years do you think you will ever get a fully fuctional watch?
@RespectMyHate The fore runners of life organise themselves and replicate like crazy thats the BIG diffrence .YES they relicate and make copies you are not aware of the basics . Life did occur on Earth ,so yes it did happen we are here . What followed was an incremental evolutionary sequence not a quick succesion of instant creation . For over 1 Billion years the ONLY life was single celled algea / stromatolites . God was in no hurry to be prasied by life higher than algea!
@RespectMyHate Parroting creationists rebutals to transitionals is no diffrent than closing your eyes and yelling its not true , not true, not true . Creationist have a greater ability to deny that overpowers anyones ability to explain . In your mind you choose to ignore all mainstream science answers .Creationism can only be transcended by study and time and an open mind thats curious .
@RespectMyHate Here is a video series that is a must see by every creationist . Creationists generaly have a poor understanding of the basic terminology and concepts . Look up this video to have transitionals accuratly explained:"9th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism " Watch the whole series to be fully informed .
Creationism is stronger in America because we teach by passive learning. If we taught people to investigate for themselves, creationism would die out and we'd be more inventive, honest, and overall better off. As long as we teach by "Here. learn this." we will not progress toward our potential.
You do realise that creationists try to disprove opposing scientific theory's so vigorously only because in their own minds it needs to be a certain fact. this comes from a simple fear of there being nothing after death. Thats what it's all about in the end, isn't it? there is no god, there is no heaven, and when you die, there is nothing. People can't deal with that for some reason. what's wrong with nothingness? if there is nothing how will you care that there is nothing????
"By comparing different parts of each sample to each other and with other samples from the same deposit, if they were clumped together."
I'm sorry, but this doesn't answer my question. I asked you how do you know what may have affected samples individually or *collectively*. Also, how can you accurately extend the calibration curve back 45,000 years without making assumptions.
Grace, you can easily answer these questions yourself with the most minimal of an attempt. I'm done attempting to be a gradeschool science textbook for you in 500 characters or less. Don't be lazy and stop this idiotic assumption that creationist sites have even the slightest credibility by default. They don't, they just play off your laziness and feed your biases.
Actually, I have attempted to find answers to these questions and have been unable to do so. Also, I don't assume that creationist sites are credible by default. I try to check things out first. I'm not lazy and my only bias is that I am a Bible believing christian. I am willing to admit my bias up front unlike most people in your camp. Scientists who reject the Bible and a Creator are biased as well. One of their biases is naturalism (ie. nature is all that there is). I know how they think.
Grace, you cited that idiotic 'assumptions of radiometric dating' page without even reading up on it. Admit it. Its flaws were so mundanely *easy* to spot by a half-educated amateur that it was embarrassing for you to even list it.
And don't lie about scientists, Grace. I doubt you've known more than 3, let alone found them hiding naturalistic biases.
Finally, being biased towards naturalism is not at all a bad thing, Grace. It's effectively being biased towards observational evidence It's the difference between a preference for a demonstration versus a third-hand story, in terms of how believable it is.
I doubt your use of 'bias' here is in that technical sense, though, and hence my statement about lying. You like to pretend that the reason your views are laughed at is due solely to interpretation, not ignorance.
I'm glad to see you admit that these scientists are also biased and that being biased is not necessarily a bad thing. When you commented about creationist sites feeding my biases, it seemed like you were implying that biases are always a bad thing. So now the issue becomes, which bias is good. Of course if the Bible is a third-hand story like you claim, then I would agree with you that a biblical bias wouldn't make a lot of sense. However, if the Bible is the Word of God then it would.
Everyone is biased, Grace. It's how you treat the biases and how grounded they are which matters. For example, no scientist shies away from creationist nonsense *at first*, when someone claims they have evidence, etc. It's only after considering their shoddy propositions that it's rejected. However, when you seek only to confirm your bias towards creationism, like when you use a reference to an idiotic radiometric dating denialist site, you willfully avoid education.
This is a running theme, Grace. You list an objection which implies poor education. I point out how it's wrong, then I tell you to read actual science texts and learn from the mistake. Then you bring up something new, or accuse scientists of something, yada yada yada. It's been a month since you promised me that you would read a college-level biology textbook. Were you lying?
If the Bible is the 'Word of God', Grace, then God is seriously incompetent because various translations disagree, whether it's the gnostic translation disrupting the primary foundation of the Trinity or the KJV stipulating the existence of unicorns. However, like I said, I'm *NOT* debating the damn Bible with you. If you have a competent scientific basis for your claims, present it (finally). If not, admit it and go educate yourself before spouting more creationist garbage. Simple enough, eh?
God is not incompetent, however men often are. First, not only to the gnostics reject the Trinity, but they also deny that Jesus Christ came in the flesh and that man has a sin nature, ect. Gnosticism has nothing to do with true Christianity or the Bible. Second, what makes you think that unicorns never existed? What about the Elasmotherium (Elasmotherium sibiricum)? If you don't want to debate the Bible, then why to you keep taking swipes at it? You know that I may respond to them.
I keep making swipes at the Bible because you keep bringing it up, Grace, as if it's anything more than an evidenceless collection of stories. You say that a bias towards the Bible is fine if it's 'The Word of God', but then again there's no evidence for its stories outside of, at best, *some* of the very general details (Babylonians existed, etc). It doesn't have said evidence and your bias is not comparable to an appreciation for verification. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Actually, their bias is not a good thing. It is, practically speaking, a bias toward atheism. Basically, it is saying that since I don't observe anything supernatural happening today and can't demonstrate it, then it doesn't exist, never happened and never will. As far as believability goes, abiogenesis and common descent are about as believable as a watch springing into existence without a watchmaker. I'm not a liar or a pretender and I don't think that they are laughing too hard.
I can see how a bias for verifiability could lead to atheism, but that isn't exactly a bad thing, Grace. Having any rigorous standard of evidence would do such a thing.
Furthermore, you're simply wrong. It is *not* saying that since you don't see it, it doesn't exist. It is saying that be cause there is no evidence for its existence, there's no reason to believe in it.
A bias for verifiability is not the same thing as a bias toward naturalism. One of the problems with this is that common descent has never been verified. To verify something is to prove it to be true. Prentice Hall Biology: Exploring Life refers to the common descent of all mammals as a hypothesis. A hypothesis is an unproven theory. It is not a fact. I'm looking at this biology textbook online. I see a lot of evidence for the existance of a Creator, both in the Bible and in the natural world.
"A bias for verifiability is not the same thing as a bias toward naturalism."
Yes, yes it is. In fact it is exactly that, by definition, something you'd know had you studied even a teensy-tiny bit of the philosophy of science, something which typically comes in a college-level introductory biology textbook (hint hint).
"One of the problems with this is that common descent has never been verified."
Don't lie, Grace. I've explained precisely how it's been verified.
In science, verification involves the ability to replicate an experiment and achieve similar results and the open nature of the evidence itself: the data, even the phenomena, are often available directly for other scientists. A biologist will send you a sample of his bacteria if you ask properly and are convincingly another scientist with reasonable methods for sterilization.
Furthermore, science operates via a concordance of evidence.
Common descent is an unrepeatable process that many scientists believe occured in the past. It can't be verified experimentally. What you need to do is take the empirical data and phenomena that you are referring to and falsify the biblical account of creation. After all, that's how science is supposed to work, isn't it?
"Furthermore, science operates via a concordance of evidence. "
Yes, and the concordance of evidence points to a creator.
Grace, seriously now... how about you waltz over to the talk origins list to creationist claims (or whatever) and read every. single. entry. You don't have to agree with them, but you do need to know how tedious and unoriginal you're being.
The process need not be repeatable, Grace, only the experiment. No process is strictly repeatable because there's *always* variation (which is why we use statistics and multiple attempts).
Yes it can. Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern - something we find in numerous and different places in genome comparisons and in the fossil record (and other places). You can run all kinds of experiments to that effect and it's quite falsifiable in that regard.
I'm still waiting for you to explain what a nested hierarchy is, Grace. Why won't you do it?
"What you need to do is take the empirical data and phenomena that you are referring to and falsify the biblical account of creation."
No, I don't. No one has to take the silly claims of creationism so seriously that they must be disproven. The only reason I ever do so is because the silliness is so popular, not because it's impressive.
Creationism must have coherent, consistent, and mechanistic *empirical* predictions in order to be respectable. Get to work on that, Grace.
"Specifically, what do you find silly about the biblical account of creation and why?"
What, really? Think about these things just a *little* bit, Grace. I know you're competent enough. How about... a talking snake? The fact that many of the events and implications by creationists disagree with a huge amount of observations (young earth creationists among others)? I really don't think I need to explain why those are silly.
Because that wasn't the topic of discussion and you keep trying to derail the thread, going into Christianity, continuing to repeat antiscience creationist BS while avoiding biological education. The fact that the creationism is nonpredictive and when 'predictive' refuted should give you an idea to figure it out on your own until you've remedied your denial of the central unifying (and thoroughly evidenced) idea of biology.
"Why does creation have to be explained only in terms of physical forces and the laws of nature in order to be respected?"
Creationism, Grace. And it must have consistent, coherent, and mechanistic empirical predictions to be respectable. Heck, you could even throw out mechanistic if it were preditive enough (although it would make it much harder).
Why? Because that's the low bar for verifying an ontological claim. Minimal verification.
"Yes, and the concordance of evidence points to a creator."
I'm not going to let you derail the conversation further... there's a number of things you need to do to prove that you're minimally interested in biology. First, you need to explain what a nested hierarchy is and how it's evidence for evolution. Next, you need to correct yourself on a number of issues where it's very easy to do so (and I've noted it).
Citation, Grace? I'm tired of the creationist lies you gullibly repeat. You *promised me* that you would either read a college-level textbook or read proper science before making scientific claims, so don't make yourself into a liar. At the very least, your God is not a fan of it.
Of course, you're wrong. I'll explain in the next post.
Sure, Webster's New World Dictionary. Is the dictionary a creationist source? I think not. I'm tired of you referring to everything I say as creationist lies. Are you saying that Ken Miller's book isn't proper science because it's a high school level text?
You're right, God can't lie and He isn't a fan of it. The Bible says "Let God be true and every man a liar." You oppose the truths of God's Word virtually every time you post. So who is the liar here anyway?
Webster's doesn't cut it for science, Grace. Science has very specific definitions for the terms it uses and the fact that you don't even know what a hypothesis is demonstrates damnable scientific illiteracy, *given that you keep citing antiscience creationist BS*.
Furthermore, every Webster's resource I find doesn't list that definition, although it's a common misapprehension.
I do know what a hypothesis is. It is essentially a testable statement. A tenative explanation for certain facts or phenomena that is not yet verified. A hypothesis that is verified through experimental testing becomes a scientific theory. Thats the definition off of WordNet. I knew that before, btw. Of course this is a mute point since high school texts aren't authoritative anyway.
Nope, wrong again. A general hypothesis which draws from a number of other confirmed hypotheses, and is then confirmed itself, can become a theory, as that's what a theory is. Some hypotheses are called 'models' when confirmed, some are called 'laws' if they were that specific and had the implication or statement consistent with being a law (In X conditions, Y always does Z).
And some hypotheses graduate to.... confirmed hypotheses. No need for more words, there.
"A general hypothesis which draws from a number of other confirmed hypotheses, and is then confirmed itself, can become a theory, as that's what a theory is."
Citation? Are you saying that a confirmed hypothesis by itself can't become a theory?
"And some hypotheses graduate to.... confirmed hypotheses. No need for more words, there. "
Then they should be called confirmed hypotheses or something else to distinguish them from unconfirmed hypotheses.
Apparently my comment didn't properly get posted before: the Prentice Hall book you cited isn't even by Ken Miller, although the problem with a high school level book is that it will necessarily simplify things too much. High school biology is about very general concepts and facts and you will misunderstand things if you treat such a book as authoritative.
Also, Ken Miller's book isn't science at all... that should be obvious.
A science textbook is a book giving instructions in the principles of science or a scientific field. It contains science and is a scientific resource. Thats what I mean. Are you saying that college level texts aren't scientific either?
I never said Ken Miller's book wasn't scientific, I said it wasn't science itself. It could be used to teach the subject of biology, a science, in a fairly general manner. It does not constitute original research, the body of scientific knowledge, or the methodology(ies) of science.
"You're right, God can't lie and He isn't a fan of it. The Bible says "Let God be true and every man a liar." You oppose the truths of God's Word virtually every time you post. So who is the liar here anyway?"
Grace, I'm not a liar because I don't agree with your opinion about God. That's an insulting sentiment and you know it. But you do lie every time you go back on your word (repeatedly), something I avoid as best I can.
"It's not my opinion about God that you are not agreeing with. It's the Bible itself that you are rejecting and you know it."
And your opinion. I don't believe in the Bible nor God, Grace, so how the hell am I a liar? Because God is just so real that the only way I could reject him is by lying? Har har. I do believe the fact that you're rationalizing creationism not being even slightly predictive (nor empirical) proves that wrong.
Ah, it seems you didn't. I had assumed you accepted my reasonable challenge of reading a college-level biology textbook and/or checking your repetition of creationist claims against a legitimate source before posting them (they're boring and stupid).
I'm not sure which is worse... refusing to have a minimal education before spouting ignorant nonsense or implicitly admitting that such a thing would damage your views while maintaining the appearance of interest.
For some reason my comments won't go through with quotes. I'm replying to your first response here: we've been discussing this longer for a week, Grace, and there are a lot of resources for learning about evolution, including nested hierarchies. Just. Try.
"I do have a minimal education and why would that damage my views? Education (not indoctrination) reinforces my views."
The opposite has been demonstrated so far, Grace. I debunked your knee-jerk creationist piece on radiometric dating, you went on like nothing happened and refused, yet again, to educate yourself on the topic after I offered directions for you to pursue.
I already explained what a nested hierarchy was before. As far as answering how it is evidence for evolution, I'm not going to argue according to someone else's presuppositions. I use the biblical foundation of history to interpret evidence, confirming this with real science.
@gracedispensation: No, you never explained what it was. You gave a vague and incorrect definition and still refuse to explain how it's evidence for evolution. This isn't some silly realm of opinion and vagueness, it's concrete evidence demonstrating a clear pattern which is predicted only by *1* idea. Tell us how it works. If you don't know, you haven't learned the tiniest thing about evolution.
Also, I've already defined it for you, so how hard could it be for you to tell me?
Let's try something else, Grace. Given that evolution is far more evidenced (and therefore believable) than God, how about I start implying that you're a liar for disagreeing with science (science's empirically-verified truths)? Does that seem reasonable to you? I'll run with it every time you imply that I'm lying merely for rejecting one (or all) of your many silly claims about God.
"Given that evolution is far more evidenced (and therefore believable) than God"
Evolutionism is far more evidenced than God? Actually, it's the other way around. The Bible says to avoid oppositions of science falsely so called, so I don't believe everything that is called "science."
"I'll run with it every time you imply that I'm lying merely for rejecting one (or all) of your many silly claims about God."
Any claim about God is silly to you regardless of its merit.
'Evolutionism', along with 'evolutionist', are terms favored by creationists, Grace. I used the word evolution, as I'm describing scientific theory. And yes, it's more evidenced than God, however if you're hung up on that bit of rhetoric you're missing my point.
Grace, this is the last thing I'm going to discuss concerning the Bible, because it has jackall to do with evolution: it does not describe modern science in any fashion. When it reads 'science', it's referring to the ancient meaning (translation) of simply gathering knowledge, often systematically. Homeopathy and philosophy pass those tests.
Actually the Bible does have something to say about evolution, if what you mean by evolution is the common descent of all life. It reveals it to be false. The very definition of modern science is systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, ect. It is a branch of knowledge that systematizes facts, priciples, and methods. I also must point out that the Bible doesn't say to avoid science, but oppositions of science falsely so called. True science doesn't oppose biblical truth.
@gracedispensation: Like I said, I'm not going to debate the Bible with you. If you want to reject science because it disagrees with your theology, knock yourself out. Just don't pretend you have defensible reasons outside of, "the Bible says so", because you don't.
Incidentally, where did you derive your rule that "true science" doesn't oppose Biblical truth? Is it something you made up on your own or stole from Answers in Genesis?
I don't wish to debate the Bible with you either. You either believe it or you don't. It's really that simple. I don't reject true science. In fact I excelled in math and science when I was in school. However, I do reject junk science. While the Bible is the only reason I need to reject evolution and the evolutionary timeline, there are other good reasons as well. One example being recorded human history, which only goes back roughly 5000 years. This is consistent with the Biblical timeline.
@gracedispensation: like I said, if your point is that you only accept what the Bible says, then you can stop talking and walk away. If you otherwise cling to irrational claims about the accuracy of a science, then focus on that. If you want to throw away your brain to "Bible says", go ahead. You don't really seem to want to do that.
What is "junk science", Grace? Words have meanings... is it everything that isn't "true science" i.e. whatever "Bible says"?
@gracedispensation: so to be clear, you reject "junk science" because written history goes back ~5000 years? Does that honestly make sense to you? If you care about the consistency of facts, how do you deal with all of the science supporting an old earth, the existence of people going back hundreds of thousands of years? You can't care about the facts one second and ignore them when it's convenient, that's dishonest.
No, I reject junk science because it isn't true and is driven by unscientific motives. The point that I was making is that written history is consistent with the biblical timeline. How do you deal with all the science supporting a young earth? The existence of people going back hundreds of thousands of years is not a fact. I don't ignore the facts. Facts are true by definition. Can you prove the existence of people going back that far?
@gracedispensation: I was asking you about what junk science was because you seemed to imply it was whatever didn't fit with the Bible. If it's what "isn't true", what is your metric for establishing the veracity or lack thereof of something you call junk science? What is unscientific about a junk science you reject? I believe you're calling evolutionary theory junk science, aren't you? Support your claim and be specific.
@gracedispensation: like I said, I'm not going to debate the Bible with you. If you think there's any evidence whatsoever supporting a young earth, list it. Consistency, what you just claimed, is rather pitiful, particularly considering the rationalizing and slippery nature of creationist claims, and it isn't even demonstrated for this situation. Go ahead and list interesting facts you consider to be consistent. Furthermore, there's quite a bit of evidence against creationism...
@gracedispensation: hominins have been around for millions of years, dated via independent methods, those methods themselves calibrated. I remember asking you to tell me how calibration worked, I don't remember getting any sufficient reply. The existence of said hominins is a fact, it's something so well demonstrated that it should be accepted as a given. Anatomically modern humans have been dated to 50-200 thousand years ago. Remember your failed attempt at fighting dating?
@gracedispensation: "Facts are true by definition". Facts are things which are accurate, yes. Do I seriously need to go through the basics again? Have you even looked at a biology textbook yet? Are you not aware of common descent, of overlapping phylogenies lining up so nicely with respect to time? Are you ignorant of all the fossils, do you pretend they're all just chimps, do you still cling to fantasies of imagined problems with dating methods?
And no, I didn't make that up or steal it from AiG. The Bible supports true science. It says to avoid profane babblings and oppositions of science *falsely* so called. If true science opposed Biblical truth, then the Bible would say to avoid science, which it doesn't. Since when has science falsified things recorded in the Bible?
@gracedispensation: given that you're a creationist, science has falsified things recorded in the Bible for centuries. Technically, it remains unfalsifiable because it's floppy enough that many people are *not* creationists and via their interpretations, the Bible has not been falsified.
Your rejections of non-"true science" will have to extend to geology, archaeology, cosmology, and astronomy among others, all of which posit an old earth formed over billions of years.
@gracedispensation: Oh, and what's a nested hierarchy and how does such a pattern provide evidence for evolution? Again, this isn't a matter of opinion, but simple facts which you can (and probably will) choose to ignore if you'd like. When you "answered" last time, you were wrong, so don't lie and tell me you answered.
I will be pulling out that bit of rhetoric if you try to imply dishonesty on my part for disbelieving in God. It was despicable, Grace. In fact, I expect an apology before educating you much further. I'm not your teacher and I've already torn apart your claims when I thought they were worth addressing. You still won't answer my question about nested hierarchies...
No. It's off-topic and you have yet to demonstrate even a slight propensity for learning, *on your own*, the science underlying evolution. I don't doubt you could do it, if you actually wanted to.
Finally, in what way is it reasonable for you to defend lying by... attacking me (illegitimately, I'll add). You have to realize that doing that is itself dishonest, Grace.
A hypothesis is a statement or idea of how a specific phenomenon works. It can refer to an idea with the highest validation in science (think of hypotheses in physics) or one without any support whatsoever: it is actually independent of accuracy, which must be established separately. Common descent happens to be a hypothesis which is incredibly well-verified.
BTW, Prentice Hall Biology is Ken Miller's book and it's a high school level text...
Abiogenesis is considerably more plausible than an anthropomorphic deity (he cares about your prayers, yada yada yada), but it isn't in the same league as common descent in terms of the evidence for it. Common descent is so ridiculously proven (it has lots of evidence) that it takes willful ignorance to reject it. I'd say having overwhelming evidence makes it quite clear that it's believable and I would challenge you yet again to explain what a nested hierarchy is and how it's evidence.
And the watchmaker argument has been dispensed with for over 200 years, Grace. Get with the times and *minimally educated yourself*. It is not a tall hard to see how the dissimilarities between life and populations indicate different origins - watches don't reproduce, for one. I'll let you get started on the rest of it yourself. It's your homework assignment and I would expect nothing less from a 15-year-old high school student.
It's not at all surprising that men have dispensed with their Creator long ago. In fact, since they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not right. That's really a sad and scary thing when you think about it. I don't get with the times, I get with the truth. Of course watches don't reproduce. That was an analogy to show that exquisitely complex machinery, whether animate or inanimate doesn't arise by time and chance.
Grace, the disanalogies between life and a watch are what make the watchmaker argument piss-poor. The dissimilarities are actually important and explain precisely how complexity can arise in living populations.
I will wait for you to do your homework and find the important differences. It's not at all hard, Grace. Were I a teacher, it would be, at best, overnight homework in addition to other problems.
"The dissimilarities are actually important and explain precisely how complexity can arise in living populations."
Why don't you give me one specific example where complexity has been observed to arise in a living population. Random mutation and natural selection has never been observed to create complex biological structures such as organ systems, for example. Nor has it ever been observed to change one kind of organism into another.
"Why don't you give me one specific example where complexity has been observed to arise in a living population."
No. Why don't you do the tiniest bit of research to see that I'm right? It's not hard *at all*, it took me less than a minute. Don't be lazy, Grace, and don't lie about your intentions. If you're interested in biology, you should be reading up on this stuff first rather than peddling creationist BS.
Furthermore, you want to see organ systems springing de novo into place? Is that where you set the bar for concluding that evolution happened? Besides being ludicrously high compared to your standard for creationist BS (believing what they tell you, never checking up on it), there are tons of other ways in which the evolution of organs is demonstrated. Do the research, Grace. I am not your teacher and you have to put in effort to learn.
Now Grace, are you going to go learn the tiniest amount of information about biology and evolution from a source that actually appreciates and understands its evidentiary basis, systematics, and methodology? So far, you've shown that rather than learning about biology, you'd rather read AiG and rationalize your rejection of science (attacking scientists as 'biased', as if a high standard of evidence is a bad thing). Can't you answer my questions, Grace? Explain a nested hierarchy.
And seriously, how hard did you try to find the answer to your question? Have you even looked up calibration? Can you list several methodologies and how they confirm radiocarbon dating?
I've noticed that you cling to your rejection of radiocarbon dating despite your piss-poor record at finding plausible reasons to do so, let alone doing your own research before rejecting a solid and *popular* science. It's insulting to reject the work of empiricists without good reason.
Riding wild tigers as a child , performing miracles through children touching gurus feet , stoping a person from dying in plane crash , falling off cliff .Speaking any laungauge -theses are modern day miracles reported within a few decades .
Grace - the point is modern day miracle stories are just as suspect as ancient ones .Human psychology of cults explains why they never cease to go away .
The bible/religion was written /run by flawed men with agendas . The bible does not have the clarity or exactness of a car manual .Word of God sounds better than anonymous campfire stories from oral tradition.
Speaking of paleontology, I recently read an article where a senior lecturer in paleontology was quoted as saying "I enjoy paleontological studies because of the scope for more imaginative thought than in other biological disciplines. It is like recreating a picture of the past only with many of the jigsaw pieces missing." Too bad more of the public isn't awair of this, since they would be less likely to buy into all the wierd stories told by these scientists.
Grace - That's quote mining , a creationist tactic commonly used since there is no evidence in support of special instant magical miracle creation week .
God creating everything in a week is not magical, but it is a miracle. It is the power of God. True, I can't show you extra biblical evidence that points to a 6 day creation. I know that from the account given in Genesis. But, it's very clear from observing the heavens and the earth that they were created.
Creation in a week is mythical dogma , every scientific method known confirms an old Earth with life evolving slowly .People superimpose religions onto nature .
Thats elephant hurling, a tactic often used by evolutionists. What specific scientific method confirms an old Earth with life evolving slowly? The only biological change thats confirmed is variation or speciation within a kind or genus.
EVERY known dating method confirms an old Earth more than 6-10K old .Even counting tree rings , ice layers , and varves . Google 29+ evidence for macro evolution .
Fossils are no longer the primary evidence for evolution. DNA and genome sequenceing is . Gapless and nearly gapless records of many invertabrate sea lifespecies is known ABOVE the genus level /speciation .
Gapless records of diatoms ,snails , cephalopods ,brachiopods ,corals etc are known (because these animals fossilise by the billions .They need not turn into some other animal but species diverge /increase.
How is DNA and genome sequencing evidence for evolution and not common design?
When you mention gapless records, I believe you are refering to fossils. I would like to know about OBSERVED biological change above the level of species.
This is my first response to "Lets Test Them: Evolution vs. Creationism." First of all, I would like to say that, believe it or not, Biblical Creation isn't a scientific theory. It is a historical account, given by inspiration of God who cannot lie, of the creation of heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is. Therefore it is above a scientific theory. Second, in a nutshell, this video consists of a series of straw man arguments which I would like to comment on.
The first argument deals with the fossil record. First, he assumes that creationists believe that the strata represents millions of years of slow sedimentation. This is not what most creationists, including myself, believe. For example, the Cambrian layer is considered to be some of the first sediment layed down by the global flood. Second, as a creationist, I would never predict a random fossil record like he suggests. There are other possible reasons for the general order in the fossil record.
Grace - the geologic column CANT be from Noahs flood because their is too much history in each layer (far more than what can occur in less than 1 year).
There are too many layers of intact fossilised reefs that grew in place .One buried atop another .Flood cant uproot reefs intact and replant them . This nails down an OLD Earth .
No, I just interpret the evidence differently than evolutionists do because my presuppositions are different. And as far as dedication is concerned, my dedication isn't to religion or tradition, it's to the Bible.
The sea life fossils are in an exact evolutionary sequence world wide . Noahs flood ,hydrology sorting CANT sort out recent sea shells from Paleozoic ones of same size and shape etc. .
I'm not saying that hydrology is the only reason for the order in the fossil record, although I do believe it could have had a role to play. I think hydrology sorts objects based on weight, density and buoyancy rather than size and shape. Other reasons exist as well, such as the geological systems representing different ecological zones and the range of mobility of different creatures (more mobile creatures would have generally been able to seek higher ground as the flood waters rose).
Plant evolution is clearly seen in the fossil record .First trees where only 6 feet tall and weirdly primitive (couldn't send water higher than 6feet at first ) .
Grace Ive never seen any wrong fossils in all my decades of fossil hunting .Look at any of my fossil hunting videos do you see any modern day sea shells mixed in with my Paleozoic fossils --No!
Sea shells , corals , snails , fish , ammonites , sharks , whales , turtles etc. etc. , ALL found in an evolutionary ascending order .With transitions at just the right places -This is why evolution IS a FACT .
This is the mantra often shouted by those who believe that evolution on a grand scale occured in the past and can explain the vast diversity and complexity of life. They say that evolution is a fact, despite the fact that science doesn't prove things, but rather disproves things. When did evolution go from being a theory to a fact and a theory? I don't think the fossil record is as neatly organized as you claim. I was reading that fossils have been turing up in the "wrong" places more often.
Grace- germs , cells , atoms ,gravity and evolution are ALL theories and facts simultaneously . Theory differs from hypothesis which its mistaken for.
Then why is atomic theory, for example, never refered to as atomic fact by professors who teach the subject. Also, germs, cells, atoms and gravity are all observable/measurable in the present. Evolution, on ther other hand, is BELIEVED to have occured in the PAST over millions of years. I do understand the difference between a theory and a hypothesis.
Grace -evolution is documented every minute of every day by drug companies fighting new strains of viruses etc.. Yes that is indeed evolution -virus evolution does count .
What you have here is a virus mutating into another virus. It's not mutating into another kind of organism. If you define evolution as change over time, then yes this is evolution. When I refer to evolution, I'm talking about the creation of new kinds of organisms. This would require an increase in genetic information resulting in the generation of complex biological systems. For example, no one has ever observed an organism without the genes for an eye, begin to evolve an eye.
Evolution at the simplest definition is descent with modification . The differences do add up to new features , new limbs new organs NEW DNA instructions / information but only step by step .
Evolution has never been observed to add up to new limbs, new organs or a bonified increase in genetic information. Give me a SPECIFIC example of a genetic mutation or evolutionary process which can be SEEN to increase the information in the genome.
Fossils can never show evolution. Fossils are unchanging records of dead organisms. Fossils "show" evolution only if one presupposes evolution, then uses that presuppposed belief to interpret the fossil.
I have been patient and given you 30 minutes or more per day . Hopefully it wasn't all in vain . Its time for us to part ways .You can converse with other people now .I wish you the best Gracedispensation .
I agree, I think it's time to move on. I appreciate you taking the time to converse with me. I just wanted to say that I don't believe my scientific literacy is handicapped by my christian faith. It's important to remember that presuppositions effect how we interpret evidence. I would encourage you to read the Gospel of John and the first 8 chapters of the book of Romans and consider the claims of Christ. It is my hope and prayer that someday you would come to know Christ personally.
Not at all. The fossil record illustrates precisely what you'd expect to find with common descent in metazoans: a nested hierarchy. No other idea predicts that very specific pattern, one which "just happens" to match phylogenies generated from molecular analyses. Simpler version: no rabbits in the precambrian, Grace, and there's a reason for it which doesn't rhyme with 'dud'.
A nested hierarchy is just a grouping or classification of organisms by the number of shared traits. It is ASSUMED to reflect the evolutionary pattern of descent with modification.
"No other idea predicts that very specific pattern"
Common descent of all metazoans is just that, an idea. It's not even a testable idea, let alone a fact.
"Simpler version: no rabbits in the precambrian"
Google "Where Are All the Bunny Fossils?" for some information about this.
Wow, you have never read even a basic biology textbook, have you?
A nested hierarchy is a branching pattern, where shared traits form clades with *respect to time*. It is not merely counting shared traits and grouping, but finding *homologous* traits, ones shared by ancestry. The easiest way to understand this, but the *weakest* evidence we have for it, is the fossil record, as I explained. I expect you to understand this in the future, so go and read about it if you still think I'm wrong.
"What makes you so sure that all of these homologous traits are shared by common ancestry and not common design?"
I already explained that, anticipating the rather ignorant 'common design' argument. Nested hierarchies are not what you find in 'common design', certainly not ones matching precisely what you'd expect from fairly messy evolutionary paths (human lower back problems, wisdom teeth, etc, are all due to our particular ancestry). Stop going for the intellectual crutch and *read*.
For we know that the whole creation groans and travails in pain together until now.
That is a far cry from the original creation which was very good. If a well designed car was in an accident and didn't run too well after that, you wouldn't conclude that it was poorly designed.
Grace, I'm not going to argue theology with you. You think explaining science takes a long time? Theology would be worse.
If you'd like to admit that you can't argue your point extrabiblically, that would be acceptable. At least you wouldn't go around claiming that the empirical evidence isn't overwhelming or repeat creationist nonsense (like the radiometric dating you still haven't read up on, for all I can tell).
I will just point out one general thing: you surely point to the good and complex as evidence of design, but when there's something bad (wisdom teeth), you chalk it up to the fall of man. There is no situation where your ideas could be wrong (i.e. not rationalized to fit), therefore it's completely removed from being even slightly scientific, let alone empirical.
Second, my point wasn't even about 'bad design', it was about contingency.
"but when there's something bad (wisdom teeth), you chalk it up to the fall of man."
I didn't mean to imply that wisdom teeth problems were due to the fall of man. What I was trying to say is that because of the fall, everything isn't "very good" anymore like God originally described it. I was making a general statement. Wisdom teeth problems are probably due in part to a shift to soft, processed foods resulting in a decrease in masticatory demands and a change in the teeth-jaw relationship.
Then like I said, I'm not going to argue theology with you. I will argue the evidence and science and the Bible is *not* empirical evidence. If you'd like to have a theological discussion, there are many venues for that.
And like I said (again), my point was about contingency...
"Nested hierarchies are not what you find in 'common design', certainly not ones matching precisely what you'd expect from fairly messy evolutionary paths (human lower back problems, wisdom teeth, etc, are all due to our particular ancestry)."
And no, the fossil evidence is not weak. If fossil evidence was all we had, evolution via common descent would be the inevitable conclusion. This is something you'd understand if you didn't read denialist nonsense before, you know, actual biology. Done by biologists. People who spend their lives learning about the natural world and all that. You don't need to knee-jerk accept their authority, but you *do* need to look into the actual science to not be arrogant when you deny it.
"evolution via common descent would be the inevitable conclusion"
Yea, the conclusion of those who reject the Bible and hold to evolutionary presuppositions. Fossils can never show evolution. Fossils are unchanging records of dead organisms. Fossils "show" evolution only if one presupposes evolution, then uses that presuppposed belief to interpret the fossil.
"but you *do* need to look into the actual science"
I have and so far I havn't been too impressed with what I've seen.
"Yea, the conclusion of those who reject the Bible and hold to evolutionary presuppositions."
No, the conclusion of those who have an appreciation for the evidence - enough of an appreciation to actually know what it is. Obviously a prior commitment to a creationist interpretation of the Bible would conflict with such an appreciation, but that would invalidate your implied appreciation for the evidence. After all, if the Biblical interpretation takes precedence, why say anything about biology?
"No, the conclusion of those who have an appreciation for the evidence"
I have an appreciation for the evidence just not the "theory" of evolution that attempts to explain the evidence. I have a far greater appreciation for the God who created everything. Something they don't have.
"Obviously a prior commitment to a creationist interpretation of the Bible"
"I have an appreciation for the evidence just not the "theory" of evolution that attempts to explain the evidence."
This is clearly false. You didn't care enough about the evidence to even know what it was, despite going on and on about nonsense you again did not know about evolution (creationist propaganda). You *want* to feel like you appreciate the evidence, but your actions to date say otherwise. Again, the evidence from fossils is very clear: common descent, transitions, etc. Just read.
"the evidence from fossils is very clear: common descent, transitions, etc. Just read."
I have read other materials online (not creationist materials) and from what I've read so far, the evidence from fossils is anything but clear. I already explained why fossils can't evidence common descent like you say they do. Why don't I email you so you can send me this information you are refering to. Also, rejecting Noah's flood and substituting hypothetical evolutionary time is part of the problem.
"I have read other materials online (not creationist materials) and from what I've read so far, the evidence from fossils is anything but clear."
Nonsense. Nested. Hierarchy. That is extremely clear evidence for common descent. I've explained it already, so you explain it to me and we'll see if you learned before rebuking: what is a nested hierarchy and how is it evidenced in the fossil record? What else would explain such a nested hierarchy with respect to time?
You did not explain why fossils can't evidence common descent, you made a false claim about the presuppositions of evolutionary theory (surely borrowed from the liars at AiG or similar websites) and a misguided, implicit claim about unchanging data being somehow bad (what? All data gathered is unchanging: data is literally the direct results of obsevation, they are observed qualities or quantities).
Noah's flood is inconsistent with the fossil record. If you appreciate evidence as you claim to, this means that your belief in Noah's Flood has a problem: there is absolutely no reason that the fossils should be in the order of that particular nested hierarchy, *mineralized*, in a flood situation where debris is at best sorted by density, size, shape, etc, along with randomness. Yet we don't find bunnies in the precambrian and the sizes/densities vary signifiantly in each deposit.
In other words, the fossils aren't sorted randomly (they come in the same geological periods, even in separate deposits of the same layers), they mirror the expectations of a nested hierarchy, they are not sorted by density, shape, or size within the geological column, etc etc etc. None of the evidence makes sense if The Flood happened, so again you have to ask yourself whether you *actually* appreciate evidence or not.
"In other words, the fossils aren't sorted randomly"
This isn't something that creationists would necessarily predict.
"they are not sorted by density, shape, or size"
There is more to it than that. The geological systems could represent different ecological zones, the buried remains of plants and animals that once lived together in the same environment. Also the mobility of such creatures as marine invertebrates (not very mobile) to humans and other mammals (much more mobile).
NATURE IS SUPERNATURAL. nature shouldn't exist, but it does. Therefore I come to the conclusion that IT HAD A SUPERNATURAL CREATOR. the fact that THINGS EXIST crys out the fact that SUPERNATURAL ACTIVITY IS GOING ON BEHIND THE SCENES OF OUR EVERYDAY LIFE.
RespectMyHate 1 year ago
@RespectMyHate Nature is NATURAL devoid of any intelligence or supernatural tinkering or pupet strings . Only wishful thinking superimposes a cosmic intelligence behind the scene (its a mental construct only) . Nature gets everything done SANS miracle or divine intervention . The universe runs on mechanical laws and explanations. The unknowns dont make Thor or Zeus real either .
flyingscience 1 year ago
Fossils don't prove evolution.
Send me a website where I can see transitional fossils, I will refute every one of them.
Just because the majority of scientists don't believe in ID doesn't make them right. the majority of the time following the crown is usually a bad thing.
The evidence is clear GOD CREATED ALL LIFE, and if life is so simple and it evolved from simpler life forms, why can't scientist create life in their million dollar labs. and please don't bring up Venter.
RespectMyHate 1 year ago
@RespectMyHate The word proof or prove is not correct to use in confirming /validating science (I'll let you look up why its the wrong volcabulary ) .The short answer is proof only applies to mathmatics . In court cases the word prove is used but not in science .
flyingscience 1 year ago
@RespectMyHate Evolution micro and macro has been confirmed and is considered factual from the fossil record , from biological life observed speciation over 3 centuries and observation in the field amd lab . Genome mapping DNA trumps fossils .Fossil evidence is still enough however .
flyingscience 1 year ago
@RespectMyHate Mainstream science dosent recognise / validate ID because it (ID) isnt science or use the scientific method . ID is politicly motivated theology masqarading as science .Belief means to accept without evidence ,the wrong word to use with science .
flyingscience 1 year ago
@RespectMyHate Because science cant recreate life quickly in small containers doesnt mean life needed a supernatural miracle or imply that is the correct alternative .Prayers wont recreate life in small aquarium tanks either . The oceans where vast with trillions of proto life chemicals combining every second for millions of years . All phonomena known has natural origins .Supernatural claims seem dreamy without evidence .
flyingscience 1 year ago
@flyingscience you could fill the entire universe up with organic material for all eternity and you will never get life. do you think if you filled the entire ocean up with watch parts after 1 million years do you think you will ever get a fully fuctional watch?
RespectMyHate 1 year ago
@RespectMyHate The fore runners of life organise themselves and replicate like crazy thats the BIG diffrence .YES they relicate and make copies you are not aware of the basics . Life did occur on Earth ,so yes it did happen we are here . What followed was an incremental evolutionary sequence not a quick succesion of instant creation . For over 1 Billion years the ONLY life was single celled algea / stromatolites . God was in no hurry to be prasied by life higher than algea!
flyingscience 1 year ago
@RespectMyHate Parroting creationists rebutals to transitionals is no diffrent than closing your eyes and yelling its not true , not true, not true . Creationist have a greater ability to deny that overpowers anyones ability to explain . In your mind you choose to ignore all mainstream science answers .Creationism can only be transcended by study and time and an open mind thats curious .
flyingscience 1 year ago
@RespectMyHate Here is a video series that is a must see by every creationist . Creationists generaly have a poor understanding of the basic terminology and concepts . Look up this video to have transitionals accuratly explained:"9th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism " Watch the whole series to be fully informed .
flyingscience 1 year ago
Thank you flyingscience.
Creationism is stronger in America because we teach by passive learning. If we taught people to investigate for themselves, creationism would die out and we'd be more inventive, honest, and overall better off. As long as we teach by "Here. learn this." we will not progress toward our potential.
drfoxcourt 1 year ago
You do realise that creationists try to disprove opposing scientific theory's so vigorously only because in their own minds it needs to be a certain fact. this comes from a simple fear of there being nothing after death. Thats what it's all about in the end, isn't it? there is no god, there is no heaven, and when you die, there is nothing. People can't deal with that for some reason. what's wrong with nothingness? if there is nothing how will you care that there is nothing????
bonoboe 2 years ago 5
"By comparing different parts of each sample to each other and with other samples from the same deposit, if they were clumped together."
I'm sorry, but this doesn't answer my question. I asked you how do you know what may have affected samples individually or *collectively*. Also, how can you accurately extend the calibration curve back 45,000 years without making assumptions.
gracedispensation 2 years ago
Grace, you can easily answer these questions yourself with the most minimal of an attempt. I'm done attempting to be a gradeschool science textbook for you in 500 characters or less. Don't be lazy and stop this idiotic assumption that creationist sites have even the slightest credibility by default. They don't, they just play off your laziness and feed your biases.
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
Actually, I have attempted to find answers to these questions and have been unable to do so. Also, I don't assume that creationist sites are credible by default. I try to check things out first. I'm not lazy and my only bias is that I am a Bible believing christian. I am willing to admit my bias up front unlike most people in your camp. Scientists who reject the Bible and a Creator are biased as well. One of their biases is naturalism (ie. nature is all that there is). I know how they think.
gracedispensation 2 years ago
Grace, you cited that idiotic 'assumptions of radiometric dating' page without even reading up on it. Admit it. Its flaws were so mundanely *easy* to spot by a half-educated amateur that it was embarrassing for you to even list it.
And don't lie about scientists, Grace. I doubt you've known more than 3, let alone found them hiding naturalistic biases.
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
Finally, being biased towards naturalism is not at all a bad thing, Grace. It's effectively being biased towards observational evidence It's the difference between a preference for a demonstration versus a third-hand story, in terms of how believable it is.
I doubt your use of 'bias' here is in that technical sense, though, and hence my statement about lying. You like to pretend that the reason your views are laughed at is due solely to interpretation, not ignorance.
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
I'm glad to see you admit that these scientists are also biased and that being biased is not necessarily a bad thing. When you commented about creationist sites feeding my biases, it seemed like you were implying that biases are always a bad thing. So now the issue becomes, which bias is good. Of course if the Bible is a third-hand story like you claim, then I would agree with you that a biblical bias wouldn't make a lot of sense. However, if the Bible is the Word of God then it would.
gracedispensation 2 years ago
Everyone is biased, Grace. It's how you treat the biases and how grounded they are which matters. For example, no scientist shies away from creationist nonsense *at first*, when someone claims they have evidence, etc. It's only after considering their shoddy propositions that it's rejected. However, when you seek only to confirm your bias towards creationism, like when you use a reference to an idiotic radiometric dating denialist site, you willfully avoid education.
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
This is a running theme, Grace. You list an objection which implies poor education. I point out how it's wrong, then I tell you to read actual science texts and learn from the mistake. Then you bring up something new, or accuse scientists of something, yada yada yada. It's been a month since you promised me that you would read a college-level biology textbook. Were you lying?
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
If the Bible is the 'Word of God', Grace, then God is seriously incompetent because various translations disagree, whether it's the gnostic translation disrupting the primary foundation of the Trinity or the KJV stipulating the existence of unicorns. However, like I said, I'm *NOT* debating the damn Bible with you. If you have a competent scientific basis for your claims, present it (finally). If not, admit it and go educate yourself before spouting more creationist garbage. Simple enough, eh?
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
God is not incompetent, however men often are. First, not only to the gnostics reject the Trinity, but they also deny that Jesus Christ came in the flesh and that man has a sin nature, ect. Gnosticism has nothing to do with true Christianity or the Bible. Second, what makes you think that unicorns never existed? What about the Elasmotherium (Elasmotherium sibiricum)? If you don't want to debate the Bible, then why to you keep taking swipes at it? You know that I may respond to them.
gracedispensation 2 years ago
I keep making swipes at the Bible because you keep bringing it up, Grace, as if it's anything more than an evidenceless collection of stories. You say that a bias towards the Bible is fine if it's 'The Word of God', but then again there's no evidence for its stories outside of, at best, *some* of the very general details (Babylonians existed, etc). It doesn't have said evidence and your bias is not comparable to an appreciation for verification. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
Actually, their bias is not a good thing. It is, practically speaking, a bias toward atheism. Basically, it is saying that since I don't observe anything supernatural happening today and can't demonstrate it, then it doesn't exist, never happened and never will. As far as believability goes, abiogenesis and common descent are about as believable as a watch springing into existence without a watchmaker. I'm not a liar or a pretender and I don't think that they are laughing too hard.
gracedispensation 2 years ago
I can see how a bias for verifiability could lead to atheism, but that isn't exactly a bad thing, Grace. Having any rigorous standard of evidence would do such a thing.
Furthermore, you're simply wrong. It is *not* saying that since you don't see it, it doesn't exist. It is saying that be cause there is no evidence for its existence, there's no reason to believe in it.
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
A bias for verifiability is not the same thing as a bias toward naturalism. One of the problems with this is that common descent has never been verified. To verify something is to prove it to be true. Prentice Hall Biology: Exploring Life refers to the common descent of all mammals as a hypothesis. A hypothesis is an unproven theory. It is not a fact. I'm looking at this biology textbook online. I see a lot of evidence for the existance of a Creator, both in the Bible and in the natural world.
gracedispensation 2 years ago
"A bias for verifiability is not the same thing as a bias toward naturalism."
Yes, yes it is. In fact it is exactly that, by definition, something you'd know had you studied even a teensy-tiny bit of the philosophy of science, something which typically comes in a college-level introductory biology textbook (hint hint).
"One of the problems with this is that common descent has never been verified."
Don't lie, Grace. I've explained precisely how it's been verified.
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
"To verify something is to prove it to be true."
In science, verification involves the ability to replicate an experiment and achieve similar results and the open nature of the evidence itself: the data, even the phenomena, are often available directly for other scientists. A biologist will send you a sample of his bacteria if you ask properly and are convincingly another scientist with reasonable methods for sterilization.
Furthermore, science operates via a concordance of evidence.
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
Common descent is an unrepeatable process that many scientists believe occured in the past. It can't be verified experimentally. What you need to do is take the empirical data and phenomena that you are referring to and falsify the biblical account of creation. After all, that's how science is supposed to work, isn't it?
"Furthermore, science operates via a concordance of evidence. "
Yes, and the concordance of evidence points to a creator.
gracedispensation 2 years ago
Grace, seriously now... how about you waltz over to the talk origins list to creationist claims (or whatever) and read every. single. entry. You don't have to agree with them, but you do need to know how tedious and unoriginal you're being.
The process need not be repeatable, Grace, only the experiment. No process is strictly repeatable because there's *always* variation (which is why we use statistics and multiple attempts).
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
"It can't be verified experimentally."
Yes it can. Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern - something we find in numerous and different places in genome comparisons and in the fossil record (and other places). You can run all kinds of experiments to that effect and it's quite falsifiable in that regard.
I'm still waiting for you to explain what a nested hierarchy is, Grace. Why won't you do it?
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
"What you need to do is take the empirical data and phenomena that you are referring to and falsify the biblical account of creation."
No, I don't. No one has to take the silly claims of creationism so seriously that they must be disproven. The only reason I ever do so is because the silliness is so popular, not because it's impressive.
Creationism must have coherent, consistent, and mechanistic *empirical* predictions in order to be respectable. Get to work on that, Grace.
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
"No one has to take the silly claims of creationism so seriously that they must be disproven."
Specifically, what do you find silly about the biblical account of creation and why?
"The only reason I ever do so is because the silliness is so popular"
Why don't you do it then.
"Creationism must have coherent, consistent, and mechanistic *empirical* predictions"
Why does creation have to be explained only in terms of physical forces and the laws of nature in order to be respected?
gracedispensation 2 years ago
"Specifically, what do you find silly about the biblical account of creation and why?"
What, really? Think about these things just a *little* bit, Grace. I know you're competent enough. How about... a talking snake? The fact that many of the events and implications by creationists disagree with a huge amount of observations (young earth creationists among others)? I really don't think I need to explain why those are silly.
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
"Why don't you do it then."
Because that wasn't the topic of discussion and you keep trying to derail the thread, going into Christianity, continuing to repeat antiscience creationist BS while avoiding biological education. The fact that the creationism is nonpredictive and when 'predictive' refuted should give you an idea to figure it out on your own until you've remedied your denial of the central unifying (and thoroughly evidenced) idea of biology.
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
"Why does creation have to be explained only in terms of physical forces and the laws of nature in order to be respected?"
Creationism, Grace. And it must have consistent, coherent, and mechanistic empirical predictions to be respectable. Heck, you could even throw out mechanistic if it were preditive enough (although it would make it much harder).
Why? Because that's the low bar for verifying an ontological claim. Minimal verification.
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
"Yes, and the concordance of evidence points to a creator."
I'm not going to let you derail the conversation further... there's a number of things you need to do to prove that you're minimally interested in biology. First, you need to explain what a nested hierarchy is and how it's evidence for evolution. Next, you need to correct yourself on a number of issues where it's very easy to do so (and I've noted it).
Don't be lazy!
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
" A hypothesis is an unproven theory."
Citation, Grace? I'm tired of the creationist lies you gullibly repeat. You *promised me* that you would either read a college-level textbook or read proper science before making scientific claims, so don't make yourself into a liar. At the very least, your God is not a fan of it.
Of course, you're wrong. I'll explain in the next post.
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
"Citation, Grace?"
Sure, Webster's New World Dictionary. Is the dictionary a creationist source? I think not. I'm tired of you referring to everything I say as creationist lies. Are you saying that Ken Miller's book isn't proper science because it's a high school level text?
You're right, God can't lie and He isn't a fan of it. The Bible says "Let God be true and every man a liar." You oppose the truths of God's Word virtually every time you post. So who is the liar here anyway?
gracedispensation 2 years ago
Webster's doesn't cut it for science, Grace. Science has very specific definitions for the terms it uses and the fact that you don't even know what a hypothesis is demonstrates damnable scientific illiteracy, *given that you keep citing antiscience creationist BS*.
Furthermore, every Webster's resource I find doesn't list that definition, although it's a common misapprehension.
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
I do know what a hypothesis is. It is essentially a testable statement. A tenative explanation for certain facts or phenomena that is not yet verified. A hypothesis that is verified through experimental testing becomes a scientific theory. Thats the definition off of WordNet. I knew that before, btw. Of course this is a mute point since high school texts aren't authoritative anyway.
gracedispensation 2 years ago
Nope, wrong again. A general hypothesis which draws from a number of other confirmed hypotheses, and is then confirmed itself, can become a theory, as that's what a theory is. Some hypotheses are called 'models' when confirmed, some are called 'laws' if they were that specific and had the implication or statement consistent with being a law (In X conditions, Y always does Z).
And some hypotheses graduate to.... confirmed hypotheses. No need for more words, there.
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
"A general hypothesis which draws from a number of other confirmed hypotheses, and is then confirmed itself, can become a theory, as that's what a theory is."
Citation? Are you saying that a confirmed hypothesis by itself can't become a theory?
"And some hypotheses graduate to.... confirmed hypotheses. No need for more words, there. "
Then they should be called confirmed hypotheses or something else to distinguish them from unconfirmed hypotheses.
gracedispensation 2 years ago
And I think you need to abandon WordNet, Grace. It is not a scientific resource.
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
"And I think you need to abandon WordNet, Grace. It is not a scientific resource"
Well then, how about you provide me with a scientific resource for looking up words and their definitions.
gracedispensation 2 years ago
Apparently my comment didn't properly get posted before: the Prentice Hall book you cited isn't even by Ken Miller, although the problem with a high school level book is that it will necessarily simplify things too much. High school biology is about very general concepts and facts and you will misunderstand things if you treat such a book as authoritative.
Also, Ken Miller's book isn't science at all... that should be obvious.
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
"High school biology is about very general concepts and facts and you will misunderstand things if you treat such a book as authoritative."
The problem is that these books are presented as authoritative to students.
"Also, Ken Miller's book isn't science at all... that should be obvious."
Then why is it used in high school science classes?
gracedispensation 2 years ago
"The problem is that these books are presented as authoritative to students."
They aren't. They're presented as high school books. No one ever implies that high school biology includes an authoritative analysis of the subject.
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
"Then why is it used in high school science classes?"
Because it's a fine science textbook. Science is not equivalent to a textbook, Grace...
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
"Because it's a fine science textbook."
It's a fine science textbook, but it isn't science at all. Makes sense to me.
gracedispensation 2 years ago
It should, Grace... in what way is any textbook at all science?
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
A science textbook is a book giving instructions in the principles of science or a scientific field. It contains science and is a scientific resource. Thats what I mean. Are you saying that college level texts aren't scientific either?
gracedispensation 2 years ago
I never said Ken Miller's book wasn't scientific, I said it wasn't science itself. It could be used to teach the subject of biology, a science, in a fairly general manner. It does not constitute original research, the body of scientific knowledge, or the methodology(ies) of science.
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
"You're right, God can't lie and He isn't a fan of it. The Bible says "Let God be true and every man a liar." You oppose the truths of God's Word virtually every time you post. So who is the liar here anyway?"
Grace, I'm not a liar because I don't agree with your opinion about God. That's an insulting sentiment and you know it. But you do lie every time you go back on your word (repeatedly), something I avoid as best I can.
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
Comment removed
gracedispensation 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Grace, I'm not a liar because I don't agree with your opinion about God."
It's not my opinion about God that you are not agreeing with. It's the Bible itself that you are rejecting and you know it.
"But you do lie every time you go back on your word (repeatedly), something I avoid as best I can. "
When did I go back on my word?
gracedispensation 2 years ago
"It's not my opinion about God that you are not agreeing with. It's the Bible itself that you are rejecting and you know it."
And your opinion. I don't believe in the Bible nor God, Grace, so how the hell am I a liar? Because God is just so real that the only way I could reject him is by lying? Har har. I do believe the fact that you're rationalizing creationism not being even slightly predictive (nor empirical) proves that wrong.
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
"When did I go back on my word?"
Ah, it seems you didn't. I had assumed you accepted my reasonable challenge of reading a college-level biology textbook and/or checking your repetition of creationist claims against a legitimate source before posting them (they're boring and stupid).
I'm not sure which is worse... refusing to have a minimal education before spouting ignorant nonsense or implicitly admitting that such a thing would damage your views while maintaining the appearance of interest.
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
"I had assumed you accepted my reasonable challenge of reading a college-level biology textbook."
I did go to my local community college, but the library closed early last week and I haven't had a chance to get back over there.
"refusing to have a minimal education before spouting ignorant nonsense or implicitly admitting that such a thing would damage your views"
I do have a minimal education and why would that damage my views? Education (not indoctrination) reinforces my views.
gracedispensation 2 years ago
For some reason my comments won't go through with quotes. I'm replying to your first response here: we've been discussing this longer for a week, Grace, and there are a lot of resources for learning about evolution, including nested hierarchies. Just. Try.
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
"I do have a minimal education and why would that damage my views? Education (not indoctrination) reinforces my views."
The opposite has been demonstrated so far, Grace. I debunked your knee-jerk creationist piece on radiometric dating, you went on like nothing happened and refused, yet again, to educate yourself on the topic after I offered directions for you to pursue.
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
So again I'll ask you my question... it's sad that I have to ask so many times, I was quite nice and assumed the best when we first started out.
What is a nested hierarchy, Grace? How is such a pattern evidence for evolution?
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
I already explained what a nested hierarchy was before. As far as answering how it is evidence for evolution, I'm not going to argue according to someone else's presuppositions. I use the biblical foundation of history to interpret evidence, confirming this with real science.
gracedispensation 2 years ago
@gracedispensation: No, you never explained what it was. You gave a vague and incorrect definition and still refuse to explain how it's evidence for evolution. This isn't some silly realm of opinion and vagueness, it's concrete evidence demonstrating a clear pattern which is predicted only by *1* idea. Tell us how it works. If you don't know, you haven't learned the tiniest thing about evolution.
Also, I've already defined it for you, so how hard could it be for you to tell me?
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
Let's try something else, Grace. Given that evolution is far more evidenced (and therefore believable) than God, how about I start implying that you're a liar for disagreeing with science (science's empirically-verified truths)? Does that seem reasonable to you? I'll run with it every time you imply that I'm lying merely for rejecting one (or all) of your many silly claims about God.
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
"Given that evolution is far more evidenced (and therefore believable) than God"
Evolutionism is far more evidenced than God? Actually, it's the other way around. The Bible says to avoid oppositions of science falsely so called, so I don't believe everything that is called "science."
"I'll run with it every time you imply that I'm lying merely for rejecting one (or all) of your many silly claims about God."
Any claim about God is silly to you regardless of its merit.
gracedispensation 2 years ago
'Evolutionism', along with 'evolutionist', are terms favored by creationists, Grace. I used the word evolution, as I'm describing scientific theory. And yes, it's more evidenced than God, however if you're hung up on that bit of rhetoric you're missing my point.
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
Grace, this is the last thing I'm going to discuss concerning the Bible, because it has jackall to do with evolution: it does not describe modern science in any fashion. When it reads 'science', it's referring to the ancient meaning (translation) of simply gathering knowledge, often systematically. Homeopathy and philosophy pass those tests.
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
Actually the Bible does have something to say about evolution, if what you mean by evolution is the common descent of all life. It reveals it to be false. The very definition of modern science is systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, ect. It is a branch of knowledge that systematizes facts, priciples, and methods. I also must point out that the Bible doesn't say to avoid science, but oppositions of science falsely so called. True science doesn't oppose biblical truth.
gracedispensation 2 years ago
@gracedispensation: Like I said, I'm not going to debate the Bible with you. If you want to reject science because it disagrees with your theology, knock yourself out. Just don't pretend you have defensible reasons outside of, "the Bible says so", because you don't.
Incidentally, where did you derive your rule that "true science" doesn't oppose Biblical truth? Is it something you made up on your own or stole from Answers in Genesis?
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
I don't wish to debate the Bible with you either. You either believe it or you don't. It's really that simple. I don't reject true science. In fact I excelled in math and science when I was in school. However, I do reject junk science. While the Bible is the only reason I need to reject evolution and the evolutionary timeline, there are other good reasons as well. One example being recorded human history, which only goes back roughly 5000 years. This is consistent with the Biblical timeline.
gracedispensation 2 years ago
@gracedispensation: like I said, if your point is that you only accept what the Bible says, then you can stop talking and walk away. If you otherwise cling to irrational claims about the accuracy of a science, then focus on that. If you want to throw away your brain to "Bible says", go ahead. You don't really seem to want to do that.
What is "junk science", Grace? Words have meanings... is it everything that isn't "true science" i.e. whatever "Bible says"?
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
@gracedispensation: so to be clear, you reject "junk science" because written history goes back ~5000 years? Does that honestly make sense to you? If you care about the consistency of facts, how do you deal with all of the science supporting an old earth, the existence of people going back hundreds of thousands of years? You can't care about the facts one second and ignore them when it's convenient, that's dishonest.
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
No, I reject junk science because it isn't true and is driven by unscientific motives. The point that I was making is that written history is consistent with the biblical timeline. How do you deal with all the science supporting a young earth? The existence of people going back hundreds of thousands of years is not a fact. I don't ignore the facts. Facts are true by definition. Can you prove the existence of people going back that far?
gracedispensation 2 years ago
@gracedispensation: I was asking you about what junk science was because you seemed to imply it was whatever didn't fit with the Bible. If it's what "isn't true", what is your metric for establishing the veracity or lack thereof of something you call junk science? What is unscientific about a junk science you reject? I believe you're calling evolutionary theory junk science, aren't you? Support your claim and be specific.
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
@gracedispensation: like I said, I'm not going to debate the Bible with you. If you think there's any evidence whatsoever supporting a young earth, list it. Consistency, what you just claimed, is rather pitiful, particularly considering the rationalizing and slippery nature of creationist claims, and it isn't even demonstrated for this situation. Go ahead and list interesting facts you consider to be consistent. Furthermore, there's quite a bit of evidence against creationism...
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
@gracedispensation: hominins have been around for millions of years, dated via independent methods, those methods themselves calibrated. I remember asking you to tell me how calibration worked, I don't remember getting any sufficient reply. The existence of said hominins is a fact, it's something so well demonstrated that it should be accepted as a given. Anatomically modern humans have been dated to 50-200 thousand years ago. Remember your failed attempt at fighting dating?
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
@gracedispensation: "Facts are true by definition". Facts are things which are accurate, yes. Do I seriously need to go through the basics again? Have you even looked at a biology textbook yet? Are you not aware of common descent, of overlapping phylogenies lining up so nicely with respect to time? Are you ignorant of all the fossils, do you pretend they're all just chimps, do you still cling to fantasies of imagined problems with dating methods?
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
And no, I didn't make that up or steal it from AiG. The Bible supports true science. It says to avoid profane babblings and oppositions of science *falsely* so called. If true science opposed Biblical truth, then the Bible would say to avoid science, which it doesn't. Since when has science falsified things recorded in the Bible?
gracedispensation 2 years ago
@gracedispensation: given that you're a creationist, science has falsified things recorded in the Bible for centuries. Technically, it remains unfalsifiable because it's floppy enough that many people are *not* creationists and via their interpretations, the Bible has not been falsified.
Your rejections of non-"true science" will have to extend to geology, archaeology, cosmology, and astronomy among others, all of which posit an old earth formed over billions of years.
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
@gracedispensation: Oh, and what's a nested hierarchy and how does such a pattern provide evidence for evolution? Again, this isn't a matter of opinion, but simple facts which you can (and probably will) choose to ignore if you'd like. When you "answered" last time, you were wrong, so don't lie and tell me you answered.
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
I will be pulling out that bit of rhetoric if you try to imply dishonesty on my part for disbelieving in God. It was despicable, Grace. In fact, I expect an apology before educating you much further. I'm not your teacher and I've already torn apart your claims when I thought they were worth addressing. You still won't answer my question about nested hierarchies...
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
So, back to that question I keep asking: what is a nested heirarchy, Grace? How is it evidence for evolution?
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
I have a better idea. Why don't you take the data, phenomena, ect. and explain to me how it's evidence against creation.
gracedispensation 2 years ago
No. It's off-topic and you have yet to demonstrate even a slight propensity for learning, *on your own*, the science underlying evolution. I don't doubt you could do it, if you actually wanted to.
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
Finally, in what way is it reasonable for you to defend lying by... attacking me (illegitimately, I'll add). You have to realize that doing that is itself dishonest, Grace.
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
A hypothesis is a statement or idea of how a specific phenomenon works. It can refer to an idea with the highest validation in science (think of hypotheses in physics) or one without any support whatsoever: it is actually independent of accuracy, which must be established separately. Common descent happens to be a hypothesis which is incredibly well-verified.
BTW, Prentice Hall Biology is Ken Miller's book and it's a high school level text...
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
Abiogenesis is considerably more plausible than an anthropomorphic deity (he cares about your prayers, yada yada yada), but it isn't in the same league as common descent in terms of the evidence for it. Common descent is so ridiculously proven (it has lots of evidence) that it takes willful ignorance to reject it. I'd say having overwhelming evidence makes it quite clear that it's believable and I would challenge you yet again to explain what a nested hierarchy is and how it's evidence.
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
And the watchmaker argument has been dispensed with for over 200 years, Grace. Get with the times and *minimally educated yourself*. It is not a tall hard to see how the dissimilarities between life and populations indicate different origins - watches don't reproduce, for one. I'll let you get started on the rest of it yourself. It's your homework assignment and I would expect nothing less from a 15-year-old high school student.
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
It's not at all surprising that men have dispensed with their Creator long ago. In fact, since they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not right. That's really a sad and scary thing when you think about it. I don't get with the times, I get with the truth. Of course watches don't reproduce. That was an analogy to show that exquisitely complex machinery, whether animate or inanimate doesn't arise by time and chance.
gracedispensation 2 years ago
Grace, the disanalogies between life and a watch are what make the watchmaker argument piss-poor. The dissimilarities are actually important and explain precisely how complexity can arise in living populations.
I will wait for you to do your homework and find the important differences. It's not at all hard, Grace. Were I a teacher, it would be, at best, overnight homework in addition to other problems.
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
"The dissimilarities are actually important and explain precisely how complexity can arise in living populations."
Why don't you give me one specific example where complexity has been observed to arise in a living population. Random mutation and natural selection has never been observed to create complex biological structures such as organ systems, for example. Nor has it ever been observed to change one kind of organism into another.
gracedispensation 2 years ago
"Why don't you give me one specific example where complexity has been observed to arise in a living population."
No. Why don't you do the tiniest bit of research to see that I'm right? It's not hard *at all*, it took me less than a minute. Don't be lazy, Grace, and don't lie about your intentions. If you're interested in biology, you should be reading up on this stuff first rather than peddling creationist BS.
And what about my homework, Grace?
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
Furthermore, you want to see organ systems springing de novo into place? Is that where you set the bar for concluding that evolution happened? Besides being ludicrously high compared to your standard for creationist BS (believing what they tell you, never checking up on it), there are tons of other ways in which the evolution of organs is demonstrated. Do the research, Grace. I am not your teacher and you have to put in effort to learn.
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
Now Grace, are you going to go learn the tiniest amount of information about biology and evolution from a source that actually appreciates and understands its evidentiary basis, systematics, and methodology? So far, you've shown that rather than learning about biology, you'd rather read AiG and rationalize your rejection of science (attacking scientists as 'biased', as if a high standard of evidence is a bad thing). Can't you answer my questions, Grace? Explain a nested hierarchy.
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
And seriously, how hard did you try to find the answer to your question? Have you even looked up calibration? Can you list several methodologies and how they confirm radiocarbon dating?
I've noticed that you cling to your rejection of radiocarbon dating despite your piss-poor record at finding plausible reasons to do so, let alone doing your own research before rejecting a solid and *popular* science. It's insulting to reject the work of empiricists without good reason.
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
Riding wild tigers as a child , performing miracles through children touching gurus feet , stoping a person from dying in plane crash , falling off cliff .Speaking any laungauge -theses are modern day miracles reported within a few decades .
flyingscience 2 years ago
Why do you keep confusing these counterfeit miracles with the miracles of the Bible? The Bible claims to be and proves to be the Word of God.
gracedispensation 2 years ago
Grace - the point is modern day miracle stories are just as suspect as ancient ones .Human psychology of cults explains why they never cease to go away .
flyingscience 2 years ago
The bible/religion was written /run by flawed men with agendas . The bible does not have the clarity or exactness of a car manual .Word of God sounds better than anonymous campfire stories from oral tradition.
flyingscience 2 years ago
Speaking of paleontology, I recently read an article where a senior lecturer in paleontology was quoted as saying "I enjoy paleontological studies because of the scope for more imaginative thought than in other biological disciplines. It is like recreating a picture of the past only with many of the jigsaw pieces missing." Too bad more of the public isn't awair of this, since they would be less likely to buy into all the wierd stories told by these scientists.
gracedispensation 2 years ago
Grace - That's quote mining , a creationist tactic commonly used since there is no evidence in support of special instant magical miracle creation week .
flyingscience 2 years ago
God creating everything in a week is not magical, but it is a miracle. It is the power of God. True, I can't show you extra biblical evidence that points to a 6 day creation. I know that from the account given in Genesis. But, it's very clear from observing the heavens and the earth that they were created.
gracedispensation 2 years ago
Creation in a week is mythical dogma , every scientific method known confirms an old Earth with life evolving slowly .People superimpose religions onto nature .
flyingscience 2 years ago
Thats elephant hurling, a tactic often used by evolutionists. What specific scientific method confirms an old Earth with life evolving slowly? The only biological change thats confirmed is variation or speciation within a kind or genus.
gracedispensation 2 years ago
EVERY known dating method confirms an old Earth more than 6-10K old .Even counting tree rings , ice layers , and varves . Google 29+ evidence for macro evolution .
flyingscience 2 years ago
Fossils are no longer the primary evidence for evolution. DNA and genome sequenceing is . Gapless and nearly gapless records of many invertabrate sea lifespecies is known ABOVE the genus level /speciation .
flyingscience 2 years ago
Comment removed
gracedispensation 2 years ago
Gapless records of diatoms ,snails , cephalopods ,brachiopods ,corals etc are known (because these animals fossilise by the billions .They need not turn into some other animal but species diverge /increase.
flyingscience 2 years ago
How is DNA and genome sequencing evidence for evolution and not common design?
When you mention gapless records, I believe you are refering to fossils. I would like to know about OBSERVED biological change above the level of species.
gracedispensation 2 years ago
Grace here are some videos to explain this huge topic.Copy /paste titles to view.
Human Evolution: Tracing Our Origins with DNA
Biological Evolution: What It Is and What It Isn't
Lets Test Them: Evolution vs. Creationism
flyingscience 2 years ago
This is my first response to "Lets Test Them: Evolution vs. Creationism." First of all, I would like to say that, believe it or not, Biblical Creation isn't a scientific theory. It is a historical account, given by inspiration of God who cannot lie, of the creation of heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is. Therefore it is above a scientific theory. Second, in a nutshell, this video consists of a series of straw man arguments which I would like to comment on.
gracedispensation 2 years ago
The first argument deals with the fossil record. First, he assumes that creationists believe that the strata represents millions of years of slow sedimentation. This is not what most creationists, including myself, believe. For example, the Cambrian layer is considered to be some of the first sediment layed down by the global flood. Second, as a creationist, I would never predict a random fossil record like he suggests. There are other possible reasons for the general order in the fossil record.
gracedispensation 2 years ago
Grace - the geologic column CANT be from Noahs flood because their is too much history in each layer (far more than what can occur in less than 1 year).
flyingscience 2 years ago
There are too many layers of intact fossilised reefs that grew in place .One buried atop another .Flood cant uproot reefs intact and replant them . This nails down an OLD Earth .
flyingscience 2 years ago
Grace - your seeing what you want to see and ignoring all evidence to the contrary .Religious dedication to YEC tradition .
flyingscience 2 years ago
No, I just interpret the evidence differently than evolutionists do because my presuppositions are different. And as far as dedication is concerned, my dedication isn't to religion or tradition, it's to the Bible.
gracedispensation 2 years ago
The sea life fossils are in an exact evolutionary sequence world wide . Noahs flood ,hydrology sorting CANT sort out recent sea shells from Paleozoic ones of same size and shape etc. .
flyingscience 2 years ago
I'm not saying that hydrology is the only reason for the order in the fossil record, although I do believe it could have had a role to play. I think hydrology sorts objects based on weight, density and buoyancy rather than size and shape. Other reasons exist as well, such as the geological systems representing different ecological zones and the range of mobility of different creatures (more mobile creatures would have generally been able to seek higher ground as the flood waters rose).
gracedispensation 2 years ago
1.The whole seeking higher ground argument is lost on plant evolution in the fossil record . Plants /trees cant run they are firmly planted.
flyingscience 2 years ago
Plant evolution is clearly seen in the fossil record .First trees where only 6 feet tall and weirdly primitive (couldn't send water higher than 6feet at first ) .
flyingscience 2 years ago
Grace Ive never seen any wrong fossils in all my decades of fossil hunting .Look at any of my fossil hunting videos do you see any modern day sea shells mixed in with my Paleozoic fossils --No!
flyingscience 2 years ago
Sea shells , corals , snails , fish , ammonites , sharks , whales , turtles etc. etc. , ALL found in an evolutionary ascending order .With transitions at just the right places -This is why evolution IS a FACT .
flyingscience 2 years ago
This is the mantra often shouted by those who believe that evolution on a grand scale occured in the past and can explain the vast diversity and complexity of life. They say that evolution is a fact, despite the fact that science doesn't prove things, but rather disproves things. When did evolution go from being a theory to a fact and a theory? I don't think the fossil record is as neatly organized as you claim. I was reading that fossils have been turing up in the "wrong" places more often.
gracedispensation 2 years ago
Grace- germs , cells , atoms ,gravity and evolution are ALL theories and facts simultaneously . Theory differs from hypothesis which its mistaken for.
flyingscience 2 years ago
Then why is atomic theory, for example, never refered to as atomic fact by professors who teach the subject. Also, germs, cells, atoms and gravity are all observable/measurable in the present. Evolution, on ther other hand, is BELIEVED to have occured in the PAST over millions of years. I do understand the difference between a theory and a hypothesis.
gracedispensation 2 years ago
Grace -evolution is documented every minute of every day by drug companies fighting new strains of viruses etc.. Yes that is indeed evolution -virus evolution does count .
flyingscience 2 years ago
What you have here is a virus mutating into another virus. It's not mutating into another kind of organism. If you define evolution as change over time, then yes this is evolution. When I refer to evolution, I'm talking about the creation of new kinds of organisms. This would require an increase in genetic information resulting in the generation of complex biological systems. For example, no one has ever observed an organism without the genes for an eye, begin to evolve an eye.
gracedispensation 2 years ago
Evolution at the simplest definition is descent with modification . The differences do add up to new features , new limbs new organs NEW DNA instructions / information but only step by step .
flyingscience 2 years ago
Evolution has never been observed to add up to new limbs, new organs or a bonified increase in genetic information. Give me a SPECIFIC example of a genetic mutation or evolutionary process which can be SEEN to increase the information in the genome.
gracedispensation 2 years ago
Evolution is known to produce new limbs .Its not possible to eyewitness this in your life span hence the need for fossil record of limb change .
flyingscience 2 years ago
Fossils can never show evolution. Fossils are unchanging records of dead organisms. Fossils "show" evolution only if one presupposes evolution, then uses that presuppposed belief to interpret the fossil.
gracedispensation 2 years ago
Grace - you have illustrated the harmful effects of indoctrinated fundamentalism and its ability to handicap your scientific literacy.
flyingscience 2 years ago
I have been patient and given you 30 minutes or more per day . Hopefully it wasn't all in vain . Its time for us to part ways .You can converse with other people now .I wish you the best Gracedispensation .
flyingscience 2 years ago
Comment removed
gracedispensation 2 years ago
I agree, I think it's time to move on. I appreciate you taking the time to converse with me. I just wanted to say that I don't believe my scientific literacy is handicapped by my christian faith. It's important to remember that presuppositions effect how we interpret evidence. I would encourage you to read the Gospel of John and the first 8 chapters of the book of Romans and consider the claims of Christ. It is my hope and prayer that someday you would come to know Christ personally.
gracedispensation 2 years ago
There is a tendency for people to write too harshly because we are not face to face .
Greg
flyingscience 2 years ago
Not at all. The fossil record illustrates precisely what you'd expect to find with common descent in metazoans: a nested hierarchy. No other idea predicts that very specific pattern, one which "just happens" to match phylogenies generated from molecular analyses. Simpler version: no rabbits in the precambrian, Grace, and there's a reason for it which doesn't rhyme with 'dud'.
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
A nested hierarchy is just a grouping or classification of organisms by the number of shared traits. It is ASSUMED to reflect the evolutionary pattern of descent with modification.
"No other idea predicts that very specific pattern"
Common descent of all metazoans is just that, an idea. It's not even a testable idea, let alone a fact.
"Simpler version: no rabbits in the precambrian"
Google "Where Are All the Bunny Fossils?" for some information about this.
gracedispensation 2 years ago
Wow, you have never read even a basic biology textbook, have you?
A nested hierarchy is a branching pattern, where shared traits form clades with *respect to time*. It is not merely counting shared traits and grouping, but finding *homologous* traits, ones shared by ancestry. The easiest way to understand this, but the *weakest* evidence we have for it, is the fossil record, as I explained. I expect you to understand this in the future, so go and read about it if you still think I'm wrong.
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
"Wow, you have never read even a basic biology textbook, have you?"
No, I havn't. At least not recently. However, I have read a number of online sources such as Berkeley, ScienceNOW, ScienceDaily, Nature, ect.
"but finding *homologous* traits, ones shared by ancestry."
What makes you so sure that all of these homologous traits are shared by common ancestry and not common design?
"but the *weakest* evidence we have for it, is the fossil record"
Yea, it's weak alright.
gracedispensation 2 years ago
"What makes you so sure that all of these homologous traits are shared by common ancestry and not common design?"
I already explained that, anticipating the rather ignorant 'common design' argument. Nested hierarchies are not what you find in 'common design', certainly not ones matching precisely what you'd expect from fairly messy evolutionary paths (human lower back problems, wisdom teeth, etc, are all due to our particular ancestry). Stop going for the intellectual crutch and *read*.
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
"anticipating the rather ignorant 'common design' argument."
It's not ignorant at all. There are a number of things to consider. First, we currently live in a cursed creation because of the fall of man.
Rom 8:22
For we know that the whole creation groans and travails in pain together until now.
That is a far cry from the original creation which was very good. If a well designed car was in an accident and didn't run too well after that, you wouldn't conclude that it was poorly designed.
gracedispensation 2 years ago
Grace, I'm not going to argue theology with you. You think explaining science takes a long time? Theology would be worse.
If you'd like to admit that you can't argue your point extrabiblically, that would be acceptable. At least you wouldn't go around claiming that the empirical evidence isn't overwhelming or repeat creationist nonsense (like the radiometric dating you still haven't read up on, for all I can tell).
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
I will just point out one general thing: you surely point to the good and complex as evidence of design, but when there's something bad (wisdom teeth), you chalk it up to the fall of man. There is no situation where your ideas could be wrong (i.e. not rationalized to fit), therefore it's completely removed from being even slightly scientific, let alone empirical.
Second, my point wasn't even about 'bad design', it was about contingency.
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
"but when there's something bad (wisdom teeth), you chalk it up to the fall of man."
I didn't mean to imply that wisdom teeth problems were due to the fall of man. What I was trying to say is that because of the fall, everything isn't "very good" anymore like God originally described it. I was making a general statement. Wisdom teeth problems are probably due in part to a shift to soft, processed foods resulting in a decrease in masticatory demands and a change in the teeth-jaw relationship.
gracedispensation 2 years ago
Then like I said, I'm not going to argue theology with you. I will argue the evidence and science and the Bible is *not* empirical evidence. If you'd like to have a theological discussion, there are many venues for that.
And like I said (again), my point was about contingency...
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
"Second, my point wasn't even about 'bad design', it was about contingency"
Can you explain how your point was about contingency?
gracedispensation 2 years ago
"Nested hierarchies are not what you find in 'common design', certainly not ones matching precisely what you'd expect from fairly messy evolutionary paths (human lower back problems, wisdom teeth, etc, are all due to our particular ancestry)."
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
And no, the fossil evidence is not weak. If fossil evidence was all we had, evolution via common descent would be the inevitable conclusion. This is something you'd understand if you didn't read denialist nonsense before, you know, actual biology. Done by biologists. People who spend their lives learning about the natural world and all that. You don't need to knee-jerk accept their authority, but you *do* need to look into the actual science to not be arrogant when you deny it.
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
"evolution via common descent would be the inevitable conclusion"
Yea, the conclusion of those who reject the Bible and hold to evolutionary presuppositions. Fossils can never show evolution. Fossils are unchanging records of dead organisms. Fossils "show" evolution only if one presupposes evolution, then uses that presuppposed belief to interpret the fossil.
"but you *do* need to look into the actual science"
I have and so far I havn't been too impressed with what I've seen.
gracedispensation 2 years ago
"Yea, the conclusion of those who reject the Bible and hold to evolutionary presuppositions."
No, the conclusion of those who have an appreciation for the evidence - enough of an appreciation to actually know what it is. Obviously a prior commitment to a creationist interpretation of the Bible would conflict with such an appreciation, but that would invalidate your implied appreciation for the evidence. After all, if the Biblical interpretation takes precedence, why say anything about biology?
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
"No, the conclusion of those who have an appreciation for the evidence"
I have an appreciation for the evidence just not the "theory" of evolution that attempts to explain the evidence. I have a far greater appreciation for the God who created everything. Something they don't have.
"Obviously a prior commitment to a creationist interpretation of the Bible"
What other interpretation is there?
"would conflict with such an appreciation"
It doesn't conflict with my appreciation.
gracedispensation 2 years ago
"I have an appreciation for the evidence just not the "theory" of evolution that attempts to explain the evidence."
This is clearly false. You didn't care enough about the evidence to even know what it was, despite going on and on about nonsense you again did not know about evolution (creationist propaganda). You *want* to feel like you appreciate the evidence, but your actions to date say otherwise. Again, the evidence from fossils is very clear: common descent, transitions, etc. Just read.
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
"the evidence from fossils is very clear: common descent, transitions, etc. Just read."
I have read other materials online (not creationist materials) and from what I've read so far, the evidence from fossils is anything but clear. I already explained why fossils can't evidence common descent like you say they do. Why don't I email you so you can send me this information you are refering to. Also, rejecting Noah's flood and substituting hypothetical evolutionary time is part of the problem.
gracedispensation 2 years ago
"I have read other materials online (not creationist materials) and from what I've read so far, the evidence from fossils is anything but clear."
Nonsense. Nested. Hierarchy. That is extremely clear evidence for common descent. I've explained it already, so you explain it to me and we'll see if you learned before rebuking: what is a nested hierarchy and how is it evidenced in the fossil record? What else would explain such a nested hierarchy with respect to time?
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
You did not explain why fossils can't evidence common descent, you made a false claim about the presuppositions of evolutionary theory (surely borrowed from the liars at AiG or similar websites) and a misguided, implicit claim about unchanging data being somehow bad (what? All data gathered is unchanging: data is literally the direct results of obsevation, they are observed qualities or quantities).
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
Noah's flood is inconsistent with the fossil record. If you appreciate evidence as you claim to, this means that your belief in Noah's Flood has a problem: there is absolutely no reason that the fossils should be in the order of that particular nested hierarchy, *mineralized*, in a flood situation where debris is at best sorted by density, size, shape, etc, along with randomness. Yet we don't find bunnies in the precambrian and the sizes/densities vary signifiantly in each deposit.
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
In other words, the fossils aren't sorted randomly (they come in the same geological periods, even in separate deposits of the same layers), they mirror the expectations of a nested hierarchy, they are not sorted by density, shape, or size within the geological column, etc etc etc. None of the evidence makes sense if The Flood happened, so again you have to ask yourself whether you *actually* appreciate evidence or not.
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
"In other words, the fossils aren't sorted randomly"
This isn't something that creationists would necessarily predict.
"they are not sorted by density, shape, or size"
There is more to it than that. The geological systems could represent different ecological zones, the buried remains of plants and animals that once lived together in the same environment. Also the mobility of such creatures as marine invertebrates (not very mobile) to humans and other mammals (much more mobile).
gracedispensation 2 years ago