What is the positive evidence FOR creationism?

[justlookinla]

Not going there in this thread. Start another one and get trounced there.

Shucks.

 

[DerelictJunction]

The family level of scientific classification. I like to use "kinds" because that's what the bible calls them : "Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate" Gen. 7:2

Science supports the bible.

But "technically" it is "family". Simple biology. Every animal is classified. There is Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species

There is zero evidence that animals cross families. Species yes. You can have a bobcat with a domestic cat.

Humans and chimpanzees are in the same family, Hominoidea. Thank you for providing supporting evidence that humans and chimpanzees had a common ancestor and that humans evolved from that ancestor.
Now how about that evidence for Creationism, you know, that thing this thread is all about.

 

[justlookinla]

What is the actual positive objective evidence FOR creationism?

I see lots of creationists trying to poke holes in alternate theories, but I don't see any objective evidence for creationism. Is there any? If so, what is it?

Yes.

Basic Intelligent Design:

i. Observation:
The ways that intelligent agents act can be observed in the natural world and described. When intelligent agents act, it is observed that they produce high levels of "complex-specified information" (CSI). CSI is basically a scenario which is unlikely to happen (making it complex), and conforms to a pattern (making it specified). Language and machines are good examples of things with much CSI. From our understanding of the world, high levels of CSI are always the product of intelligent design.

ii. Hypothesis:
If an object in the natural world was designed, then we should be able to examine that object and find the same high levels of CSI in the natural world as we find in human-designed objects.

iii. Experiment:
We can examine biological structures to test if high CSI exists. When we look at natural objects in biology, we find many machine-like structures which are specified, because they have a particular arrangement of parts which is necessary for them to function, and complex because they have an unlikely arrangement of many interacting parts. These biological machines are "irreducibly complex," for any change in the nature or arrangement of these parts would destroy their function. Irreducibly complex structures cannot be built up through an alternative theory, such as Darwinian evolution, because Darwinian evolution requires that a biological structure be functional along every small-step of its evolution. "Reverse engineering" of these structures shows that they cease to function if changed even slightly.

iv. Conclusion:
Because they exhibit high levels of CSI, a quality known to be produced only by intelligent design, and because there is no other known mechanism to explain the origin of these "irreducibly complex" biological structures, we conclude that they were intelligently designed.

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1154

 

[DerelictJunction]

Yes.

Basic Intelligent Design:

i. Observation:
The ways that intelligent agents act can be observed in the natural world and described. When intelligent agents act, it is observed that they produce high levels of "complex-specified information" (CSI). CSI is basically a scenario which is unlikely to happen (making it complex), and conforms to a pattern (making it specified). Language and machines are good examples of things with much CSI. From our understanding of the world, high levels of CSI are always the product of intelligent design.

ii. Hypothesis:
If an object in the natural world was designed, then we should be able to examine that object and find the same high levels of CSI in the natural world as we find in human-designed objects.

iii. Experiment:
We can examine biological structures to test if high CSI exists. When we look at natural objects in biology, we find many machine-like structures which are specified, because they have a particular arrangement of parts which is necessary for them to function, and complex because they have an unlikely arrangement of many interacting parts. These biological machines are "irreducibly complex," for any change in the nature or arrangement of these parts would destroy their function. Irreducibly complex structures cannot be built up through an alternative theory, such as Darwinian evolution, because Darwinian evolution requires that a biological structure be functional along every small-step of its evolution. "Reverse engineering" of these structures shows that they cease to function if changed even slightly.

iv. Conclusion:
Because they exhibit high levels of CSI, a quality known to be produced only by intelligent design, and because there is no other known mechanism to explain the origin of these "irreducibly complex" biological structures, we conclude that they were intelligently designed.

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1154

I noticed that the claim goes from "When intelligent agents act, it is observed that they produce high level of "complex-specified information (CSI)" in the first paragraph, to "...CSI, a quality known to be produced only by intelligent design.." n the last paragraph.
Where is the evidence that natural forces cannot or are even unlikely to produce CSI?

Where is the evidence that evolution is not the method by which a god produced CSI in living things?

 

[Loudmouth]

The few there are, are questionable at the least, fraudulent at worst.

Let's focus on hominids for the moment. What features would a fossil need in order to be transitional between humans and a common ancestor shared with chimps? What features would a fossil need in order to falsify creationism?

Way more then there are. They should not be difficult to find...of course if it is true.

Why shouldn't they be difficult to find? You aren't explaining yourself.

Nice question. God "breathed" the breath of life into them hence created in complex, complete kinds. It's interesting because God said "let there be light" before the stars were created. Do you know that if you look at the smallest atom on the smallest scale possible that you will see light? Creationism supports organized to chaos. Life begets Life. God (life) created life.

Genesis 2:7 Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

That's life from non-life. According to creationists, this can't happen. It violates the law of biogenesis, according to creationists.

 

[justlookinla]

I noticed that the claim goes from "When intelligent agents act, it is observed that they produce high level of "complex-specified information (CSI)" in the first paragraph, to "...CSI, a quality known to be produced only by intelligent design.." n the last paragraph.
Where is the evidence that natural forces cannot or are even unlikely to produce CSI?

Nope, you don't want to talk about natural forces....remember?

Where is the evidence that evolution is not the method by which a god produced CSI in living things?

Nuh uh....no evolution talk.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes I do. It is a matter of Faith. Do you sincerely believe you came from electrified mud?

Isn't that what you believe?

Genesis 2:7 Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

As I have said before, I have no problem with Evolution on the smaller scale. It is a provable science. Natural selection -no problem. That is a fact. It's when you extrapolate the theory into crossing "kinds" and descending from animals I take issue.

How do you determine which species belong to a "kind"?

I also have problems with how the carbon dating has been so misused, because how are you supposed to date with two variables missing?

Carbon dating isn't used to date fossils. Also, if you are going to make claims about the age of fossils you need to present positive evidence for their age. Remember the opening post?

What is the actual positive objective evidence FOR creationism?

I see lots of creationists trying to poke holes in alternate theories, but I don't see any objective evidence for creationism. Is there any? If so, what is it?​

We don't know the atmosphere was the same as it is now.

We do know what the atmosphere was like because we have tree rings, ice layers, speleothems, and lake varves that recorded carbon isotope ratios for us.

http://calib.qub.ac.uk/

I guess you were unaware that carbon dates were calibrated for known fluctuations in historic carbon isotope ratios?

In fact the atmosphere has not yet even reached equilibrium. Seems that equilibrium would have reached by now with an old earth. Which again goes towards evidence for Creation, because it is evidence for a young earth which the bible supports.

That is a claim. You are claiming that carbon isotope ratios would have reached an equilibrium, but never provide any evidence as to why they should.

 

[Loudmouth]

First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics and more....

http://www.icr.org/article/summary-scientific-evidence-for-creation/

What about them?

If humans can go from a single cell to a fully formed baby in just 9 months, why can't that same thing happen over billions of years?

 

[DerelictJunction]

Nope, you don't want to talk about natural forces....remember?

In order for the existence of CSI to be evidence for Creationism, the possibility of natural forces producing CSI must be ruled out. The quoted article does not do that. So, it does not show that CSI is exclusively the result of intelligence. Therefore, the existence of CSI is not exclusively supporting the existence of a god.

Nuh uh....no evolution talk.

In this context, I think it is justified because you have to show this design of CSI by a god eliminates microbes-to-human evolution in order to consider it as positive evidence for Creationism. Otherwise, it is merely neutral evidence that supports both Creationism and Evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

In order for the existence of CSI to be evidence for Creationism, the possibility of natural forces producing CSI must be ruled out. The quoted article does not do that. So, it does not show that CSI is exclusively the result of intelligence. Therefore, the existence of CSI is not exclusively supporting the existence of a god.


In this context, I think it is justified because you have to show this design of CSI by a god eliminates microbes-to-human evolution in order to consider it as positive evidence for Creationism. Otherwise, it is merely neutral evidence that supports both Creationism and Evolution.

Until CSI can be measured in biological organisms, it is a moot point anyway.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Until CSI can be measured in biological organisms, it is a moot point anyway.

True, but I figured we didn't want the hole to be too deep right out of the gate.

 

[justlookinla]

In order for the existence of CSI to be evidence for Creationism, the possibility of natural forces producing CSI must be ruled out. The quoted article does not do that. So, it does not show that CSI is exclusively the result of intelligence. Therefore, the existence of CSI is not exclusively supporting the existence of a god.

The article presents the idea of intelligent design and applies the scientific method to it. It passes the scientific method...unless you can point out where it doesn't.

In this context, I think it is justified because you have to show this design of CSI by a god eliminates microbes-to-human evolution in order to consider it as positive evidence for Creationism. Otherwise, it is merely neutral evidence that supports both Creationism and Evolution.

If you wish to discuss the microbes-to-humans/pine trees by applying the scientific method to the completely naturalistic mechanisms claimed by the Darwinistic evolutionary view, we'll certainly do that. I've been trying for quite a while to get someone, anyone, to offer evidence for the view and apply the scientific method to it to see if it passes.

But, this is about creationism, so that should be off limits?

 

[Loudmouth]

I said evolution is internally consistent. Just like religions. Same defense mechanism as well. Same paradigms, and in some cases same devotee fanaticism.

I will once again refer to my threads on the genetic evidence of human evolution. Apparently, the only defense mechanism active in this thread is the one preventing creationists from looking at the evidence in these two threads:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/endogenous-retroviruses-evidence-for-human-evolution.7840464/
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/creationist-arguments-against-ervs.7898737/

Again, this thread is discussing positive evidence for creationism, not propaganda against evolution.

 

[justlookinla]

I will once again refer to my threads on the genetic evidence of human evolution. Apparently, the only defense mechanism active in this thread is the one preventing creationists from looking at the evidence in these two threads:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/endogenous-retroviruses-evidence-for-human-evolution.7840464/
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/creationist-arguments-against-ervs.7898737/

Again, this thread is discussing positive evidence for creationism, not propaganda against evolution.

Notice, neither link addresses the process or offers evidence which can be tested with the scientific method.

 

[DerelictJunction]

The article presents the idea of intelligent design and applies the scientific method to it. It passes the scientific method...unless you can point out where it doesn't.

1. It doesn't use well defined methods for measuring a parameter, CSI, that is obviously a parameter that has varying values in the context they are discussing.
2. There is no reference to experiments to determine the origins of CSI and eliminate the potential of a natural origin for it.

No, they didn't apply the scientific method to their "idea".

If you wish to discuss the microbes-to-humans/pine trees by applying the scientific method to the completely naturalistic mechanisms claimed by the Darwinistic evolutionary view, we'll certainly do that. I've been trying for quite a while to get someone, anyone, to offer evidence for the view and apply the scientific method to it to see if it passes.

But, this is about creationism, so that should be off limits?

I am critiquing your supposed "evidence" for Creationism. In order to be exclusively evidence for Creationism, it cannot also be evidence for evolution. Neither you nor the article quoted show that CSI cannot be a product of evolution. I don't need to produce positive evidence for evolution. It is up to you to show that CSI cannot be produced by evolution.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Notice, neither link addresses the process or offers evidence which can be tested with the scientific method.

Why don't you go to those threads and discuss how poorly the scientific method is being applied to evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

1. It doesn't use well defined methods for measuring a parameter, CSI, that is obviously a parameter that has varying values in the context they are discussing.
2. There is no reference to experiments to determine the origins of CSI and eliminate the potential of a natural origin for it.

No, they didn't apply the scientific method to their "idea".

I am critiquing your supposed "evidence" for Creationism. In order to be exclusively evidence for Creationism, it cannot also be evidence for evolution. Neither you nor the article quoted show that CSI cannot be a product of evolution. I don't need to produce positive evidence for evolution. It is up to you to show that CSI cannot be produced by evolution.

What creationism needs is a null hypothesis. This is a set of observations or data that would falsify the hypothesis. What we need is a description of what creationism wouldn't produce. Unfortunately, I haven't seen any creationists describing the null hypothesis. For example:

1. What features in a fossil would falsify creationism?

2. What patterns of similarity in living and fossil species would falsify creationism?

3. What patterns of similarity between genomes would falsify creationism?

I keep hearing that creationists use the same evidence. Well, let's see it then. The similarities between living species, fossil species, and their genomes is the evidence we use to test evolution. How is it used to test creationism?

 

[justlookinla]

1. It doesn't use well defined methods for measuring a parameter, CSI, that is obviously a parameter that has varying values in the context they are discussing.
2. There is no reference to experiments to determine the origins of CSI and eliminate the potential of a natural origin for it.

No, they didn't apply the scientific method to their "idea".

Let's take it a step at a time. Do you agree or disagree with the first step of applying the scientific method.....

i. Observation:
The ways that intelligent agents act can be observed in the natural world and described. When intelligent agents act, it is observed that they produce high levels of "complex-specified information" (CSI). CSI is basically a scenario which is unlikely to happen (making it complex), and conforms to a pattern (making it specified). Language and machines are good examples of things with much CSI. From our understanding of the world, high levels of CSI are always the product of intelligent design.
​

I am critiquing your supposed "evidence" for Creationism. In order to be exclusively evidence for Creationism, it cannot also be evidence for evolution. Neither you nor the article quoted show that CSI cannot be a product of evolution. I don't need to produce positive evidence for evolution. It is up to you to show that CSI cannot be produced by evolution.

No, again, this isn't about evolution. Per your earlier request, I'm only addressing creationism.

 

[justlookinla]

Why don't you go to those threads and discuss how poorly the scientific method is being applied to evolution.

The scientific method isn't being applied to the HOW, the process, which created pine trees and humans from an alleged single life form of long ago. Darwinism's claims of the process, the HOW, doesn't result in a verifiable scientific conclusion.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Let's take it a step at a time. Do you agree or disagree with the first step of applying the scientific method.....

i. Observation:
The ways that intelligent agents act can be observed in the natural world and described. When intelligent agents act, it is observed that they produce high levels of "complex-specified information" (CSI). CSI is basically a scenario which is unlikely to happen (making it complex), and conforms to a pattern (making it specified). Language and machines are good examples of things with much CSI. From our understanding of the world, high levels of CSI are always the product of intelligent design.

OK. They used their, obviously limited, experience with the natural world, to draw the conclusion that "high levels of CSI are always the product of intelligent design". That is actually a statement of the conclusion regarding intelligent design.

No, again, this isn't about evolution. Per your earlier request, I'm only addressing creationism.

Then you concur that the existence of CSI could support both Creationism and Evolution.

Therefore your evidence is not really positive evidence for Creationism.