What is the positive evidence FOR creationism?

[justlookinla]

No. The observation stands as is: "intelligence creates CSI". It cannot be expanded to "intelligence alone creates CSI". That would require developing a hypothesis and experimenting to confirm or falsify that hypothesis. While I agree I am now talking about steps in the process beyond Step 1, I am not going to accept a conclusion or hypothesis as an observation.

Example: We observe that the burning of hydrocarbons produces CO2. Just because I don't observe CO2 production in any other way besides the burning of hydrocarbons, I cannot claim that my observation is that the only way to produce CO2 is by the burning hydrocarbons.

Until it can be demonstrated that other methods produce CO2, the observation that the burning of hydrocarbons produce CO2 can be presented as the only method to produce CO2. The burden to refute the claim would be on those who disagree with the conclusion of only hydrocarbons produce CO2. We know that the burning of hydrocarbons produce CO2, that's indisputable.

Define the statistics that equate with "unlikely to happen".
a. What is the dividing line between likely and unlikely...1 in a thousand...1 in a million?
b. What methodology is used to produce the statistics necessary to identify something as "unlikely to happen"?

In this instance, "unlikely" would mean never observed.

Describe how the rarity of an event determines its complexity.

As something becomes more complex, the working together of the various impetuses to produce that 'something' would take more and more interactive time.

Give an example of an object with high CSI and describe the methodology for making that determination.
a. How were the statistics calculated regarding the rarity of the thing in question?
1. What were the initial assumptions of the analysis?
2. What natural processes were modeled in the performance of the analysis?
3. What are the bounds of statistical accuracy inherent in models studied?

Going back several months to my tactile sensory unit thread. Do we observe tactile sensory units as complex, functional and purposeful? The answer is yes. Do we observe the impossibility (rarity) of tactile sensory units forming from non-intelligent sources? The answer is no. Can we observe undirected natural processes producing tactile sensory units? The answer is no.

Point 1, observation, shows intelligence is required to produce tactile sensory units. If a contrary view is claimed, the burden of proof, with observation, is upon the individual claiming tactile sensory units are formed by non-intelligent processes and describe those processes.

 

[DerelictJunction]

By saying that, you reveal how little you know about the material you are criticising. The geneologies are different because they are meant to be. Matthew traces Jesus's lineage back through his legal father, all the way back to King Soloman, David's son, while Luke traces Jesus's lineage back through Mary, his actual mother, all the way back to David's other son Nathan. Furthermore, Luke does not say he is giving Jesus's genealogy through Joseph. Rather, he notes that Jesus was "as was supposed" the son of Joseph, while He was actually the son of Mary. Also, that Luke would record Mary's genealogy fits with his interest as a doctor in mothers and birth and with his emphasis on women in his Gospel, which has been called "the Gospel for women."

Where does the Bible state that the Luke genealogy is that of Mary?
Luke 23 specifically states:

Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli​

Looks like the line of Joseph to me.

Since this is off topic, maybe you would like to discuss it in a more appropriate place. You may direct me to the thread you open regarding the Luke genealogy of Jesus.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Who's a liar?

To date all creationists have shown that they are either ignorant, dishonest or both. You can decide where you fit. I pointed out that I do not have to lie since I am not a creationist.

I posted a visual of the scientific method, asked you to respond with just a single example of the evidence you claim to have and offered to help you understand if your evidence passed the scientific method test. You seem to be disinterested of learning what scientific evidence is even when offered to you in the simplest manner.

No, I know how to use the scientific method. You don't. Posting a graphic does not mean that you understand it. You don't even understand what qualifies as scientific evidence.

Your response of course doesn't offer a bit of evidence you claim you have but instead contains personal attacks and typical 'yer a liar' response.

Duly reported.

I did not use the "yer a liar" response. You keep making very bad errors. And I used no personal attacks. My posts are all very factual and if you have questions about any part of them I am always ready to defend them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Tell me what's wrong with this scientific method....

The only thing "wrong" with it is your understanding of it. Once again posting a graphic does not mean that you understand it. It is not clearly written, but scientific evidence is a huge part of that graphic. Do you know what scientific evidence is? You try to imply that you do. Clearly you don't. In your own words tell us what scientific evidence is.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Until it can be demonstrated that other methods produce CO2, the observation that the burning of hydrocarbons produce CO2 can be presented as the only method to produce CO2. The burden to refute the claim would be on those who disagree with the conclusion of only hydrocarbons produce CO2. We know that the burning of hydrocarbons produce CO2, that's indisputable.

No. Presenting the burning of hydrocarbons as the only method of producing CO2 would be, at a minimum, a hypothesis. It would not be an observation.

The observation would be "the burning of hydrocarbons is the only method observed to produce CO2".

In this instance, "unlikely" would mean never observed.

So, anything that wasn't observed is unlikely.
The murder was not observed so it was unlikely.
No one observed John committing the murder so it is unlikely that he did it, despite the fact that his fingerprints are on the murder weapon.

As something becomes more complex, the working together of the various impetuses to produce that 'something' would take more and more interactive time.

Without a knowledge of the mechanisms involved, the time to produce that something cannot be predicted. Also the rarity of an event is not directly linked to the time it might take for that event to occur.

 

[justlookinla]

The only thing "wrong" with it is your understanding of it. Once again posting a graphic does not mean that you understand it. It is not clearly written, but scientific evidence is a huge part of that graphic. Do you know what scientific evidence is? You try to imply that you do. Clearly you don't. In your own words tell us what scientific evidence is.

Clearly you can't understand a simple graphic....nor offer evidence to apply to the graphic.

 

[justlookinla]

No. Presenting the burning of hydrocarbons as the only method of producing CO2 would be, at a minimum, a hypothesis. It would not be an observation.

The observation would be "the burning of hydrocarbons is the only method observed to produce CO2".

Any claim to the contrary would need to be presented with an observation.

So, anything that wasn't observed is unlikely.
The murder was not observed so it was unlikely.
No one observed John committing the murder so it is unlikely that he did it, despite the fact that his fingerprints are on the murder weapon.

I'm not arguing about analogies.

Without a knowledge of the mechanisms involved, the time to produce that something cannot be predicted. Also the rarity of an event is not directly linked to the time it might take for that event to occur.

We have knowledge of the construct of tactile sensory units and in each and every case, intelligence is needed in the construct.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Any claim to the contrary would need to be presented with an observation.

No, it doesn't. Not until you present it as a hypothesis or conclusion. That you don't know this is further evidence that you don't understand the scientific method.
Either accept that the observation is "intelligent agents create CSI" and nothing else, or stop trying to teach me your version of the scientific method.

I'm not arguing about analogies.

Whatever. If you don't want analogies, stop providing nonsensical answers to questions. If you want to conflate "unlikely" to be a measure of anything then you need to provide a means of obtaining that measurement. "Unlikely means never observed" just makes it more vague. Are you truly unaware that the scientific method requires definite terminology and precision in measurement?

We have knowledge of the construct of tactile sensory units and in each and every case, intelligence is needed in the construct.

No you don't.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Clearly you can't understand a simple graphic....nor offer evidence to apply to the graphic.

Wrong, I am more than ready to discuss it. Let's begin with the part that you clearly do not understand.

 

[justlookinla]

No, it doesn't. Not until you present it as a hypothesis or conclusion. That you don't know this is further evidence that you don't understand the scientific method.
Either accept that the observation is "intelligent agents create CSI" and nothing else, or stop trying to teach me your version of the scientific method.

It's not my version of the scientific method. The scientific method again.....

http://www.cdn.sciencebuddies.org/Files/5084/7/2013-updated_scientific-method-steps_v6_noheader.png

We're applying the scientific method to the claim of intelligent design. So far, we've had verifiable observation of intelligent design (step 1) in the production of tactile sensory units. If you have a contrary view of the production of tactile sensory units, simply state your claim and apply it to the scientific method. So far, you've not done that but your failure doesn't negate the claim of intelligent design.

The claim stands. Only intelligent design produces tactile sensory units.

Whatever. If you don't want analogies, stop providing nonsensical answers to questions. If you want to conflate "unlikely" to be a measure of anything then you need to provide a means of obtaining that measurement. "Unlikely means never observed" just makes it more vague. Are you truly unaware that the scientific method requires definite terminology and precision in measurement?

Are you aware that not only are tactile sensory units unlikely to be produced from non-intelligence, it's never been observed?

No you don't.

Sure we do. In each and every case we know the basic design elements of tactile sensory units for them to function as tactile sensory units.

 

[justlookinla]

Wrong, I am more than ready to discuss it. Let's begin with the part that you clearly do not understand.

Start with the graphic. Do you understand it and if you do, simply offer the evidence you claim to have (unseen for months and months now) and apply the evidence to the scientific method graphic. I've offered several times to help you take your evidence, help you understand how to apply it to the graphic, and help you understand if your evidence is based on the scientific method. The offer still stands. I don't mind helping you at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Start with the graphic. Do you understand it and if you do, simply offer the evidence you claim to have (unseen for months and months now) and apply the evidence to the scientific method graphic. I've offered several times to help you take your evidence, help you understand how to apply it to the graphic, and help you understand if your evidence is based on the scientific method. The offer still stands. I don't mind helping you at all.

Sorry, you used a term that you showed that you do not understand. Once you understand the concept of scientific evidence we can discuss your chart. Until then there is no point. You will not be able to understand the answer when it is given to you.

 

[justlookinla]

Sorry, you used a term that you showed that you do not understand. Once you understand the concept of scientific evidence we can discuss your chart. Until then there is no point. You will not be able to understand the answer when it is given to you.

For once offer the evidence you've been claiming for months and months you have. I'll be glad to help you apply the scientific method to it and we'll quickly see if it passes the test.

Won't take long.

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

this thread is closed for staff review

 

[MissRowy]

MOD HAT ON
THIS THREAD IS BEING PERMANENTLY CLOSED
DUE TO REPEATED FLAMING
PLEASE ABIDE BY THE SITE WIDE RULES ON FLAMING
FLAMING BANS WILL BE GIVEN TO MEMBERS WHO VIOLATE THE RULES
THE RULES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
FLAMING AND GOADING
Please treat all members with respect and courtesy through civil dialogue.
Stating or implying that another Christian member, or group of members, are not Christian is not allowed.
Clear violations of the flaming rule will result in bans.
MOD HAT OFF
​