What is the positive evidence FOR creationism?

[DerelictJunction]

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.

I see you ignore my request when it pleases you.

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

According to Luke, we have a common designer, not a common ancestor.

Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Evolution's y-Adam might come from the jungle, but we know better.

 

[Loudmouth]

According to Luke, we have a common designer, not a common ancestor.

Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Evolution's y-Adam might come from the jungle, but we know better.

Again, this thread is asking for evidence, not claims.

 

[AV1611VET]

Again, this thread is asking for evidence, not claims.

You can ask all you want.

You don't have the physical evidence, thus evolution.

I don't have the physical evidence, thus creation.

Let's let our Bible break the tie, shall we?

Or, as I suspect, will you go with your Favoured Races?

 

[Loudmouth]

You can ask all you want.

You don't have the physical evidence, thus evolution.

Again, this is a thread on creationism. It has nothing to do with evolution.

Let's let our Bible break the tie, shall we?

Let's not. Let's let the EVIDENCE break the tie.

 

[justlookinla]

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.

Do you disagree with it?

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

We ain't talking about any of the forms of evolution.

Therefore your evidence is not really positive evidence for Creationism.

Have we agreed or disagreed with step 1?

 

[justlookinla]

I see you ignore my request when it pleases you.

If you wish to discuss the HOW, the process, claimed by Darwinistic evolution and apply it to the scientific method, I'd be glad to do that. You requested that not be included in the discussion in this form though.

 

[DerelictJunction]

According to Luke, we have a common designer, not a common ancestor.

Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Evolution's y-Adam might come from the jungle, but we know better.

Luke also says that Jesus had a different human paternal grandfather than Matthew says. So I don't put much stock in the accuracy of Luke's opinion regarding the earlier parts of Jesus's family tree.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Do you disagree with it?

I agree that they observed intelligence creates their ill-defined parameter, CSI. I disagree with their implication that only intelligence creates CSI. That is not an observation.

We ain't talking about any of the forms of evolution.

Then your claim regarding CSI cannot be conclusive.

 

[justlookinla]

I agree that they observed intelligence creates their ill-defined parameter, CSI. I disagree with their implication that only intelligence creates CSI. That is not an observation.
Then your claim regarding CSI cannot be conclusive.

What is ill defined about it?

 

[DerelictJunction]

If you wish to discuss the HOW, the process, claimed by Darwinistic evolution and apply it to the scientific method, I'd be glad to do that. You requested that not be included in the discussion in this form though.

That's true, I did request that not discuss evidence in support of or attacking evolution. However, individual exceptions can be mutually agreed to. In this case, in order to fully support the claim that the existence of CSI is evidence for Creationism, we must show that CSI cannot be produced through the natural mechanisms of evolution. Since I already conclude that CSI can evolve naturally, I leave it to you to show me how my conclusion is incorrect.

 

[DerelictJunction]

What is ill defined about it?

Let's table that one for after you finish teaching me how the article you referenced follows the scientific method.

 

[Loudmouth]

That's true, I did request that not discuss evidence in support of or attacking evolution. However, individual exceptions can be mutually agreed to. In this case, in order to fully support the claim that the existence of CSI is evidence for Creationism, we must show that CSI cannot be produced through the natural mechanisms of evolution. Since I already conclude that CSI can evolve naturally, I leave it to you to show me how my conclusion is incorrect.

Implicit in the demand for evidence is the requirement that the evidence point to creationism instead of natural processes.

 

[justlookinla]

Let's table that one for after you finish teaching me how the article you referenced follows the scientific method.

That's part of step one....taking it one step at time. After we settle the issues with step 1, we can go to step two...then to step 3....etc.

 

[DerelictJunction]

That's part of step one....taking it one step at time. After we settle the issues with step 1, we can go to step two...then to step 3....etc.

So settle the issues with step 1.

 

[justlookinla]

So settle the issues with step 1.

I don't have an issue with it, you do.......

I agree that they observed intelligence creates their ill-defined parameter, CSI.

What's ill defined about it?

 

[DerelictJunction]

I don't have an issue with it, you do.......

If you limit the observation to "they observed that intelligence creates CSI" then I have no issue with it. I don't believe that "only intelligence creates high levels of CSI". They have not done nor referenced any experiments or theories that draw that conclusion, so they could not have observed it.

What's ill defined about it?

It is a parameter that has appears in objects in varying amounts. This is shown in the article by references to "high levels" of CSI. The method of determining what level of CSI an object has is not mentioned nor are the units of measure given. The way of recognizing that CSI exists in an object is also very vague.
Hence, the parameter is ill-defined.

 

[justlookinla]

If you limit the observation to "they observed that intelligence creates CSI" then I have no issue with it. I don't believe that "only intelligence creates high levels of CSI". They have not done nor referenced any experiments or theories that draw that conclusion, so they could not have observed it.

You're right, they did not reference any experiments, it's simply a statement which would need to be falsified in order to be dismissed. We still would agree on the statement that "intelligence creates CSI", but any contrary view that other impetuses create CSI would need to be observed and presented also in order to dismiss the exclusivity of intelligence alone creating CSI.

It is a parameter that has appears in objects in varying amounts. This is shown in the article by references to "high levels" of CSI. The method of determining what level of CSI an object has is not mentioned nor are the units of measure given. The way of recognizing that CSI exists in an object is also very vague.
Hence, the parameter is ill-defined.

The qualifier of "a scenario which is unlikely to happen (making it complex), and conforms to a pattern (making it specified)" would indicate "high levels" of CSI, and both have been observed. I see specificity instead of vagueness in that portion of step 1.

 

[DerelictJunction]

You're right, they did not reference any experiments, it's simply a statement which would need to be falsified in order to be dismissed. We still would agree on the statement that "intelligence creates CSI", but any contrary view that other impetuses create CSI would need to be observed and presented also in order to dismiss the exclusivity of intelligence alone creating CSI.

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.

The qualifier of "a scenario which is unlikely to happen (making it complex), and conforms to a pattern (making it specified)" would indicate "high levels" of CSI, and both have been observed. I see specificity instead of vagueness in that portion of step 1.

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"?

Describe how the rarity of an event determines its complexity.

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?

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Luke also says that Jesus had a different human paternal grandfather than Matthew says. So I don't put much stock in the accuracy of Luke's opinion regarding the earlier parts of Jesus's family tree.

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."