Why no evidence FOR creation/ID?

[dmmesdale]

Except for the fact it doesn't actually explain anything.

It explains the initial cause of the universe and life as a living source and for a purpose. You can come up with any number of unscientific ad hoc excuses to dismiss actual arguments for ID or Creationism. Either way that is the point of the whole thread. The op was stating he did not see any positive arguments for ID or Creationism. How hard did he look? There has been a multiple of responses to his objection all of which falls of deaf ears. You got your mind made up in advance and are therefore immune to actual evidence which refutes your materialistic creation myth which answers next to nothing and is grossly insufficient. Your whole paradigm is based on survival in the first place where truth takes a back seat. So why believe anything you say with all these ad nauseam appeals to science?

Anyway, the rest is the usual creationist prattle and I have little interest in going 'round the merry-go-round again and again.

You get to believe whatever you want. In the end, it changes nothing.

You can't compete and you know you can't. You dismiss the population argument as single dumbest because it provides negative empirical evidence against your model of 10 K humans 200 K years ago. It is not that it is dumb, it is because you don't like it because your fixed bias is all that matters, not following the actual evidence. Medicine is a double edged sword when it comes to population growth since modern medicine brings in birth control and abortion, people can be sexual without reproducing thanks to modern medicine. That offsets its advances in disease control. Genesis 10 even has the lineage of the three sons of Noah along with a host of locations. It was history to them right down to the recording of births, not myths as the moderns suppose.

 

[USincognito]

Cherry picked responses for another.

Folks, you might want to turn off your irony meters....

Even Darwin extrapolated backward with change so why can't we use overall population of two groups from the last 400 years of population data?

Because, you actually look at the math instead of cherry picking the start and end results of your calculation, you wind up with thinks like a world population of 2,500 when the Exodus is supposed to have happened and a world population of 67,000 when the population of Rome alone was 1,000,000.

Your model is 10 K seed population which assumes both sexes evolved step by step equally via blind chance. All the organs in the human anatomy for both sexes.

There is no more obvious indicator that one does not understand evolution than the "how did a female H. sapiens evolve and wait around a 100,000 years for a male H. sapiens to evolve".

Your model explains a chromosome difference between humans and chimps because of a fusion event that supposedly took place after humans separated. Why are there not two populations of humans with different sets of chromosomes when they all have the same set?

And this indicates you don't understand how population genetics works. The answer is the individual in which the chromosome fusion occurred wound up being the Chromosomal Adam or Eve of all humans alive today.

There is no science basis for your beliefs for a common ancestor since it has to be based on empirical evidence.

Are you unfamiliar with genetics? More specifically with genetic bottlenecks? There should be one, not just in humans but in all terrestrial tetrapods, dating to ~4000 BCE.

There isn't.

The population doubles from 1850 (1.2 Bil) to 1950 (2.5 Bil) in spite of the Civil War, all the incurable disease, both the world wars of the 20th century. The holocaust and the great flu epidemic of the early 20th century.

Again, you need to do all the math. You can't just start in 1800. Even with the ridiculously large growth percentage, you would only have 67,000-500,000 people in 1 CE when the actual population was 200-300,000,000. The math simply doesn't work.

 

[Waggles]

Unfortunately, you won't find that with science.

Always with the excuses.

 

[pitabread]

Always with the excuses.

Not an excuse. Just setting your expectations accordingly.

 

[Kylie]

Thanks for the QED.

Why do you thank me for things you are just going to ignore?

Yes, and I didn't believe them.

Of course. Anything that disagrees with you can take a hike, isn't that right?

 

[SkyWriting]

Because you define God such that it doesn't just appear out of nothing, right? Special pleading anyone?

However, the flaw in this argument is that, consistent with the best-tested, and most successful theory of how our reality behaves, matter (and antimatter) does appear out of 'nothing' - when 'nothing' means 'a state without matter or forces, only quantum fields' (which is usually what is meant when physicists talk of 'nothing').

What is your source for experiments regarding quantum fluctuations creating matter out of nothing, if not special pleading?

Most people are spiritual and believe in an intelligence bigger than themselves, so it's not a small group.

 

[dmmesdale]

Folks, you might want to turn off your irony meters....
Because, you actually look at the math instead of cherry picking the start and end results of your calculation, you wind up with thinks like a world population of 2,500 when the Exodus is supposed to have happened and a world population of 67,000 when the population of Rome alone was 1,000,000.

Where are all the people? - creation.com
there were 300 million people in the world at the time of Christ’s Resurrection,2 this requires a population growth rate of only 0.75% since the Flood, or a doubling time of 92 years—much less than the documented population growth rate in the years following the Flood.


A remarkable coincidence?
The Jews are descendants of Jacob (also called Israel). The number of Jews in the world in 1930, before the Nazi Holocaust, was estimated at 18 million. This represents a doubling in population, on average, every 156 years, or 0.44% growth per year since Jacob. Since the Flood, after which the world population was eight, the world population has doubled every 155 years, or grown at an average of 0.45% per year. There is agreement between the growth rates for the two populations. Is this just a lucky coincidence?

There is no more obvious indicator that one does not understand evolution than the "how did a female H. sapiens evolve and wait around a 100,000 years for a male H. sapiens to evolve".

They had to evolve via accidenct and blind chance at the same rate. Your hand wave dismissal does not change the fact.

And this indicates you don't understand how population genetics works. The answer is the individual in which the chromosome fusion occurred wound up being the Chromosomal Adam or Eve of all humans alive today.

Why aren't there two groups? What about the problems associated with chromosomal fusion? Again cherry picked responses ginned up after the fact. You are saying all the human population are from two people? The supposed fusion event took place after the human split. Prior to the split humans had the same amount as the nonhuman line of apes. It is a just so story. It is the humans that are different since the apes all have the same amount.

Apologetics Press - Of Apes and Men: Chromosome 2 in Humans and the Chimpanzee
There are problems with this explanation. First, this hypothesis openly assumes that the chromosomal fusion took place after humans supposedly split from the apes in the proposed evolutionary tree. Allegedly at some point in the past, a human ancestor’s DNA underwent a genetic fusion between two of its chromosomes. This event occurred in no other species. Does this provide evidence that humans share a common ancestor with apes? No. This line of thinking provides no empirical evidence that humans and apes share a common ancestor. All that it really does is suggest that a past human may have undergone this genetic change. In order for this fusion event to demonstrate common ancestry with the chimpanzee, there would have to be some link between the fusion event and the great apes. But no such link exists. The fused-looking chromosome is specific to humans, so it does not directly connect with the great apes. Therefore, it cannot be empirical evidence for a common link between Homo sapiens and the great apes. The only genetic “link” (which is no link at all) between humans and the apes is our close DNA sequence similarity. But this similarity is completely expected given the similar body structure, physiology, and biochemistry that we share with our primate friends.
------------------------------

Are you unfamiliar with genetics? More specifically with genetic bottlenecks? There should be one, not just in humans but in all terrestrial tetrapods, dating to ~4000 BCE.

There isn't.

They compare DNA with DNA and in your case you don't have the DNA of the imaginary creature because it did not exist. It is all theoretical, not conclusive. So don't go trying to pass your theoretical as conclusive.

Again, you need to do all the math. You can't just start in 1800. Even with the ridiculously large growth percentage, you would only have 67,000-500,000 people in 1 CE when the actual population was 200-300,000,000. The math simply doesn't work.

My start was the past 400 years of population data and you are cherry picking the data which was there to make a point which was ignored. If your appeal is to math then do the math for your model of 10 K humans 200 K years ago. How does current population trends align with the overall growth for the last 400 years? It doesn't.

The population doubles exponentially four times from a half bill to one to two to four to eight bil in approx 2020. That is a doubling of 105 years overall. .66%? By the rule of 70. Lets drop it down to .1% for you model and do the math which you failed to do. The 10 K population would double every 700 years. From 10 to 20 to 40 to 80 to 160 and on. So how long would it take to reach 8 Bil at thoses rates? Not long.

 

[USincognito]

Sigh...

 

[lesliedellow]

What is your source for experiments regarding quantum fluctuations creating matter out of nothing, if not special pleading?

Most people are spiritual and believe in an intelligence bigger than themselves, so it's not a small group.

Where are all the people? - creation.com
there were 300 million people in the world at the time of Christ’s Resurrection,2 this requires a population growth rate of only 0.75% since the Flood, or a doubling time of 92 years—much less than the documented population growth rate in the years following the Flood.


A remarkable coincidence?
The Jews are descendants of Jacob (also called Israel). The number of Jews in the world in 1930, before the Nazi Holocaust, was estimated at 18 million. This represents a doubling in population, on average, every 156 years, or 0.44% growth per year since Jacob. Since the Flood, after which the world population was eight, the world population has doubled every 155 years, or grown at an average of 0.45% per year. There is agreement between the growth rates for the two populations. Is this just a lucky coincidence?

They had to evolve via accidenct and blind chance at the same rate. Your hand wave dismissal does not change the fact.
Why aren't there two groups? What about the problems associated with chromosomal fusion? Again cherry picked responses ginned up after the fact. You are saying all the human population are from two people? The supposed fusion event took place after the human split. Prior to the split humans had the same amount as the nonhuman line of apes. It is a just so story. It is the humans that are different since the apes all have the same amount.

Apologetics Press - Of Apes and Men: Chromosome 2 in Humans and the Chimpanzee
There are problems with this explanation. First, this hypothesis openly assumes that the chromosomal fusion took place after humans supposedly split from the apes in the proposed evolutionary tree. Allegedly at some point in the past, a human ancestor’s DNA underwent a genetic fusion between two of its chromosomes. This event occurred in no other species. Does this provide evidence that humans share a common ancestor with apes? No. This line of thinking provides no empirical evidence that humans and apes share a common ancestor. All that it really does is suggest that a past human may have undergone this genetic change. In order for this fusion event to demonstrate common ancestry with the chimpanzee, there would have to be some link between the fusion event and the great apes. But no such link exists. The fused-looking chromosome is specific to humans, so it does not directly connect with the great apes. Therefore, it cannot be empirical evidence for a common link between Homo sapiens and the great apes. The only genetic “link” (which is no link at all) between humans and the apes is our close DNA sequence similarity. But this similarity is completely expected given the similar body structure, physiology, and biochemistry that we share with our primate friends.
------------------------------
They compare DNA with DNA and in your case you don't have the DNA of the imaginary creature because it did not exist. It is all theoretical, not conclusive. So don't go trying to pass your theoretical as conclusive.

My start was the past 400 years of population data and you are cherry picking the data which was there to make a point which was ignored. If your appeal is to math then do the math for your model of 10 K humans 200 K years ago. How does current population trends align with the overall growth for the last 400 years? It doesn't.

The population doubles exponentially four times from a half bill to one to two to four to eight bil in approx 2020. That is a doubling of 105 years overall. .66%? By the rule of 70. Lets drop it down to .1% for you model and do the math which you failed to do. The 10 K population would double every 700 years. From 10 to 20 to 40 to 80 to 160 and on. So how long would it take to reach 8 Bil at thoses rates? Not long.

In 1AD the world population is estimated to have been 250 million. In 1500 it is estimated to have been 500 million. So just assuming that the world's population doubles every 100 years is hopelessly simplistic. It took 15 centuries to double from 250 to 500 million. On the other hand, in just over 100 years, it has increased more than fourfold from 1.6 to the current 7 billion.

 

[SkyWriting]

On the other hand, in just over 100 years, it has increased more than fourfold from 1.6 to the current 7 billion.

Universal healthcare should increase those numbers, dramatically.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What is your source for experiments regarding quantum fluctuations creating matter out of nothing, if not special pleading?

It wouldn't be special pleading even if I'd invented it from scratch - that's not what special pleading means; but here's an article that gives a readable account of one example of this.

Most people are spiritual and believe in an intelligence bigger than themselves, so it's not a small group.

The number of believers is irrelevant to the reality of what is believed. Scientific discoveries have a history of overturning the established beliefs of the majority.

 

[pitabread]

Where are all the people? - creation.com

This is what that site claims about population:

Evolutionists claim that mankind evolved from apes about a million years ago. If the population had grown at just 0.01% per year since then (doubling only every 7,000 years), there could be 1043 people today—that’s a number with 43 zeros after it.

Here we have an utterly absurd strawman completely ignoring the concept of an environment's carrying capacity -- namely the fact that populations tend to reach equilibrium relative to the environment and in particular the availability of food. It's the reason we're not currently buried under rabbits right now.

Then there is the fact that under this so-called Biblical model of population growth per Flood doesn't line up with the world's population at various points post-Flood, especially given the various civilizations that existed before, during and after this supposed event. The mere existence of Egyptian civilization alone falsifies the creationist Flood scenario.

 

[pitabread]

It explains the initial cause of the universe and life as a living source and for a purpose.

It "explains" only from a theological POV as part of a religious creation story, I'll grant you that much.

But it doesn't actually explain anything in terms of the creation event itself. For example, what were the mechanisms used in this creation event? How exactly was life brought into existence? What sort of energy or other materials were used in the process? Etc...

Explaining something involves given an explanation of how an event occurred, not merely stating that it did.

You can't compete and you know you can't.

Exactly what sort of 'competition' do you envision is happening here?

 

[SkyWriting]

but here's an article that gives a readable account of one example of this.

Very readable. Does not explain our existence or attempt to.
What else do you have to explain how our matter came into existence?
I am OPEN to any ideas that explain how matter came to be.
I asked you to provide some.

Special Pleading
argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavorable to their point of view.

• appeals to give a particular interest group special treatment.
  "we heard his special pleading for his constituency"

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Very readable. Does not explain our existence or attempt to.

As I said, it describes an example of how particles can be created from 'nothing' in quantum mechanics.

What else do you have to explain how our matter came into existence?

How long have you got? there are a wide range of hypotheses as to the sequence of events; matter from 'nothing' covers just a few of them. A good proportion of them involve a 'metaverse' - a metastable spacetime 'bulk' (with different physical properties), out of which universes like ours are continually being generated as quantum fluctuations cause localised phase changes, often likened to the way pressure reduction causes bubbles of gas to come out of solution (as when opening champagne). Some of these models are eternal, some are closed in time (the time dimension is finite but unbounded). One interesting one has a temporal symmetry at the big bang, where mirror-image universes are generated both forwards and backwards in time. In the non-eternal models, quantum fluctuations are typically invoked as the source of matter.

If you're really interested, you'll find more than enough information to keep you occupied if you Google 'cosmology theories' and 'cosmology hypotheses' follow up the links and ideas that result. One caveat - it does help to have a basic understanding of QM theory...

Special Pleading
argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavorable to their point of view.

• appeals to give a particular interest group special treatment.
  "we heard his special pleading for his constituency"

Yes, that's one usage; so?

 

[dmmesdale]

In 1AD the world population is estimated to have been 250 million. In 1500 it is estimated to have been 500 million. So just assuming that the world's population doubles every 100 years is hopelessly simplistic.

So why assume it?

From the article.

''The population grows when more people are born than die. The current growth rate of the world population is about 1.7% per year.2 In other words, for every 100 million people, 1.7 million are added every year; i.e. births net of deaths.''

At 1.7 the rate doubles every 41.2 years.

It it doubles exponentially from half bil 1600 to 8 bil in 2020 then overall is every 105 years and that is a .66%.

It took 15 centuries to double from 250 to 500 million. On the other hand, in just over 100 years, it has increased more than fourfold from 1.6 to the current 7 billion.

It doubled exponentially twice from 1.6 (1900) to 6.4 Bil in 2004. A fourfold expontenial from 1.6 x 2=3.2 x2=6.4 x2=12.8 x2=25.6.


So why isolate the one and ignore the other of 10K 200K years ago? Why not do a compare analysis between the two models and see which model better fits to current population stats? Again cherry picking.

 

[dmmesdale]

It "explains" only from a theological POV as part of a religious creation story, I'll grant you that much.

Who cares. It is two models and current population trends better fit the Noah model than it does yours. Why should we believe you over Jesus? Huh? The kings of Europe? Why were they all wrong and you right?

But it doesn't actually explain anything in terms of the creation event itself.

Does not have to. All it has to do is falsify the competing model. Your ''yeah but'' is another unscientific ad hoc selectively applied. You can't pull all these excuses out of your backside.

For example, what were the mechanisms used in this creation event? How exactly was life brought into existence? What sort of energy or other materials were used in the process? Etc...
Explaining something involves given an explanation of how an event occurred, not merely stating that it did.

They can go to that once the competing model is eliminated. Not before.

 

[lesliedellow]

All it has to do is falsify the competing model.

Mere assertions don't prove anything. Evidence does.

Theory: London is the capital of the Uk.

My "alternative model" says that Paris is the capital of the Uk.

So the theory that London is the capital of the Uk has been falsified. Right? Well no, actually.

 

[sfs]

You can't compete and you know you can't. You dismiss the population argument as single dumbest because it provides negative empirical evidence against your model of 10 K humans 200 K years ago. It is not that it is dumb, it is because you don't like it because your fixed bias is all that matters, not following the actual evidence.

Sorry, but the population argument is extremely bad whatever your philosophical, religious or whatever views. There is an entire field of study called population biology that studies how populations grow and shrink in response to different factors, and this argument ignores every single thing that researchers have learned in this area.

Populations only increase exponentially when they have unlimited resources. Humans have not generally had unlimited resources, and in particular have often been limited by their food supply. The food supply available to humans changed dramatically with the invention of agriculture, and then with increased agricultural land, and then with better farming techniques and artificial fertilizers.

The only real application for this argument is if you want to come up with a meaningless answer. Otherwise, no. Just no.

 

[pitabread]

It is two models and current population trends better fit the Noah model than it does yours.

What you wrote makes no sense. You don't take a population, extrapolate backwards with an ad hoc population growth number and then arbitrarily decide which "model" you think it fits better. Especially since there aren't even two competing 'models' here. The Biblical Noah's flood scenario ignores everything to do with human history in addition to being blatantly contradicted by every branch of the natural sciences.

It's a non-starter from the get go. You're just grasping at straws at this point.

All it has to do is falsify the competing model.

The Biblical account in Genesis does not falsify anything. It's just words on paper that when attempted to be taken literally is contradicted by reality.

That's all it is.