What creationists need to do to win against evolution.

[Speedwell]

Truly, the only way to verify ID in any way is to do it by process of elimination...I think.

As to the O.P.,,,I really don't know of a positive way that Creationism by an intelligent source could be proven..unless everything else is shown to be impossible.

No, that wouldn't do it. If you disprove evolution all you have is a disproven theory with nothing to replace it. In order to advance ID as a replacement you would have to present it in the form of a testable hypothesis and show evidence in support of it. That has never been done.

More generally, creation by an intelligent source is not an alternative to evolution. It does not depend on evolution being false.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Truly, the only way to verify ID in any way is to do it by process of elimination...I think.

As to the O.P.,,,I really don't know of a positive way that Creationism by an intelligent source could be proven..unless everything else is shown to be impossible.

It goes further than that. Creationism is not scientific because the believers in it will not put their money where their mouths are. The only ones to blame for any evidence for creationism are creationists. People that follow creationism need to ask themselves: Why don't creation "scientists" follow the scientific method? The first thing one has to do to try to find evidence for an idea is to put the idea in the form of a testable hypothesis. It appears that creationists would rather not know if their idea is valid or not. It indicates that they feel that they are wrong deep down inside.

 

[pitabread]

Truly, the only way to verify ID in any way is to do it by process of elimination...I think.

Unfortunately that doesn't work. Design is not the null hypothesis of evolution.

The only way to verify ID is for ID advocates to propose testable hypotheses for ID, which will likely depend on also proposing mechanisms for ID. ID advocates haven't done this yet.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Unfortunately that doesn't work. Design is not the null hypothesis of evolution.

The only way to verify ID is for ID advocates to propose testable hypotheses for ID, which will likely depend on also proposing mechanisms for ID. ID advocates haven't done this yet.

They don't even have a coherent definition of design to distinguish between what is and isn't designed.

 

[Shemjaza]

Agreed, of course.
But was the IceMan very different from us?
That was 5,000 years ago.
What about the Greeks and Hebrews?
4,000 years ago.

That would be enough time, I think, for a bird's beak to adapt,,,,but does the bird change? I don't think so.

Why do you think it's enough time?

Agreed.
It's HOW a complex system like the eye could have evolved. It seems like it would have had to just start out like it is right now. I know that I don't know enough about this.

As I said earlier, a bad eye that just shows light or dark is better then no eyes.

We see some creatures with simple light sensors in their, barely more sophisticated then our ability to feel warmth or cold.

We also see every level of complexity in between that and the more complicated vertebrate eyes we have today.

In 1989 M. Denton wrote a book titled:
Evolution: A Theory in Crises.

I wonder if important progress has been made since then...30 years ago.

Have you read the book? Is there any actual evidence in it?

Because I have never doubted the conviction of Creationists, just their ability to actually present scientific evidence.

 

[GodsGrace101]

It goes further than that. Creationism is not scientific because the believers in it will not put their money where their mouths are. The only ones to blame for any evidence for creationism are creationists. People that follow creationism need to ask themselves: Why don't creation "scientists" follow the scientific method? The first thing one has to do to try to find evidence for an idea is to put the idea in the form of a testable hypothesis. It appears that creationists would rather not know if their idea is valid or not. It indicates that they feel that they are wrong deep down inside.

I just can't think of a way that creationism could be proven.

Christians believe God exists for varying reasons.
But I don't know that it could be proven scientifically.

How does a robot prove a human made it?

 

[GodsGrace101]

Why do you think it's enough time?



As I said earlier, a bad eye that just shows light or dark is better then no eyes.

We see some creatures with simple light sensors in their, barely more sophisticated then our ability to feel warmth or cold.

We also see every level of complexity in between that and the more complicated vertebrate eyes we have today.



Have you read the book? Is there any actual evidence in it?

Because I have never doubted the conviction of Creationists, just their ability to actually present scientific evidence.

As to the matter of time:

When we believed that the universe always existed,,,it was a plus for the evolution argument.
There was an inexhaustible amount of time for the change from a one celled organism all the way up to us, to develop.

When it was discovered that the universe had a beginning (Genesis and the Big Bang) the amount of time available became about 13.8 billion years.

So it was asked if this was enough time for this huge leap to take place.

I certainly don't know. I just know that it became a problem, that seems to have been resolved -- maybe 14 billion years is enough...again, I don't know.

As to the book....evidence of what? It just repeats what doubts exist,,,to this day. And I can't remember it honestly.

Again, I'm not sure I could call myself a creationist in the way it's meant here....but I also don't believe creationism could be proven scientifically.

A Christian scientist wrote a book about how Genesis has many truths in it,,,but I can't remember the title or the author. Not that it would make any difference.

 

[Shemjaza]

As to the matter of time:

When we believed that the universe always existed,,,it was a plus for the evolution argument.
There was an inexhaustible amount of time for the change from a one celled organism all the way up to us, to develop.

When it was discovered that the universe had a beginning (Genesis and the Big Bang) the amount of time available became about 13.8 billion years.

So it was asked if this was enough time for this huge leap to take place.

I certainly don't know. I just know that it became a problem, that seems to have been resolved -- maybe 14 billion years is enough...again, I don't know.

Is it? Sure. Plenty.

At the time of Christ almost none of the modern breeds of dogs existed... all the diversity of dogs comes from random natural mutations that have been deliberately selected and encouraged by humans. Now deliberate selection is faster then relying on natural selection for what statistically works better, but the origin of new forms and new information is identical.

The Universe is 13.8 billion years old, the Earth is over 4 billion years old and complex life with bones or shells is about 500 million years old.

You and I both have many mutations that we didn't inherit from our parents... and when you spread that over the entire population that a constant engine for change.

As to the book....evidence of what? It just repeats what doubts exist,,,to this day. And I can't remember it honestly.

But a doubt without justification isn't convincing.

People doubt the Earth is round...

Again, I'm not sure I could call myself a creationist in the way it's meant here....but I also don't believe creationism could be proven scientifically.

A Christian scientist wrote a book about how Genesis has many truths in it,,,but I can't remember the title or the author. Not that it would make any difference.

The problem with using Genesis as a source for truth is when facts of the physical world are applied only after they are discovered. Genesis is never successfully used before science has made a step.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I just can't think of a way that creationism could be proven.

Christians believe God exists for varying reasons.
But I don't know that it could be proven scientifically.

How does a robot prove a human made it?

You misunderstand. Things are never "proven" in the sciences. One devises models that can betested. What makes evolution scientific is that we can form all sorts of tests that say "If evolution is right we should not see . . .". The classic example is "The theory of evolution says there cannot be a Precambrian Bunny Rabbit". The theory is tested on its own merits. The problem with the YEC view is that there is so much evidence for evolution that the only way it could be true was if God purposely planted false and misleading information. In other words God would have to be a liar.

I don't think that you are a YEC or even close to it. But if you told us very clearly what your beliefs are we may be able to help you to test those ideas.

 

[GodsGrace101]

You misunderstand. Things are never "proven" in the sciences. One devises models that can betested. What makes evolution scientific is that we can form all sorts of tests that say "If evolution is right we should not see . . .". The classic example is "The theory of evolution says there cannot be a Precambrian Bunny Rabbit". The theory is tested on its own merits. The problem with the YEC view is that there is so much evidence for evolution that the only way it could be true was if God purposely planted false and misleading information. In other words God would have to be a liar.

I don't think that you are a YEC or even close to it. But if you told us very clearly what your beliefs are we may be able to help you to test those ideas.

1. I don't misunderstand.
I know what proven means scientifically....
but some things are proven.
It has been proven that time is relative.
It is proven that dinosaurs lived a long time ago.

2. I agree on the YEC argument. It has no support and if we have a tricky kind of God,,,I wouldn't want to be worshipping Him.

3. You want to know my beliefs and test my ideas?
That's funny...beccause you're the one that said we can't prove if spirits (ghosts) exist because the experience cannot be controlled and/or duplicated.

So that kind of ends the argument, doesn't it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

1. I don't misunderstand.
I know what proven means scientifically....
but some things are proven.
It has been proven that time is relative.
It is proven that dinosaurs lived a long time ago.

2. I agree on the YEC argument. It has no support and if we have a tricky kind of God,,,I wouldn't want to be worshipping Him.

3. You want to know my beliefs and test my ideas?
That's funny...beccause you're the one that said we can't prove if spirits (ghosts) exist because the experience cannot be controlled and/or duplicated.

So that kind of ends the argument, doesn't it?

1: Okay, you are being inconsistent with your definition of "prove". In this one you are using the legal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. By that standard evolution is proven as well.

2: That is good. Then I won't make any false accusations in that regard.

3: That does not sound like me. I would explain that ghost and spirit claims tend to go away when properly investigated. Along with there being no reliable evidence for their existence. Worse yet this appears to be a dodge. Remember that I said YEC's are afraid to put their money where their mouth is? They aren't the only ones.

 

[GodsGrace101]

1: Okay, you are being inconsistent with your definition of "prove". In this one you are using the legal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. By that standard evolution is proven as well.

2: That is good. Then I won't make any false accusations in that regard.

3: That does not sound like me. I would explain that ghost and spirit claims tend to go away when properly investigated. Along with there being no reliable evidence for their existence. Worse yet this appears to be a dodge. Remember that I said YEC's are afraid to put their money where their mouth is? They aren't the only ones.

LOL
Number 3 WAS you.
You just repeated what you said the first time around.

I mean, let's say I see a phantasm.
I'd need to see it again to convince you?
And we'd need reliable evidence?

Wouldn't my eyesight be enough?

I don't really expect answers...
It's just a hypothetical....maybe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL
Number 3 WAS you.
You just repeated what you said the first time around.

I mean, let's say I see a phantasm.
I'd need to see it again to convince you?
And we'd need reliable evidence?

Wouldn't my eyesight be enough?

I don't really expect answers...
It's just a hypothetical....maybe.

Perhaps you misunderstood me. And no, your eyes are not reliable under certain conditions. Knowing how and when one can be fooled is key to debunking many "spirit" claims.

Reliable evidence does not depend on a specific observer. If only you observed something then by definition it would not be reliable evidence.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I mean, let's say I see a phantasm.
I'd need to see it again to convince you?
And we'd need reliable evidence?

Wouldn't my eyesight be enough?

Anecdotal evidence is the weakest form of evidence. In this situation, the appropriate course of action would be to consider the possible explanations, assess their prior probabilities, and act on the most probable.

For example, the existence of phantasms would contradict our understanding of how the world works, so are extremely improbable (for all intents & purposes, impossible), whereas the human perceptual system is notoriously prone to errors of this kind, particularly pareidolia, and human nature is prone to confabulation and attention-seeking. So the appropriate course of action would be to investigate the latter two possibilities; i.e. misperception or deception. The second option could be divided into deception of the individual and deception by the individual ( *︾▽︾)

 

[GodsGrace101]

Perhaps you misunderstood me. And no, your eyes are not reliable under certain conditions. Knowing how and when one can be fooled is key to debunking many "spirit" claims.

Reliable evidence does not depend on a specific observer. If only you observed something then by definition it would not be reliable evidence.

See.
It WAS you.

 

[pitabread]

I mean, let's say I see a phantasm.
I'd need to see it again to convince you?
And we'd need reliable evidence?

Wouldn't my eyesight be enough?

I experience hypnopompic hallucinations. I wake up, but I am still seeing dream-images, often overlaid with reality. I will even get out of bed and move around in this state. I'll see these dream images, but also be conscious of being in my house.

I have seen all sorts of things in this state including ghosts, monsters, dinosaurs, weird sci-fi stuff, you name it.

At no point are these experiences indicative of the existence any external entities.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Anecdotal evidence is the weakest form of evidence. In this situation, the appropriate course of action would be to consider the possible explanations, assess their prior probabilities, and act on the most probable.

For example, the existence of phantasms would contradict our understanding of how the world works, so are extremely improbable (for all intents & purposes, impossible), whereas the human perceptual system is notoriously prone to errors of this kind, particularly pareidolia, and human nature is prone to confabulation and attention-seeking. So the appropriate course of action would be to investigate the latter two possibilities; i.e. misperception or deception. The second option could be divided into deception of the individual and deception by the individual ( *︾▽︾)

Even Christians know the above!
What if all possibilities were removed?
What if more than one person was involved?
What if it happened to YOU?
If you came to believe in some kind of life after death...would that change your belief system or world view?

 

[GodsGrace101]

I experience hypnopompic hallucinations. I wake up, but I am still seeing dream-images, often overlaid with reality. I will even get out of bed and move around in this state. I'll see these dream images, but also be conscious of being in my house.

I have seen all sorts of things in this state including ghosts, monsters, dinosaurs, weird sci-fi stuff, you name it.

At no point are these experiences indicative of the existence any external entities.

I see many shadows-when I'm very tired....scurrying past on the side of my body at some distance away.

But, you see, we both know what we're seeing.
We're not calling it phantasms.

 

[Subduction Zone]

See.
It WAS you.

The problem is that you misrepresented my position. That is why your post did not sound like me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see many shadows-when I'm very tired....scurrying past on the side of my body at some distance away.

But, you see, we both know what we're seeing.
We're not calling it phantasms.

There is a name for that and an evolutionary reason as well.