Another thing I don't understand about the creationist position...

[dlamberth]

My claim stands that Forensic evidence ≠ Scientific evidence.

Question because I don't really know. But isn't it the other way around? That is it's scientific evidence that gives us forensic evidence?

 

[Frank Robert]

Question because I don't really know. But isn't it the other way around? That is it's scientific evidence that gives us forensic evidence?

It gets confusing because forensic techniques does use science but evidence does not have the level of accuracy found in scientific studies.

For more information see:
Forensic Science: Problems and Solutions

Forensic science, or more specifically, problems in forensic science, contributes to many wrongful convictions, as seen in in nearly half (45%) of DNA exoneration cases and one-quarter (24%) of all exonerations in the United States.​

The main reasons:​

Unreliable or invalid forensic discipline.​

Insufficient validation of a method.​

Misleading testimony.​

 

[Mountainmike]

Science is not based on faith. First of all I believe that there are miraculous cures, i.e. cures that we cannot explain, such as cancers spontaneously disappearing. This week there was a case of HIV disappearing that joined many other HIV miraculous cures. There are claims of miraculous cures are claimed in all religious. In addition, a professor who I worked with in grad school studied and worked with and studied Shamans in Africa. Before her death she opened a clinic in Nairobi using both modern and traditional (shaman) Afican treatments.

My claim stands that Forensic evidence ≠ Scientific evidence.


I am making claims about evidence. Some forensic evidence can meet the criteria of scientific evidence, most forensic evidence can not be classified as scientific.

I have already. Once again you are projecting.

Is Much of Forensic Science Unreliable? | Legal Resources​

A report from the National Academy of Sciences says much of what passes for forensic science does not meet minimal scientific standards.

"Juries are awed by forensic science in the courtroom. Fingerprint comparison, DNA, handwriting analysis, ballistics,blood-splatter, shoe print comparison, etc. Prosecutors across the county depend upon this evidence to obtain convictions and juries are conditioned by television shows, like CSI, to expect it. However, a recent report from the National Academy of Sciences says much of what passes for forensic "science" does not meet minimal scientific standards. Yet, when forensic scientists testify in court they are often shamefully overconfident about their "scientific" findings."​

Another projection. You need to follow your own advice.

My suggestion is for the first time in your life you look at the forensic evidence of Eucharistic miracles.
then you can judge the veracity of what is actually there, and who was involved.

If you saw how bad the science is in much of acedemia you would not rush to defend academia apologists Such as NAS.
accredited GLP and GMP labs in general work to far higher standards than any academic lab.
It is why for example so many university “ eureka” drugs fail when given to proper scientists In GLP labs.

To answer the question “ is it cardiac tissue” you ask medical pathologists and cardiac specialists.
To extract MtDNA from a single cell you get specialist DNA labs to do it.
The lifetime of leucocytes post mortem and in vitro is an accepted fact.


A problem with hair , footprint Or bullet identification has no relevance here.
Because you have no scientific background you take statistics way out of context,

it amazes me you contest the strength of evidence when you promote abiogenesis which has none whatsoever.

So instead of straw men , and false generalisations as confirmation bias.
try studying evidence instead.

 

[Bradskii]

...please stop pretending to be a voice of science or reason...

So God thinks He needs to have His presence confirmed. The creator of all existence, of an infinite universe, of time, of life itself, thinks there may be a requirement to show to the world that He is real. And He ponders how He might do this. Rearrange the stars in the heavens? Raise the dead? Cure every illness overnight?

Nah. He'll pick a small town in Bolivia and have a family's plaster statue of His son weep some blood. Yeah, that'll do it. There won't be an atheist left on the planet! A killer move!

'Yes, father. I want to become a Catholic. Why? Well, you see, there's this small town in South America...'

 

[Frank Robert]

My suggestion is for the first time in your life you look at the forensic evidence of Eucharistic miracles.
then you can judge the veracity of what is actually there, and who was involved.

I do not deny miraculous cures. I even provided examples of them. My only point was that Christians do not have a lock on them

If you saw how bad the science is in much of acedemia you would not rush to defend academia apologists Such as NAS.
accredited GLP and GMP labs in general work to far higher standards than any academic lab.

So that is your 2¢, we know how far 2¢ will get you. GLP and GMP labs do not miraculously make forensic evidence into scientific evidence nor does nor does it correct the problems with forensic evidence.

Unreliable or invalid forensic discipline.​

Insufficient validation of a method.​

Misleading testimony and bias.​

It is why for example so many university “ eureka” drugs fail when given to proper scientists In GLP lab

To answer the question “ is it cardiac tissue” you ask medical pathologists and cardiac specialists.
To extract MtDNA from a single cell you get specialist DNA labs to do it.
The lifetime of leucocytes post mortem and in vitro is an accepted fact.

A problem with hair , footprint Or bullet identification has no relevance here.
Because you have no scientific background you take statistics way out of context,

it amazes me you contest the strength of evidence when you promote abiogenesis which has none whatsoever.

So instead of straw men , and false generalisations as confirmation bias.
try studying evidence instead.

If anyone here is tossing straw men it is you. We know that you do not agree with my claim that Forensic evidence ≠ Scientific evidence. That was the claim I made and repeated several time. You appear to be dying it but you haven't addressed it. You have only given your 2¢ and we both know what that is worth.

 

[Mountainmike]

I do not deny miraculous cures. I even provided examples of them. My only point was that Christians do not have a lock on them


So that is your 2¢, we know how far 2¢ will get you. GLP and GMP labs do not miraculously make forensic evidence into scientific evidence nor does nor does it correct the problems with forensic evidence.

Unreliable or invalid forensic discipline.​

Insufficient validation of a method.​

Misleading testimony and bias.​

If anyone here is tossing straw men it is you. We know that you do not agree with my claim that Forensic evidence ≠ Scientific evidence. That was the claim I made and repeated several time. You appear to be dying it but you haven't addressed it. You have only given your 2¢ and we both know what that is worth.

I think you have a mistaken view of science as an outsider.

Why you bang on about healing is beyond me- you are using a question about the veracity of a stradivarius violin to say all Picasso paintings are a forgery! A straw man. And woefully bad logic.

ALL of science , including forensic science is made of people, who exhibit All the worst and best traits of people.

Thete are the good the bad, and all in between., the incompetent and those who impose their beliefs on Evidence not nearly as strong as they claim, as they do in OOL research.. Go to any conference and you will see professors behaving badly using questions to humiliate opponents, both sides trying to Impose a belief they have on the other. Plenty of wishful thinking.

Peer review is provably faulty.
The filing cabinet effect is real. A paper written about a correlation that does not exist in other data in the same filling cabinet.


Science is best in accredited labs in which everything is controlled , water reagents and machines.

It is most careful where it can kill people Or ruin their lives, Like drugs, military, and putting people in jail.
That is where I spent my time. We have higher standards. We have to. It is too expensive for most academia.

It is at its worst when arrogant people are determined to impose a belief on data , or for alterior motives. Take the disastrous shroud RC date which was done to promote an unproven technology,
The process and labs FAILED VALIDATION. I repeat . FAILED. No forensic lab would use the machine after.
there were too many red flags ignored, and when the data didn’t give them what they expected they even fiddled it. But that’s what science always does around religious phenomena.

Sure forensics like all other branches of science has made mistakes In individual cases.
note that convictions are rarely proved false, they are in general shown to be unsafe - ie introducing reasinable doubt,

But that will never account for Eucharistic miracles.

multiple teams, multiple events, multiple continents, same conclusion.Repeats.
results that cannot be recreated as a fraud,by any known process, and are beyond science to explain, validating one of the most distinctive Christian dogmas, that blow a hole in the underpinning of the axiomatic scientific model.

Study it first , comment second.

You have a caricature view of science.

 

[Frank Robert]

I think you have a mistaken view of science as an outsider.

Coming from someone who has zeor credibility, I'll take that as a complement

Why you bang on about healing is beyond me- you are using a question about the veracity of a stradivarius violin to say all Picasso paintings are a forgery! A straw man. And woefully bad logic.

I am simply mirroring you. Glad you are able to see yourself.

ALL of science , including forensic science is made of people, who exhibit All the worst and best traits of people.

That is the first sensible statement you have made.

Thete are the good the bad, and all in between., the incompetent and those who impose their beliefs on Evidence not nearly as strong as they claim, as they do in OOL research..

More projection but an excellent demonstration of your misunderstanding of science research based on creationist belief.

Go to any conference and you will see professors behaving badly using questions to humiliate opponents, both sides trying to Impose a belief they have on the other. Plenty of wishful thinking.

I don't need to go to conferences to see what is quite evident at creationist websites.

Peer review is provably faulty.

I agree.

The filing cabinet effect is real. A paper written about a correlation that does not exist in other data in the same filling cabinet.

I think it is safe to say that alll scientists with perhaps a few exceptions are aware that correlation is not causation.

Science is best in accredited labs in which everything is controlled , water reagents and machines.

It is most careful where it can kill people Or ruin their lives, Like drugs, military, and putting people in jail.
That is where I spent my time. We have higher standards. We have to. It is too expensive for most academia.

You make many assertions but fail to back any of them up. You have yet to provide a link to a reparable source. My guess is that you are making it up or they come from some obscure creationist website.

It is at its worst when arrogant people are determined to impose a belief on data , or for alterior motives. Take the disastrous shroud RC date which was done to promote an unproven technology,

Your disagreement with science has been noted. See my previous comment.

The process and labs FAILED VALIDATION. I repeat . FAILED. No forensic lab would use the machine after.
there were too many red flags ignored, and when the data didn’t give them what they expected they even fiddled it. But that’s what science always does around religious phenomena.

Talk about straw men. Now you have gone well beyond creationist nonsense.

Sure forensics like all other branches of science has made mistakes In individual cases.
note that convictions are rarely proved false, they are in general shown to be unsafe - ie introducing reasinable doubt,

You have not addressed my claim in any coherent manner. Forensic evidence ≠ Scientific evidence.

But that will never account for Eucharistic miracles.
You continue to avoid my point about miraculous cures so let me put it another way. Can you account for miraculous cures outside of Christianity?multiple teams, multiple events, multiple continents, same conclusion.Repeats.
results that cannot be recreated as a fraud,by any known process, and are beyond science to explain, validating one of the most distinctive Christian dogmas, that blow a hole in the underpinning of the axiomatic scientific model.

Is spontaneous remission of cancer or HIV a miraculous cure?

Study it first , comment second.

You should follow your own advice.

You have a caricature view of science.

You need to take a very long look in the mirror. You have made multiple negative accusations against areas of science you do not understand and scientists you do not know without one iota of evidence to back up your assertions.

 

[USincognito]

So I am to take the ideals of man over the Word of God? If evolution is so easily explained why have they not found all of the links to every spieces? Where is your "empirical evidence"? I can take all of the ingredients that would be needed to make a cake and put them into a bowl in random amounts. No measurements just dump and mix. These same ingredients are used to make other desserts and my mixtures would have different results. Most would not be palatable due to the unspecified measurements eventually I may end up with cake.
God is not a God of chaos He did not just take a bunch of random stuff hoping that it would evolve into man. He Created. He did not sit back to see what would come out of a catalyst He started. There is no solid ground for evolution for even man designs and builds we are made in His image. I would hope to think you would not believe your computer evolved from a box full of random parts.

Evolution does not stand or fall on abiogenesis. They are two different propositions. The former explains - and only explains - the diversity of life we see now and in the fossil record. The latter is a proposed naturalistic origin for life on earth. How life on earth got started is entirely irrelevant to whether it evolved after it came to exist.

Your question about links suggests a bit naivete. Fossils were never the most powerful evidence for evolution. For many years that was living species, but with the discovery of genetics, that area of study is top of the evidentiary heap. We have genetic links connecting clades at all levels. The Coelacanth genome conclusively established that lungfish are closest to terrestrial tetrapods and analysis of Opisthokonts shows that humans are more closely related to Athlete's foot fungus than we are to roses.

 

[USincognito]

Then Why do you present abiogenesis apologetics as evidence?

What a bizarre choice of verbiage. I'm not a aware of a single scientific proposition that has "apologetics" and certainly doesn't have them as evidence.

 

[USincognito]

@Belteshazzar(Daniel)
The problem being that it has allowed other ideologies such as evolution and other known sin into the doors of the Church. If you were to take your foolish ideas of evolution to a true Church that follows Christ in a place like China they would not even bend an ear to the idea for they know the Truth and follow it under fear of persecution. If the Truth drives people away then they were not seeking Truth but a feel good about me and what I believe venue.

Evolution isn't an "ideology" and it certainly isn't a "sin". Please tell us exactly what makes evolution a "foolish idea"?

 

[Belteshazzar(Daniel)]

@Belteshazzar(Daniel)
The problem being that it has allowed other ideologies such as evolution and other known sin into the doors of the Church. If you were to take your foolish ideas of evolution to a true Church that follows Christ in a place like China they would not even bend an ear to the idea for they know the Truth and follow it under fear of persecution. If the Truth drives people away then they were not seeking Truth but a feel good about me and what I believe venue.

There is nothing stated in scripture that God started this to evolve into anything. It simply states God created. Male and Female God created not he hoped that whatever you think He started with would become. Evolution is a sin if it takes the faith that God created All things as they were and are. The deist believe God started things in motion than took a step back to see what results evolved. My God was a hands on and is a hands on God. When was the first Adam and at what point did sin enter the picture? If evolution were true would we not be green and make our food as plants do? Would not mothers have actually developed eyes in the back of thier heads? Why did we evolve taste it provides nothing other than making eating pleasurable. How did these things know there was anything outside of self that they needed to adapt to. They knew there was sound before they developed ears to hear it. They evolved eyes without knowing there were things to see. They gained a sense of smell prior to knowing odors existed. Amazes me the level of stupidity we have evolved down to. We gave up gills to live on a smaller portion of the planet and take the chance of drowning, we didn't gain wings to have the vastness of the sky yet we developed planes that can crash.
Evolution is foolish if thought out entirely. I will stick to Creation it just makes a lot more sense I don't have to keep searching for something that doesn't exist except in the "intellect" of man.

 

[Bradskii]

There is nothing stated in scripture that God started this to evolve into anything. It simply states God created.

Didn't I ask you how we determine which it parts of the bible we are to take literally and which metaphorically? There must be a way to do it. Can you please explain it to me?

 

[Astrophile]

The consequences of the so called eucharistic miracles being real is they blow Darwin out of the water by his own falsification criterion. That is serious.

Do they also blow Kepler and Galileo out of the water? If not, how do they blow Darwin out of the water?

 

[Bradskii]

Do they also blow Kepler and Galileo out of the water? If not, how do they blow Darwin out of the water?

This has me puzzled as well. Let's say that we examine one of these miracles and it is a genuine miracle. Let's say that DNA from some statue's blood matched traces found on the shroud. There is no doubt about it. The most ardent atheist agrees with the findings. Yes, there is a God.

The galactic amount of evidence for the evolutionary process doesn't then simply dissapear. It's still there. Evolution is still a fact. The best one could say is that if God can make a statue weep and create biological matter then He could have created everything as per Genesis.

Well...yeah. If, for the sake of argument, you agree that God exists, then one of His attributes is omnipotence. So He could have done it any way He wanted to. But the evidence for how He did it is still there. Blood weeping from a plaster bust doesn't change that.

 

[Mountainmike]

Do they also blow Kepler and Galileo out of the water? If not, how do they blow Darwin out of the water?

Darwins basic thesis was all life was the result of progressive small change.


This is very specific and relates to a statement darwin himself in "origin of species"on falsification criterion

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ
existed , which could not possibly have been formed by
numerous , successive, slight modifications, my theory
would absolutely break down "

The heart is a complex organ, and heart tissue found in eucharistic miracles did not occur as successive slight modification.

Nor was it "introduced". Whilst the proportion of some of the samples which was human flesh/blood was noted as an increasing amount over a period of weeks, and a substitution does not do that, nor is the DNA of the samples a fraudster.
These are independent teams and labs that investigated, independent places, indepenent continents.
So there is no common fraudster possible.

Clearly there are no small changes in the sense Darwin claimed, that change bread to human flesh. It wasnt there, then it was.
So Darwins theory is potentially blown by this evidence.

 

[Mountainmike]

This has me puzzled as well. Let's say that we examine one of these miracles and it is a genuine miracle. Let's say that DNA from some statue's blood matched traces found on the shroud. There is no doubt about it. The most ardent atheist agrees with the findings. Yes, there is a God.

The galactic amount of evidence for the evolutionary process doesn't then simply dissapear. It's still there. Evolution is still a fact. The best one could say is that if God can make a statue weep and create biological matter then He could have created everything as per Genesis.

Well...yeah. If, for the sake of argument, you agree that God exists, then one of His attributes is omnipotence. So He could have done it any way He wanted to. But the evidence for how He did it is still there. Blood weeping from a plaster bust doesn't change that.

Evolutionary process clearly happens. That much is a fact.
Much of what you now see is actually steered by Man. From working dogs and pets, to food animals, fruit trees and cropsetc.
Man has been using such process for recorded history.

That is what applied science IS in essence: Using observations of patterns in our universe to steer beneficial outcomes.

So "evolutionary processes happen" is a fact, because man sometimes engineers it himself.

HOWEVER
Several things are not deducible from that fact.

1/ That all life is the result of an evolutionary process is not a logical consequence of "evolutionary process is a fact"..
The simplest cells we know are staggeringly complex, and they were certainly not the first product of abiogenesis of any chemical kind.
How and where and when life started is unknown, pure speculation and a matter of belief, even for OOL scientists. How the first complex cells came to be is not 1% of the problem of life, it is 99.9% of it in my view. And it is completely unknown.

2/ The "life tree" as some paleontologists have noted is a mess , glued together in parts with wishful thinking. It led to one paleontologist asking at a conference once "can anyone tell me a single fact about evolution" . The conference remained silent! I raised him earlier.

3/ That all evolution and life on earth could have been the result of intelligent steering. However much you dislike the statement, it is not easily disprovable. And much life we see was intelligent steering.

4/ If a creator God exists as assumption in a scientific mindgame who can create cells as a parallel track to evolution,
all bets are then off as to how life started, because at any earlier stage life could have been created. We have no record before our simplest cells. There can have been multiple tracks of life. Some evolved, some created.

5/ And then there is the problem of consciousness, and importantly - the increasing evidence of veridical near death experiences showing that consciousness can be remote from the body so is not a process of the brain. A separable consciousness is not explicable by chemistry. So arguably therefore neither abiogenesis nor evolution can explain present life since they are both presumed to be chemistry.

That is why all this evidence is far from inconsequential.

 

[Mountainmike]

Coming from someone who has zeor credibility, I'll take that as a complement

I am simply mirroring you. Glad you are able to see yourself.

That is the first sensible statement you have made.

More projection but an excellent demonstration of your misunderstanding of science research based on creationist belief.

I don't need to go to conferences to see what is quite evident at creationist websites.

I agree.

I think it is safe to say that alll scientists with perhaps a few exceptions are aware that correlation is not causation.

You make many assertions but fail to back any of them up. You have yet to provide a link to a reparable source. My guess is that you are making it up or they come from some obscure creationist website.

Your disagreement with science has been noted. See my previous comment.

Talk about straw men. Now you have gone well beyond creationist nonsense.

You have not addressed my claim in any coherent manner. Forensic evidence ≠ Scientific evidence.

Is spontaneous remission of cancer or HIV a miraculous cure?

You should follow your own advice.

You need to take a very long look in the mirror. You have made multiple negative accusations against areas of science you do not understand and scientists you do not know without one iota of evidence to back up your assertions.

I give up frank.

You have a silly caricature of science, not the active reality.
You love strawmen , false dichotomies, and you use most of the other logical fallasies. It is time you played the ball not the man.
FYI I do not read creationist websites - I have a wall full of science books. .

Take for example - I know plenty about GLP , GMP and so on, because of actually setting such facitilites up.

When science can kill people - such as making drugs - and for example in an earlier life of mine hush hush weapons research, it is incredibly careful. Traceability, validations, input output and process qualifications are very expensive. But also far safer.
For the most part Academia cannot afford such high standards. The worst that can happen in academia, is ridicule by your peers. The worst that can happen in some of the stuff I did is taking out a small town of people.

I repeat as example of academic science at its worst: the apallingly bad science of for example the shroud carbon date could never have happened in any accredited lab or any company with an accredited quality system. because the failure of the machines and process to validate would have sidelined them. AMS failed on fabric validation tests that invalidated all future results.. The idiots carried on regardless. They also ignored a massive of number of red flags.Thats the problem with the worst parts of academia, they fail to use proper process. The carbon date labs screwed up badly, because of allowing their beliefs to get in the way of good science. And then worse - tried to cover it up fiddling data - as is now demonstrable..

On the other hand, Forensic labs and pharma labs have to use validated machines and quality controlled process.
There are good and bad in all of science. But accredited labs do it better. They have to.

On another point I keep making to you about the context of science as a model.
It took Hawking an entire career to realise what those of us who already had studied philosophy of science already knew.
He wrote in his last book about "model dependent reality"
That sense organs provide inpufrom we build models of the world. An external reality does exist, but we do not have access to it and it is not the same as the model. There are no model-independent tests of reality. An atom is a model. It is not the underlying reality.
As hawking concluded there is not a unique model and multiple often conflicting models are needed.

It took an entire career for hawking to realise what most of us already knew, and Kant could have told him if he had read up.
What the universe "is" and much of what is in it, is in itself is unknowable.
So Goodbye the theory of everything. It is just a model. Not the underpinning of the universe. The natural laws are not in nature. So the model cannot "explain" nature, it observes it! The laws do not make nature go round. They are mindgame on a piece of paper that fits pretty well. Except where they dont.

 

[Bradskii]

So Darwins theory is potentially blown by this evidence.

But you are stating that a miracle means that a scientific theory is wrong. A miracle, by definition, breaks all known natural processes. It doesn't discount those natural processes. If they didn't exist then it wouldn't be a miracle. Jesus rose into heaven. That doesn't mean that gravitational theories are wrong. He walked on water. That doesn't mean that hydraulic theories are wrong. He turned water into wine. That doesn't mean that chemical theories are wrong.

His miracles are exceptions to the scientific rule. They don't prove that the rules don't exist. That is logically nonsensical. All you are doing is saying that these miracles prove that God exists. OK, for the purpose of this discussion, I'll accept that. So now We have a situation where God exists and could have ordered the creation of life. In any way He chose. And ordered the processes whereby we have reached the point that we have today. In any way He chose.

Now we haven't yet found out how He started the process. But we have a galactic amount of evidence for how He proceeded from that point to where we are now. And nothing about miracles, nothing about pieces of heart tissue or bleeding statues changes that in the slightest.

 

[Frank Robert]

Evolutionary process clearly happens. That much is a fact.
Much of what you now see is actually steered by Man. From working dogs and pets, to food animals, fruit trees and cropsetc.
Man has been using such process for recorded history.

That is what applied science IS in essence: Using observations of patterns in our universe to steer beneficial outcomes.

So "evolutionary processes happen" is a fact, because man sometimes engineers it himself.

HOWEVER
Several things are not deducible from that fact.

1/ That all life is the result of an evolutionary process is not a logical consequence of "evolutionary process is a fact"..
The simplest cells we know are staggeringly complex, and they were certainly not the first product of abiogenesis of any chemical kind.
How and where and when life started is unknown, pure speculation and a matter of belief, even for OOL scientists. How the first complex cells came to be is not 1% of the problem of life, it is 99.9% of it in my view. And it is completely unknown.

You are conflating evolution with abiogenesis. Evolution begins with the LUCA which is not part of ToE. OoL and ToE are scientific separate areas of research. The first cells evolved from the LUCA then evolved from there. Evolution took over from there.

From: The Origin and Evolution of Cells

The Origin and Evolution of Cells - The Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

The First Cell

It appears that life first emerged at least 3.8 billion years ago, approximately 750 million years after Earth was formed (Figure 1.1). How life originated and how the first cell came into being are matters of speculation, since these events cannot be reproduced in the laboratory. Nonetheless, several types of experiments provide important evidence bearing on some steps of the process....​

Figure 1.1, Time scale of evolution - The Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

2/ The "life tree" as some paleontologists have noted is a mess , glued together in parts with wishful thinking. It led to one paleontologist asking at a conference once "can anyone tell me a single fact about evolution" . The conference remained silent! I raised him earlier.

Without a reference link we can assume yo If you make a claim w/o a reference it is fair to assume that you are either making it up or it's creationist apologetics.

3/ That all evolution and life on earth could have been the result of intelligent steering. However much you dislike the statement, it is not easily disprovable.

Science can not prove or disprove the supernatural so it is not a problem for science. My guess is the sites like AIG don't tell you that.

And much life we see was intelligent steering
4/ If a creator God exists as assumption in a scientific mindgame who can create cells as a parallel track to evolution,
all bets are then off as to how life started, because at any earlier stage life could have been created. We have no record before our simplest cells. There can have been multiple tracks of life. Some evolved, some created.

I can understand you believing that if you get your information from websites like Discovery Institute or it's sister sites.

5/ And then there is the problem of consciousness, and importantly - the increasing evidence of veridical near death experiences showing that consciousness can be remote from the body so is not a process of the brain. A separable consciousness is not explicable by chemistry.

More apologetics likely from AIG. You should at least give your sources credit.

So arguably therefore neither abiogenesis nor evolution can explain present life since they are both presumed to be chemistry.

Abiogenesis is the theory that life evolved from nonliving chemical systems and is presently the leading theory for the origin of life.

Creationist apologists are in denial but they are unable to present any contrary evidence for their beliefs. ID proponents like Behe tried but have yet to produce any scientific evidence for ID.

At the very least you should get your apologetics straights.

That is why all this evidence is far from inconsequential.

Hearsay ≠ Evidence
Apologetics ≠ Scientific Evidence
Forensics ≠ Scientific Evidence

I give up frank.

Good to hear. Let me know when you can provide any scientific evidence for your side.

You have a silly caricature of science, not the active reality.

More projection.

You love strawmen , false dichotomies, and you use most of the other logical fallasies. It is time you played the ball not the man.
FYI I do not read creationist websites - I have a wall full of science books. .

Great, I take that as a complement from person who has been unable to provide any scientific evidence for his apologetics . Not only that you fail to give credit to where your apologetics are coming from.

 

[Bradskii]

Evolutionary process clearly happens. That much is a fact.
Much of what you now see is actually steered by Man. From working dogs and pets, to food animals, fruit trees and cropsetc.
Man has been using such process for recorded history.

That is what applied science IS in essence: Using observations of patterns in our universe to steer beneficial outcomes.

So "evolutionary processes happen" is a fact, because man sometimes engineers it himself.

HOWEVER
Several things are not deducible from that fact.

1/ That all life is the result of an evolutionary process is not a logical consequence of "evolutionary process is a fact"..
The simplest cells we know are staggeringly complex, and they were certainly not the first product of abiogenesis of any chemical kind.
How and where and when life started is unknown, pure speculation and a matter of belief, even for OOL scientists. How the first complex cells came to be is not 1% of the problem of life, it is 99.9% of it in my view. And it is completely unknown.

2/ The "life tree" as some paleontologists have noted is a mess , glued together in parts with wishful thinking. It led to one paleontologist asking at a conference once "can anyone tell me a single fact about evolution" . The conference remained silent! I raised him earlier.

3/ That all evolution and life on earth could have been the result of intelligent steering. However much you dislike the statement, it is not easily disprovable. And much life we see was intelligent steering.

4/ If a creator God exists as assumption in a scientific mindgame who can create cells as a parallel track to evolution,
all bets are then off as to how life started, because at any earlier stage life could have been created. We have no record before our simplest cells. There can have been multiple tracks of life. Some evolved, some created.

5/ And then there is the problem of consciousness, and importantly - the increasing evidence of veridical near death experiences showing that consciousness can be remote from the body so is not a process of the brain. A separable consciousness is not explicable by chemistry. So arguably therefore neither abiogenesis nor evolution can explain present life since they are both presumed to be chemistry.

That is why all this evidence is far from inconsequential.

In order...

1. Yes, life is complex and we don't yet know how God did it. That's the problem of abiogenesis. Be sure to let us know how and When He did it. And note my earlier point that he could simply have animated mud, so why life is so hideously complicated is actually a problem for you to explain.

2. The tree of life is, as someone once said, more a tangled bush than a simplistic tree. Generally shown as a simple tree to make comprehensible to the lay public a monstrously complex aspect of evolution. It's the fact of evolution that makes it so complex.

3. Yes, we are agreeing that God created life and designed the processes for it having evolved. We understand the first, but not yet the second. Any input you have on how you think He did it will be welcomed.

4. Life started. That's a fact. God started it. We'll agree with that. How He did it is unknown. Again, your input will be welcomed.

5. If you want to start a thread on consciousness, then feel free.

What appears to result from your posts is that you say that GOD has done all this. And I'll agree. Now if you'd be so kind as to explain how you think He did it then we'll have something interesting to talk about other than bleeding plaster statues in obscure Bolivian towns.