Data that confirms creationism

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie


Yes Nick. Tell us again how the Pope has an a-priori committment to evolution....

I don't think I'm the only one who fails to equate the authority of the Pope with the authority of just about anything else. I think there was some guy named Luther who wrote extensively on this subject and coined the phrase "sola scriptura, sola fide, sola gratia" or something like that. What was his first name again? Lex? Martin? Yeah, that's it.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by npetreley

So who is doing the "peer review" of the interpretations of the evidence? Other people with the same a-priori assumptions about evolution.

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie


Yes Nick. Tell us again how the Pope has an a-priori committment to evolution....

Oh yeah, I forgot to ask about your latest scientific research ... have you gotten your peer review back from the Pope yet? What did he think of your theories, methodology and lab results?

 

[Jerry Smith]

There goes the reliability of your methodology right down the tubes.

You are right. It is, of course the same methodology used in any scientific research, and therefore is no more reliable than any science.

1. How can you know that your data was properly collected? This is much trickier than you think. Most dating techniquest (yes, even isochron) depend upon many assumptions that simply are not verifiable. Therefore your data collection is always suspect no matter how "proper" you were in collecting it.

You are right. There can be no absolute certainty. The best we can do is limit ourselves to the minimal "assumptions", (i.e. the world is real, not illusion, no one is tampering with reality for the specific purpose of skewing our data, the measuring devices that were working correctly when calibrated are still working correctly when used, etc..), be sure we are rigorously cross-checking results, be sure we are attempting to falsify hyposthesis, repeating experiments and observations of others to check their results, etc...

Never absolute certainty. After all Bob may have created the universe and everything in it last Tuesday, complete with the fossil record, and false memories in each individual of a life before last Tuesday.

My epistemology is centered on removing as much uncertainty is possible, under the basic assumption that natural phenomenon (at least many of them) can be understood.

2. "from nature" eliminates the possibility of the supernatural. But if it is possible we were created supernaturally, then you cannot rule it out in your analysis by limiting your observations to nature. Otherwise you are simply setting yourself up to come to the wrong conclusion.

Wrong here. If the supernatural exists, then nothing prevents it from leaving evidence in the natural world. About the only way it could avoid leaving evidence in the natural world is by not impinging on the natural world. If the supernatural world does not impinge on the natural world, then for practical purposes it does not exist. Remember, the natural world is merely anything that we have the potential to perceive through our physical senses, as opposed to our emotions or intuitions.

Agreed. But you can work out that little detail with God when you bow before Him.

The Bible says that every knee shall bow. Does that mean I won't have a choice in the matter? Suppose I meet God and, while I am impressed with His power and His might, I am not impressed with His track record as a moral agent... When I bow down before Him, can that really be called worship, or could it better be called fear? Is this what He craves?

Also agreed. I did not stake my eternal soul on creation vs. evolution. In fact, I believed in evolution for many years after becoming a Christian at the late age of 33 (after being a card-carrying evangelical athiest). I changed my mind about creation vs. evolution long after I dealt with the issues that are really important.

If non-evolution is not a core belief of your religion, I assume you had solid rational grounds for abandoning the theory of evolution. This isn't the thread, but if you would like to start a new one to discuss, I would be interested to hear. Maybe the reason you abandoned it was because you realized it didn't make sense to you. Maybe the reason it didn't make sense to you was because you never properly understood it. On the other hand, you could be the Nobel-Prize winner who has found evidence that falsifies common descent. Either way, it would be worth finding out which!

But we can't choose what we believe.


Ah, so you are a Calvanist.

Ha ha! I like that one, Nick!

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by npetreley


I don't think I'm the only one who fails to equate the authority of the Pope with the authority of just about anything else. I think there was some guy named Luther who wrote extensively on this subject and coined the phrase "sola scriptura, sola fide, sola gratia" or something like that. What was his first name again? Lex? Martin? Yeah, that's it.

I don't think Nick is appealing to the Pope as an authority on anything. I think he is pointing out that anyone, including those with no a priori commitment to evolution, is free to discover flaws in the assumptions or in the data of any published research in the field and to publish their findings. At least, that is what I gathered, since he was replying to your sneer that only evolutionary biologists could review the evidence for evolution. Its true that evolutionary biologists are the best equipped to do so, and that they are the best ones to listen to if you are wanting good information on the subject, but it does not mean that they have a monopoly on the research. If the research can be falsified, then you are free to demonstrate it and publish your results.

 

[chickenman]

your prediction based on creation;

"#1)) Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.


After reading this verse I predict that no beneficial mutations will ever be observed. I further predict that mutations will never be observed that add new genetic data; Only mutations that scramble existing data."

Well prediction number 1 seems a little shaky;
http://biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Darwin/DI/AcidTest.html (thanks to whoever originally posted this)

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

Thanks for not addressing the rest of the post which points out that interpretation is not even always an issue.

Just because you think that publishing a theory for "peer review" (cough) means it will actually get objective review doesn't make it so.

So interpretation is certainly always the issue. You don't agree with that. Impasse. Conversation over.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by chickenman
your prediction based on creation;

"#1)) Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

After reading this verse I predict that no beneficial mutations will ever be observed.

Funny, after reading this verse I would predict that if you mix pickles and peanut butter you'll get a giant creature with seven eyes, tentacles and a pink baseball cap. I tried it in the lab and it didn't work. So I guess Genesis and creation must be false.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith


If the supernatural world does not impinge on the natural world, then for practical purposes it does not exist.

"Impinge?" Really, now. If the supernatural doesn't leave the kind of evidence you know how to intepret according to what you know about nature, you won't understand the evidence. But just because you don't understand it doesn't cause it to cease to exist.

The Bible says that every knee shall bow. Does that mean I won't have a choice in the matter?

Yes, that's right. You won't have any choice in the matter. Either you will bow the knee in shame or in loving reverence. Either way, your knee will bow.

If non-evolution is not a core belief of your religion, I assume you had solid rational grounds for abandoning the theory of evolution.

I didn't arbitrarily stop believing in evolution just because I became a Christian. IMO evolution is, indeed, totally incompatible with Christianity. But I concluded that AFTER I abandoned evolution. It isn't the reason WHY I abandoned evolution.

On the other hand, you could be the Nobel-Prize winner who has found evidence that falsifies common descent. Either way, it would be worth finding out which!

Wow - this creature looks a lot like that creature, functions like that creature, has similar eyes, has a similar mouth, eats and digests the same kinds of foods the same way, behaves in very similar ways, etc.

Now let's look at the DNA. Well, now isn't THAT a shock -- the DNA -- the blueprint for this first creatures -- looks almost the same as the DNA -- the blueprint -- for the similar creatures!!! Now who would ever have expected that? What an amazing breakthrough discovery!!! The blueprint for one creature is almost the same as the blueprint for another creature that bears many similarities! I just can't get over how surprising a discovery this is!

[LOGICAL LEAP ABOUT 4 BILLION LIGHT YEARS IN DISTANCE]

I guess that proves common descent.

[/LOGICAL LEAP]

Common descent is a fantasy.

Proving that it is a fantasy would probably deserve a Nobel Prize, but I doubt if I could do it, and even if I could, I'm not motivated to try.

IMO it's extremely simple to see how silly are the conclusions of evolutionists. I'd like to say that if you simply apply a little common sense you'd see that. But IMO seeing it that way it is a spiritual issue, not one of intelligence, education or understanding. If anything, for many people these factors (intelligence, education, understanding) are likely to get in the way of seeing the truth.

 

[chickenman]

You can simplify evolution and the evidence down to your level of understanding to ridicule it, but it doesn't constitute a valid argument

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
I don't think Nick is appealing to the Pope as an authority on anything.

Unless I'm misunderstanding your point, I think you mixed up some names.

Its true that evolutionary biologists are the best equipped to do so

Bzzzt. The best ones to review and "verify" theories are those people who have opposing viewpoints, not similar ones. They'll see the flaws that those who already agree will gloss over because they assume the premises for the theory are valid.

If the research can be falsified, then you are free to demonstrate it and publish your results.

The problem is that you can't falsify anything that is based on the interpretation of evidence left over from a time when we weren't there to see and understand the environmental factors that could have affected the formation of that evidence.

All evidence for evolution (the kind of evolution that produces a man out of the most primitive form of life) is based entirely on speculation and assumptions about factors we cannot confirm or refute. So falsification is impossible. But that doesn't make evolution true.

 

[chickenman]

"...is based entirely on speculation and assumptions about factors we cannot confirm or refute. So falsification is impossible. But that doesn't make evolution true."
- We can observe the processes of evolution in the lab npeterley. Falsification is possible, it hasn't happened though

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by chickenman
You can simplify evolution and the evidence down to your level of understanding to ridicule it, but it doesn't constitute a valid argument

Really? I always thought that the genius of Einstein was his ability to formulate his theories by simplifying the concepts into something he could visualize and understand, after which he approached the problem mathematically.

I could certainly be wrong, but I suspect that we wouldn't have the theories of relativity today if he hadn't done it that way.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by npetreley

The problem is that you can't falsify anything that is based on the interpretation of evidence left over from a time when we weren't there to see and understand the environmental factors that could have affected the formation of that evidence.

All evidence for evolution (the kind of evolution that produces a man out of the most primitive form of life) is based entirely on speculation and assumptions about factors we cannot confirm or refute. So falsification is impossible. But that doesn't make evolution true.

Nick, can a murderer be convicted if there are no witnesses or no body?

~~RvFvS~~

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by npetreley


Really? I always thought that the genius of Einstein was his ability to formulate his theories by simplifying the concepts into something he could visualize and understand, after which he approached the problem mathematically.

I could certainly be wrong, but I suspect that we wouldn't have the theories of relativity today if he hadn't done it that way.

Einstein was a physicist studying physics. You're a Linux Journalist trashing biology. I don't see the similarity.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by chickenman
We can observe the processes of evolution in the lab npeterley. Falsification is possible, it hasn't happened though

It is simply not true that evolution (as in the kind of evolution that would lead to a single-celled organism that eventually evolves to man) has been observed in a lab.

You can observe certain events in a lab such as mutation, adaptation, etc., which you can then extrapolate to imagine that this process could have turned the most primitive life form into people, but all you've proven is that you have a vivid imagination.

Let me be as clear as possible. It is as impossible to prove evolution in the lab as it is to falsify it because the processes aren't something we can reproduce.

You take a mosquito into the lab, subject it to natural environmental factors, and you bring out two mosquitoes that can no longer mate. You just proved mutation occurs (evolutionists love to call it "speciation" because the word gives the the event more more apparent signifigance weight than it deserves).

You take a person into the lab, subject him to natural environmental factors, and bring out a person who has sickle cell anemia but is immune to maleria. You just proved that mutations have beneficial and harmful affects.

You take a bacteria into a lab, subject it to natural environmental factors, and you come out with a bacteria that is immune to most antibiotics. You just proved natural selection by mutation occurs.

But that's ALL you've proved in the lab.

Until you take a frog into the lab, subject it to natural environmental factors, and come out with a parrot, the rest is pure imagination. And you can't falsify imagination.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus


Nick, can a murderer be convicted if there are no witnesses or no body?

~~RvFvS~~

Yes. He can even be convicted based on circumstantial evidence, even though that is not supposed to happen. And he could even be executed for the crime he did not commit because talented lawyers interpreted and presented the evidence in a convincing manner. And one reason that can happen AND DOES HAPPEN is because nobody was there to witness the event.

It's a really lousy analogy, since we're talking about a murder that happens in a recent time frame vs. events that supposedly happened millions of years ago in an environment we know nothing about. But heck, I figured I'd roll with it.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus


Einstein was a physicist studying physics. You're a Linux Journalist trashing biology. I don't see the similarity.

If you're convinced I am not qualified to offer anything useful, then I recommend that you ignore my posts and converse with someone else.

 

[Josephus]

Jerry Smith:

"Do this for a hundred years straight with several predictions and thousands of observations of the predicted results, and I will be convinced."

Are you willing to bet your eternal soul on a condition that will not let you live long enough to ever be convinced?


"We must believe what we are convinced of."

Yet, you've laid out conditions impossible to convince you.

btw, thanks for the Birthday wishes. Have a good weekend!


Ray K:

"Are you saying [Hawking's] a Christian? Because if not, then his opinion would not support Christian creationism."

No, Hawking is not a Christian...hehe, yet. Evolution can be supported by Christians, why not a non-Christian support creationism?(rhetorical question).

"It takes a HUGE leap of faith from using probabilistic arguments to believe in a creator to suddenly accepting Christian theology."

I disagree. Faith is faith. There is nothing huge about it. Whether you accept some divine orchestation to make everything you see possible, or you don't. And I didn't say you had to accept Christian theology - yet.

"All the evidence you have presented against evolution therefore proves the existence of the Greek pantheon."

Which therefore leaves us to comparing religions - a subject I'd be happy to walk you through, but I somehow get the feeling you're not all that interested.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by npetreley


If you're convinced I am not qualified to offer anything useful, then I recommend that you ignore my posts and converse with someone else.

I'm not convinced. You just have never answered my questions as to what kinds of scientific work you have done. Fell free to offer up whatever qualifications you have that allow you to speak about and critique biology adequately.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus


Einstein was a physicist studying physics. You're a Linux Journalist trashing biology. I don't see the similarity.

By the way, I'm not a Linux Journalist.

I started out with a major in astrophysics. I switched to music theory/composition/conducting, which I studied for 10 years. Since programming was a hobby, I took a job doing assembly language programming because I couldn't get a job in music. Since then I've been a teacher, programmer, consultant, manager, editor. I applied to be a missionary, but the missions were too critical of my applications, so I was turned down by them all. (So I know something about mission critical applications.) I have been writing about everything related to computing technology for 15 years, certainly not just Linux. I enjoy it, and it pays the rent. Almost, anyway.

So you can still dismiss everything I say because I don't have a doctorate in biology, but I thought I'd set the record straight about being a Linux journalist.