No reason to believe X is true, other then my interpetation of Y must be true.

[lucaspa]

This view still holds true after many challenges I have posted. Yes, if evolution is wrong, then creation must be true.

Because, there is no third option.

Don't like it? Try to name a process which is neither evolution nor creation.

Raelianism. This view says that some parts of species were gengineered by an extraterrestrial, mortal species -- an intelligent species living on a planet orbiting Sirius. It is almost identical to ID but has an non-supernatural bunch of genetic engineers periodically introducing new species to earth.

Panspermia. As I noted, a creationist witness introduced this one in the MacLean vs Arkansas trial in 1982. It was Wickmarasinge, who was a colleague of Fred Hoyle. The idea here is that the first cell or first DNA was landed on earth via meteorites/comets. Periodically, new comets/meteorites deposit fresh, fully functional strands of DNA onto the planet which are then incorporated into existing organisms. Under panspermia, birds originated because a reptile incorporated new DNA for feathers, hollow bones, and flight muscles and then hatched a bird. Wickmarasinge's testimony thoroughly discredited the "two model" approach you state above: "Yes, if evolution is wrong, then creation must be true. Because, there is no third option." The judge made special note of the destruction of this argument in his Decision of the Court. It's available online if you want to look it up.

"Hopeful monsters". This was a theory proposed by Goldschmidt. Again, it has wholesale spontaneous modification of DNA such that an entirely new species is generated in a single generation. In "hopeful monsters", birds originated due to macromutations in a reptile. Once again, a reptile laid an egg and out hatched a bird.

Alternatives to natural selection. There have been many proposed alternatives to natural selection. Everyone has heard of Lamarckism or "acquired characteristics". Lynn Margulis has proposed that many major changes in life is due to endosymbiosis. Margulis has proposed that these changes go far beyond the origin of mitochondria and chloroplasts.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Hmmm. I wonder if you agree then that atheism should be kept out of schools. Or are you one of those that deceive themselves that atheism is not a faith?

We are not allowed to preferentially teach any religion as true. However, religion can be taught in public schools. Religions are taught now in history classes, because it is not possible to teach the history of mankind without also teaching the religious beliefs of cultures. Several scientists and educators have noted that a school could indeed have a course on the creation stories of different religions.

You cannot, however, teach a creation story as tho it is a valid scientific theory in science (or any other) class. Oftentimes this prohibition is simply shortened to "cannot teach creationism in schools". It's not a Freudian slip, AV, but simply a verbal shortcut.

Anything that is unobservable, superstitious or mythical should be left out of the classroom, and not taught as a first cause. Of course these subjects would be appropriate in a literature class, and should be qualified no differently than Greek mythology, etc.

As for atheism, it's simply the non acceptance of a supernatural being based on the lack of observable evidence. Think Wizard of Oz when they look behind the curtain.

 

[AV1611VET]

Anything that is unobservable, superstitious or mythical should be left out of the classroom, and not taught as a first cause.

What about "unverified"?

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

What about "unverified"?

Of course.

 

[lucaspa]

Then by all means, if you feel there is evidence for the Creation Event -- or should be -- let's see it.

Let's see you answer this challenge, while you're at it: 1.

The only reason I say there's no evidence for the Creation Event is because you guys say it, and I agree with you.

AV, this is some of the evidence we should see if Genesis 1 or 2 were literal history:
1. No or very little sedimentary rock, because there has not been enough time for erosion to make sediments.
2. No stars visible beyond 6,000 light years and stars becoming visible thru history as their light first reached the earth.
3. Isotopes with half-lives less than 50 million years in the earth's crust.
4. No or very few fossils. And those fossils are those of contemporary organisms.
5. Skeletons of ALL organisms mixed together in the sediments.
6. Clear genetic boundaries between the "kinds" of organisms.
7. Huge veins of coal or large oil deposits.
8. No transitional fossils or transitional series of fossils.

As to your challenge, have you ever noticed that, when you cut an apple vertically, you can see a line around the seeds. It forms a small "circle" inside the apple. This arises from the growth of the apple on the tree. If you decide to instantaneously create an apple, it will not have gone thru that growth phase and will not have the line. So we can tell an instantly created apple from one that grew on a tree.

UNLESS you are trying to deceive us and include that growth line to make it LOOK like the apple was grown on a tree.

Now, about that phrase "there is no evidence ..." When people say that they really mean either "there is no evidence that can only be explained by the event we are discussing. Any evidence can also be explained by other processes" or they mean "there is evidence refuting ... "

So what you need to do, instead of making fanciful and refutable scenarios, is to present evidence that can only be explained by ex nihilo creation. Notice that professional creationists have tried this, and failed. But they have tried. The bomardier beetle, blood clotting system, flagellum, genetic code, etc. are all examples other creationists have tried as evidence for ex nihilo creation that cannot be explained by anything else.

That you admit there is no such evidence is a tacit admission that the creation stories in the Bible do not represent how God actually created.

 

[lucaspa]

Anything that is unobservable, superstitious or mythical should be left out of the classroom, and not taught as a first cause.

Well, "unobservable" means we have to leave out tachyons, Hawking's imaginary time, singularities (we can't actually observe them), gravity waves, and many other scientific topics.

If you are limiting yourself to "first cause", then we can't talk about quantum fluctuation, No Boundary, Ekpyrotic theory, or ANY of the proposed First Causes.

Gee, you are eliminating a lot of science there.

"Superstitious" and "mythical" are your judgement calls. You have made a statement of faith, not a scientific judgement, that some things are "mythical" or "superstitious". To teach some of these as "superstitious" or "mythical" means teaching your religion, and you wanted all religion kept out of public schools.

Of course these subjects would be appropriate in a literature class, and should be qualified no differently than Greek mythology, etc.

Ah, but that isn't what you stated to begin with. Nice to see you changing your mind. And yes,the different creation stories are proposed to be qualified equally.

As for atheism, it's simply the non acceptance of a supernatural being based on the lack of observable evidence. Think Wizard of Oz when they look behind the curtain.

Yep, the self delusion. There it is. That attitude destroys science, because you cannot limit that "based on the lack of observable evidence" just to a supernatural being. You must apply it to any entity. And you said "non acceptance".

Do you realize that every entity in science was initially proposed without observable evidence? By your criteria, we would have to have "non acceptance" of all of them. With such non-acceptance, how would we ever have gotten the observations?

 

[lucaspa]

Of course.

And here Positivism rears its ugly head. It's understandable why so many atheists are Logical Positivists. Creationists are stuck in a time with the Argument from Design and atheists are stuck in time with Logical Positivism. Neither realize that their philosophy has been disproved.

We can never "verify". See the Problem of Induction.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

And here Positivism rears its ugly head. It's understandable why so many atheists are Positivists. However, Positivism is actually dangerous to science and something that can't be done.

We can never "verify". See the Problem of Induction.

So were left to our own devices to make up anything we'd like to simply because there's no evidence to say otherwise?

As for what is unobservable in science, would you agree that our current hypotheses are those that would be most parsimonious?

Even you (according to your sig) accept science first, then the bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, this is some of the evidence we should see if Genesis 1 or 2 were literal history:

Let's skip the bologna then -- (which is only confusing yourself) -- and back up five days.

Day One of the Creation Week ends, and we have Heaven and Earth.

Now what evidence should we see?

(Note: I can back it up further too -- hour x hour. It depends if you're going to try and play your games or not. We'll see.)

 

[lucaspa]

So were left to our own devices to make up anything we'd like to simply because there's no evidence to say otherwise?

In science, pretty much.
"I thought that scientific theories were not the digest of observations, but that they were inventions -- conjectures boldly put forward for trial, to be eliminated if they clashed with observations, with observations which were rarely accidental but as a rule undertaken with the definite intention of testing a theory by obtaining, if possible, a decisive refutation." Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations, 1963 p 38.

Ideas stay on the table as possible until they have been falsified.

Also remember, valid scientific theories stay valid "because there's no evidence to say otherwise". Creationism became invalid because there was evidence to say otherwise.

As for what is unobservable in science, would you agree that our current hypotheses are those that would be most parsimonious?

Absolutely not. Unless you change "parsimonious" to lose all meaning. We can go into this in more detail, since I was personally involved in wasting time on one "parsimonious" hypothesis that turned out to be wrong.

Many of the hypotheses are not the most simple. In science, "parsimonious" is not used to evaluate hypotheses. Only data can evaluate hypotheses.

Even you (according to your sig) accept science first, then the bible.

An interpretation of the Bible. You apparently see only what you want to see.

Why did those Christians say that? Because God created. Science is reading God's second book. The Book of Creation.
"To conclude, therefore, let no man out of a weak conceit of sobriety, or an ill-applied moderation, think or maintain, that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God's word, or in the book of God's works; divinity or philosophy [science]; but rather let men endeavour an endless progress or proficience in both." Bacon: Advancement of Learning

So, God's other book can help correct our interpretation of scripture.

Now, would you like to show me the scientific peer-reviewed paper that shows that God does not exist? I'm waiting.

 

[lucaspa]

Let's skip the bologna then -- (which is only confusing yourself) -- and back up five days.

Day One of the Creation Week ends, and we have Heaven and Earth.

Now what evidence should we see?

(Note: I can back it up further too -- hour x hour. It depends if you're going to try and play your games or not. We'll see.)

"Bologna"? It's always easy to tell when you are in trouble, AV. The ad homs start coming out.

Why are you trying to ignore the other days? BTW, it's "the heavens", not "Heaven". Those are different things.

1. No or very little sedimentary rock. No metamorphic rock.
2. No varves
3. Isotopes with half-lives less than 50 million years in the earth's crust.

Notice that all of these will be true not only by the end of creation week, but also true today.
4. No stars visible from earth.

 

[AV1611VET]

1. No or very little sedimentary rock. No metamorphic rock.

There were no rocks until the 3rd Day -- I said Day 1.

Do you see why you try so hard to confuse yourself?

You can't break this down properly, can you?

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

There were no rocks until the 3rd Day -- I said Day 1.

Do you see why you try so hard to confuse yourself?

You can't break this down properly, can you?

How do you have the earth... but no rock?

 

[AV1611VET]

How do you have the earth... but no rock?

24

160

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

24

160

Sorry, I don't qv.

If you can't explain it here, I understand.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sorry, I don't qv.

If you can't explain it here, I understand.

Stay confused then -- it's your choice; and you guys certainly work hard enough to earn it.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Stay confused then -- it's your choice; and you guys certainly work hard enough to earn it.

Thank you.

 

[Bushido216]

You can't have "something made of rock" without "rock".

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

You can't have "something made of rock" without "rock".

Unless... "goddidit".

But then again, I'm confused.

 

[Doveaman]

How do you have the earth... but no rock?

You can't have "something made of rock" without "rock".

Gen 9:11:
"I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be cut off by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth ."

When God said the earth was destroyed was He referring to rocks being destroyed?

Also:

Rev 11:18:
"The time has come for judging the dead, and for rewarding your servants the prophets and your saints and those who reverence your name, both small and great — and for destroying those who destroy the earth."

How do we destroy the earth? It is certainly not referring to rocks. Therefore the earth can be spoken of as "earth" without referring to rocks.