The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Zombrex · 26-05-2008 11:51am

J C wrote: »

God became MAN.....and sacrificed Himself as a perfect sinless MAN in atonement for ALL of the sins of MEN since Adam and Eve.....so that God's justice could be satisfied through His loving perfect atonement as a MAN.....for our sins.

Or in other words -

God sacrificed himself, to himself, to save us from himself.

J C wrote: »

.....and BTW Jesus didn't die to save us from Himself......He actually died to save us from ourselves.....i.e. from our OWN sinful nature!!!!

Yes, because we have the power to send people to hell.:rolleyes:

JC if we could do that I'm sure you would be long gone from this thread ...

AtomicHorror · 26-05-2008 12:16pm

J C wrote: »

......OK.....the bold Spontaneous Evolutionists AREN'T here.......but they might be THERE......and don't worry about any of those bold Spontaneous Evolutionists acting spontaneously....although they can become very emotional betimes!!!!:)

Spontaneous Evolution is still alive and well.......and claiming that Muck spntaneously evolved into Man (or some variant of this theme)......and Spontaneous Evolution is the most accurate descriptor that distinguishes Materialistic Evolution from it's Theistic equivalent......so to provide clarity....I'm kinda forced to continue using the term.......unless you can think of a better one!!!!:):D

If you continue to use the term as a substitute for Darwinian Evolution, you are being misleading. Spontaneity, either chemical or by any other sense of the term, is not a feature of that theory be it theistic or otherwise. Neither is the "muck to man" element which is abiogenesis (albeit in a massively dumbed-down sense) and not evolution.

As PDN has stated that he'll take action against anyone who is being deliberately misleading, I expect that you may find yourself in some trouble if you continue to equate Darwinian Evolution with abiogenesis or with Spontaneous Evolution when you have been repeatedly informed that these things cannot be equated.

Let's stop playing word games and actually debate the issue J C.

iUseVi · 26-05-2008 3:42pm

Originally Posted by daithifleming

Go into his profile, you can do it there.

Good idea. I think I will join you.

AtomicHorror · 26-05-2008 5:09pm

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Let's stop playing word games and actually debate the issue J C.

On that note, you could begin by quoting and rebutting my comments on the persistence of detrimental genes and transitional organs in the gene pool. You could also take a stab at refuting my comments regarding the probability of emergenece of function through mutation strictly within evolution.

wolfsbane · 26-05-2008 5:24pm

JC said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Should I leave my work to get a degree in geology, biology, physics, etc.? No, I have a different calling. Does this leave me unable to challenge your dogma? No, with the help of JC and the many scientists whose material I point you to, I am content we have exposed the nakedness of Evolution.

An unbiased observer would concede at least that we have called into question the nature of its clothes - is it a body-stocking or bare-nakedness?

.......or would silk stockings .......and no knickers...... be a better descriptor of Evolution?????

Ah, yes, the crafty harlot of Proverbs.

:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%207:6-27%20;&version=50;

bonkey · 26-05-2008 5:25pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

Well, OK - Whatever the definition of science you use, I want creation science to be on a par with evolutionary science.

Well, the normal definition of science involves things like falsifiability, which time and time again in this thread is a hurdle that creationism has failed to jump.

As I've said repeatedly (in case that memory of yours has managed to forget this as well), people are entitled to believe in what they like. I respect your belief. What I do not respect is your insistence that it is science. You have tried suggesting that its "our" definition of science which is at fault. You've tried suggesting that there is some misunderstanding about what science is. And time and time and time again, the only people who sow and show this confusion in this debate - both on this thread and elsewhere - are those supporting creationism.

And time and time and time again, you've conveniently had to leave the debate, only to return to remake the same claims over and over and over again, as though they'd never been brought up here before.

And you know what...this isn't the first time that this has been explained here before either.

You can refresh my memory,

Go do your own research, wolfsbane. You can either show me that I'm wrong, accept my claim, or call me a liar.

If you think thats harsh, let me remind you that we are talking about recent content in this very thread, which were the responses to a question that you posed.

If you don't remember the answers, then go look them up.

You show remarkable aptitude at coming up with link after link after link to creationist material, but apparently can't remember previous to last week when it comes to something that challenges your position. Its not like I don't have other things in life to do as well, other than reminding you of what answers people gave you to a question you asked them, here.

but I recall only one other reply agreeing that modeling is the only definition of science.

You recall wrong. Its testament to either the attention you pay to those you are notionally disussing with, or the selectivity with which you choose to recall information. As I've noted above, you haven't once demonstrated this attention or memory deficit when it comes to the material you put your support behind.

wolfsbane · 26-05-2008 7:05pm

bonkey said:

No, your analagy doesn't better suit that. In that example, both claims produce testable predictions, which are both falsifiable.

Neither of those claims involve taking the evidence and saying that the interpretation must be wrong because it contradicts some inviolable truth.

You are once again confusing creationism's religious claims with its scientific ones. That's your carelessness, not their's.

Or are you going to show how Genesis can be falsified?

You mean instant creation? When you show me how abiogenesis can be falsified - that will give me an indication of the argument I will need.

It is not arrogant to say that the evidence absolutely does not support a specific claim. The (non-analogical) evidence does not support Creationism,

Creation scientists have given examples of evidence supporting a young earth. I have listed them. Remember?

Eschatologist · 26-05-2008 8:56pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

Some scientific models:
CATASTROPHIC PLATE TECTONICS: A GLOBAL FLOOD MODEL OF EARTH HISTORY
http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_as_platetectonicsl/

I'd like to address some points concerning this model. So far I’ve only managed to find mention of runaway plate tectonics in creationist-related literature as the top Google searches (or rebuttals). Searches in journals yields only results for localised catastrophes, thermal runaway instabilities and the triggering of deep-seated earthquakes. If someone could point me to an accredited journal which deals with runaway subduction, I’d be grateful so I can take a look at it. But meanwhile in this article:

“The Flood was initiated as slabs of oceanic floor broke loose and subducted along thousands of kilometers of pre-Flood continental margins.”

Broke loose from what, the mantle? The continental crust? What initiated this breakage? This isn’t addressed. A ‘model’ of plate motion caused by an undefined trigger mechanism - this is even stated in the article.

I don’t deny the contribution to science that Baumgardner has made with his plate tectonic computer model, praise where it’s due. The neat thing about computer models though is that you can produce any outcome you like by changing the initial parameters. If these parameters do not match observations or are not meaningful in any physical way (say an unrealistically high thermal diffusivity value) then the model becomes useless as an explanation. Note that other scientists have used his computer model to simulate plate motions using realistic parameters to yield rates of movement seen today. From Talkorigins:

“Baumgarder's theory still does not work without miracles, as Baumgardner himself admitted (Baumgardner 1990a, 1990b). The thermal diffusivity of the earth would have to increase ten thousandfold to get the subduction rates proposed, and something would have to cause the advance and retreat of the magma bubble (Matsumura 1997). Miracles would also have been necessary to cool the new ocean floor and to raise sedimentary mountains in months rather than in the millions of years it would ordinarily take.”

I find it ironic that creationists say the ice age occurred after the Flood, yet the heat energy released in Baumgardner’s model, ~10^28 Joules, would vaporise the oceans. How did the heat dissipate? Even if the water vapour condensed rapidly what then triggered the ice age in such a short span of time following that massive heat release? The Earth should still have been pretty hot considering that all oceanic crust present today is supposed to have formed and solidified from this time, though how this assertion in itself can be proven is doubtful given that creationists deny the viability of radiometric dating, biostratigraphy and magnetostratigraphy.

It’s interesting to note that Baumgardner’s ‘pre-Flood continental crust’ was Pangaea, which required the collision of a number of continents and pre-existing mountain chains. Baumgardner uses Pangaea as his crustal starting point for how the continental plates reached their current configuration through his catastrophic model but fails to give a trigger mechanism, even a decade after he ‘published’ his idea. He fails to explain where the crust for Pangaea came from and how the diversity of terranes and depositional environments already part of Pangaea came about. It’s a serious shortfall considering that modern geology can explain all this just fine without resorting to unnecessary catastrophism.

bonkey · 26-05-2008 8:58pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

bonkey said:

You are once again confusing creationism's religious claims with its scientific ones. That's your carelessness, not their's.

No, its not my carelessness. Creationism is based on non-falsifiable assumptions. It doesn't matter what it does with those falsifiable assumptions...one can apply the scientific method to Tokien's Middle Earth just as readily as one can apply it to biblical claims. If the base assumptions are non-falsifiable and assumed inviolate, then it matters not one whit what you do after that.

The religious beliefs on which creationism rest preclude any of the claims which follow from holding those beliefs inviolate from being scientific.

You mean instant creation? When you show me how abiogenesis can be falsified - that will give me an indication of the argument I will need.

I've lost track of the number of times that it has been explained to you in varying levels of detail. Let me try once more in the simplest english possible.

Abiogenesis is not a scientific theory.

Got that?

Let me try again.

Abiogenesis is not a scientific theory.

Is that sinking in yet? Is there any chance its sinking in enough that we won't have to go through this charade again in a few days or weeks when you conveniently forget this once more?

On the hope that it is, lets try another step...

Abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution.

Or, in your chosen abuse of language....

Abiogenesis is not part of evolutionism.

Now...if you can understand those two ideas, please tell me why you think the falsification of something that isn't a scientific theory, and which isn't part of evolutionary theory is relevant to whether or not Creationism can be falsified?

I realise that what you're trying to do is change the subject. You want - yet again - to take the focus off the fact that this is a question you are unwilling to address. I suspect that its because you either don't know how it can be done, or you actually know it can't be done, but I'd love for you to prove me wrong.

Its the typical bait-and-switch level of dishonesty that is rife in creationism-is-science arguments - you won't address the question. "You show me yours and I'll show you mine" is about as close as we get....typically in the form of a loaded or incorrect question that shows a horrific misunderstanding of the very subject you claim to be critiquing.

You can fall back on the "I'm not a scientist, just a poor layman" arugment if you like...but that implicitly admits that you are not qualified to comment on whether Creationism is or is not scientific....so if you use that argument, you should have the intellectual honesty to stop making claims you know you cannot meaninfullly judge.

You can fall back on the "I'm only here to show that others make these arguments" line that you've used before. Thats fine by me too....in that its an implicit admission that you see your job here as that of a propagandist...that you are here to push an agenda rather than join in a discussion.

You can continue to refuse to answer the question...but I'm going to be as dogged in pointing that out as you are in trying to avoid answering it.

If Creationism is scientific, like you claim, then show that it is. Show the falsifiability. Stop dodging. Stop changing the subject. Stop trying to turn everything in to an attack on evolution, and answer the question asked.

You complain quite freqeuntly about some made-up conspiracy of mainstream science against Creationism, and yet, when it comes to the most fundamental of questions, you won't or can't answer. What sort of conspiracy is that....to refuse to accept as science any field who's proponents refuse to explain how it is fundamentally scientific. It would be like someone saying there's a conspiracy amongst Christians to preclude anyone from being a Christian who doesn't believe in God.

Creation scientists have given examples of evidence supporting a young earth. I have listed them.

Yes, I do remember. I didn't claim you never presented evidence. I said you ignore evidence.

There is, quite literally, a universe of evidence that doesn't support a young earth model*....the stuff Creationists ignore, or simply claim must be wrong because it contradicts the inviolable, non-testable, non-falsifiable assumptions that are held as absolute truth - the assumptions which preclude Creationism from being scientific.

* As I have said before...in case you've forgotten this as well...there is a young-earth model which all the evidence fits. Its the young-earth model made to look exactly like a billions-of-years-old universe, which began with a rapid expansionary event. IN short, its the young-earth model which says that yes, the scientific model (because remember, thats what science is about) does indeed fit observation, but what really happened is something else. Of course, that would prevent you from mounting meaningful attacks on evolution, so its not likely to be acceptable to you, is it....because thats what its all about, isn't it? All the ancillary stuff...the geology, the nuclear science....whatever....its all just ancillary. As long as people are taught the controversy about evolution, you're happy.

wolfsbane · 26-05-2008 10:27pm

bonkey said:

Well, the normal definition of science involves things like falsifiability, which time and time again in this thread is a hurdle that creationism has failed to jump.

Remind me again how the theory of evolution could be falsified. How could one prove that the present biosphere did not evolve from the first self-replicating molecules?

But creationism could be falsified, or at least shown not to be necessary, if an organism - say, a bacteria or a fruit fly - could be observed evolving into something other than a bacteria or a fruit fly.

An interesting comment:
the philosopher P. Quinn (an anti-creationist himself) demonstrates the illogicality of the Marxist evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould:

‘… Gould claims that “‘Scientific creationism’ is a self-contradictory phrase precisely because it cannot be falsified”…Ironically, in the next sentence Gould goes on to contradict himself by asserting that “the individual claims are easy enough to refute with a bit of research.” Indeed, some of them are! But since they are so easily refuted by research, they are after all falsifiable and, hence, testable. This glaring inconsistency is the tip-off to the fact that talk about testability and falsifiability functions as verbal abuse and not as a serious objection in Gould’s anti-creationist polemics.’24
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1860/#f24

Here's an exchange between a theistic evolutionist and a creationist, that touches on falsification and the nature of science:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2003/0207.asp

As I've said repeatedly (in case that memory of yours has managed to forget this as well), people are entitled to believe in what they like.

O, I remember that. Even more, I agree with it.:)

I respect your belief. What I do not respect is your insistence that it is science.

I don't insist it is science. In fact, I am careful to distinguish my beliefs from science - something I could recommend to you.:D

You have tried suggesting that its "our" definition of science which is at fault.

Not as far as I can recall. I'm content to use your narrow, 'model' definition when discussing models. When we move outside of that, I'm happy if you do not call it science. We just need to be sure of our terminology so that we don't misunderstand on another.

An article dealing with the debate on the nature of science:
‘It’s not science’
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0228not_science.asp?srcFrom=aignews

You've tried suggesting that there is some misunderstanding about what science is. And time and time and time again, the only people who sow and show this confusion in this debate - both on this thread and elsewhere - are those supporting creationism.

No confusion on the nature of science? I'm sure I read something on Popper and his opponents (not creationists).

And time and time and time again, you've conveniently had to leave the debate, only to return to remake the same claims over and over and over again, as though they'd never been brought up here before.

And you know what...this isn't the first time that this has been explained here before either.

Go do your own research, wolfsbane. You can either show me that I'm wrong, accept my claim, or call me a liar.

If you think thats harsh, let me remind you that we are talking about recent content in this very thread, which were the responses to a question that you posed.

If you don't remember the answers, then go look them up.

You show remarkable aptitude at coming up with link after link after link to creationist material, but apparently can't remember previous to last week when it comes to something that challenges your position. Its not like I don't have other things in life to do as well, other than reminding you of what answers people gave you to a question you asked them, here.

Hmm. Mustn't be too convenient for you to search either.

But I'll do as you say.

Quote:
but I recall only one other reply agreeing that modeling is the only definition of science.
You recall wrong. Its testament to either the attention you pay to those you are notionally disussing with, or the selectivity with which you choose to recall information. As I've noted above, you haven't once demonstrated this attention or memory deficit when it comes to the material you put your support behind.

It is a lot easier to search the web for keywords than to find specific past posts here. Maybe someone knows how? I'll be glad to find out.

I've taken a couple of hours and found Wickie in total support; Scofflaw with reservations ('fuzzy line' of interpretation); Eschatologist; JC dissenting.

2 solids, 1 partial, 1 against. Hardly a ringing endorsement! :pac:

Ekancone · 26-05-2008 10:39pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

bonkey said:

Remind me again how the theory of evolution could be falsified. How could one prove that the present biosphere did not evolve from the first self-replicating molecules?

But creationism could be falsified, or at least shown not to be necessary, if an organism - say, a bacteria or a fruit fly - could be observed evolving into something other than a bacteria or a fruit fly.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

Creationism deals with a god/s creating life on earth. It is not exclusive to a literal interpretation of the Christian bible.

Evolution has NOTHING to do with how life first appears.

Get.

That.

Into.

Your.

Head.

Mark Hamill · 27-05-2008 12:27am

wolfsbane wrote: »

Remind me again how the theory of evolution could be falsified. How could one prove that the present biosphere did not evolve from the first self-replicating molecules?

But creationism could be falsified, or at least shown not to be necessary, if an organism - say, a bacteria or a fruit fly - could be observed evolving into something other than a bacteria or a fruit fly.

The problem you (and they guy who wrote the Its not Science article) seem to have with falsifiability is that you are mistaking what the target of falsification is. It is not the models that need to be falsifiable in science, models get tested. It is the overall conclusion that needs to be falsifiable.
In evolution theory, the conclusion (that all living things evolved from simpler precursors over millions of years) is falsifiable: if someone could show that the earth was only a few thousand years old (therefore not enough time for evolution) the it would no longer be a viable theory (there are other ways to show how evoltion could be false).
In creationism, the conclusion (that God made every living thing as-is, within the last 6000-odd years) is not falsifiable because God is an immeasureable/undifinable entity, and if you can't measure/define the limits of something, its unfalsifiable.
The reason why this is important is that if we didn't have falsifiability as a requirement for science, there would be no scientific advancement, without falsifiability, all you do is replace one unknown with another.

bonkey · 27-05-2008 8:55am

After I shut down my PC last night, it occurred to me that wolfsbane was asking about abiogenesis in order to get me to admit there was no falsifable theory of abiogenesis, in order to make the argument that since abiogenesis is non-falsifiable, then by my logic, anything based on it could not be scientific.

That argument would, of course, be wrong.

It would show a lack of understanding (or a deliberate misinterpretation) of fundamental issues to do with the the subjects at hand....because evolution is not based on abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis is not a prerequisite for evolution. It is not a non-falsifiable assumption on which the theory of evolution rests. Rather, the existenceof life (with or without evolution) coupled with a scientific model which gives the earth (or the universe, in the case of universal abiogenesis) a finite age requires that life began at some point. Even a creationist will concede that life began.

Thus, abiogenesis is an implication derived from observation (life exists) and - in the scientific models - falsifiable theory (the universe and the earth are finite in age).

Evolution, in turn, has arisen from observations which support the idea that the further back we look , the "less evolved" the evidence we will find. This is consistent with the notion that, at some point, we reach the beginning...that we get to the point at which we can not have anything "less evolved", and therefore require a point at which life began.

If we were to overthrow the scientific models which give the universe a finite age, then the requirement for universal abiogenesis would cease to be absolute. While the earth remained of finite age, however, the requirement for abiogenesis on this planet would remain.

That we do not have a Theory of Abiogenesis (yet) is neither here nor there. Abiogenesis (the event) is a conclusion which arises from falsifiable models. It is not an up-front assumption on which other models rest. Rather, it is a conclusion which is reached from, and supported by, multiple models. Evolution does not require abiogenesis.

This is the correct way in which science should work. We work backwards from the information we have, to reach the base conclusions that we then set about modelling. We know that a theory of abiogenesis is required because abiogenesis is an unavoidable logical conclusion of other theories...which themselves are falsifiable.

With Creationism, however, the cart is before the horse. It starts with what should be conclusions - the (young) age of the universe, the divine creation of man, the flood. It has progressed from these assumptions, seeking a model which fits, discarding (or ignoring) anything which conflicts with those assumptions. Sure....the scientific method is applied as a clever bit of smoke-and-mirrors to make it look like science, but at its core remains those unchallengeable tenets of Creationist faith.

So it is incorrect to compare abiogenesis to these Christian beliefs. The former has arisen as an inescapable conclusion of falsifiable scientific theory. The latter are the assumptions on which the system of Creationism has been built, rather than the conclusions which it has reached. This is ultimately why Wolfsbane will not address the question of falsifiability. It is because there is none and the only way to aboid that admission is to change the subject and simply ignore this inconvenient truth.

Somewhat to my surprise...wolfsbane hasn't gone down this route, but instead asked me the following:

Remind me again how the theory of evolution could be falsified.

I'll do better. I'll remind you that not so long ago you were given a link to an article concerning myths about evolution. You thanked the person who posted the link and promised to keep it close at hand. In that article, this very topic was discussed.

I am careful to distinguish my beliefs from science - something I could recommend to you.

I have repeatedly stated my position that science is not about what is. It is about creating models which match observation. This is the only belief of mine regarding science which has been brought into this conversation. I know you like to misconstrue science as being just another form of faith, but thats your lookout, not mine. I'm not responsible for the misconceptions you hold ar attempt to sell. So please...until you learn to stop this wilful misrepresentation of science, and the positions of those who are disagreeing with you, I'd ask you to refrain from offering me recommendations on the subject.

I'm content to use your narrow, 'model' definition when discussing models. When we move outside of that, I'm happy if you do not call it science.

And when have I done that, excepting when I point out that your arguments (and Creationism in general) are not about models and therefore not about science?

Indeed, I have argued that when one makes the claim that something is scientific, one is implicitly stating that what is being presented is a model which matches observation, and not a claim of what is real.

wolfbane wrote:

2 solids, 1 partial, 1 against. Hardly a ringing endorsement!

Well, at least you've done those who responded to you the courtesy of actually going back and seeing what it is they said to you....rather than managing to miss or forget half of them.

Furthermore, I would point out that you explicitly limited the question to apply to scientists. Who else here, who was taking active part in the discussion at that point in time has claimed to be a scientist? (Indeed, I'd eliminate Wicknight from your count on that basis, as IIRC, he's never claimed to be a scientist). I'd also point out that while Scofflaw expressed reservations, I responded to his post, clarifying my position with regard to those reservations, which resulted in his agreement.

So this "non-ringing" endorsement can still be categorised as follows : Anyone who expressed an opinion, who is not a creationist agreed with the basic premise. Anyone who expressed an opinion who is a creationist, disagreed with the basic premise.

Given the relatively small sample-set we have available to us, these results are naturally inconclusive. It is interesting to see, however, that you asked the question in all apparent honesty, and now dismiss the answers as meaningless because of the limited sample-size. One can only wonder what possible purpose you had for asking the question in the first place.

Zombrex · 27-05-2008 10:39am

wolfsbane wrote: »

But creationism could be falsified, or at least shown not to be necessary, if an organism - say, a bacteria or a fruit fly - could be observed evolving into something other than a bacteria or a fruit fly.

Given that any time you and JC claim that a handful of species on the Ark evolved into hundreds of thousands of species (insects included) in a few years after the ark, I'm not quite sure how you think that would falsify YEC Creation. Any example of evolutionary change from species to species you just say "Oh we expect that, it is all happening within Kinds", "kinds" being at present an undefined grouping derived from the Bible.

If you guys were actually interested in science and falsifiability you would define what a kind is and then see if any evolving organisms have ever jumped the "kind barrier", thus falsifying the theory that species cannot evolve beyond this, as present, imaginary kind barrier.

But strangely Creationists haven't done this yet.

Of course that would not falsify the idea of Direct Creation, it would simply falsify the idea of these "kinds" which creatures cannot evolve out of.It would be a religious concept to conclude then that Direct Creation did not happen. You cannot falsify direct creation without coming up with a done would demonstrate that there was no Creation, which looks impossible to carry out since you are dealing with a supernatural element.

wolfsbane wrote: »

But since they are so easily refuted by research, they are after all falsifiable and, hence, testable. This glaring inconsistency is the tip-off to the fact that talk about testability and falsifiability functions as verbal abuse and not as a serious objection in Gould’s anti-creationist polemics.

Both yourself and Mr P. Quinn are missing the point

Falsifibility is not something someone else does to your theory. For example the idea of a Young Earth is easily shown to be wrong by radio meteric dating, but then you guys don't accept radio meteric dating. Gould is right that it is easy to show Creationism is wrong, but you guys don't accept any of the ways this is done, so it is not falsifiability. Falsifiability is something that YOU GUYS need to come up with. You have to tell scientists how it is possible to demonstrate a theory of Creationism to be wrong. What is required.

But again and again you don't do this. Your websites and journals again and again state that you can't be wrong because it comes from the Bible.

You claim that Evolution cannot be falsified. I assure you it can, and if you read the articles given to you should know it can and how it can. The scientist who falsifies evolution would be world famous.

But this is actually irrelevant. The falsifiability of evolution is nothing to do with the falsifability of direct creation.

So it this falsifabile or not? show me the test or tests that can be done that demonstrate you guys are wrong and that you would accept

Zombrex · 27-05-2008 10:48am

wolfsbane wrote: »

Here's an exchange between a theistic evolutionist and a creationist, that touches on falsification and the nature of science:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2003/0207.asp

As a shining example of how Creationists refuse to answer a simple question (as you have in this exchange) that is brilliant.

I like the part about how "evolutionists" were the first to propose c-decay. What the heck was an evolutionary biologist doing proposing an idea on the speed of light?

Basically that exchange is a very round about way of saying that they can't put forward falsifiabilty, but then claiming that that shouldn't matter or stop them from calling themselves scientists because Popper was really an idiot who most "evolutionists" ignore anyway.

So that would be a no on the question of falsifibility. Would you agree Wolfsbane?

Galvasean · 27-05-2008 12:57pm

J C wrote: »

.....great to see Spontaneous Evolutionists incentivising their colleagues to improve their reading skills......as well as broadening their (narrow) knowledge base!!!:pac::):D

If I wanted someone to improve their reading I would not have them read you're writings. Your sentence structure is awful.

wolfsbane · 27-05-2008 3:39pm

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Here's an exchange between a theistic evolutionist and a creationist, that touches on falsification and the nature of science:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home.../2003/0207.asp
As a shining example of how Creationists refuse to answer a simple question (as you have in this exchange) that is brilliant.

Since you took me to task in your previous post for the answer I gave on falsification, I can only put down this lastest request of yours to time-wasting. Most time-wasters at least try to cover their tracks. You certainly are special, Wickie.

I like the part about how "evolutionists" were the first to propose c-decay. What the heck was an evolutionary biologist doing proposing an idea on the speed of light?

If we had meant evolutionary biologists we would have said so. We meant evolutionists - those who hold to the General Theory of Evolution. That includes scientists of the physical and chemical disciplines as well as the biological.

Basically that exchange is a very round about way of saying that they can't put forward falsifiabilty, but then claiming that that shouldn't matter or stop them from calling themselves scientists because Popper was really an idiot who most "evolutionists" ignore anyway.

I put forward a means of falsifying the creationist model - where it insists that kinds are fixed.

So that would be a no on the question of falsifibility. Would you agree Wolfsbane?

No. See above.:D

wolfsbane · 27-05-2008 4:13pm

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But creationism could be falsified, or at least shown not to be necessary, if an organism - say, a bacteria or a fruit fly - could be observed evolving into something other than a bacteria or a fruit fly.
Given that any time you and JC claim that a handful of species on the Ark evolved into hundreds of thousands of species (insects included) in a few years after the ark, I'm not quite sure how you think that would falsify YEC Creation. Any example of evolutionary change from species to species you just say "Oh we expect that, it is all happening within Kinds", "kinds" being at present an undefined grouping derived from the Bible.

OK, you have my public guarantee - produce a bacteria or a fruit-fly that produce descendants that are other than a bacteria or a fruit-fly, and I will publically admit that the creation model has been falsified. The clock starts, Now!:D

If you guys were actually interested in science and falsifiability you would define what a kind is and then see if any evolving organisms have ever jumped the "kind barrier", thus falsifying the theory that species cannot evolve beyond this, as present, imaginary kind barrier.

But strangely Creationists haven't done this yet.

I have given definitions of kind. But some debate remains, as it does amongst evolutionists about the definition of species.

But supposing I could give an exact definition, how could you point to any transition example? You don't have any. You only have different fossils you think might be related. No unbroken chain.

Of course that would not falsify the idea of Direct Creation, it would simply falsify the idea of these "kinds" which creatures cannot evolve out of.It would be a religious concept to conclude then that Direct Creation did not happen. You cannot falsify direct creation without coming up with a done would demonstrate that there was no Creation, which looks impossible to carry out since you are dealing with a supernatural element.

That is an excellent point. Just what the creationists say. Congratulations!

But how about evolution? How could we prove that it never occurred? It is just as unfalsifiable as creationism when it comes to origins. And it is even more so with regard to its alleged mechanism - one kind changing into another. We can show it never has been observed, but not that it can't be done. Even the best specified complexity arguments cannot overcome the assertion that 'we don't yet know how, but it did occur'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But since they are so easily refuted by research, they are after all falsifiable and, hence, testable. This glaring inconsistency is the tip-off to the fact that talk about testability and falsifiability functions as verbal abuse and not as a serious objection in Gould’s anti-creationist polemics.
Both yourself and Mr P. Quinn are missing the point

Falsifibility is not something someone else does to your theory. For example the idea of a Young Earth is easily shown to be wrong by radio meteric dating, but then you guys don't accept radio meteric dating. Gould is right that it is easy to show Creationism is wrong, but you guys don't accept any of the ways this is done, so it is not falsifiability. Falsifiability is something that YOU GUYS need to come up with. You have to tell scientists how it is possible to demonstrate a theory of Creationism to be wrong. What is required.

I've shown how to prove a crucial part of it is wrong. But the overall theory, as with the overall theory of evolution, cannot be falsified.

But again and again you don't do this. Your websites and journals again and again state that you can't be wrong because it comes from the Bible.

Again and again, I tell you that that assertion of ours is a religious one, not part of our scientific argument.

You claim that Evolution cannot be falsified. I assure you it can, and if you read the articles given to you should know it can and how it can. The scientist who falsifies evolution would be world famous.

I must have missed that - please point to the ways evolution can be falsified.

But this is actually irrelevant. The falsifiability of evolution is nothing to do with the falsifability of direct creation.

Really? Not sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander? Why am I not surprised?

So it this falsifabile or not? show me the test or tests that can be done that demonstrate you guys are wrong and that you would accept

See above for the falsifiability of the inviolable kind, and for the agreement that the overall theory cannot be falsified, as with evolution.

Ekancone · 27-05-2008 4:25pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

But supposing I could give an exact definition, how could you point to any transition example? You don't have any. You only have different fossils you think might be related. No unbroken chain.

You want an example of a transitional form?

1) Get up

2) Go to a mirror

3) Look into mirror

Say hi to a transitional form.

wolfsbane · 27-05-2008 4:55pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The problem you (and they guy who wrote the Its not Science article) seem to have with falsifiability is that you are mistaking what the target of falsification is. It is not the models that need to be falsifiable in science, models get tested. It is the overall conclusion that needs to be falsifiable.
In evolution theory, the conclusion (that all living things evolved from simpler precursors over millions of years) is falsifiable: if someone could show that the earth was only a few thousand years old (therefore not enough time for evolution) the it would no longer be a viable theory (there are other ways to show how evoltion could be false).
In creationism, the conclusion (that God made every living thing as-is, within the last 6000-odd years) is not falsifiable because God is an immeasureable/undifinable entity, and if you can't measure/define the limits of something, its unfalsifiable.
The reason why this is important is that if we didn't have falsifiability as a requirement for science, there would be no scientific advancement, without falsifiability, all you do is replace one unknown with another.

Seem to me creation and evolution could be falsified if the age of the earth were provable. But creation claims any evidence that seems to show long ages is due to mistaken assumptions about the uniformity of rates of radio-decay. Evolution claims any evidence that subverts its long ages is down to misunderstood/as yet unknown factors.

I can't see how that will realistically allow either to be falsified on the basis of age.

As to God being the unfalsifiable factor in creationism, that is not so. Creationism can start with a mature creation, without specifying how it got there. The individual parts of the creation model can be falsified - or if you like, the conclusion can be falsified by showing that any of the model's necessary parts have been disproven.

wolfsbane · 27-05-2008 5:06pm

daithifleming wrote: »

You want an example of a transitional form?

1) Get up

2) Go to a mirror

3) Look into mirror

Say hi to a transitional form.

Hmm. Have you observed my ancestry over your millions of years? I conclude you must be one of these: psychic/immortal/deluded.

What I see in the mirror is one of the original kinds, probably a little whiter and a lot less fit than the original male.;)

Zombrex · 27-05-2008 5:15pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

OK, you have my public guarantee - produce a bacteria or a fruit-fly that produce descendants that are other than a bacteria or a fruit-fly, and I will publically admit that the creation model has been falsified. The clock starts, Now!:D

Considering you have already been give that, forgive me if I am skeptical. You explain away macro-evolutionary changes by saying Creationism "predicts" them as well, they just happen within a "kind", something you then refuse to classify so it becomes impossible to give you an example of a macro-evolutionary change that jumps a kind barrier, since you refuse to define one.

Can you see the problem here Wolfy?

wolfsbane wrote: »

I have given definitions of kind.

You have never given a definition of a kind. You have linked to articles on websites such as AiG and claimed that they contain definition of a kind, but when we (foolishly) bothered to read them we found no such definition.

You then proceeded to explain that Creationists aren't sure exactly where the kind barrier lies, just like evolutionists aren't sure about some such claim in evolution (can't remember exactly what claim you referenced).

wolfsbane wrote: »

But some debate remains, as it does amongst evolutionists about the definition of species.

Ah yes, that is what it was. The difference Wolfsbane is that the different definition of species actually are definitions. You can use either of them to classify an organism.

Creationists don't do this. For example what "kind" does Drosophila melanogaster (the fruit fly) belong to and on what characteristics is the fruit fly grouped into that kind?

What kind does Canis lupus familiaris (the dog) belong to and on what characteristics is the dog grouped into that kind.

Heck Wolfsbane, don't let me pick a species for you. Pick any species you like, tell me what kind it belongs to and why it is classified as that kind.

And when you have done this you can tell me which species is right up next to the kind barrier, ie a species change is impossible because it would require a change from one kind to the other

wolfsbane wrote: »

But supposing I could give an exact definition, how could you point to any transition example?

that isn't what I asked. I want to know a species that cannot evolve any further because to do so would break this "kind barrier" that has been supposed by Creationists.

For example, say the classification of Canis lupus familiaris into Kind XYZ is based on a large number of features including the structure of the bones in his hind legs.

Your assertion is that any mutational change will not be able to alter that structure, because doing so would remove a characteristic of the classification of "kind XYZ"

This so this shouldn't happen. If it does happen that is a way to show that the kind classification is inaccurate.

Creationists if they were proper scientists, should be falling over themselves to define and demonstrate this. Strangely, they aren't.

wolfsbane wrote: »

That is an excellent point. Just what the creationists say. Congratulations!

Creationists say that direct creation cannot be scientifically modeled, therefore it is not to be included in science. Brillant! Why didn't you say so already!

Can you then please ask them (including JC) to stop claiming it is science, and to stop trying to include it, through the idea of intelligent design, in science classrooms then

wolfsbane wrote: »

But how about evolution? How could we prove that it never occurred?

Very easily. Evolution is a scientific model. To demonstrate that it didn't occur you simple take a prediction of the model, take the observed evidence, and see if they don't match up. The model is then inaccurate. Repeat this a number of times and the model is shown to be so inaccurate that it is worthless and simply thrown away. This is done all the time in science.

wolfsbane wrote: »

It is just as unfalsifiable as creationism when it comes to origins.

The origins of what?

I swear if you do the whole evolution = abiogensis thing again you are going on my ignore list

wolfsbane wrote: »

And it is even more so with regard to its alleged mechanism - one kind changing into another.

That is easy to falsify. We have observed mutational changes effecting the phenotype of an organism and that phenotype being selected by the environment producing more successful off spring.

If this didn't happen then the evolutionary model would be wrong and would have to be thrown out.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I've shown how to prove a crucial part of it is wrong. But the overall theory, as with the overall theory of evolution, cannot be falsified.

If the theory cannot be tested or falsified, either as a whole or through the process of falsifying all the individual parts, then it isn't proper science. This applies to Creationism and to evolution.

So you need to make up your mind. Are you saying that Creationism is science, or are you saying that Evolution isn't science.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Again and again, I tell you that that assertion of ours is a religious one, not part of our scientific argument.

Then will you please stop linking to Answers in Genesis and Creation Web which both refuse to accept that the Bible can be wrong.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I must have missed that - please point to the ways evolution can be falsified.

Certain -

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13675-evolution-myths-evolution-cannot-be-disproved.html

Perhaps the next time you claim to read something you should perhaps, you know, actually read it.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Really? Not sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander? Why am I not surprised?

What?

Are you just trolling now?

Creationists don't put forward theories that can be tested or falsified.

Evolution can be tested and falsified, as has been explained to you a number of times.

You claim Evolution can't be falsified (despite constantly been shown how it can) but fail to realise that even if that where true it doesn't make it any more possible to falsify Creationist theories.

So I ask again! Are you arguing that Creationism is science, or are you arguing that evolution isn't

Or are you, as Bonkey suggested and I strongly believe, just arguing for the point of arguing because you actually have no idea how to answer any of these questions being put to you and you are just stalling for time hope that we eventually stop asking you?

wolfsbane wrote: »

See above for the falsifiability of the inviolable kind,

See above where exactly?

wolfsbane wrote: »

and for the agreement that the overall theory cannot be falsified, as with evolution.

Then Creationism is not science. Do we agree?

What parts can be falsified (ie what parts are supposed to be science)

Ekancone · 27-05-2008 5:22pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

Hmm. Have you observed my ancestry over your millions of years?

I don't need to. I know that you are a mutated copy of both your parents genes, and your children will be mutated versions of you and your partner also. You are a transitional form between those generations, and your genome can be used to map this transition using the inherited mutations as guides.

Zombrex · 27-05-2008 5:26pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

What I see in the mirror is one of the original kinds, probably a little whiter and a lot less fit than the original male.;)

Please give the name of this "kind" that homo sapiens belong to and the process by which this classification was derived, ie what characteristics of the human species classifies it in this kind as opposed to another kind

this should be interesting :rolleyes:

Ekancone · 27-05-2008 5:57pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26dwfZIqfco

I really like this guys videos, because he uses modelled simulations to illustrate how evolution works. If creationists could provide us with such a model it would be nice...

AtomicHorror · 27-05-2008 6:13pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

But how about evolution? How could we prove that it never occurred?

One way it could have been falsified by demonstrating natural speciation in the absence of the influence of natural selection, gene flow, mutation or genetic drift... Since evolution predicts that speciation must employ one or more of these mechanisms, their total absence during speciation would show our model to be inaccurate. I say "could have been" because any such demonstration now would only serve to suggest that this may happen in a minority of cases since evolution has been demonstrated to cause speciation every time it has been observed to date. This would require a modification of our theory for some special cases but at this point could not suggest a scrapping of evolutionary theory.

The robustness of the theory due to 150 years of confirming observations is the main reason why we object to creationists attempting to re-invent the wheel not once but over and over in the face of overwhelming evidence.

AtomicHorror · 27-05-2008 6:26pm

Wicknight wrote: »

Please give the name of this "kind" that homo sapiens belong to and the process by which this classification was derived, ie what characteristics of the human species classifies it in this kind as opposed to another kind

this should be interesting :rolleyes:

Ah but humans are unique, dontchaknow. The similarities to the simian kinds are purely coincidental. As are the genetic similarities. And the shared inserted retroviral genes. That's one of God's greatest coinicidences in fact!

New Scientist ran a nice article this week on how we've overstated our uniqueness amongst other species.

wolfsbane · 27-05-2008 6:45pm

bonkey said:

After I shut down my PC last night, it occurred to me

That's what JC and I are here for - to give our unbelieving friends sleepless nights.

that wolfsbane was asking about abiogenesis in order to get me to admit there was no falsifable theory of abiogenesis, in order to make the argument that since abiogenesis is non-falsifiable, then by my logic, anything based on it could not be scientific.

Really? I'm impressed with myself!

That argument would, of course, be wrong.
It would show a lack of understanding (or a deliberate misinterpretation) of fundamental issues to do with the the subjects at hand....because evolution is not based on abiogenesis.

Theoretically, correct. Hence types of Theistic Evolution and Panspermia.

Likewise, theoretically, a mature recent creation does not depend on God or any supernatural cause. It could have been caused by an evolved alien race.

Abiogenesis is not a prerequisite for evolution. It is not a non-falsifiable assumption on which the theory of evolution rests. Rather, the existenceof life (with or without evolution) coupled with a scientific model which gives the earth (or the universe, in the case of universal abiogenesis) a finite age requires that life began at some point. Even a creationist will concede that life began.

No problem.

Thus, abiogenesis is an implication derived from observation (life exists) and - in the scientific models - falsifiable theory (the universe and the earth are finite in age).

How would you show the the universe and the earth are NOT finite in age?

Evolution, in turn, has arisen from observations which support the idea that the further back we look , the "less evolved" the evidence we will find. This is consistent with the notion that, at some point, we reach the beginning...that we get to the point at which we can not have anything "less evolved", and therefore require a point at which life began.

OK.

If we were to overthrow the scientific models which give the universe a finite age, then the requirement for universal abiogenesis would cease to be absolute. While the earth remained of finite age, however, the requirement for abiogenesis on this planet would remain.

OK.

That we do not have a Theory of Abiogenesis (yet) is neither here nor there. Abiogenesis (the event) is a conclusion which arises from falsifiable models. It is not an up-front assumption on which other models rest. Rather, it is a conclusion which is reached from, and supported by, multiple models. Evolution does not require abiogenesis.

As above, theoretically correct.

This is the correct way in which science should work. We work backwards from the information we have, to reach the base conclusions that we then set about modelling. We know that a theory of abiogenesis is required because abiogenesis is an unavoidable logical conclusion of other theories...which themselves are falsifiable.

You should know that the concept of evolution far predates any fossil record observation. It arose from minds philosophising on the possible ways we got to where we are, for example:
Old Earth, Ancient Life: Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/history_06

Evolutionary naturalism: an ancient idea
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1828

Darwin and his followers took the preconceived origins idea and fitted a more scientific model to it.

With Creationism, however, the cart is before the horse. It starts with what should be conclusions - the (young) age of the universe, the divine creation of man, the flood. It has progressed from these assumptions, seeking a model which fits, discarding (or ignoring) anything which conflicts with those assumptions.

As with evolutionism, prior knowledge/assumed knowledge led to a search for the model.

Sure....the scientific method is applied as a clever bit of smoke-and-mirrors to make it look like science, but at its core remains those unchallengeable tenets of Creationist faith.

But they are not the unchallengeable tenets of Creationist science. Creationist faith and creationist science are separate things.

So it is incorrect to compare abiogenesis to these Christian beliefs. The former has arisen as an inescapable conclusion of falsifiable scientific theory. The latter are the assumptions on which the system of Creationism has been built, rather than the conclusions which it has reached. This is ultimately why Wolfsbane will not address the question of falsifiability. It is because there is none and the only way to aboid that admission is to change the subject and simply ignore this inconvenient truth.

Somewhat to my surprise...wolfsbane hasn't gone down this route, but instead asked me the following:

Quote:
Remind me again how the theory of evolution could be falsified.

I thought you just now said Wolfsbane will not address the question of falsifiability?

:D

I'll do better. I'll remind you that not so long ago you were given a link to an article concerning myths about evolution. You thanked the person who posted the link and promised to keep it close at hand. In that article, this very topic was discussed.

Yes, thank you. I just found that article. Misplaced fossils and age seem to be the suggested falsifiers. I dealt with age in another post today, so let me point to the 'get out' evolutionists have for misplaced fossils:
stratigraphic leak; re-worked specimen; paraconformity. See the latter part of this article :
The fossil evidence
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch3-how-fast.asp

I am careful to distinguish my beliefs from science - something I could recommend to you.
I have repeatedly stated my position that science is not about what is. It is about creating models which match observation. This is the only belief of mine regarding science which has been brought into this conversation. I know you like to misconstrue science as being just another form of faith, but thats your lookout, not mine. I'm not responsible for the misconceptions you hold ar attempt to sell. So please...until you learn to stop this wilful misrepresentation of science, and the positions of those who are disagreeing with you, I'd ask you to refrain from offering me recommendations on the subject.

Did I say science was another form of faith? I said science was more than modeling, in my view. It is about things or their effects that can be observed and tested and conclusions drawn therefrom. I'm not aware the spirit world falls into that catagory.

Quote:
I'm content to use your narrow, 'model' definition when discussing models. When we move outside of that, I'm happy if you do not call it science.
And when have I done that, excepting when I point out that your arguments (and Creationism in general) are not about models and therefore not about science?

But creationism does present models.

Indeed, I have argued that when one makes the claim that something is scientific, one is implicitly stating that what is being presented is a model which matches observation, and not a claim of what is real.

OK, I can meet you there. Creationism presents models that match observations. Its models have gaps to yet be explained, as do evolutionary models.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfbane
2 solids, 1 partial, 1 against. Hardly a ringing endorsement!
Well, at least you've done those who responded to you the courtesy of actually going back and seeing what it is they said to you....rather than managing to miss or forget half of them.

Furthermore, I would point out that you explicitly limited the question to apply to scientists. Who else here, who was taking active part in the discussion at that point in time has claimed to be a scientist? (Indeed, I'd eliminate Wicknight from your count on that basis, as IIRC, he's never claimed to be a scientist). I'd also point out that while Scofflaw expressed reservations, I responded to his post, clarifying my position with regard to those reservations, which resulted in his agreement.

So this "non-ringing" endorsement can still be categorised as follows : Anyone who expressed an opinion, who is not a creationist agreed with the basic premise. Anyone who expressed an opinion who is a creationist, disagreed with the basic premise.

Given the relatively small sample-set we have available to us, these results are naturally inconclusive. It is interesting to see, however, that you asked the question in all apparent honesty, and now dismiss the answers as meaningless because of the limited sample-size. One can only wonder what possible purpose you had for asking the question in the first place.

I had jumped to the conclusion that most of those here who presented scientific arguments against creationism were scientists. I now see I was wrong.

Ekancone · 27-05-2008 6:51pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

But creationism does present models.

OK, I can meet you there. Creationism presents models that match observations. Its models have gaps to yet be explained, as do evolutionary models.

See the last video I posted above, Wolfy? THAT is a model, could you provide the creation model?

AtomicHorror · 27-05-2008 6:52pm

daithifleming wrote: »

I don't need to. I know that you are a mutated copy of both your parents genes, and your children will be mutated versions of you and your partner also. You are a transitional form between those generations, and your genome can be used to map this transition using the inherited mutations as guides.

I was gonna challenge you on assuming Wolfsbane's genome is mutated but then I kinda thought about it a bit.

Anyone have a figure on the overall frequency of inherited germline mutations in humans? I've always assumed without looking into it that the frequency would tend to be quite low but when I think about it... with some 40,000 genes (x2 alleles per gene) with a variety of tendencies to mutate, the frequency must be at least 1 inhertied mutation per generation. Of course recessiveness would be likely to keep Wolfsbane (and me) alive but it's interesting to think about it.

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Comments