21 replies to this topic

[ikester7579]

Since evolution has been exalted to a scientific theory, many evolutionists try to proclaim it has also been proven. Even unto the point of saying: It's a true proven fact with mountains of empirical evidence.... But is doing this a new idea that only came about because so much supposed evidence has been found? Would it shock you to know that this particular scheme to convince the unsuspecting public that evolution has been proven has been around since the theory of evolution was still in it's infancy? In the picture below is a New York Time News paper dated December 22, 1912.

 Darwin_true.jpg   30.61KB   1 downloads

What this shows is that evolution really is not science. It's a scheme that evolutionists want to convince the public that it's true since the very day Darwin came up with it. What this also shows is the desperation to get this done that it started from the very beginning.

Why? The goal of the evolutionist-atheist is to justify their disbelief in God. This is why evolution draws mainly atheists and also "converts" people to atheism. As Huxley put it plainly to Darwin: You've killed God sir... So in the attempt of the atheists to get rid of God and have something to believe in that will not remind them of God, they have evolution. So in their attempt to rid themselves of God and feel good about it, they constantly try to exalt evolution to a higher status. One they can try to claim is above God.

This attempt to exalt evolution above God reminds me of the story of the tower of Babel. The reason it was built was to defy God. Higher and higher it was built into the Heavens. The king of that time said that we must wage war with God. And one day when the tower seemed to be high enough, that very king went to the top and shot an arrow into the sky thinking he would either kill God or invoke Him to war with him. And most here know the rest of what happened.

So the question is: Is evolution another attempt to build a tower of babel into the sky to war with God?

And what makes this seemingly even more so. God confusing their language where they could not understand one another. Science, in the name of evolution, often comes up with words that confuse the average person. And most of us cannot even pronounce them. How ironic is that?

[houseofcantor]

Science ain't proof, mathematics is proof; so it is Benoit Mandelbrot who kilt god - of course, such a thing ain't possible.

Scientific theory is validated by experimentation and by making testable predictions. The main gripe against creationism is in not being science, that it offers no predictive modeling.

[jason777]

Science ain't proof, mathematics is proof; so it is Benoit Mandelbrot who kilt god - of course, such a thing ain't possible.

Scientific theory is validated by experimentation and by making testable predictions. The main gripe against creationism is in not being science, that it offers no predictive modeling.

Creation (YEC at least) has always made the same predictions and none of them have been falsified mathematically. Hence, the reason I'm now a YEC instead of a creationist. We always hear that research has just changed what we knew about evolution and the age of the earth over the centuries has changed from 75,000 years to 4.6 billion years incrementally.

To be honest, scientists wouldn't have a clue how old the earth was if it wasn't for their faith in radiometric dating, so I suggest that they can't make any predictions (with the exception of Tiktaalik, which turned out not be what it was thought to be). Russel Humphreys has really put YEC on the map as far a credible, testable, and predictable science goes.



That is good ole laboratory science that was predicted and calculated 2 years before the diffusivity measurements were made. The gravitational fields of Neptune and Uranus were predicted 2 years in advance by YEC assumptions. Predictive power to me is a guide, since I don't gamble or believe that these predictions are just chance occurrences. When geneticists measured our MtDna mutation rates and came up with an empirical MtDna Eve age of ~6,000 years, it was actually comical watching them try to figure out why.

What do you think? Chance or solid confirmation?




Thanks.

[jason777]

Since evolution has been exalted to a scientific theory, many evolutionists try to proclaim it has also been proven. Even unto the point of saying: It's a true proven fact with mountains of empirical evidence.... But is doing this a new idea that only came about because so much supposed evidence has been found? Would it shock you to know that this particular scheme to convince the unsuspecting public that evolution has been proven has been around since the theory of evolution was still in it's infancy? In the picture below is a New York Time News paper dated December 22, 1912.

I remember the supporting evidence for the scopes trial was Piltdown man, which turned out to be a gorilla jaw with it's teeth filed. Jason just posted a thread that has a poll of scientists that knew of dubious methods being used:

In 2009, a study published in the online journal PLoS ONE examined a host of survey data and found that about 2 percent of scientists admitted to falsifying research at least once and up to 34 percent admitted other questionable research practices. Additionally, about 14 percent had observed their colleagues falsifying data and up to 72 percent had witnessed the use of questionable practices.

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=77123



No telling how much rubbish is really out there and the full extent that it actually elevated to.




Thanks.

[ikester7579]

Science ain't proof, mathematics is proof; so it is Benoit Mandelbrot who kilt god - of course, such a thing ain't possible.

I know a mathematician who can prove through math evolution would never be possible. And for that he is not longer welcome in scientific circles.

Scientific theory is validated by experimentation and by making testable predictions. The main gripe against creationism is in not being science, that it offers no predictive modeling.

The reason it makes no predictive modeling is:

1) What is their left to predict in the creation when the creation was created to reproduce after it's kind?

gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

gen 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.

gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Now I know you will ask, what does kind mean? And I will say: Have birds ever been seen producing anything but birds? Do dogs produce anything besides their dog kind? Do lizards produce anything out of the lizard kind? Speciation is "almost" the medium step between micro and macro. But the step required for macro has never been observed and never will be. And claiming micro to infinity = macro because micro is a process of macro is only a cop out for macro being unobservable. And claiming micro and macro are the same thing is also a cop out for macro being unobservable.

2) What is there to predict when nothing has been observed changing past micro-evolution?

God has addressed this problem as well:

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Now what is it that changed the truth of God into a lie that also worships the creature more than the Creator? Evolution.
And who does this? Evolutionists and theistic evolutionist. Why are TEs included in this? A person cannot change the truth of God into a lie unless they knew the truth first. So that fits atheists-evolutionists that know what the word says, and TEs who also know what the word says.

Why are they without excuse as said in verse 20? Because they knew the truth but preferred the lie. And because the truth is known yet the lie is spoken it's like committing perjury in a court of law. There is no excuse for that.

[jason]

i need to post what the oral traditions of the jews say on genesis when i get the rambam commentary.

i will say this by tradition, its only to be taken as literal seven days. and if any christian that seems to disagree let it be known that the entire story and so forth was passed by oral traditions to moses.

so if that is wrong then what else is too?

[houseofcantor]

I know a mathematician who can prove through math evolution would never be impossible. And for that he is not longer welcome in scientific circles.

Dembski?

That cat's been known to take liberties with probability and Shannon information. When I used to debate this subject, I ran across one blog of a sincere creationist who worked in biology; but only one. Yet you and Jason seem sincere. Do you work in the field?

Mainstream science is of necessity conservative. A good illustration of this is the recent neutrino flap. Some eager beavers are calling for the end of Relativity, but that ain't gonna happen because Relativity works. What may happen is a corollary to Relativity to make it a more complete theory. The most successful theory in science is quantum mechanics; and it has been known that a lack of quantum gravity was gonna mean problems with Relativity somewhere down the road.

Evolution is most likely the second most successful scientific theory. And one of the problems is the lack of a solid theory of abiogenesis. (See? Genesis is not overlooked. ) Being a math guy, abiogenesis to me is a simple matter of geometry. It will be theory sooner or later. This is not to disparage YHWH; YHWH is a little more complicated than that.

[Ron]

Science ain't proof, mathematics is proof

Are you attempting to say here that you cannot prove anything via the empirical scientific method? Please clarity…
Yes, you can prove things via mathematics, just as you can invalidate things via mathematics as well.

Scientific theory is validated by experimentation and by making testable predictions.

Yes, scientific hypotheses, model, theories and such are indeed “validated” by experimentation. The testable predictions, hypotheses, model, theories and such are what can be validated OR invalidated via the empirical scientific method. The question though, is why you attempt to assert that you cannot “prove” anything (Science ain't proof) with science; but I’m just waiting for your answer above.

The main gripe against creationism is in not being science, that it offers no predictive modeling.

Evolutionism isn’t science either, and “predictive modeling” isn’t proof, its simply modeling. The proof doesn’t come into play until the model is validated.

[jason777]

Evolution is most likely the second most successful scientific theory. And one of the problems is the lack of a solid theory of abiogenesis. (See? Genesis is not overlooked. ) Being a math guy, abiogenesis to me is a simple matter of geometry. It will be theory sooner or later. This is not to disparage YHWH; YHWH is a little more complicated than that.

Evolution has all of the Federal and Academic funding and all of the secular journal publications, which by default, attracts all of the scientists looking for grants and publicity and also gives it the elephant hurling effect, since most submit papers there (i.e. most scientists submit papers to secular journals; Therefore, evolution must be true).

John C. Sanford and many other scientists were part of the camp until their research convinced them otherwise. If Darwin's idea started out as a true science, then why did 120 libraries and every leading biologist across Europe hide Mendel's research from the public eye (Including Darwin) for 35 years? And if genetics is now compatible with evolution because of further development of the theory, then why does John C. Sanford's publications falsify natural selection through genetic entropy?

If things are going down hill, then it is very likely that divine power put it there to start with. I've seen the estimates from secular sources that estimates an extinction of the human race in 20 million years. Here, they are heavily biased in favor of natural selection slowing things down, so I would put it at 1-5 million. The belief that natural selection is going to replace all of these bad mutations with good ones, simply hasn't passed the observed rates that confirm the opposite and their own experiments has rendered nothing to the contrary.


Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila

Experimental evolution systems allow the genomic study of adaptation, and so far this has been done primarily in asexual systems with small genomes, such as bacteria and yeast1, 2, 3. Here we present whole-genome resequencing data from Drosophila melanogaster populations that have experienced over 600 generations of laboratory selection for accelerated development. Flies in these selected populations develop from egg to adult ~20% faster than flies of ancestral control populations, and have evolved a number of other correlated phenotypes. On the basis of 688,520 intermediate-frequency, high-quality single nucleotide polymorphisms, we identify several dozen genomic regions that show strong allele frequency differentiation between a pooled sample of five replicate populations selected for accelerated development and pooled controls.On the basis of resequencing data from a single replicate population with accelerated development, as well as single nucleotide polymorphism data from individual flies from each replicate population, we infer little allele frequency differentiation between replicate populations within a selection treatment. Signatures of selection are qualitatively different than what has been observed in asexual species; in our S@xual populations, adaptation is not associated with ‘classic’ sweeps whereby newly arising, unconditionally advantageous mutations become fixed. More parsimonious explanations include ‘incomplete’ sweep models, in which mutations have not had enough time to fix, and ‘soft’ sweep models, in which selection acts on pre-existing, common genetic variants. We conclude that, at least for life history characters such as development time, unconditionally advantageous alleles rarely arise, are associated with small net fitness gains or cannot fix because selection coefficients change over time. Link





Enjoy.

[houseofcantor]

Are you attempting to say here that you cannot prove anything via the empirical scientific method? Please clarity…
Yes, you can prove things via mathematics, just as you can invalidate things via mathematics as well.

As I'm sure you know, proof in mathematics involves the theorem. This is because once the axioms are known and the language understood, anything one mathematician can come up with can be validated by anyone doing the mathematics. It's a thorny issue, "proof." Right now, Cantor's Continuum hypothesis is both true and false, with Godel's Incompleteness implying that the answer cannot be known either way.

From a human perspective, that is distinctly unsatisfying - and we're talking math, which is supposed to prove itself.

So to answer your question with a straight answer, no. The scientific method, which when used with rigor produces valid hypotheses; which then become subjected to rigorous testing in independent laboratories to progress to scientific theory - proves nothing completely. Quantum mechanics has passed every test thrown at it - there ain't no gaps in QM, at all - yet there is string theory, oscillating universe, loop quantum gravity - the list goes on and on... why?

Because QM doesn't play well with Relativity. Because the Higgs particle is still theoretical. Because even when we have the answer, we ask - why?

The eleventh post does not make John Cantor an expert on Ron, but it is clear you do not like evolutionary theory. As an atheist, I'm not gonna gloss over human nature - questionable things have been done in the endeavor of science as all human endeavor - and I tend to idealize science. But knowing the limits to my vision does not make me blind. Personally, I have not seen a preponderance of evidence for creationism; rather the opposite.

[ikester7579]

i need to post what the oral traditions of the jews say on genesis when i get the rambam commentary.

i will say this by tradition, its only to be taken as literal seven days. and if any christian that seems to disagree let it be known that the entire story and so forth was passed by oral traditions to moses.

so if that is wrong then what else is too?

If an all powerful God cannot inspire the truth to be written in His word then He is not God. So placing doubt in the truth of the word is also placing doubt about God. Can a all powerful God who created the whole universe not also keep His word true?

[ikester7579]

Dembski?

No he is not famous. I was introduced to him through a friend. Once he found out that I was a creationist he told me his short story of working out equations about evolution, and that nothing could be found wrong with them. It's just the evolutionists did not like the conclusions so it was rejected along with him. He now works a job in sales and tutors those who are mentally challenged in math.

That cat's been known to take liberties with probability and Shannon information. When I used to debate this subject, I ran across one blog of a sincere creationist who worked in biology; but only one. Yet you and Jason seem sincere. Do you work in the field?

No sir. Everything I learn and post here I am self taught on.

Mainstream science is of necessity conservative. A good illustration of this is the recent neutrino flap. Some eager beavers are calling for the end of Relativity, but that ain't gonna happen because Relativity works. What may happen is a corollary to Relativity to make it a more complete theory. The most successful theory in science is quantum mechanics; and it has been known that a lack of quantum gravity was gonna mean problems with Relativity somewhere down the road.

Mainstream science is also known for not wanting to admit being wrong on something when they have nothing to replace what was wrong. They raise a big hoopla about a find and claim it proves evolution only to later be red faced that it was a hoax. Instead of doing the right thing they try and hold onto the wrong thing and many get taught lies because of this. There have been several instances of this through evolutions history of where something was proven fraud and was left in text books for more than 50 years to be taught as truth because they had nothing to replace it with.

Evolution is most likely the second most successful scientific theory. And one of the problems is the lack of a solid theory of abiogenesis. (See? Genesis is not overlooked. ) Being a math guy, abiogenesis to me is a simple matter of geometry. It will be theory sooner or later. This is not to disparage YHWH; YHWH is a little more complicated than that.

Making dead matter come to life will be as hard as making a dead person rise from the dead. There is no way that the idea of abiogenesis is going to fill the gap required to make that step into becoming a theory. This is why a new idea named Panspermia will take it's place. Panspermia is the idea that our planet was seeded with life from a outside source. Either it be more evolved and more intelligent aliens who planted life here, or basic life from a meteor or comet. In this why they eliminate the need to show a process for how life comes from dead matter by claiming the matter was already alive from an outside source. This will make the idea of first life conform to the theory, but conformism is not science.

Finding ways or ideas to go around problems so they do not have to be addressed is not science. You see using panspermia makes it to where they have total control over the information. Who can challenge something that comes from outer space? Who has the ability to run the necessary tests except those who make the claims? When you remove the checks and balances you also open the door for corruption. Science is solely controlled by evolutionist. So what findings would you expect from one group who believes in one thing?

Their bias as to always only find evidence for evolution, and never have their evidence challenged or checked is proven by their total rejection of everything concerning the challenges from creationists and also within their own peer group. How long does someone keep their job in the scientific circles if they voice their objections about evolution? Can you give me just one example of anyone who has been allowed to work in scientific fields and also allowed to be outspoken in their objections to evolution? No because they get fired.

Evolutionism is a conformism only club. If you have evidence to the contrary I would like to see it.

[jason777]

As I'm sure you know, proof in mathematics involves the theorem. This is because once the axioms are known and the language understood, anything one mathematician can come up with can be validated by anyone doing the mathematics. It's a thorny issue, "proof." Right now, Cantor's Continuum hypothesis is both true and false, with Godel's Incompleteness implying that the answer cannot be known either way.

From a human perspective, that is distinctly unsatisfying - and we're talking math, which is supposed to prove itself.


I have not seen a preponderance of evidence for creationism; rather the opposite.

Math places both of us in a pickle. For instance, the empirical rate of sodium being deposited into the ocean can not be extrapolated out to fit into a 4.5 billion year model nor does it fit a 7,000 year model. So, the entire equation of the theorem must, therefore, not be known. Not that math can't prove or settle the issue because one of the assumptions may be empirically validated. It's not exactly a "proof" for YEC, but the theorem can mathematically fit the hypothesis if we assume an initial amount already present at the beginning.

This is the Achilles heel of uniformitairian geology. Catastrophists simply increase the input at some point and see it as an expectation rather than a mathematical limit. The GSA's position statement says "Creationism is not science because it invokes supernatural phenomena that cannot be tested." But they fail to mention that, given the assumption of creation, the mathematical theorem works and the uniformitairian theorem does not.



Enjoy.

[Ron]

Are you attempting to say here that you cannot prove anything via the empirical scientific method? Please clarity…
Yes, you can prove things via mathematics, just as you can invalidate things via mathematics as well.

So to answer your question with a straight answer, no. The scientific method, which when used with rigor produces valid hypotheses; which then become subjected to rigorous testing in independent laboratories to progress to scientific theory - proves nothing completely. Quantum mechanics has passed every test thrown at it - there ain't no gaps in QM, at all - yet there is string theory, oscillating universe, loop quantum gravity - the list goes on and on... why?

I thoroughly enjoy when the atheist totally denies the empirical scientific method when attempting to describe the empirical scientific method! They even use words like “rigor” etc… to make it sound good, but when it boils down to it, they still want to deny the validation that science produces. And, if you’ll notice, cantor attempted to say that the empirical scientific method only “produces valid hypotheses”, then goes on to use “Quantum mechanics”, “string theory”, “oscillating universe” “loop quantum gravity” as examples. But why does he use these as examples instead of actual “empirically proven” and therefore “validated” examples? Simply because he wants us to believe there is somehow substance to these ideas. Why does the atheist attempt to promulgate that science doesn’t actually prove things (such as TRUTH)? Because then they will be held to that standard that real science searches for, and their pet project (macro-evolution for example) will be found to be built upon a house of cards.



The empirical scientific method INDEED proves (validates) things, because the empirical scientific method is a logical series of steps used to validate hypotheses, models, and theories; or invalidate them via experimentation. The empirical scientific method was used to prove the scientific laws we accept today. It also was used to validate the laws of mathematics that can be physically validated (unlike QM etc…)



The steps are generally recognized as follows:



1. Ask a question based upon an initial observation

2. Do research based upon an observation

3. Make a hypothesis based upon an observation

4. Test said hypothesis via inductive experimentation

5. Analyze results and conclude of hypothesis is valid or invalid (true or untrue)

6. If found valid, publish results

7. If found invalid, return to step two (until all possibilities are exhausted and hypothesis cannot be validated).

The above is not all inclusive, as some arrange their steps in a five (5) step sequence, some six (6), some seven (7) etc… But in each and every process of the empirical scientific method, VALIDATION (Truth) or INVALIDATION (Falsification) is the ultimate goal.

To put this in practical everyday terms I’ll provide an everyday application of the empirical scientific method:

Observation: My car doesn’t start (Step one)

Research: What are the possible reasons my car won’t start? (Step two)

Make a hypothesis: My car won’t start because the battery is dead (Step three)

Test said hypothesis via inductive experimentation: Test battery using a multi-meter (Step four)

Analyze results and conclude of hypothesis is valid or invalid: Battery test shows that the battery has no power (Step five)

If found valid, publish results: “Hey honey the car battery is dead, I have to buy a new one!” (Step six)

If found invalid, return to step two: Battery test shows that the battery has power, check starter etc…. (Step seven)

So when the evolutionist attempts to force upon you anything other than the actual empirical method, or that science doesn’t prove things, think of everyday applications )like the one above), and prove them wrong by invalidating their hypothesis using the empirical scientific method!


Have a nice day!

[jason]

gee i am arguing that elsewhere.

[Ron]

gee i am arguing that elsewhere.

The odd thing is that we even have to argue the empirical scientifc method, as if it doesn't prove/validate or disprove/invalidate ideas, models and theories.

People like "Cantor" are simply in denial, and cannot reason correctly.

[MarkForbes]

The shear fact that one can prove/explain things with logic and models based on it of course opens a whole other can of worms.

[ikester7579]

The shear fact that one can prove/explain things with logic and models based on it of course opens a whole other can of worms.

So you believe that evolution, because of logic and models has merit?

[MarkForbes]

So you believe that evolution, because of logic and models has merit?

Not really, but consider the following:
1.) humans are able to reason logically, to create and understand models. That is so because we can grasp rules of logic.
2.) Those rules of logic also apply in nature including biological systems.
3.) For living organisms to rise from atomic matter, surely it had to be designed that way.
4.) Yet dead matter doesn't do that, it rather tends to a state that is being functionally disorganized.
5.) Logic in it self is immaterial. Now that's a problem for a materialist. Actually the learning about (knowing to be true) of rules of logic is a problem for any empiricism. You can't learn math and logic by simple sense perception. More belongs to that.

[jason]

http://creation.com/...e-a-millionaire

related. these guys are honest.

and here is the original page.

http://www.us.net/life/rul_abou.htm