Jump to content


Photo

Science


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
31 replies to this topic

#21 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,989 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 16 March 2012 - 08:39 PM

Well, the only way to see which one has the most predictive power, we'll have to do tests to see. Now, using common ancestry, I can determine that all life-forms will share some kind of similarty, as is the case with the fact we share something like 50% of our DNA with a banana. How exactly does design deal with that? I honestly don't know, as I've never heard a prediction being done based on the design hypothesis, neither has anyone bothered to tell me what the design hypothesis was in any great detail. So, what is the design hypothesis's hypothesis?


I don't think I have. The validity of a hypothesis is determined by ho well it compares to tests of hypothesis, not how much data it can explain.


Well, one cannot make science without a few base assumptions, such as the fact that the universe does in fact exist, and it's not simply some huge simulation running in our brains. The second assumption would be that the laws governing the universe can be discovered using empirical tests to determine the nature of our universe. Not a shred of evidence can validate these assumptions, because without these assumptions, evidence means absolutely nothing.


What kind of corroborating evidence are we talking about here? Because as we all know, history books can be written to have whatever we want in those pages. Not only must that historical corroborate your hypothesis, it must also be consistent with the majority of other history books concerning what really happened. In the same way, evidence must be corroborated with a lt of other evidence to make sure everything fits in the gbig picture. When things don't fit, either we were mistaken in our understanding of the big picture, or there's a mistake somewhere. ie for the fossilized soft tissue and fossilized red blood cell remains that were found in the dinosaur bones lately, that on its own would be treated in the same way that if a reference to Hitler was found in an ancient Egyptian book. It would simply not make sense. However, if using that evidence we start seeing references to Hitler everywhere in Egyptian culture, then maybe we're on to something. Similarly, if we start cracking open the bones of all the dinosaurs and find fossilized remains of soft tissue in a lot of them, then we'd be onto something. But we can't throw out the entire puzzle because one piece doesn't fit.


Ah, I'm sorry, I didn't mean looking at the big picture and deciding what the facts must be like, then to make them conform to how we predict it to be. I meant taking in the big picture as in taking all the evidence and trying to see where it's leading us. Sort of like a general observation that everything falls more or less at the same speed independently of the mass of said objects, we can sort of assume that the earth's gravitational pull has nothing to do with the mass of the object. Of course, that has been proven to be not entirely accurate, it's just that the mass of the earth is so much bigger than the mass of any simple object we can drop that the object's mass is to all intents and purposes irrelevant. However, just because that was the starting big picture, we're not then going to say 'No, planets don't attract each other proportional to the square of their mass and inversely proportional to the square of the distance, that's not what we predicted!' we're obviously going to reconsider. Just like has been done many times with the theory of evolution, from darwinism to neo-darwinism to the modern synthesis.


Well, science tries to get the big picture, in the hopes that the big picture we get is the most accurate representation of the natural universe around us as far as we can see. The big picture 200 ish years ago was earth-centric (ptolemaic model), then it became sun-centric, now we realize we're simply on an unimportant planet orbiting an otherwise unremarkable star in one of many arms of a perfectly normal galaxy in the universe. That is how the big picture has changed over time as we take into account new evidence and new observations.


It might be useful :P Especially to finally understand what's the big difference between observable, historical sciences, and inductive abductive and deductive reasoning I keep hearing about.


As I said they both have the same predictive power. Common design = Similarities, Common Descent = Similarities... The problem with common descent is that the genetic tree is different to the phylogeny tree so that prediction goes against evolution.


Your response here certifies that you do not understand my point. When you have 2 probable answers to a problem that are contradictory but both have the same creditability then the problem is unfalsifiable.


The assumptions we make in science are ONLY done for the hypothesis, anything else and it is no longer scientific... Assuming common descent for the above problem is one such example.


All the evidence of evolution is either an ad hoc claim or an extrapolation... Such things are not actual evidence, hence what I was saying.
In terms of the dino bones... We find soft tissue in dino bones... We run simulations on protein and DNA degradation and find that they CANNOT last longer than about 10,000.... (with the sized fragments of DNA that were found)... So the most logical answer is that the dates given to these fossils is wrong, there can be no other explanation. (Especially since decay rates etc have already been extensively studied).... This effectively cuts the amount of time evolution has to work with, (and vindicates the Biblical amount of time). Yet the evolutionist will sweep these problems away, hence they are not scientific.


But that is what you said. You start with the "big picture" and then go from there. The scientific method demands we start with observations of reality.... Since "the big picture" is just a person's own assumption on what reality is... Never base data on an assumption.
Please research the scientific method if you do not believe me, science always starts with an observation, not what we think we should observe.


ANd you've shown how adhering to "the big picture" means that we are liable to be false, since it has continually changed... Hence sticking to reality, rather than an assumption of reality is the best course of action.

#22 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 17 March 2012 - 09:11 AM


Well, the only way to see which one has the most predictive power, we'll have to do tests to see.



The term "Predictive Power" holds no greater weight than the statement "I am guessing" when dealing with a hypothesis.

#23 Alex

Alex

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 59 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ottawa, Canada

Posted 17 March 2012 - 01:16 PM

As I said they both have the same predictive power. Common design = Similarities, Common Descent = Similarities... The problem with common descent is that the genetic tree is different to the phylogeny tree so that prediction goes against evolution.

Perhaps you are confusing predictive power with validity?
Common descent - similarities between related organisms in the genes and in the body shape, which can be traced and measured using fossils, genetics, studying bones, and which can be used to make predictions as to whether two 'unknown' animals are related, and to what extent.
Common design - some organisms are similar because a common designer designed them that way. Well, what about how similar things are? What about entirely different organisms, ie comparing slime mold, which is neither animal nor plant nor mushroom, to the rest of life on earth? What are the explanations, the predictions, other than 'similar stuff was made similar because the designer made it that way, and different stuff are different because the designer made them that way? What are the qualities, the specifics of design? How can we tell if something was designed or not?
That is what I mean by predictive power. The ability to withstand questioning, and to come up with answers, the ability to make predictions to allow us to better understand our world.


Your response here certifies that you do not understand my point. When you have 2 probable answers to a problem that are contradictory but both have the same creditability then the problem is unfalsifiable.

Indeed I do not, because having 2 probable answers that are contradictory and have the same credibility (which mind you, I'm not saying is the case or creationism and ID) does not mean it is unfalsifiable. If there was a splattered egg on the floor, an egg carton on the counter, does the fact that the egg may have rolled off the counter or that someone might have dropped it on the floor mean the problem is unfalsifiable?

The assumptions we make in science are ONLY done for the hypothesis, anything else and it is no longer scientific... Assuming common descent for the above problem is one such example.

I'm not entirely sure how we can have assumptions that are not used to make hypotheses, could you explain?

All the evidence of evolution is either an ad hoc claim or an extrapolation... Such things are not actual evidence, hence what I was saying.
In terms of the dino bones... We find soft tissue in dino bones... We run simulations on protein and DNA degradation and find that they CANNOT last longer than about 10,000.... (with the sized fragments of DNA that were found)... So the most logical answer is that the dates given to these fossils is wrong, there can be no other explanation. (Especially since decay rates etc have already been extensively studied).... This effectively cuts the amount of time evolution has to work with, (and vindicates the Biblical amount of time). Yet the evolutionist will sweep these problems away, hence they are not scientific.

So the discovery of Tiktaalik after 5 years of digging and reaserch to find the specific site in which a possible tetrapod-fish transitional fossil would be found, is an ad-hoc claim or an extrapolation?

Ummm, no. If you were to take 500 different objects and drop them all, and then take a helium baloon and drop it, would you then proceed to throw out the entire theory of gravity out the window, because of one object which didn't behave exactly according to the theory? No. Similarly, you cannot assume that after years and years of research, testing, and confirmation, that one single piece of evidence can and will destroy the entire radiometric dating method. That is going to extremes.
I do agree that there is something truly unique that went on inside those dino bones, but I have not made enough research to say much of anything really.
So let me get this straight. There are fossilized remains of biogenic material that cannot survive millions of years inside a completely isolated bone core (biology), therefore radiometric dating is wrong (physics), as that bone was found in an old strata (geology) so therefore that proved evolution wrong (biology). So you want to use the geologic discovery of a fossil using methods of biology to discredit biology, physics and geology?

But that is what you said. You start with the "big picture" and then go from there. The scientific method demands we start with observations of reality.... Since "the big picture" is just a person's own assumption on what reality is... Never base data on an assumption.
Please research the scientific method if you do not believe me, science always starts with an observation, not what we think we should observe.

Well, at first we make general observations. You can't start the study of insects by looking at the way their leg joints bend if you want to understand their behavior. You have to first look at insects as a whole, their behavior, and then their leg joints if that somehow affects their behavious. I'm sorry, that was what I meant by 'the big picture', starting with general observations and becoming more and more specific as time progresses.

ANd you've shown how adhering to "the big picture" means that we are liable to be false, since it has continually changed... Hence sticking to reality, rather than an assumption of reality is the best course of action.

The fact our perception of the big picture changes has no effect on what the big picture really is. So long as the changes are continually directed closer towards the 'real' picture and not away from it, the number of changes do not matter.
And you are completely correct, we should always be based in reality. The scientific method's only criteria is adherence to reality, not how people view reality or how they feel about the discoveries in science.


The term "Predictive Power" holds no greater weight than the statement "I am guessing" when dealing with a hypothesis.

I do not think you understand what I mean by predictive power. Perhaps I should have said explanatory power instead.
What I mean by that is that a theory's validity depends solely on how much it can explain and how well it can explain reality. Predictive/explanatory power is used to replace the 'I am guessing' with 'This is the evidence I found out, and it suggests this or that correlation'. Essentially, predictive power and explanatory power are used to determine what works and what doesn't, what adheres to reality and what doesn't.

#24 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 17 March 2012 - 02:01 PM


The term "Predictive Power" holds no greater weight than the statement "I am guessing" when dealing with a hypothesis.


I do not think you understand what I mean by predictive power. Perhaps I should have said explanatory power instead.
What I mean by that is that a theory's validity depends solely on how much it can explain and how well it can explain reality. Predictive/explanatory power is used to replace the 'I am guessing' with 'This is the evidence I found out, and it suggests this or that correlation'. Essentially, predictive power and explanatory power are used to determine what works and what doesn't, what adheres to reality and what doesn't.



No, I fully understand what you’re inferring by “predictive power”. The problem is, you are giving way too much weight to your definition of “predictive power”, as if it were factual, as opposed to opinionated; which, of course, is nothing more than a guess.

Now, if by “predictive power”, you meant something like “every time I squeeze a tube containing toothpaste, I predict toothpaste will extrude out of the open end”. Then your “predictive power” would be based upon many life-times of inductive empirical scientific experience. But what you're attempting to define as “predictive power”, is nothing like that!

#25 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 17 March 2012 - 03:09 PM

Predictive power is only good if the observations match the predictions made.
  • CMB was predicted to emanate outward, but was confirmed to be uniform.
  • Darwin predicted constant evolution, which was proven wrong by stasis and Mendel's law of heredity.
Creation, in contrast, has made the same predictions and the observations match those predictions.
  • The magnetic fields of Neptune and Uranus were predicted two years before they were measured.
  • The age of the earths oldest basement rocks were predicted two years before the helium diffusivity rates were measured.
  • The age of Mtdna Eve was predicted well before the empirical rates were measured.
  • Dinosaurs living thousands of years ago was predicted well before proteins were found in fossils that have half lives on the order of ~500 years.
  • Common design was predicted well before all of the the primate genomes were mapped, which shows that Humans share just as much similarity with gorillas as they do with chimps.
I have an entire thread with many more empirical correlations that have always been correct to start with. So, how can evolution claim to have predictive power?


Enjoy.

#26 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 17 March 2012 - 03:35 PM

Predictive power is only good if the observations match the predictions made.



Kinda the point I was making Jason ;)

The prediction can only get its power from "after the fact" evidence! :)

#27 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,989 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 17 March 2012 - 07:00 PM

1. Perhaps you are confusing predictive power with validity?

2. Common descent - similarities between related organisms in the genes and in the body shape, which can be traced and measured using fossils, genetics, studying bones, and which can be used to make predictions as to whether two 'unknown' animals are related, and to what extent.

3. Common design - some organisms are similar because a common designer designed them that way. Well, what about how similar things are? What about entirely different organisms, ie comparing slime mold, which is neither animal nor plant nor mushroom, to the rest of life on earth?

4. What are the explanations, the predictions, other than 'similar stuff was made similar because the designer made it that way, and different stuff are different because the designer made them that way? What are the qualities, the specifics of design? How can we tell if something was designed or not?
That is what I mean by predictive power. The ability to withstand questioning, and to come up with answers, the ability to make predictions to allow us to better understand our world.



5. Indeed I do not, because having 2 probable answers that are contradictory and have the same credibility (which mind you, I'm not saying is the case or creationism and ID) does not mean it is unfalsifiable. If there was a splattered egg on the floor, an egg carton on the counter, does the fact that the egg may have rolled off the counter or that someone might have dropped it on the floor mean the problem is unfalsifiable?


6. I'm not entirely sure how we can have assumptions that are not used to make hypotheses, could you explain?


7. So the discovery of Tiktaalik after 5 years of digging and reaserch to find the specific site in which a possible tetrapod-fish transitional fossil would be found, is an ad-hoc claim or an extrapolation?

8. Ummm, no. If you were to take 500 different objects and drop them all, and then take a helium baloon and drop it, would you then proceed to throw out the entire theory of gravity out the window, because of one object which didn't behave exactly according to the theory? No. Similarly, you cannot assume that after years and years of research, testing, and confirmation, that one single piece of evidence can and will destroy the entire radiometric dating method. That is going to extremes.
I do agree that there is something truly unique that went on inside those dino bones, but I have not made enough research to say much of anything really.

9. So let me get this straight. There are fossilized remains of biogenic material that cannot survive millions of years inside a completely isolated bone core (biology), therefore radiometric dating is wrong (physics), as that bone was found in an old strata (geology) so therefore that proved evolution wrong (biology). So you want to use the geologic discovery of a fossil using methods of biology to discredit biology, physics and geology?


10. Well, at first we make general observations. You can't start the study of insects by looking at the way their leg joints bend if you want to understand their behavior. You have to first look at insects as a whole, their behavior, and then their leg joints if that somehow affects their behavious. I'm sorry, that was what I meant by 'the big picture', starting with general observations and becoming more and more specific as time progresses.



1. How so?

2.
fossil evidence = ad hoc + assumed
genetic similarities = assumed (epigenetics invalidates this line of "evidence")
similar morphology = assumed

3. I can ask you where does slime molds fit into evolution?...

4. Jason has already given you a comprehensive list.

5. If you have NO way to determine if someone dropped the egg or if it rolled then it absolutely is unfalsifiable.. since it cannot be proven. I suggest you look up what falsifiable actually means. This is the same with common design / common descent, no-one was there at the time so it cannot be verified (unlike your analogy from which you can ask people if they dropped an egg, etc).

6. As I said assuming "evolution did it", when there is no way to verify it. Further, assuming similarities in fossils was the product of evolution, plus assuming that similarities in DNA code is also the product of evolution... (as I said epigenetics invalidates this "evidence"). Both sides are based on assumption as there is no way to know... At least the Creationist side recognises this, whereas the evolutionist plays word games and claims its a "fact".

7. Considering that foot prints dated in Poland are millions of years older than Tiktaalik, kinda puts that "evidence" to shame... :snapoutofit: You could say, like one of my Bio teachers.. "Well it could have lived before that time".. However this IS an assumption, and an ad hoc claim since that wasn't claimed before..... I suggest further :kaffeetrinker:

8. Dude its not just ONE fossil. There have been repeats over and over and the same tissue and DNA is being found all over the place. Hence your entire paragraph is debunk. The soft tissue is a huge problem whether you want to believe it or not.

9. Nice try at trying to segregate the problem... (damage control)... When you get an age that is based on an unverified method upheld on assumptions and then you have structures existing that invalidate that age then you have a problem. It doesn't matter what sphere of science the data comes from, if it invalidates it then it invalidates it. Period.

Further the radiometric dating system is fundamentally flawed, (I believe I have already written this somewhere).

It assumes that decay is constant
it assumes that decay is the same value as it is today

But the kicker is that no-one knows the initial amount of the radioactive substance... Hence you can work out the half life of all the elements, yet if you do not know how much of the radioactive isotope was there right at the start then you have no end point... you have nowhere to draw the line.

Now consider this with the empirical tests done on DNA / protein decay... Now you tell me which is more reliable?



10. So you didn't say this in post #16

" If you do manage to make an observation of a fact that has happened in the past, you can possibly create an experiment to test whether your hypothesis of what happened is accurate. If not, (eg you cannot test the sacking of Baghdad again), you can still propose a hypothesis as to how exactly the sacking proceeded, based on prior observations and resent knowledge. If you predict they used machine guns, well your hypothesis is falsified because obviously they didn'T exist at the time. You start with the big picture, and when you cannot focus your hypothesis anymore (unable to test hypothesis because conditions were unknown, not enough historical data, etc) you sit back and say, well, this is as close as it gets', you sit back, and check up on it from time to time as knowledge increases. That is still science."

Because your claims here defy what you're claiming to say now... Because sitting back and saying "well this is as close as it gets" is not having a general look at the thing.

#28 Alex

Alex

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 59 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ottawa, Canada

Posted 19 March 2012 - 07:42 PM

"No, I fully understand what you’re inferring by “predictive power”. The problem is, you are giving way too much weight to your definition of “predictive power”, as if it were factual, as opposed to opinionated; which, of course, is nothing more than a guess.

Now, if by “predictive power”, you meant something like “every time I squeeze a tube containing toothpaste, I predict toothpaste will extrude out of the open end”. Then your “predictive power” would be based upon many life-times of inductive empirical scientific experience. But what you're attempting to define as “predictive power”, is nothing like that!"

Definition of predictive power: http://en.wikipedia....redictive_power
Basically, the predictive power of a theory is its ability to provide testable (and thus falsifiable) predictions. The more a theory can create specific predictions, the more predictive power that theory has, thus the more it is capable of explaining and the more definite those explanations will be.
I don't think I was lending the term too much power. Empirical tests are not a matter of guesses or opinions, they are a matter of fact.

I'm not the one attempting to define predictive power! It has been defined by many who are much more adept than me at this. I'm merely using the definition they have provided.

What is the predictive power of the creationist or intelligent design side?





"Predictive power is only good if the observations match the predictions made.
  • CMB was predicted to emanate outward, but was confirmed to be uniform.
  • Darwin predicted constant evolution, which was proven wrong by stasis and Mendel's law of heredity."
No, predictive power is good for the quality and quantity of testable predictions. If the results match the predictions, then the model is accurate and functioning. If the results do not meed the predictions, then the model needs to be tweaked to be able to predict such events.
I'm not sure exactly what CMB is, if it is perhaps the microwave background radiation, but I have not made any research on that, so I cannot tell.
As for evolution, evolution occurs anyways, even if a species remains the same. So long as random mutations and natural selections are acting upon a population/species, even if that selection is to remove all change, then the population is evolving to remain the way it is, up until the point where conditions change, selection changes, and the species will evolve to adapt itself to a different environment/set of conditions.


"Creation, in contrast, has made the same predictions and the observations match those predictions.
  • The magnetic fields of Neptune and Uranus were predicted two years before they were measured.
  • The age of the earths oldest basement rocks were predicted two years before the helium diffusivity rates were measured.
  • The age of Mtdna Eve was predicted well before the empirical rates were measured.
  • Dinosaurs living thousands of years ago was predicted well before proteins were found in fossils that have half lives on the order of ~500 years.
  • Common design was predicted well before all of the the primate genomes were mapped, which shows that Humans share just as much similarity with gorillas as they do with chimps.
I have an entire thread with many more empirical correlations that have always been correct to start with. So, how can evolution claim to have predictive power?


Enjoy."

Magnetic fields: Good, then the creationist model is accurate for representing the magnetic field of planets whose internal cores are slowing down and whose magnetic fields are weakening!
Helium diffusivity: That is however far from being the definitive answer to all the other evidence pointing to earth being 4.5 billions of years old. If it predicted the helium rates, then good. If it predicted 6000 years, then not so good.
Mtdna: I would be interested in reading about this. Could you provide me with more?
Dinosaurs: I have not done enough research on the finding of fossilized tissue inside a dinosaur bone, but surely you are not suggesting this one bone is enough evidence to counter all the other older bones of dinosaurs that have been found?
Common design: Well, this does resonate strongly with the common descent hypothesis of the theory of evolution. What exactly are the differences between the two, because common descent also shows common design between all the mammals, and between the mammals and reptiles, and between amphibians and reptiles, and between fish and amphibians, and all the way down to the very specific facets of life such as bilateral symmetry and chordates.

Empirical correlations that have always been correct to start with? I'm sorry, but that's not how science works. With the scientific method, you come up with a hypothesis, and try your best to destroy it. When you can't, then it passes the test. Taking something as correct from the beginning and having it stand the test against contrary evidence, instead of trying to disprove it yourself, is not science.

#29 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,989 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 19 March 2012 - 09:35 PM

So what predictions have evolutionists made? Apart from ad hoc assertions AFTER the facts were found.
  • MarkForbes likes this

#30 Alex

Alex

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 59 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ottawa, Canada

Posted 20 March 2012 - 09:33 AM

1. How so?

2.
fossil evidence = ad hoc + assumed
genetic similarities = assumed (epigenetics invalidates this line of "evidence")
similar morphology = assumed

3. I can ask you where does slime molds fit into evolution?...

4. Jason has already given you a comprehensive list.

5. If you have NO way to determine if someone dropped the egg or if it rolled then it absolutely is unfalsifiable.. since it cannot be proven. I suggest you look up what falsifiable actually means. This is the same with common design / common descent, no-one was there at the time so it cannot be verified (unlike your analogy from which you can ask people if they dropped an egg, etc).

6. As I said assuming "evolution did it", when there is no way to verify it. Further, assuming similarities in fossils was the product of evolution, plus assuming that similarities in DNA code is also the product of evolution... (as I said epigenetics invalidates this "evidence"). Both sides are based on assumption as there is no way to know... At least the Creationist side recognises this, whereas the evolutionist plays word games and claims its a "fact".

7. Considering that foot prints dated in Poland are millions of years older than Tiktaalik, kinda puts that "evidence" to shame... :snapoutofit: You could say, like one of my Bio teachers.. "Well it could have lived before that time".. However this IS an assumption, and an ad hoc claim since that wasn't claimed before..... I suggest further :kaffeetrinker:

8. Dude its not just ONE fossil. There have been repeats over and over and the same tissue and DNA is being found all over the place. Hence your entire paragraph is debunk. The soft tissue is a huge problem whether you want to believe it or not.

9. Nice try at trying to segregate the problem... (damage control)... When you get an age that is based on an unverified method upheld on assumptions and then you have structures existing that invalidate that age then you have a problem. It doesn't matter what sphere of science the data comes from, if it invalidates it then it invalidates it. Period.

Further the radiometric dating system is fundamentally flawed, (I believe I have already written this somewhere).

It assumes that decay is constant
it assumes that decay is the same value as it is today

But the kicker is that no-one knows the initial amount of the radioactive substance... Hence you can work out the half life of all the elements, yet if you do not know how much of the radioactive isotope was there right at the start then you have no end point... you have nowhere to draw the line.

Now consider this with the empirical tests done on DNA / protein decay... Now you tell me which is more reliable?



10. So you didn't say this in post #16

" If you do manage to make an observation of a fact that has happened in the past, you can possibly create an experiment to test whether your hypothesis of what happened is accurate. If not, (eg you cannot test the sacking of Baghdad again), you can still propose a hypothesis as to how exactly the sacking proceeded, based on prior observations and resent knowledge. If you predict they used machine guns, well your hypothesis is falsified because obviously they didn'T exist at the time. You start with the big picture, and when you cannot focus your hypothesis anymore (unable to test hypothesis because conditions were unknown, not enough historical data, etc) you sit back and say, well, this is as close as it gets', you sit back, and check up on it from time to time as knowledge increases. That is still science."

Because your claims here defy what you're claiming to say now... Because sitting back and saying "well this is as close as it gets" is not having a general look at the thing.


1. Validity means something that is acceptable as valid, meaning say there are no internal contradictions in the design hypothesis. However, you can have an infinite number of valid statements, and that has no impact on their truth. You need to have a stricter definition that simply 'acceptable' for a theory.
That's where predictive power comes in, ie what can we do with a theory, how many predictions we can make, how accurate those predictions are, etc.

2. Fossil evidence is evidence of ancient organisms being fossilized. That is 100% factual. Observing that fossils show some species gradually changing over time is observation leading to the creation of a hypothesis. This thesis can then be tested by predicting the appearance of a certain fossil who should exist in a gap between sequences if such a theory were correct. It's not ad-hoc.

Genetic similarities invalidated? Really? The fact you share more DNA with primates than with any other mammal, with mammals more than any reptile, and with reptiles more than any other amphibian, in decreasing order of genetic similarity, disproves evolution?
Also, epigenetics explain how the environments affects the genome and its expression throughout our life. It has no impact on your genome itself.

Similar morphology is assumed? The fact that the overwhelming majority of amphibians, reptiles and mammals have a spine, 4 limbs, a cranium that is separate from the chest with a neck, is not evidence for evolution, because it is assumed? If morphological differences weren't evidence for evolution, then looking at a squid and a monkey you wouldn't be able to tell which you are more related to, and much less why.
It may be assumed in our minds, but it is explained scientifically. The assumption is in our heads, not in the science textbooks.

4. Indeed he has, and I'd be interested to see what other predictions you could come up with.

5. Of course, I completely agree. However, evidence that someone was there at the time, that the egg was initially in an egg carton, that a frying pan is on the hot plate, which has been turned on, and that you can see a footprint in the squashed egg with footprints walking away, would you still say it's impossible to know? We can't be 100% SURE the egg didn't just randomly jump out of the egg carton and start rolling, but which of the two hypotheses is more likely to be true, all things considered?

6. Well, there's no way to prove whether the assumption that 'gravity did it' is at all an accurate representation of reality either then, now is it? What tells you the craters on the moon were made by aliens playing interstellar golf instead of asteroid bombardment? We weren't there, so we can't know, right? Well, again, no. We can look at corroborating facts and circumstantial evidence which can tip the scale strongly towards one hypothesis or another, even though we may never tell with 100% certainty. By the way, in any scientific experiment where data is collected, statistics are used, and statistical analysis methods help us say if the results are good or not according to our hypothesis. The limit for certainty is 95%. So if using the scientific method and statistical models of the data you've got, you cannot say you are 95% sure of your results, then it's no good. I'd sure as hell take "I'm 95% sure" instead of "we can never know" any day, thank you very much.
Also, as I said, yes fossils were used to formulate the theory of evolution, but they were also used as the reality against which to measure predictions. Same thing with DNA. Evolution theory says we will not find a brand new gene with no prior history, but recycled and modified sequences used in other parts of the body, re-accomodated to perform a different job.
And again, epigenetics does not invalidate genetic similarity. I would be very happy to discuss these two points further if you wish :)

7. The presence or absence of the foot print has no effect upon the fact that Tiktaalik presents some qualities which are completely distinct from fish, a flat (and solid) head with both eyes on top, separated from the chest with vertebrae being a good example. Fish have no necks, Tiktaalik did.
Also, I would be interested to read about that footprint. It's a shame we don't have the fossil of the animal which made that footprint, no? It would severely harm evolution, stating that there were land animals long before amphibians even existed. As it is, we're left to interpret a print in the sand.

8. I have only read of the discovery of fossilized soft tissue and fossilized cell-like remains within only one dinosaur bone. I would very much like to read about all the other bones which are being cracked open :)

9. Well, it does matter if one bit of evidence invalidates the thousands of observations and facts explained by all tho other theories in all the other fields of science, yes. If science is to accurately represent reality, then it cannot be internally inconsistent, since reality isn't either. That's why everything fits together, from the big bang to star formation to planet formation to the geology of the earth to the evolution of living species living on it to the physics who govern the radioactive particles we use to date it all. Creationism and ID as they are now would stick out like a giant sore thumb if they were ever incorporated into science, as YEC agrees with NONE of the above.

As for radiometric decay, yes, and it would still be constant in the same way a sine wave is constant. Just because the tide goes in and out doesn't mean on the whole it is not predictable, repeatable and constant.
Also, we do not have much valid data pointing that radiometric decay was significantly different in the past, as if that were the case, we couldn't make any sense whatsoever of isochron age dating of uranium and its 10+ radioactive daughter isotopes, all with different half-lives. If decay were not constant, we would see a marked difference in the ratio of daughter isotopes, and we couldn't back trace them to a single date, we'd be having estimates all over the place.

As for the quantity of initial radioactive material, this can be determined using various methods. Do you seriously think scientists who have been working on this for over a hundred years have NOT thought about it?

As for protein decay, nothing tells us that protein decay wasn't significantly slower in the past, now does it? That would help to explain why Noah turned to be somewhere around 800 in the bible, no? Notice that there is a difference between assuming the decay rates were the same and disproving it, versus assuming decay rates were different from today vs not assuming so. The first is possible via the scientific method (to disprove), whereas the second is an assumption.

10. Sitting back and saying you're as close as it gets is what comes after examining the big picture, and then correcting, fixing, zooming in, correcting some more, using a microscope to ensure the parts of the big picture fit together, more correcting, using an electron microscopy to make sure that the surface of the picture is uniform, doing some fixing of details, using X-rays to determine that yes, the material used to make the big picture is all the same, etc etc etc, up to the point where you can no longer go 'smaller'. Then, when future breakthroughs allow you to go 'smaller', you go back to the big picture you left alone and correct it some more. Understand though that no single correction you make using electron microscopy will ever be visible by the naked eye, but we correct it anyways.

#31 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 20 March 2012 - 11:35 AM

Helium diffusivity: That is however far from being the definitive answer to all the other evidence pointing to earth being 4.5 billions of years old. If it predicted the helium rates, then good. If it predicted 6000 years, then not so good.


Posted Image

This was a prediction. The earth being 4.5 billion years old was not predicted; Rather, it was agreed upon by numerous amounts of radiometric dates that were assumed to be correct after deciding which ones were the most likely to be correct.

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=76933

Over the last 150 years, the age of the earth has changed dozens of times from just millions to billions of years. So, the OE's can claim no unique predictions on the age of the earth.


Mtdna: I would be interested in reading about this. Could you provide me with more?


"More recent direct mtDNA mutation rate studies also seem to confirm the earlier findings by Parsons and others. In an 2001 article published in the American Journal of Human Genetics, Evelyne Heyer et. al., presented their findings of the mtDNA mutation rate in deep-rooted French-Canadian pedigrees.

Their findings "Confirm[ed] earlier findings of much greater mutation rates in families than those based on phylogenetic comparisons. . . For the HVI sequences, we obtained 220 generations or 6,600 years, and for the HVII sequences 275 generations or 8,250 years. Although each of these values is associated with a large variance, they both point to ~7,000-8,000 years and, therefore, to the early Neolithic as the time of expansion [mostly northern European in origin] . . . Our overall CR mutation-rate estimate of 11.6 per site per million generations . . . is higher, but not significantly different, than the value of 6.3 reported in recent the recent pedigree study of comparable size . . . In another study (Soodyall et al. 1997), no mutations were detected in 108 transmissions. On the other hand, two substitutions were observed in 81 transmissions by Howell et al. (1996), and nine substitutions were observed in 327 transmissions by Parsons et al. (1997). Combining all these data (1,729 transmissions) results in the mutation rate of 15.5 (Cl 10.3-22.1). Taking into account only those from deep-rooting pedigrees (1,321 transmissions) (Soodyall et al. 1997; Sigurdardottir et al. 2000; the present study) leads to the value of 7.9. The latter, by avoiding experimental problems with heteroplasmy, may provide a more realistic approximation of the overall mutation rate."

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=52826

Dinosaurs: I have not done enough research on the finding of fossilized tissue inside a dinosaur bone, but surely you are not suggesting this one bone is enough evidence to counter all the other older bones of dinosaurs that have been found?


As you suspected, of course not.

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=24699

Common design: Well, this does resonate strongly with the common descent hypothesis of the theory of evolution. What exactly are the differences between the two, because common descent also shows common design between all the mammals, and between the mammals and reptiles, and between amphibians and reptiles, and between fish and amphibians, and all the way down to the very specific facets of life such as bilateral symmetry and chordates.


If common design didn't carry more predictive power than common descent, then why do they have to employ the term "convergent evolution" to explain it away?

Empirical correlations that have always been correct to start with? I'm sorry, but that's not how science works.


So now your suggesting that science shouldn't make accurate predictions? If they were wrong, it wouldn't have been a prediction and a non predictive idea is a washed up hypothesis.



Enjoy.

#32 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,989 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 20 March 2012 - 12:46 PM

1. Validity means something that is acceptable as valid, meaning say there are no internal contradictions in the design hypothesis. However, you can have an infinite number of valid statements, and that has no impact on their truth. You need to have a stricter definition that simply 'acceptable' for a theory.
That's where predictive power comes in, ie what can we do with a theory, how many predictions we can make, how accurate those predictions are, etc.

2. Fossil evidence is evidence of ancient organisms being fossilized. That is 100% factual. Observing that fossils show some species gradually changing over time is observation leading to the creation of a hypothesis. This thesis can then be tested by predicting the appearance of a certain fossil who should exist in a gap between sequences if such a theory were correct. It's not ad-hoc.

Genetic similarities invalidated? Really? The fact you share more DNA with primates than with any other mammal, with mammals more than any reptile, and with reptiles more than any other amphibian, in decreasing order of genetic similarity, disproves evolution?
Also, epigenetics explain how the environments affects the genome and its expression throughout our life. It has no impact on your genome itself.

Similar morphology is assumed? The fact that the overwhelming majority of amphibians, reptiles and mammals have a spine, 4 limbs, a cranium that is separate from the chest with a neck, is not evidence for evolution, because it is assumed? If morphological differences weren't evidence for evolution, then looking at a squid and a monkey you wouldn't be able to tell which you are more related to, and much less why.
It may be assumed in our minds, but it is explained scientifically. The assumption is in our heads, not in the science textbooks.

4. Indeed he has, and I'd be interested to see what other predictions you could come up with.

5. Of course, I completely agree. However, evidence that someone was there at the time, that the egg was initially in an egg carton, that a frying pan is on the hot plate, which has been turned on, and that you can see a footprint in the squashed egg with footprints walking away, would you still say it's impossible to know? We can't be 100% SURE the egg didn't just randomly jump out of the egg carton and start rolling, but which of the two hypotheses is more likely to be true, all things considered?

6. Well, there's no way to prove whether the assumption that 'gravity did it' is at all an accurate representation of reality either then, now is it? What tells you the craters on the moon were made by aliens playing interstellar golf instead of asteroid bombardment? We weren't there, so we can't know, right? Well, again, no. We can look at corroborating facts and circumstantial evidence which can tip the scale strongly towards one hypothesis or another, even though we may never tell with 100% certainty. By the way, in any scientific experiment where data is collected, statistics are used, and statistical analysis methods help us say if the results are good or not according to our hypothesis. The limit for certainty is 95%. So if using the scientific method and statistical models of the data you've got, you cannot say you are 95% sure of your results, then it's no good. I'd sure as hell take "I'm 95% sure" instead of "we can never know" any day, thank you very much.
Also, as I said, yes fossils were used to formulate the theory of evolution, but they were also used as the reality against which to measure predictions. Same thing with DNA. Evolution theory says we will not find a brand new gene with no prior history, but recycled and modified sequences used in other parts of the body, re-accomodated to perform a different job.
And again, epigenetics does not invalidate genetic similarity. I would be very happy to discuss these two points further if you wish :)

7. The presence or absence of the foot print has no effect upon the fact that Tiktaalik presents some qualities which are completely distinct from fish, a flat (and solid) head with both eyes on top, separated from the chest with vertebrae being a good example. Fish have no necks, Tiktaalik did.
Also, I would be interested to read about that footprint. It's a shame we don't have the fossil of the animal which made that footprint, no? It would severely harm evolution, stating that there were land animals long before amphibians even existed. As it is, we're left to interpret a print in the sand.

8. I have only read of the discovery of fossilized soft tissue and fossilized cell-like remains within only one dinosaur bone. I would very much like to read about all the other bones which are being cracked open :)

9. Well, it does matter if one bit of evidence invalidates the thousands of observations and facts explained by all tho other theories in all the other fields of science, yes. If science is to accurately represent reality, then it cannot be internally inconsistent, since reality isn't either. That's why everything fits together, from the big bang to star formation to planet formation to the geology of the earth to the evolution of living species living on it to the physics who govern the radioactive particles we use to date it all. Creationism and ID as they are now would stick out like a giant sore thumb if they were ever incorporated into science, as YEC agrees with NONE of the above.

As for radiometric decay, yes, and it would still be constant in the same way a sine wave is constant. Just because the tide goes in and out doesn't mean on the whole it is not predictable, repeatable and constant.
Also, we do not have much valid data pointing that radiometric decay was significantly different in the past, as if that were the case, we couldn't make any sense whatsoever of isochron age dating of uranium and its 10+ radioactive daughter isotopes, all with different half-lives. If decay were not constant, we would see a marked difference in the ratio of daughter isotopes, and we couldn't back trace them to a single date, we'd be having estimates all over the place.

As for the quantity of initial radioactive material, this can be determined using various methods. Do you seriously think scientists who have been working on this for over a hundred years have NOT thought about it?

As for protein decay, nothing tells us that protein decay wasn't significantly slower in the past, now does it? That would help to explain why Noah turned to be somewhere around 800 in the bible, no? Notice that there is a difference between assuming the decay rates were the same and disproving it, versus assuming decay rates were different from today vs not assuming so. The first is possible via the scientific method (to disprove), whereas the second is an assumption.

10. Sitting back and saying you're as close as it gets is what comes after examining the big picture, and then correcting, fixing, zooming in, correcting some more, using a microscope to ensure the parts of the big picture fit together, more correcting, using an electron microscopy to make sure that the surface of the picture is uniform, doing some fixing of details, using X-rays to determine that yes, the material used to make the big picture is all the same, etc etc etc, up to the point where you can no longer go 'smaller'. Then, when future breakthroughs allow you to go 'smaller', you go back to the big picture you left alone and correct it some more. Understand though that no single correction you make using electron microscopy will ever be visible by the naked eye, but we correct it anyways.


1. And you've been shown by Jason that the creation model has more predictive power than evolution.... Further the "predictions" by evolutionists have mostly been ad hoc claims....

2. The fossil itself is factual however the story given to it is assumed. The only thing you can get empirically from a fossil is that the organism this fossil represents existed... That is it.

Fossils do not show you how they came to be, hence any claims about evolution from fossils IS assumed. There is no observation of "fossils gradually changing over time", this is an outright lie, I suggest you research stasis in the fossil record, since this phenomena lead to the idea of PE. Stasis defies your predictions of evolution via fossils...


If you think about epigenetics and take it out to its logical conclusion then it does invalidate the genetic similarities arguement. Genes can code for multiple products, now how these multiple products are decided is the research of epigenetics... Hence what this means is that you can have 2 organisms with the same DNA but are totally different since they use different gene products from the DNA. Hence the fact they have the same DNA is irrelevant.
Furthermore the DNA % doesn't account for the level of change in protein structure caused by the changes.... An organism could have 2% difference which does more change to the gene expression of its DNA rather than an organism with 7% difference since the differences may not have an impact on gene expression... (tRNA wobble factor is included in this line of reasoning).
Lastly it is still assumed that if you have X organism with same DNA sequences as Y then they evolved from a common ancestor, you cannot wish away this unless you can document over a million years the evolution of an organism and then run DNA tests to confirm the link... This however is nigh impossible, however is what is required for this line of evidence to be scientific...

Just because something is similar to another thing does not mean that one evolved from the other.... Here is an orange-yellow rubber ball and the sun.. Both are round and orange-yellow does these similarities mean that one evolved from the other? As I said it is an assumed link.
What worries me is this claim of yours

"It may be assumed in our minds, but it is explained scientifically. The assumption is in our heads, not in the science textbooks."

As I said before just because someone has slapped a label on it saying "scientific" doesn't mean that it is, nor does it mean that it is infallible. Scientists are not infallible and make assumptions as much as you. I don't see how you can logically claim that we can assume something ourselves but when it gets printed on paper it no longer is an assumption..... You do realise that textbooks are written without the newest data, so will always be behind the curve on what it teaches..... But if being printed on ink means that it is the truth, then I better go and write that I have $1,000,000,000 in the bank...


3. I asked you where does slime mold fits into evolution... You criticized the creation model with that claim, it is only fair that you turn your own question to evolution to see if it fares better.


4. I think Jason has given enough. You must admit that that list is much more than the evolutionist list which consists of .... tiktaalik, (which is debunked anyway as I explained)

5. Yes you could have such "evidences" however none of them could be used to fully implicate the person... The egg could have already been there and the person stepped on it, the person could have cooked noodles and left the hot plate on etc etc. You can ASSUME that he / she did it, however such is a far cry from actual proof, let alone solid evidence.

I suggest you research the scientific method... The "evidence" you describe doesn't fit this method and thus is not scientific... SO you have indirectly demonstrated how evolution is not scientific. Thanks :D


6. And as has already been said these "evidences" can support either way. Hence you have no point, (unless you ignore the other side entirely and then claim victory...). Read point 2.

Similarities = common descent OR common design

Hence because it can go either way who ever asserts one over the other IS assuming that that one is better than the other... Evolutionists deny this, Creationists admit this.

7. ....... So you say that because we do not know what caused the footprint then that invalidates that there was a footprint (something like) 15 million years before the supposed fish to amphibian transition.... (This is very unscientific thinking). The fact that there is a footprint shifts the time of the transitions to much earlier... yet we have no fossils that correlate to that time period, hence it is falsified.


8. There have been many bones being opened and it is the same. T-rex, Hadrosaur and another is what I know.

9. Glad to see you have retracted your previous statement. Attempting to segragate the problem and say 'not our problem'.. is unscientific.

It seems you are incorrect, there is a new thread discussing the new evidence that radioactive decay is not constant... (I think you have already posted there....).
What are the "various methods" of determining the initial amount of material? I have been grilling evolutionists with this problem and none have ever shown an answer, it is exciting that someone may have an answer but considering the fail rate is 100% forgive me if I remain skeptical.

See the statement of faith here... There is no evidence that it is slower, hence you are making up unsupported claims to try and sound creditable. FIRST get some evidence then we will discuss it, that is how science works we get evidence then it is analysed. Not making unsupported claims and then assuming them true. How does Noah's age have anything to do with this?... You do realise that our body maintains all the necessary parts, hence when proteins get worn down it makes new ones... In other words degredation only occurs when you are dead, (except some proteins may be more or less worn due to use, and some brand new, but that is irrelevant)


10. Yet your claim starts with the initial assumption that your "big picture" is correct in the first instance.... Even if you go back and check it, this doesn't discount this initial assumption... Assumptions are not scientific, therefore you are incorrect in your claim that this is science.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users