Creationists

[UltimateReality]

All I see here, again, is an attempt to discredit a competing theory so that your hypothesis will have more of the stage. You attempt this from every angle imaginable, including, attacking the fundamental validity of evolutionary biology, on the grounds that it is "only a historical science."

Wow, you obviously missed the entire point, which had nothing to do with ID, but shows that evolutionary science will never be on the same level as physics or chemistry, ever. And it uses induction for many of its competing hypothesis. Strawman. I have not claimed this. I have only claimed that evolution and ID are equally legitimate historical sciences based on Darwin's and Lyell's methodology. Well, I should say, equally legitimate with the exception of evolutionary theory that proposes made up narrative explanations which are not based on any past or presently observable phenomena.
I dismissed it with what could be the most non-biased article I could find, written by a historical scientist studying evolution. Wrong. Your real world example has atheist fundamentalism written all over it.
Strawman. Your bias infers this claim. I wholeheartedly agree. Now we are getting somewhere! Yes, and they apply equally to ID and Evolution, but not the empirical sciences. I totally agree!!
Wrong again!! Any science that attempts to describe events that occurred in the distant past, whether they be the theories on the origin of male and female, cosmological arguments about the solar system, or postulates on the origin of the digital code in DNA, is a historical science. Wrong again. What evidence from the past do you have for how abiogenesis occurred? Everything you just said in the last 10 or so sentences is totally fallacious. See my comments prior to all these incorrect assertions. What Meyer has done is no different that what Darwin did. Your claim that ID doesn't refer to past evidence is fallacious. We can rightfully assert that at some point in the distant past, based on fossil evidence, that the information in DNA originated long ago. Just like Darwin asserted that different species arose long ago. Darwin can't point back to evidence to actually show natural selection in action in the distant past. He attempted to use "causes now in operation", like finch beaks, to make predictions about what happened long ago. I'm not sure why you keep missing the similarities. Confirmation bias I guess.

If this is really the only argument or "evidence" you have for ID, then it is really hard for me to understand why you think this is convincing, at all. The only reason it is, is because you already believe that there was an intelligent force behind creation. The "science" of ID is not otherwise convincing to anyone else. ID is simply a contemporary version of the teleological argument. It is nothing new, and nothing special.

Wrong again. What you keep strawmanning and what you think you know, is that ID claims the intelligent designer was the Judeo-Christian God. As far as ID goes, the intelligent agent that originated the digital dna code could have been an alien race. It is a religious belief by some ID Theorist, not a scientific one, that the intelligent agent is God. However, ID theory never identifies who the intelligent agent is, because that would be impossible to do in light of current evidence. It only draws the logical conclusion that intelligence is responsible, because of the cause now in operation producing digital code.

You are being either dishonest and imperceptive in so many of these responses. I am not straw-manning you half the time you say I am, if ever. You simply don't like the characterization I give ID because that is not how you are used to perceiving it. All I hear from Meyer is a two-step process:

1.) Try and falsify abiogenesis as much as possible with pure mathematical probabilities and zero evidence

2.) Try to build up the ID Hypothesis with an inductive argument, bereft of any deductively-reached conclusions.

This is ID in a nutshell. It is one big sales pitch to people of faith so thy can feel like their theories garnered from the bible have some scientific credibility. You try and distance yourself from god in the theory, but I don't believe this is genuine.

You try to claim that evolutionary biology utilizes induction as well. This is laughable. It uses just as much as any other type of science, and it is NEVER used to reach conclusions. NEVER will you find in science a well-established fact that does not have actual evidence for it. Induction is inherent only in methodologies which are time-dependant, so nearly all of them, because they must rely on the assumption that tomorrow to be like today. Without this assumption, measurements and science, would be meaningless. This type of induction is not the same type of fallacious inductive argument IDers are committing as the very basis of their claim about the intelligent designer. That is the difference.

You continue to epically fail to see all your "pot calling kettle black" accusations. First, Evolution is not a fact, and it certainly isn't well established. Scientists make up the "just so" stories and fools embrace them, not because of science, but because of their denial of God. Evolution uses as much, and most likely more, induction based as ID theory. Your bias blinds you to this fact. From Wiki:

Bias

Inductive reasoning is also known as hypothesis construction because any conclusions made are based on educated predictions.[citation needed] As with deductive arguments, biases can distort the proper application of inductive argument, thereby preventing the reasoner from forming the most logical conclusion based on the clues. Examples of these biases include the availability heuristic, confirmation bias, and the predictable-world bias.

You are hopelessly wrong with all your sound and fury over inductive reasoning. Evolutionary theory is largely based on inductive reasoning:

"Because deductive reasoning draws conclusions with complete certainty, it is tempting to sometimes believe that we are using deductive reasoning when in fact we are using inductive reasoning. The fictional Sherlock Holmes makes this mistake. Rarely if ever, can our reasoning concerning nature be considered to be deductive reasoning. The problem with doing so is that this implies that all of the possible hypothesis can be identified, when in fact we may never know all of nature’s secrets. This is why it is so important to conduct experiments and collect field data to verify our logic. Through these experiments we often learn of nature’s secrets that are then added to our base of knowledge.

Even though inductive reasoning does not draw conclusions with complete certainty, it is generally much more helpful than deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning allows us to reach conclusions on what has not been directly observed based on what has been observed. It is inductive reasoning that allows geologists to use present observations to draw conclusions about events that happened million of years ago in the Earth’s distant past. More often it is inductive reasoning that allows us to use observation of the past to anticipate probable events of the future. For example, if every day a bus stops by a bench at 4:00 pm, and we are sitting on that bench a few minutes before four, we would be expecting a bus to arrive within a few minutes. Notice that while our inductive reasoning may be correct the vast majority of times it is still not guaranteed to always be true. No matter how consistent the bus may be, we can not say with complete certainty that the bus will be there each day at the predicted time."

 

[UltimateReality]

How is this not circular? The bible lists the things god has made, and then tells you to look at them, to find evidence of him. That is circular.

That doesn't even make sense. I think you have totally lost it now.

You are trying to get around circularity by claiming that the bible asks you to look at the "evidence" of him in the universe, and not just in the bible itself. Yet, the bible is what indicates what in the universe should be seen as evidence, and then ask you to attribute those things to god. Hence, circularity, just with a little detour.

Now you have me seriously questioning your ability to grasp concepts like circular reasoning. Let me paint a different picture for you by making some substitutions in your quotes and you tell me if you are making any sense at all:

You are trying to get around circularity by claiming that the book the origin of the species asks you to look at the "evidence" of evolution and natural selection on the earth, and not just in the origin of species book itself. Yet, the origin of species book is what indicates what in the world should be seen as evidence, and then ask you to attribute those things to evolution and natural selection. Hence, circularity, just with a little detour.

The origin of the species lists the things evolution has made, and then tells you to look at them, to find evidence of evolution. That is circular.

 

[newpolitics]

Wow, you obviously missed the entire point, which had nothing to do with ID, but shows that evolutionary science will never be on the same level as physics or chemistry, ever. And it uses induction for many of its competing hypothesis. Strawman. I have not claimed this. I have only claimed that evolution and ID are equally legitimate historical sciences based on Darwin's and Lyell's methodology. Well, I should say, equally legitimate with the exception of evolutionary theory that proposes made up narrative explanations which are not based on any past or presently observable phenomena.
I dismissed it with what could be the most non-biased article I could find, written by a historical scientist studying evolution. Wrong. Your real world example has atheist fundamentalism written all over it.
Strawman. Your bias infers this claim. I wholeheartedly agree. Now we are getting somewhere! Yes, and they apply equally to ID and Evolution, but not the empirical sciences. I totally agree!!
Wrong again!! Any science that attempts to describe events that occurred in the distant past, whether they be the theories on the origin of male and female, cosmological arguments about the solar system, or postulates on the origin of the digital code in DNA, is a historical science. Wrong again. What evidence from the past do you have for how abiogenesis occurred? Everything you just said in the last 10 or so sentences is totally fallacious. See my comments prior to all these incorrect assertions. What Meyer has done is no different that what Darwin did. Your claim that ID doesn't refer to past evidence is fallacious. We can rightfully assert that at some point in the distant past, based on fossil evidence, that the information in DNA originated long ago. Just like Darwin asserted that different species arose long ago. Darwin can't point back to evidence to actually show natural selection in action in the distant past. He attempted to use "causes now in operation", like finch beaks, to make predictions about what happened long ago. I'm not sure why you keep missing the similarities. Confirmation bias I guess.

Wrong again. What you keep strawmanning and what you think you know, is that ID claims the intelligent designer was the Judeo-Christian God. As far as ID goes, the intelligent agent that originated the digital dna code could have been an alien race. It is a religious belief by some ID Theorist, not a scientific one, that the intelligent agent is God. However, ID theory never identifies who the intelligent agent is, because that would be impossible to do in light of current evidence. It only draws the logical conclusion that intelligence is responsible, because of the cause now in operation producing digital code.

You are being either dishonest and imperceptive in so many of these responses. I am not straw-manning you half the time you say I am, if ever. You simply don't like the characterization I give ID because that is not how you are used to perceiving it. All I hear from Meyer is a two-step process:

1.) Try and falsify abiogenesis as much as possible with pure mathematical probabilities and zero evidence

2.) Try to build up the ID Hypothesis with an inductive argument, bereft of any deductively-reached conclusions.

This is ID in a nutshell. It is one big sales pitch to people of faith so thy can feel like their theories garnered from the bible have some scientific credibility. You try and distance yourself from god in the theory, but I don't believe this is genuine.

You try to claim that evolutionary biology utilizes induction as well. This is laughable. It uses just as much as any other type of science, and it is NEVER used to reach conclusions. NEVER will you find in science a well-established fact that does not have actual evidence for it. Induction is inherent only in methodologies which are time-dependant, so nearly all of them, because they must rely on the assumption that tomorrow to be like today. Without this assumption, measurements and science, would be meaningless. This type of induction is not the same type of fallacious inductive argument IDers are committing as the very basis of their claim about the intelligent designer. That is the difference.

You continue to epically fail to see all your "pot calling kettle black" accusations. First, Evolution is not a fact, and it certainly isn't well established. Scientists make up the "just so" stories and fools embrace them, not because of science, but because of their denial of God. Evolution uses as much, and most likely more, induction based as ID theory. Your bias blinds you to this fact. From Wiki:

Bias

Inductive reasoning is also known as hypothesis construction because any conclusions made are based on educated predictions.[citation needed] As with deductive arguments, biases can distort the proper application of inductive argument, thereby preventing the reasoner from forming the most logical conclusion based on the clues. Examples of these biases include the availability heuristic, confirmation bias, and the predictable-world bias.

You are hopelessly wrong with all your sound and fury over inductive reasoning. Evolutionary theory is largely based on inductive reasoning:

"Because deductive reasoning draws conclusions with complete certainty, it is tempting to sometimes believe that we are using deductive reasoning when in fact we are using inductive reasoning. The fictional Sherlock Holmes makes this mistake. Rarely if ever, can our reasoning concerning nature be considered to be deductive reasoning. The problem with doing so is that this implies that all of the possible hypothesis can be identified, when in fact we may never know all of nature’s secrets. This is why it is so important to conduct experiments and collect field data to verify our logic. Through these experiments we often learn of nature’s secrets that are then added to our base of knowledge.

Even though inductive reasoning does not draw conclusions with complete certainty, it is generally much more helpful than deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning allows us to reach conclusions on what has not been directly observed based on what has been observed. It is inductive reasoning that allows geologists to use present observations to draw conclusions about events that happened million of years ago in the Earth’s distant past. More often it is inductive reasoning that allows us to use observation of the past to anticipate probable events of the future. For example, if every day a bus stops by a bench at 4:00 pm, and we are sitting on that bench a few minutes before four, we would be expecting a bus to arrive within a few minutes. Notice that while our inductive reasoning may be correct the vast majority of times it is still not guaranteed to always be true. No matter how consistent the bus may be, we can not say with complete certainty that the bus will be there each day at the predicted time."

Evolution actually is a fact. Truly you are inaccurate in this post in almost every sentence I was able to get through.

A defining feature of science is that its conclusions are drawn deductively.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I'm just curious YWC, what evidence do you have that beneficial mutations are impossible? Logically, this makes no sense.

I did not say they were impossible but they are to rare to think enough happened to produce the diversity we see. Over time an accumulation of mutations is not good for any group of organisms. If we removed functions of our car and replaced those functions with other functions without intelligent thought would that car still function properly ?

Many mutations cause no change at all but many do and in most cases they prove to be harmful. We saw the same results early scientists saw like pierre grasse.

Pierre Grasse,
Editor of the 28-volume "Traite de Zoologie," for 30 years the Chair of Evolution, Sorbonne University, and ex-president of the French Academie des Sciences, "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.88
"To improve a living organism by random mutation is like saying you could improve a Swiss watch by dropping it and bending one of its wheels or axis. Improving life by random mutation has the probability of zero."

Pierre-Paul Grassé stated the following: "Some contemporary biologists, as soon as they observe a mutation, talk about evolution. They are implicitly supporting the following syllogism: mutations are the only evolutionary variations, all living beings undergo mutations, therefore all living beings evolve....No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution." Grasse pointed out that bacteria which are the subject of study of many geneticists and molecular biologists and are organisms which produce the most mutants are considered to have "stabilized a billion years ago!".[4] Grassé regards the "unceasing mutations" to be "merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect."[5]

Pierre-Paul Grassé also wrote the following:



“

Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case. - Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p.6
Today, our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses of the interpretations and extrapolations that theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs. - Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p.8

It follows that any explanation of the mechanism in creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with hypotheses. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence leads to the formation of pure conjectures as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are correct. - Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p.31[6]

”


Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote regarding Pierre-Paul Grassé:



“

Now, one can disagree with Grasse but not ignore him, he is the most distinguished of French zoologists, the editor of the 28 volumes of `Traite de Zoologie', author of numerous original investigations and ex-president of the Academie des Sciences. His knowledge of the living world is encyclopedic ...." (Dobzhansky T.G., "Darwinian or `Oriented' Evolution?" Review of Grasse P.-P., "L'Evolution du Vivant," Editions Albin Michel: Paris, 1973, in "Evolution," Vol. 29, June 1975, pp.376-378, p.376).[

 

[UltimateReality]

Well, actually it is your ineptitude that attempts a cover-up barrage of nonsense when you don't know the answer. So here is the question you keep avoiding just in case you have made yourself forget with all your crazy tangents. And I quote YWC:

"Still waiting on an answer for this Hollie.

Why would a cell lose it's function if you are correct ?"

UR this is one dense person. I gave he-she the answer and he-she still can't answer it. This person claiming to know science is just rediculous.

It seems your failed ploy to link biology to the Christian creationist "molecular machine" nonsense has left you bereft an argument. Your false characterization has failed before which is why you shouldn't have expected it to yield different results this time.

As is typical, you didn't answer anything. What you hoped to do was introduce Christian dogma into the realm of science and as we've seen before, that strategy fails.

Wroing. The fundie is getting angry and lashing out. You are the one that hasn't answered anything.

 

[UltimateReality]

You are being either dishonest and imperceptive in so many of these responses. I am not straw-manning you half the time you say I am, if ever. You simply don't like the characterization I give ID because that is not how you are used to perceiving it. All I hear from Meyer is a two-step process:

1.) Try and falsify abiogenesis as much as possible with pure mathematical probabilities and zero evidence

2.) Try to build up the ID Hypothesis with an inductive argument, bereft of any deductively-reached conclusions.

This is ID in a nutshell. It is one big sales pitch to people of faith so thy can feel like their theories garnered from the bible have some scientific credibility. You try and distance yourself from god in the theory, but I don't believe this is genuine.

You try to claim that evolutionary biology utilizes induction as well. This is laughable. It uses just as much as any other type of science, and it is NEVER used to reach conclusions. NEVER will you find in science a well-established fact that does not have actual evidence for it. Induction is inherent only in methodologies which are time-dependant, so nearly all of them, because they must rely on the assumption that tomorrow to be like today. Without this assumption, measurements and science, would be meaningless. This type of induction is not the same type of fallacious inductive argument IDers are committing as the very basis of their claim about the intelligent designer. That is the difference.

You continue to epically fail to see all your "pot calling kettle black" accusations. First, Evolution is not a fact, and it certainly isn't well established. Scientists make up the "just so" stories and fools embrace them, not because of science, but because of their denial of God. Evolution uses as much, and most likely more, induction based as ID theory. Your bias blinds you to this fact. From Wiki:

Bias

Inductive reasoning is also known as hypothesis construction because any conclusions made are based on educated predictions.[citation needed] As with deductive arguments, biases can distort the proper application of inductive argument, thereby preventing the reasoner from forming the most logical conclusion based on the clues. Examples of these biases include the availability heuristic, confirmation bias, and the predictable-world bias.

You are hopelessly wrong with all your sound and fury over inductive reasoning. Evolutionary theory is largely based on inductive reasoning:

"Because deductive reasoning draws conclusions with complete certainty, it is tempting to sometimes believe that we are using deductive reasoning when in fact we are using inductive reasoning. The fictional Sherlock Holmes makes this mistake. Rarely if ever, can our reasoning concerning nature be considered to be deductive reasoning. The problem with doing so is that this implies that all of the possible hypothesis can be identified, when in fact we may never know all of nature’s secrets. This is why it is so important to conduct experiments and collect field data to verify our logic. Through these experiments we often learn of nature’s secrets that are then added to our base of knowledge.

Even though inductive reasoning does not draw conclusions with complete certainty, it is generally much more helpful than deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning allows us to reach conclusions on what has not been directly observed based on what has been observed. It is inductive reasoning that allows geologists to use present observations to draw conclusions about events that happened million of years ago in the Earth’s distant past. More often it is inductive reasoning that allows us to use observation of the past to anticipate probable events of the future. For example, if every day a bus stops by a bench at 4:00 pm, and we are sitting on that bench a few minutes before four, we would be expecting a bus to arrive within a few minutes. Notice that while our inductive reasoning may be correct the vast majority of times it is still not guaranteed to always be true. No matter how consistent the bus may be, we can not say with complete certainty that the bus will be there each day at the predicted time."

Evolution actually is a fact...

As is God. With the evidence for God being much more compelling.

 

[UltimateReality]

Simply amazing!!! The Bible says God makes himself plain to us, as in totally obvious.

Check this..

DNA directly photographed for first time - Technology & science - Science - LiveScience | NBC News

 

[newpolitics]

You continue to epically fail to see all your "pot calling kettle black" accusations. First, Evolution is not a fact, and it certainly isn't well established. Scientists make up the "just so" stories and fools embrace them, not because of science, but because of their denial of God. Evolution uses as much, and most likely more, induction based as ID theory. Your bias blinds you to this fact. From Wiki:

Bias

Inductive reasoning is also known as hypothesis construction because any conclusions made are based on educated predictions.[citation needed] As with deductive arguments, biases can distort the proper application of inductive argument, thereby preventing the reasoner from forming the most logical conclusion based on the clues. Examples of these biases include the availability heuristic, confirmation bias, and the predictable-world bias.

You are hopelessly wrong with all your sound and fury over inductive reasoning. Evolutionary theory is largely based on inductive reasoning:

"Because deductive reasoning draws conclusions with complete certainty, it is tempting to sometimes believe that we are using deductive reasoning when in fact we are using inductive reasoning. The fictional Sherlock Holmes makes this mistake. Rarely if ever, can our reasoning concerning nature be considered to be deductive reasoning. The problem with doing so is that this implies that all of the possible hypothesis can be identified, when in fact we may never know all of nature’s secrets. This is why it is so important to conduct experiments and collect field data to verify our logic. Through these experiments we often learn of nature’s secrets that are then added to our base of knowledge.

Even though inductive reasoning does not draw conclusions with complete certainty, it is generally much more helpful than deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning allows us to reach conclusions on what has not been directly observed based on what has been observed. It is inductive reasoning that allows geologists to use present observations to draw conclusions about events that happened million of years ago in the Earth’s distant past. More often it is inductive reasoning that allows us to use observation of the past to anticipate probable events of the future. For example, if every day a bus stops by a bench at 4:00 pm, and we are sitting on that bench a few minutes before four, we would be expecting a bus to arrive within a few minutes. Notice that while our inductive reasoning may be correct the vast majority of times it is still not guaranteed to always be true. No matter how consistent the bus may be, we can not say with complete certainty that the bus will be there each day at the predicted time."

Evolution actually is a fact...

As is God. With the evidence for God being much more compelling.

There is no evidence for god, which is why you require faith.

This is fine, by the way, but stop pretending there is evidence when there isn't. And stop pretending there isn't evidence for evolution, when there is vast amounts. This dishonest is what is so bothersome about creationists. They create their own reality.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Christianity, by any definition of religion, is a religion. That is what I mean. To call is a philosophy instead, is inaccurate! Robertson may come from a different religion, but no matter which denomination of christianity you belong you, it is still a religion.

If Christianity isn't a religion, then the word "religion" has lost its meaning, and has no purpose to exist.

I am not even trying to be polemical here. I have heard this claim before from Christians, and I find it to be simply inaccurate.

A religion is based on one set of doctrines. Christianity contains over 41,000 different religions. Now can you see why it is a philosophy more then a religion ? God did not give approval to just one of these religions. We can all claim to be Christian but it is based on philosophy not religion. We all believe in Christ but have different beliefs. If we all followed one set of doctrines then it would be a religion.

No! You are making up your own semantical rules here! This is why we have the word "denomination" to delineate the different groups within the religion of christianity. You must presuppose the existence of god in order to make such a statement. In a world where the burden of proof exists, you do not get to simply call Christianity a philosophy, until you can prove that the Christian god exists. If you could, faith would no longer be necessary to believe, and you would then be justified in called Christianity a philosophy. Until then, it is a religion, no matter how spliced up.

I am sorry I don't follow your definitions but they are inaccurate. They also give a definition of hell but I don't see such a place existing in the scriptures. Now can you see what I am saying ?

The only thing that unites Christians is the belief in the son of God we are not united in our doctrines. So do 41,000 religions make up one religion ? hardly.

 

[newpolitics]

Simply amazing!!! The Bible says God makes himself plain to us, as in totally obvious.

Check this..

DNA directly photographed for first time - Technology & science - Science - LiveScience | NBC News

Notice the wording in the first paragraph:

"Fifty-nine years after James Watson and Francis Crick deduced the double-helix structure of DNA, a scientist has captured the first direct photograph of the twisted ladder that props up life."

 

[Youwerecreated]

Evolution actually is a fact...

As is God. With the evidence for God being much more compelling.

There is no evidence for god, which is why you require faith.

This is fine, by the way, but stop pretending there is evidence when there isn't. And stop pretending there isn't evidence for evolution, when there is vast amounts. You're dishonesty is what bothers me most.

Some beliefs are based in faith and some are not.

 

[UltimateReality]

NP, here is a great example of Evolutionists pretending inductive reasoning is deductive.

The new paper constructs several hypotheses for the early phases of evolution history and shows how universal common descent, in one variant or another, is the clear winner. And in the now well-established Bernoullian tradition, the results are grossly misinterpreted in favor of evolution. After showing that a comparison of 23 proteins—similar versions of which are found in many species—fit the universal common descent hypothesis far better than the hypothesized alternatives, the paper erroneously states that the results are “very strong empirical evidence” for universal common descent.

Not surprisingly the paper is an instant hit with evolutionists, celebrated everywhere from journals and popular science magazines to the blogosphere. One science newsletter proclaims:

First Large-Scale Formal Quantitative Test Confirms Darwin’s Theory of Universal Common Ancestry


Scientific American has informed its readers that “The Proof Is in the Proteins: Test Supports Universal Common Ancestor for All Life,” and National Geographic adds that:

All Species Evolved From Single Cell, Study Finds
Creationism called "absolutely horrible hypothesis"—statistically speaking.


In his blog PZ Myers, who with his Lutheran background believes god would never have created this world, applauds the big numbers that “support evolutionary theory.” And Nick Matzke, who also believes in the evolutionary metaphysics that god would never have designed what we observe in the biological world, is delighted that the new work debunks creationism.

Of course all of this is false. It is junk science at its worst. In a public discussion I asked the paper’s author about these problems. I reminded him that one hypothesis comparing well against others does not translate into very strong empirical evidence for the hypothesis. But he disagreed. He assured me that his analysis is fundamentally based on modern, cutting edge statistical methods, and that he firmly stands by his conclusions. Indeed, no scientist or statistician would find them to be controversial, he added.

I explained to him that the problem lies not with the statistical methods. Daniel Bernoulli also used cutting edge methods of the day (he was the first that I know of to use a null hypothesis based on random distributions). But when comparing such scores a scientist or a statistician would merely claim that the hypothesis with the significantly higher score is the winner of the group. That is entirely different than his high claim that the results constitute very strong empirical evidence for the hypothesis. That conclusion is simply false. The hypothesis may be true, it may not be true, but the study does not provide such powerful empirical evidence for it. Unfortunately, such misinformation fuels the kind of reporting we saw above.

But again the evolutionist continued to disagree. You are simply incorrect, he replied. From a model selection perspective, from a likelihood perspective, and from a Bayesian perspective, empirical evidence can only be evaluated relative to other hypotheses. That’s all we have. No hypothesis can be evaluated in isolation—such an idea is impossible and incoherent. This view is not from evolutionary biology—this is the standard non-frequentist statistical view (and even most frequentists have the same view). He suggested I read some introductory books on likelihood and Bayesian statistics.

Evolutionary thought, including its history, metaphysics and abuse of science, is a fascinating study. I replied that I was amazed. The lengths to which evolutionists must go is incredible. It is always striking to see the certainty with which evolutionists promote their philosophies and metaphysics. You can see it in the history of evolutionary thought, and today it just keeps on coming. They impose their philosophies, as though they were facts, on the world. Their faulty logic is exceeded only by their boldness.

I again explained that when one hypothesis beats out others you cannot make the claims you are making. What you have is very strong evidence that the hypothesis beats out the other hypotheses, period. You do not have very strong evidence for the hypothesis, as you are claiming.

And your appeal to the limitations in your confirmation methods doesn’t change the fact that you are making false claims, and celebrating them as valid findings. The fact that “That's all we have” hardly justifies the publishing and promotion of misinformation. The fact that “That’s all we have” ought to serve to temper the claims, not exalt them.

But contrastive thinking has been at the heart of evolutionary thought for centuries. From Kant to Darwin, and on up, what has always been rather revealing is how evolutionists have presented their proofs as though they were objective, undeniable findings. It is always a bit shocking to see such bold claims made on such faulty logic.

At this point the evolutionist turned the blame on me. We have, he explained, overwhelming evidence that universal common ancestry beats out competing multiple independent ancestry hypotheses. If you don’t consider that as evidence for universal common ancestry, then you are certainly entitled to that opinion. But the rest of us are not required to believe that your opinion makes any sense. Yours is a strange philosophy, to my mind, and I’m sure to most people who will read your words.

Repeatedly I have found that evolutionists are unable to see the problems and fallacies with their theory. And so when you point out those problems, the evolutionist ultimately can only conclude that the problem lies with you. You are an obstructionist, or biased, or anti science, or something.

This evolutionist was not being judgmental in any personal way. He threw up his hands and concluded that I am the problem, but his response was genuine, not contrived. It was not mean spirited. Just as Bernoulli proclaimed that anyone who would deny the obvious evolutionary conclusions “must reject all the truths, which we know by induction” so too evolutionists ever since can only understand skepticism as, itself, problematic.

Evolution is a metaphysically-driven tradition and like most such traditions has built-in protections against objective critique. The result, unfortunately, is junk science. This new paper will be erroneously celebrated far and wide as yet a new level of certainty for evolution. Let the worship begin.

Darwin's God: Let the Worship Begin

 

[UltimateReality]

Simply amazing!!! The Bible says God makes himself plain to us, as in totally obvious.

Check this..

DNA directly photographed for first time - Technology & science - Science - LiveScience | NBC News

Notice the wording in the first paragraph:

"Fifty-nine years after James Watson and Francis Crick deduced the double-helix structure of DNA, a scientist has captured the first direct photograph of the twisted ladder that props up life."

Yeah, notice your total utter inability to again distinguish between the historical and empirical sciences. The dna structure exists presently, and prior to it actually being able to be observed by the electron microscope, its structure could be deduced by knowledge about its chemical structure and X-ray data. You are confusing the dna molecule, which very much falls into the realm of chemistry, with the historical pseudoscience of evolutinary biology. Thanks for playing but the dna structure is not a prediction about something that occurred in the distant past, for which we have no evidence.

 

[UltimateReality]

Evolution actually is a fact...

As is God. With the evidence for God being much more compelling.

There is no evidence for god, which is why you require faith.

This is fine, by the way, but stop pretending there is evidence when there isn't. And stop pretending there isn't evidence for evolution, when there is vast amounts. This dishonest is what is so bothersome about creationists. They create their own reality.

There is evidence for our Creator all around us. You just choose to ignore it because of your materialistic religious beliefs.

 

[UltimateReality]

"It’s another rags-to-riches evolutionary story, this time with epigenetics going from dog house to white house. First evolutionists denied epigenetics, then they said epigenetics are inconsequential and now they say epigenetics may be instrumental in, err, the origin of the human brain. That’s quite a turn around. When (i) leading evolutionists such as Jerry Coyne are saying epigenetic characters are not usually inherited past one or two generations and so are not “going to change our concept of evolution,” while (ii) research papers are concluding that epigenetic changes, coordinated with genetic changes, “could play a role in the evolution of the primate brain,” then you know something is wrong. Evolutionists are having to rewrite their story at an ever increasing rate to try to adjust to the data, and it isn’t making sense.

Of course evolutionists did not deny epigenetics for nothing. Excuse the double negative but evolutionists don’t reject evidence for no reason. They reject evidence because they don’t expect it—because it doesn’t fit their theory. The problem with epigenetics is that it makes evolution even more unlikely, if that were possible.

Most people have an intuitive sense that random chance events, such as genetic mutations, are not likely to create the entire biological world from a once lifeless planet. But if that was a non starter, how about those random mutations first creating profoundly complex molecular machines which then proceed to orchestrate the evolutionary process?

This just makes no sense. From incredible horizontal gene transfer mechanisms to the incredible epigenetic network of machines and chemical barcodes, the chance evolution of these wonders is itself astronomically unlikely, but then for these miracles of evolution to perform so much more evolutionary miracle work is simply ridiculous. Are we to believe that evolution created evolution which then created the biological world?

The sheer serendipity required by evolutionary thought is amazing. Someone has to say this because evolutionists won’t. They are so deeply embedded in the front lines they are oblivious to the state of evolutionary thought. They cannot step back and realistically assess their theory.

It doesn’t matter to me whether evolution is true or false, but it does matter that science is being abused. Religion drives science and it matters."

Darwin's God: Now Evolutionists Say Evolution Created Evolution (Again)

 

[UltimateReality]

The theory of evolution states that the species arose spontaneously, one from another via a pattern of common descent. This means the species should form an evolutionary tree, where species that share a recent common ancestor, such as two frog species, are highly similar, and species that share a distant common ancestor, such as humans and squids, are very different. But the species do not form such an evolutionary tree pattern. In fact this expectation has been violated so many times it is difficult to keep track. These violations are not rare or occasional anomalies, they are the rule. Entire volumes have been written on them. Many examples are the repeated designs found in what, according to evolution, must be very distant species. Such evolutionary convergence is biology’s version of lightning striking twice. To explain this evolutionists must say that random mutations just happened to hit upon the same detailed, intricate design at different times, in different parts of the world, in different ecological niches, and so forth. The idea that the most complex designs we know of would spontaneously arise by themselves is, itself, not scientifically motivated and a real stretch of the imagination. But for the same intricate designs to arise independently by chance is even more of a stretch. That is why evolutionist’s claim this week that they have found evidence for convergent evolution was so intriguing.

[A REAL EXAMPLE OF CIRCULAR REASONING]

It makes for a startling headline and once again gives journalists license to proclaim another confirmation of evolution. But down in the details, Hoy’s “evidence” is nothing more than circular reasoning. In a classic example of evolutionary blowback, Hoy reasons that (i) mammals and katydids evolved, (ii) their hearing designs are remarkably similar, so (iii) therefore it is proof of convergent evolution.

Or simply put, evolution is true, so therefore evolution is true.

This is a confirmation not of convergent evolution but of how evolution has corrupted scientific thinking. Fallacious reasoning such as this is, unfortunately, is the rule rather than the exception.




Darwin's God: Evolutionists Find Evidence For Convergence

 

[UltimateReality]

Evolution actually is a fact...

As is God. With the evidence for God being much more compelling.

There is no evidence for god, which is why you require faith.

This is fine, by the way, but stop pretending there is evidence when there isn't. And stop pretending there isn't evidence for evolution, when there is vast amounts. This dishonest is what is so bothersome about creationists. They create their own reality.

There is no evidence for evolution, which is why you require faith.

This is fine, by the way, but stop pretending there is evidence when there isn't. And stop pretending there isn't evidence for God, when there is vast amounts. This dishonesty is what is so bothersome about darwinists. They create their own reality.

 

[newpolitics]

NP, here is a great example of Evolutionists pretending inductive reasoning is deductive.

The new paper constructs several hypotheses for the early phases of evolution history and shows how universal common descent, in one variant or another, is the clear winner. And in the now well-established Bernoullian tradition, the results are grossly misinterpreted in favor of evolution. After showing that a comparison of 23 proteins—similar versions of which are found in many species—fit the universal common descent hypothesis far better than the hypothesized alternatives, the paper erroneously states that the results are “very strong empirical evidence” for universal common descent.

...

Evolution is a metaphysically-driven tradition and like most such traditions has built-in protections against objective critique. The result, unfortunately, is junk science. This new paper will be erroneously celebrated far and wide as yet a new level of certainty for evolution. Let the worship begin.

Darwin's God: Let the Worship Begin

... okay. This was a blog.

You seem to be making some categorical errors with regards to inductive reasoning and science. I never claimed that science doesn't use induction, and acknowledged that it has to, when I talked about the problem of induction. What is important, is that science doesn't use induction as the basis for making conclusions about a hypothesis. It uses deduction, because induction is so unreliable.

For instance, you have no direct evidence that DNA is made by an intelligent designer, which isn't problematic, necessarily. Yet, neither do you possess indirect evidence, and indirect evidence is not the same thing as inductive reasoning. The only evidence you have is that the digital code is made by an intelligent mind (humans), which is obvious information. Your tactic is to draw enough similarities between DNA and Digital code, to be able to say the same for DNA. This is pure inductive reasoning. No matter how many similarities you draw between DNA and Digital code, you still have provided no evidence to support your premise that DNA was created by intelligence.

Inductive reasoning is not evidence, yet, you present it as if it is. This, I think, is my main contention with your argument- you have no actual hard evidence. You're "evidence" is the inductive argument itself.

While inductive reasoning is commonly used in science, it is not always logically valid because it is not always accurate to assume that a general principle is correct... It is illogical to assume an entire premise just because one specific data set seems to suggest it.

...

By nature, inductive reasoning is more open-ended and exploratory, especially during the early stages. Deductive reasoning is more narrow and is generally used to test or confirm hypotheses. Most social research, however, involves both inductive and deductive reasoning throughout the research process. The scientific norm of logical reasoning provides a two-way bridge between theory and research. In practice, this typically involves alternating between deduction and induction.

Deductive Reasoning Versus Inductive Reasoning

Notice the placement of deductive and inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is more useful towards the beginning of analysis, while deductive reasoning is more useful towards the end, when conclusions are being drawn. This is my whole point.

You are drawing conclusions using inductive reasoning, which is simply impossible.

 

[newpolitics]

As is God. With the evidence for God being much more compelling.

There is no evidence for god, which is why you require faith.

This is fine, by the way, but stop pretending there is evidence when there isn't. And stop pretending there isn't evidence for evolution, when there is vast amounts. This dishonest is what is so bothersome about creationists. They create their own reality.

There is no evidence for evolution, which is why you require faith.

This is fine, by the way, but stop pretending there is evidence when there isn't. And stop pretending there isn't evidence for God, when there is vast amounts. This dishonesty is what is so bothersome about darwinists. They create their own reality.

No way... you copied my words, but flipped it around on me! Doh!!!

 

[newpolitics]

The theory of evolution states that the species arose spontaneously, one from another via a pattern of common descent. This means the species should form an evolutionary tree, where species that share a recent common ancestor, such as two frog species, are highly similar, and species that share a distant common ancestor, such as humans and squids, are very different. But the species do not form such an evolutionary tree pattern. In fact this expectation has been violated so many times it is difficult to keep track. These violations are not rare or occasional anomalies, they are the rule. Entire volumes have been written on them. Many examples are the repeated designs found in what, according to evolution, must be very distant species. Such evolutionary convergence is biology’s version of lightning striking twice. To explain this evolutionists must say that random mutations just happened to hit upon the same detailed, intricate design at different times, in different parts of the world, in different ecological niches, and so forth. The idea that the most complex designs we know of would spontaneously arise by themselves is, itself, not scientifically motivated and a real stretch of the imagination. But for the same intricate designs to arise independently by chance is even more of a stretch. That is why evolutionist’s claim this week that they have found evidence for convergent evolution was so intriguing.

[A REAL EXAMPLE OF CIRCULAR REASONING]

It makes for a startling headline and once again gives journalists license to proclaim another confirmation of evolution. But down in the details, Hoy’s “evidence” is nothing more than circular reasoning. In a classic example of evolutionary blowback, Hoy reasons that (i) mammals and katydids evolved, (ii) their hearing designs are remarkably similar, so (iii) therefore it is proof of convergent evolution.

Or simply put, evolution is true, so therefore evolution is true.

This is a confirmation not of convergent evolution but of how evolution has corrupted scientific thinking. Fallacious reasoning such as this is, unfortunately, is the rule rather than the exception.




Darwin's God: Evolutionists Find Evidence For Convergence

It's the same logical fallacies. No wonder you are full of them. You are consuming all of them from sources like this. Much of this is simply an argument from personal incredulity.

Evolution is true, because it is able to be demonstrated through evidence and predictive power. Hence, it is not circular. Whoever wrote this is being dishonest about reality.