Creation science II

Then let's see it. How is creation science testable and falsifiable?What evidence, if found, would falsify creationism?Let's make this specific. If, as you claim, humans and chimps are separately created "kinds" then what characteristics must a fossil have in order to falsify this claim? What genetic markers should we not see between chimps and humans if they were created separately? Perfect. I like this test. What pattern of homology should we see if creationism is true? What pattern of homology should we not see if creationism is true? What characteristics should we not see in fossils if creationism is true? Should we or should we not see animals with feathers and three middle ear bones, either living or in the fossil record, if creationism is true? Should we or should we not see animals with mammary glands and feathers if creationism is true? Should we or should we not see animals with three lower jaw bones and cusped teeth if creationism is true?

Let's not even go there yet. Let's not even look at the fossils themselves yet. First, I want to know what criteria creation scientists use to determine if a fossil fills or does not fill the gap between humans and a hypothetical common ancestor with chimps.Kelly has already stated in the previous thread that creation science hypothesizes that no fossil link two "kinds" together. I want to see how this hypothesis is falsifiable.

Their findings are based on how well the results of scientific methodologies line up with their religious convictions. If scientific findings contradict their religious convictions then the scientific methodology is chucked, or the methodology is changed so that it produces results that are more to their liking. This is exactly what the RATE group did with the Mt. St. Helens dacite samples. They tested samples that contained xenoliths (a no-no for K/Ar dating) and used equipment incapable of measuring young ages.Science is not about just studying the evidence, or running experiments. Science is about producing evidence through experimentation that rigorously tests a hypothesis. Creation scientists do not rigorously test hypotheses.Taking a different tack, what about Invisible Pink Unicorn science? This is a group of scientific studies which supports the hypothesis that the IPU created the universe. To support this science, I have run an experiment. I heated water until it began to boil. I meticulously measured the temperature at the boiling point which was 98 celcius. From this experiment I concluded that the IPU created the universe. Would you agree that this is science?

Not true at all. Using the theory of evolution scientists are able to PREDICT what one should see in the fossil record and in the genomes of living species. They then test for these predictions in a way that is independent of their world view. For example, the theory of evolution predicts that endogenous retroviruses (ERV's) that are found at the same genomic location between species should fall into a nested hierarchy. Also, a genetic comparison of the DNA in these ERV's should produce the same nested hierarchy. They then test to see if this is true, and as it turns out it is.So what predictions about the pattern and comparison of ERV's does creation science make? None. If creationists were honest they could give us the criteria by which we could determine if a fossil is transitional or not. Evolutionists have done this. Evolutionists define a transitional fossil as a fossil having characteristics of two divergent taxa. For example, transitional hominids have features from both humans and chimps. This makes them transitional. So how does a creation scientist determine if a fossil is transitional or not? Let's make this specific. What morphological features must a fossil have in order to be transitional between humans and a hypothetical common ancestor with chimps?IOW, how can creationists claim that there are no transitional fossils when they don't even know what a transitional fossil would look like? This is false. Not only does radiometric dating give the same results, but it also works with rocks of known ages: LinkYou falsely assume that the rocks they tested were produced by the recent eruption. They weren't. Their samples contained xenoliths, rocks that formed prior to the eruption deep in the magma chamber of the volcano. The argument is that the creationist interpretation is not consistent with the evidence, and that the interpretation inserts mechanisms that are unobserved, untestable, and unfalsifiable. IOW, it is a non-scientific interpretation.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Then how can you say that the fossil record supports creation science if you can not tell from the morphology of a fossil what it's ancestors or descendants looked like?How can you state that there are NO transitional fossils when you can't even tell us what one would look like? Half legs:Tiktaalik roseae: Meet TiktaalikHalf wings:BlogsomeUpper torso is chimp-like, lower torso is human-like:Australopithecus afarensis - WikipediaA complete series with a half-mammalian and half-reptillian jaw at the half way point: LinkNeed I go on? You are a bit off. The quick transitions are occuring between SPECIES, not larger groups."Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationistswhether through design or stupidity, I do not knowas admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."--Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

As it says in the movie "Happy Gilmore", it's all in the hips. The pelvis of A. afarensis is very much like that of a modern human. No other non-human ape has hips like that seen in A. afarensis. A. afarensis was a bipedal ape, just like us. That makes A. afarensis transitional. Nowhere do they refute the transitional nature of Tiktaalik. They think by calling Tiktaalik a "fish" they have somehow made a point. They haven't.

So let me get this straight. You claim that creation science has nothing to do with the bible. This seems to be contradicted by the fact that you link to stuff written by Answers in Genesis. Can you please quote for us where they describe what a real transitional between lobe finned fish and tetrapods would look like?Their entire argument seems to hinge on the idea that because Tiktaalik does not have limbs exactly like those of tetrapods that it is not a transitional fossil. But isn't that what you would expect from a transitional fossil, a morphology that is not completely like that of a tetrapod and not completely like that of a lobe finned fish? Surely even you can see through this double talk.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Because they insert mechanisms that are based on their religious beliefs but not on any evidence. They also ignore evidence which conflicts with their religious convictions, such as the presence of xenoliths in the Mt. St. Helens dacites. When they try to explain the nested hierarchy produced by a comparison of ERV's they claim that the pattern is due to God putting them there, an obvious injection of their world view.We don't have to be mind readers. It's right there in the print.

If we stripped away these supposed worldviews, what criteria would we use to determine if a fossil is transitional or not? specifically, what features would a real transitional between humans and a hypothetical commmon ancestor with chimps have? From the creationist approach, what features would link the human "kind" to the chimp "kind"? Please explain how the theory of evolution is a religious faith. Is it by faith alone that orthologous ERV's fall into the nested hierarchy predicted by the theory of evolution? Is it by faith alone that fish fossils with legs appear in the fossil record? Is it by faith alone that bacteria produce mutations that confer antbiotic resistance and phage resistance? Is it by faith alone that rabbits are not found in Cambrian strata? Is it by faith alone that bats do not have feathers, birds do not have three middle ear bones, and fish do not have teats?What you seem to ignore is that the theory of evolution makes very specific predictions that can be tested independently of world view or faith. Your challenge is to list for us creation science hypotheses that can be tested in the same fashion. You have yet to do so.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.