Wilberforce claimed he needed a seperate thread to present verifiable facts for creationism.
Here it is.
Take it away Wilberforce!

hackenslash wrote:I have no intention of fielding questions on anything other than 'other ways of knowing' until further notice, because I can't set up my gotcha if I get ahead of myself.

I fear that's an accurate translation.

Oh No not ANOTHER metaphysical evidence thread.

On the off-chance:

There are lots of verifiable facts of creationism. Here's just one.

"If the world really is around 6,000 years old we should be able to see no further than 6,000 light years into space."

Completely verifiable if it were true.

And the Age of the Earth video recently posted in this subforum:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat ... 46001.html

Animavore wrote:There are lots of verifiable facts of creationism. Here's just one.

"If the world really is around 6,000 years old we should be able to see no further than 6,000 light years into space."

Completely verifiable if it were true.

Wilberforce has actually agreed with that, then carried on his merry way.

Some of the verifiable facts of creationism that would be verifiable facts if, in fact, they were facts that were verified:

Stasis of the fossil record: Every species (or "kind") that exists today would found throughout the entirety of the fossil record. There may be other species that do not exist today, which existed at the first appearance of life and subsequently went extinct. But no new species would ever arise. So there would not only be precambrian rabbits, but turtles and bumblebees and frogs and ferns and sparrows and iguanas and etc. Actually, a single, solitary non-aquatic organism in the earliest part of the fossil record would be nice. Where are they?

The genetic species barrier: A mechanism would be demonstrated by which constraints are placed on the degree of genomic change that can occur over time, such that change above the species level could not occur. It could also be that we would observe species in which novel mutations no longer occur, as they would have reached the limit of the "microevolutionary" change that can occur.

There would be no transitional forms in the fossil record.

Each species or "kind" would have it's own unique genetic code, or mechanism of heredity.

Heredity itself would not exist.

It would not be possible to construct phylogenetic trees showing lines of descent between species in a nested hierarchical pattern, never mind having a situation in which such trees constructed along different lines of evidence agree to a magnitude far greater than could be expected by chance.

I'm sure there are many others.

Strictly speaking, however, these would not be "verifiable facts" that demonstrate creationism. They would only demonstrate that evolutionary theory, as we understand it, is false. The demonstration of creationism would still require lines of evidence about the nature of which I am not even certain. To my knowledge, no creationist has every actually explained what would constitute positive evidence in favour of the creation of life by God thru supernatural means. They only talk about what they believe is negative evidence against evolution. Perhaps Wilberforce1860 will be the first creationist to correct this astonishing oversight.

Do you think Wilberforce has heard of varves?

Heeheeheeheehoo.

Shrunk wrote:

JackRussell wrote:Do you think Wilberforce has heard of varves?

Heeheeheeheehoo.

Da Flude didit.

I should have guessed that the ICR would have flushed a scientifically illiterate turd down that particular toilet. I wonder if Wilberforce has the intellectual integrity to examine issues like varves from a non-creationist, scientific viewpoint. I am curious if he has ever come across them. I guess we will see. I just thought it would be a single point of creationist BS that could be addressed. I am well aware that there Re many,many, many more.

And I still reserve the right to weep, cry and laugh at creationist nonsense.

BTW, does Wilberforce want to see research into new antibiotics to counter the possible rise of resistant strains? Who would be best qualified to carry out that research? Just curious.

Well he's already launched into assertions in the other thread, that sexual reproduction and death are purportedly "better explained" by 3,000 year old mythology than by hard empirical science, which was amusing to put it mildly. Then of course he launched into those old creationist favourites, the origin of the universe (nothing to do with ToE) and the origin of life (again nothing to do with ToE).

I suspect he's in for a very nasty surprise when he finds out how much we know about these topics.

OK, since Wilberforce seems to be fighting his battle alone, it is only fair we bolster the weaker side of the debate for balance.

OK evolutionists! If natural selection is so good, how come well of 99% of all species are extinct? And why are there millions of spices alive today? Eh? Eh? Answer me that!

Darwinsbulldog wrote:OK, since Wilberforce seems to be fighting his battle alone...

Worse than that, he's not even fighting it himself.

Shrunk wrote:

Darwinsbulldog wrote:OK, since Wilberforce seems to be fighting his battle alone...

Worse than that, he's not even fighting it himself.

ha ha! Good point!

Shrunk wrote:

Darwinsbulldog wrote:OK, since Wilberforce seems to be fighting his battle alone...

Worse than that, he's not even fighting it himself.

He is thinking about it really really hard. Can't you feel it? His thinking is really really passionate and intense. Something could happen any time now...