Is there ANY scientific evidence could show there is no God?

[Danmark]

Is there any scientific evidence that, if discovered, would prove to a Christian that the God of the Bible is man made and does not correspond to reality? In other words, is there anything you can imagine that would demonstrate there is no God?

Many Christian apologists appeal to science to support their belief in the Christian God; however, I suggest those apologists do not actually accept any scientific evidence that might suggest this 'God Story' is a hoax. I would like to test this hypothesis by asking if there is anything science could report that would convince believers in the God of the Bible that the Biblical claims about God are false?

[DeMotts]

Every time I post that picture of hominid skulls to a creationist in this forum they always stop replying. Do you have a response to my post or are you conceding the point?

Would it be any different to me posting this image and asking you to list them in order of evolutionary descent?

Have a good day?
Still small

Yes it would be different. For the reasons TSGracchus already outlined. But I'll indulge you anyways.

1. The image is unreadable, but if we COULD read it and see the breeds then we could probably track their past to when particular lines diverged through selective breeding. So yes we could probably roughly date them, although all the dates would likely be in the last thousand years or so, with most of them in the last 200.

2. As TSG pointed out, they are all the same species. They are not different species, so if they mated they would produce fertile offspring.

3. The hominid skulls are separated by hundreds of thousands if not millions of years, a substantial amount of time during which environmental factors, genetic drift, diet, tool usage, etc. could cause divergence of species. Substantial differences in areas such as brain mass (Australopithecus=400cm3, homo sapiens=1200cm3) and cognitive abilities, as well as bipedal motion, dexterity, social structure, etc would emerge.

Here are the points in your favor:

1. They are both jpegs with lots of skulls.

Have a good day?

[Still small]

Well, dogs have been subject to directed selection pver a geologically short time and are not all found in a line of descent. There are several still existent lines in that image and possibly no uncrossed genetic lines since the wolf. Still, they are all the same species, Canis lupus familiaris. If you don't know that, you are ignorant, and if you do know then you are ... disingenuous.

and

Yes it would be different. For the reasons TSGracchus already outlined. But I'll indulge you anyways.

1. The image is unreadable, but if we COULD read it and see the breeds then we could probably track their past to when particular lines diverged through selective breeding. So yes we could probably roughly date them, although all the dates would likely be in the last thousand years or so, with most of them in the last 200.

2. As TSG pointed out, they are all the same species. They are not different species, so if they mated they would produce fertile offspring.

3. The hominid skulls are separated by hundreds of thousands if not millions of years, a substantial amount of time during which environmental factors, genetic drift, diet, tool usage, etc. could cause divergence of species. Substantial differences in areas such as brain mass (Australopithecus=400cm3, homo sapiens=1200cm3) and cognitive abilities, as well as bipedal motion, dexterity, social structure, etc would emerge.

Here are the points in your favor:

1. They are both jpegs with lots of skulls.

Have a good day?

Thank you, I usually try to have a good day.
Let me try to deal with both responses (TSG’s and DeMotts’) together as they relate to the same problem. Firstly, what is the evidence we have before us? We have images of two collections of skulls, Collection A and Collection B. Now, as you point out and though difficult to read as you note in Point 1, the collections have labels which enable us to determine what it is that we are, supposedly, looking at. Is this information, the labels, part of the evidence? No, they are labels given by man, be they scientists, anthropologists, palaeontologists, biologists, (male or female), professional or amateur. Nonetheless, they are labels given according to a man-made classification system which does so according to a particular paradigm, currently that of ToE/Uniformitarianism (slow & gradual). They are not part of the original evidence, they are not labels naturally engraved into the material to enable us to accurately determine what it is and it relationship to other evidences.
Yes, according to the man-made labels, we can see that Collection B are skulls of various species of Canis lupus familiaris and we can verify this by autopsies on current species. But we do not have that evidential capability with Collection A.

Now imagine, if several million years after the ‘next asteroid-induced great extinction episode’, a new intelligent life form were to collect numerous skulls and bones (and nothing else) from various species of Canis lupus familiaris from various geographical and geological locations (due to the massive global cataclysmic events as a result of the asteroid collision) , would they automatically come to the same conclusion?
As you both point out, images in Collection B are all the same species, being sub-species or breeds existing during the same time period. Why could not this be true also of the images in Collection A? That they are all the same species, being sub-species existing during the same time period. Why? Let me give you the usual answer, “because they were all found in different geological locations, thereby being separated by thousands and millions of years and slowly evolving from one to another over that period.� What is this (usual) answer based on? An a priori of ToE/Uniformitarianism, nothing more, nothing less. Is it true? Only if you hold to that a priori but not so if you hold to a ‘rapid speciation/Catastrophism’ a priori such as caused by an asteroid collision or similar global catastrophic event. This is a position growing in acceptability by today’s secular neocatastrophists.

When one looks at the two collections, one notices differences between the images. DeMotts mentions the difference in brain mass and, somehow, equates that to an ability to determine the cognitive abilities. Does less brain mass equate to less cognitive ability? No, definitely not. There are numerous cases of people having half of their brains removed and recovering to still be able to function normally. (Just enter ‘half a brain’ into your preferred search engine and check out the results.)
One might also notice that there is greater variation in the images in Collection B than in Collection A, yet supposedly B is more closely related than A. Go figure!

So, yes, “[t]hey are both jpegs with lots of skulls� but what is the difference in the interpretations of the raw evidence in the two collections? That is dependent solely upon one’s a priori and that’s all.

Have a good day!
Still small

[Danmark]

"And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and 350,000 separate and distinct species of beetles: and it was so."

https://www.si.edu/spotlight/buginfo/beetle

[DeMotts]

[Replying to post 172 by Still small]

Now imagine, if several million years after the ‘next asteroid-induced great extinction episode’, a new intelligent life form were to collect numerous skulls and bones (and nothing else) from various species of Canis lupus familiaris from various geographical and geological locations (due to the massive global cataclysmic events as a result of the asteroid collision) , would they automatically come to the same conclusion?

A new intelligent life form would use a variety of dating methods, just as we do, to conclude that all the canis lupus skulls are from the same time period.

As you both point out, images in Collection B are all the same species, being sub-species or breeds existing during the same time period. Why could not this be true also of the images in Collection A? That they are all the same species, being sub-species existing during the same time period. Why? Let me give you the usual answer, “because they were all found in different geological locations, thereby being separated by thousands and millions of years and slowly evolving from one to another over that period.� What is this (usual) answer based on? An a priori of ToE/Uniformitarianism, nothing more, nothing less.

This is not based on, as you state, an a priori assumption of the veracity of the ToE. This is based on a combination of Potassium-argon dating, Argon-argon dating, Carbon-14 (or Radiocarbon), Uranium series, Thermo-luminescence, Optically stimulated luminescence, Electron spin resonance, Paleomagnetism and Biochronology methods.

See the problem here is you're throwing out a theory (they are all sub-species from the same time period) that is based on absolutely nothing. In fact, it flies in the face of all the corresponding evidence suggesting the exact opposite. We are in no way required to give this theory any credence at all as you have supplied nothing but a blind assertion formed as a "hey why not this?" question. This is a lazy argument, with no evidence behind it, attempting to discredit the work of countless individuals who have investigated millions of pieces of evidence that all point to one concrete explanation.

When one looks at the two collections, one notices differences between the images. DeMotts mentions the difference in brain mass and, somehow, equates that to an ability to determine the cognitive abilities. Does less brain mass equate to less cognitive ability? No, definitely not.

When you are comparing organisms with complete brains, yes, definitely yes.

There are numerous cases of people having half of their brains removed and recovering to still be able to function normally. (Just enter ‘half a brain’ into your preferred search engine and check out the results.)

The plasticity of the human brain is indeed amazing, and yes people have been able to live full lives after having a significant amount of their already formed and trained brain removed. However they almost always lose sight in the removed hemisphere. Furthermore, individuals born with microcephaly show very noticeable developmental shortcomings, which is a much more apt comparison to what we're talking about. But really, all of this has nothing to do with comparing the sizes of average brain size in organisms.

One might also notice that there is greater variation in the images in Collection B than in Collection A, yet supposedly B is more closely related than A. Go figure!

One might also notice that there is no discernable direction of development in Collection B as it is a series of breeds branching off of one species and terminating at a variety of points, and a very noticeable pattern of development in one direction in Collection A, indicating it was one organism evolving in one general direction.

[Still small]

"And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and 350,000 separate and distinct species of beetles: and it was so."

https://www.si.edu/spotlight/buginfo/beetle

This may be a position to which you choose to hold but it certainly is not one that I or many other Creationist hold. It is obvious that you are or choose to be misinformed in regards to that which Creationists believe, such as speciation. Your position and understanding is only suitable for the making of ‘straw man’ arguments.

Have a good day!
Still small

[DeMotts]

[Replying to post 175 by Still small]

Still small is it obvious that you are or choose to be misinformed about the theory of evolution, and the various ways in which fossils are dated and can be shown to have existed many hundreds of thousands of years apart. Your position and understanding is only suitable for the making of 'straw man' arguments.

Have a super day!

[Still small]

[Replying to post 172 by Still small]

Now imagine, if several million years after the ‘next asteroid-induced great extinction episode’, a new intelligent life form were to collect numerous skulls and bones (and nothing else) from various species of Canis lupus familiaris from various geographical and geological locations (due to the massive global cataclysmic events as a result of the asteroid collision) , would they automatically come to the same conclusion?

A new intelligent life form would use a variety of dating methods, just as we do, to conclude that all the canis lupus skulls are from the same time period.

No, I said an ‘intelligent’ life form, not one that jumps to assumptions like the present one.

This is not based on, as you state, an a priori assumption of the veracity of the ToE. This is based on a combination of Potassium-argon dating, Argon-argon dating, Carbon-14 (or Radiocarbon), Uranium series, Thermo-luminescence, Optically stimulated luminescence, Electron spin resonance, Paleomagnetism and Biochronology methods.

Oh, just like the KBS Tuff debacle. There was no combination of dating methods but merely a confusion of attempts. Now, while the article itself doesn’t mention ‘matching dates to hominem fossils’ (no wonder, considering the website) but the papers listed in the references do. The original doubts regarding the age of the tuff were raised because of a hominem fossil found ‘in the wrong place’. So they kept looking for more suitable ‘dating’ to fit the fossil. Once a suitable date was found, they ceased looking. Now, if two separate tests give different results, either result A is correct and result B is wrong, or result B is correct and result A is wrong. Or the third option, both results A and B are wrong, so keep looking. As the article states, “People's preconceptions and personalities can get in the way of evaluating the data objectively.� Therefore, should all previous datings be suspect and redone several times? Or should we just accept them because they fit the current paradigm? “Not based on an a priori assumption, my foot� 🤣🤣

See the problem here is you're throwing out a theory (they are all sub-species from the same time period) that is based on absolutely nothing. In fact, it flies in the face of all the corresponding evidence suggesting the exact opposite.

“(I)n the face of all the corresponding evidence suggesting the exact opposite�. What corresponding evidence? All you have is a series of skulls or bone fragments dated according to faulty methods based on the a priori of ToE and gradualism and arranged in accordance to a man-made classification system.

We are in no way required to give this theory any credence at all as you have supplied nothing but a blind assertion formed as a "hey why not this?" question. This is a lazy argument, with no evidence behind it, attempting to discredit the work of countless individuals who have investigated millions of pieces of evidence that all point to one concrete explanation.

That is “countless individuals who have investigated millions of pieces of evidence that all point to one concrete explanation�, all of whom have been taught to think the same way without questioning the paradigm by people who have been taught to think the same way without questioning the paradigm . . . .

When one looks at the two collections, one notices differences between the images. DeMotts mentions the difference in brain mass and, somehow, equates that to an ability to determine the cognitive abilities. Does less brain mass equate to less cognitive ability? No, definitely not.

When you are comparing organisms with complete brains, yes, definitely yes.

Can you please list the papers where cognitive abilities of these various hominoids, shown in the images, were tested and compared to validate your opinion?

One might also notice that there is greater variation in the images in Collection B than in Collection A, yet supposedly B is more closely related than A. Go figure!

One might also notice that there is no discernable direction of development in Collection B as it is a series of breeds branching off of one species and terminating at a variety of points, and a very noticeable pattern of development in one direction in Collection A, indicating it was one organism evolving in one general direction.

Again, both sets of images were displayed according to a man-made classification system. Nothing more, nothing less.

Have a good day!
Still small

[Tcg]

Again, both sets of images were displayed according to a man-made classification system. Nothing more, nothing less.

What kind of classification system are you expecting to find if not a man-made one? Who or what do you think could provide a better one?

[DeMotts]

[Replying to post 172 by Still small]

Now imagine, if several million years after the ‘next asteroid-induced great extinction episode’, a new intelligent life form were to collect numerous skulls and bones (and nothing else) from various species of Canis lupus familiaris from various geographical and geological locations (due to the massive global cataclysmic events as a result of the asteroid collision) , would they automatically come to the same conclusion?

A new intelligent life form would use a variety of dating methods, just as we do, to conclude that all the canis lupus skulls are from the same time period.

No, I said an ‘intelligent’ life form, not one that jumps to assumptions like the present one.

So your stance is that using dating methods is unintelligent?

This is not based on, as you state, an a priori assumption of the veracity of the ToE. This is based on a combination of Potassium-argon dating, Argon-argon dating, Carbon-14 (or Radiocarbon), Uranium series, Thermo-luminescence, Optically stimulated luminescence, Electron spin resonance, Paleomagnetism and Biochronology methods.

Oh, just like the KBS Tuff debacle. There was no combination of dating methods but merely a confusion of attempts. Now, while the article itself doesn’t mention ‘matching dates to hominem fossils’ (no wonder, considering the website) but the papers listed in the references do. The original doubts regarding the age of the tuff were raised because of a hominem fossil found ‘in the wrong place’. So they kept looking for more suitable ‘dating’ to fit the fossil. Once a suitable date was found, they ceased looking. Now, if two separate tests give different results, either result A is correct and result B is wrong, or result B is correct and result A is wrong. Or the third option, both results A and B are wrong, so keep looking. As the article states, “People's preconceptions and personalities can get in the way of evaluating the data objectively.� Therefore, should all previous datings be suspect and redone several times? Or should we just accept them because they fit the current paradigm? “Not based on an a priori assumption, my foot� 🤣🤣

Did you actually read what you linked? It describes a situation where there was a layer of redeposited ash which made dating difficult because it was a mix of substances, and despite all that they continued to investigate and improve methodology over a number of years until they had a more conclusive result confirmed by a number of sources. This is a terrible example for your point. This case illustrates "many of the problems with radiometric dating, but it equally illustrates that the problems are not insurmountable."

You also cut out the end of the statement that you quoted. Here it is in full: "People's preconceptions and personalities can get in the way of evaluating the data objectively. In the KBS Tuff controversy, personality conflicts may have contributed to delay in the resolution and certainly contributed to the drama. But in the end, the objective evidence is a constraint that every scientist must meet. Replication, free access to information, and awareness of conflicts of interest help assure that personal foibles do not determine outcomes. Because such mechanisms were in place, all of the scientists who initially supported the older 2.6 Myr date for the KBS Tuff later came to accept the 1.88 Myr age (Lewin 1987)." Seriously it's like you looked for an example that shows the opposite of what you're saying and then just selectively quoted it thinking that we wouldn't read it. I'm genuinely confused.

See the problem here is you're throwing out a theory (they are all sub-species from the same time period) that is based on absolutely nothing. In fact, it flies in the face of all the corresponding evidence suggesting the exact opposite.

“(I)n the face of all the corresponding evidence suggesting the exact opposite�. What corresponding evidence? All you have is a series of skulls or bone fragments dated according to faulty methods based on the a priori of ToE and gradualism and arranged in accordance to a man-made classification system.

You've made this enormous leap in claiming that all these dating methods are faulty. Feel free to explain how that's the case. Your previous link was the opposite of this.

We are in no way required to give this theory any credence at all as you have supplied nothing but a blind assertion formed as a "hey why not this?" question. This is a lazy argument, with no evidence behind it, attempting to discredit the work of countless individuals who have investigated millions of pieces of evidence that all point to one concrete explanation.

That is “countless individuals who have investigated millions of pieces of evidence that all point to one concrete explanation�, all of whom have been taught to think the same way without questioning the paradigm by people who have been taught to think the same way without questioning the paradigm . . . .

Whoops, you're describing religion. Laboratory results that are reproducible are once again, the opposite of what you're describing.

When one looks at the two collections, one notices differences between the images. DeMotts mentions the difference in brain mass and, somehow, equates that to an ability to determine the cognitive abilities. Does less brain mass equate to less cognitive ability? No, definitely not.

When you are comparing organisms with complete brains, yes, definitely yes.

Can you please list the papers where cognitive abilities of these various hominoids, shown in the images, were tested and compared to validate your opinion?

You're probably going to want something like a movie where a bunch of scientists pile into a time machine and zip back to the paleolithic and give these hominids IQ tests, and you likely won't be satisfied by anything less that that. Nonetheless:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3385680/
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10. ... 0800600413
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3385676/

One might also notice that there is greater variation in the images in Collection B than in Collection A, yet supposedly B is more closely related than A. Go figure!

One might also notice that there is no discernable direction of development in Collection B as it is a series of breeds branching off of one species and terminating at a variety of points, and a very noticeable pattern of development in one direction in Collection A, indicating it was one organism evolving in one general direction.

Again, both sets of images were displayed according to a man-made classification system. Nothing more, nothing less.

What does this even mean? Seriously, I don't think there's even a point here. As Tcg said, what kind of classification system are you expecting? I could easily say that both true and not true statements can BOTH be written in english, therefor they're equal in value. A value has to be ascribed to something in context.

You still have to show your evidence that Australopithecus, homo habilis, neanderthal, and homo sapiens all co-existed. You put that theory out there and then left it hanging.

[Danmark]

"And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and 350,000 separate and distinct species of beetles: and it was so."

https://www.si.edu/spotlight/buginfo/beetle

This may be a position to which you choose to hold but it certainly is not one that I or many other Creationist hold. It is obvious that you are or choose to be misinformed in regards to that which Creationists believe, such as speciation. Your position and understanding is only suitable for the making of ‘straw man’ arguments.
/quote]
So you don't believe the Bible?
Seriously, Christian creationists believe this impossible, magical thing, "God did it. The Bible tells me so." That is the basis for the belief. Then those pesky things like facts, history, biology intervene and they realize the are wrong so they make an absurd hybrid belief where they accept some of the FACTS evolution is based upon, but still cling to the ridiculous Biblical Myth of a 6000 year old Earth and a creation of six days... accept they modify it wherever they feel the facts are too intrusive. Each Bible based Christian has his or her own mix of this fact and fiction, from the absolutely literal interpretation of the myth to the more sophisticated and perhaps less defensible position of some sort of vague 'macroevolution' with 'God did it' to cover their areas of ignorance.