Spotting Beretta's "designer" {Now only 1 summation message per member}

Evidence for creation? Can I assume you actually mean evidence for creation by an intelligent designer?If so, then that's a good start, but you have to keep going. What is it about the Cambrian explosion that is evidence for an intelligent designer?By the way, congratulations on getting several people to digress with you onto evolutionary topics.--Percy

Yep - hangs head in shame But then, this is all it appears that Beretta has. Say we discovered tomorrow that evolution was completely incorrect, and that we were back to the drawing board - it would be hell for the creationists because suddenly they would have to compete with every other creation myth on the planet. And they have nothing with which to fight their corner... evolution is their best friend as it is a 'safe' enemy

It's a trick that I fell for in RAZD's thread on dogs. I was determined not to get too bogged down here.

Hi Beretta, thought I would restate my questions from post 190: Percy asked similar questions...

Beretta's not playing tricks with intention, I think. In fact, he's honest (except perhaps with himself) and sees his arguments as honest. He is a very polite poster, as well, and is patient when some of us lose our patience with him, which is commendable.He just can't discuss I.D. evidence because they're isn't any to discuss. If he wanted to get technical, he could try defending Behe on the bloodclotting thread I started a while ago. But the trouble is, any I.D.er with technical understanding (not B's strong point) would avoid that like the plague, because they'd know that Behe was wrong (which was why I started the thread, nasty evilutionist that I am ).

I agree. Beretta is a good poster for sure.There you go, Beretta, you have a fanclub!

No gradual increase in complexity as predicted by the tree of life analogy,all major life forms appear suddenly and fully formed in a small fraction of 'geologic' time. This explosion of complex life forms is only about 0.25% of the vast range of time secular scientists provide for the supposed evolution of life.Yet the theory predicts slow gradual change and there should be billions of intermediates leading up to these. Even if billions couldn't be found, at least a good few showing some sort of link to the sudden appearance of so many life forms would be nice.
Since mutations that are passed on are rare in the first place and it is even rarer that they are of any benefit to an organism, evolution can't reasonably account for the Cambrian.
Dawkins maintains that 'given enough time' gradualism can account for any degree of simplicity to any degree of complexity while Stephen Jay Gould maintains that complex life did arise with startling speed near the base of the Cambrian.
Chinese paleontologist, Chen, states that Cambrian fossils found in Chengjiang in China revealed the fossils to be upside down from the expected evolutionist view. "The base is wide (at the bottom of the Cambrian)and gradually narrows -so there is an upside down arrangement compared to what would have been expected. He maintains that no transitional body parts were found and since there was an abundance of sponges and soft-bodied sponges found, then soft bodied transitional forms should have been found if there were any.Perhaps these creatures didn't evolve, perhaps they were created as distinct types. Perhaps they require a creator rather than a vast period of time.

How about separately created since they bear no similarities to the multitude of forms found in the Cambrian.

Well I am struggling to get the time for this particular subject so don't see myself going near bloodclotting for a while but since I have read up about the blood clotting some time ago I just remember that it did seem unlikely that that such a complicated whole series of events could have been worked on gradually since one factor missing allows bleeding not clotting so it makes sense that you would bleed to death during the millions of year it supposedly took to get the pathway right.Maybe I should just pop over there and check the argument out sometime soon.Thanks for the vote of confidence -you may think I'm crazy, I can live with that but it's at least nice not to be accused of intentionally lying for a change!

Thanks to you RickJB and to Bluegenes for being some of the more pleasant cambatants that I have to deal with here (there are a few others).I'm so used to being accused of deliberately lying my mouth just drops open to hear something pleasant for a change -it's a thankless job being snipered at in foreign turf - but somebody has to do it or you'd all be bored too death agreeing with one another!

You're again arguing against evolution instead of for ID. It is definitely not the case that there are only two possibilities, evolution and ID, and that if one is shown wrong then the other must be right.At heart, evolution is a valid scientific theory because it is knowledge gained via the scientific method. For ID to become science it, too, must practice the scientific method. But rather than conducting scientific research IDers instead declare that we can never discover anything about the nature of the designer or how he designed. This is inherently unscientific. One cannot invoke a mechanism about which nothing can be known or discovered and still be considered science.The Discovery Institute's way around this dilemma is to declare the modern conception of science bankrupt and has set a goal of changing science to include the supernatural as an assumption. The only way this will ever happen is for the field of ID to adopt that view of science themselves and then produce better scientific results. When scientific advances start flowing out of ID research centers then science will change to incorporate the improvements in scientific methods.But until that time you've got nothing. You're certainly not going to get anywhere endlessly repeating arguments that simply ignore how incredibly rare the three events of fossilization, preservation for millions of years, and eventual discovery are.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

You don't seem to understand what is being asked of you. So what if evolution can't explain the Cambrian? Even if we accept that as being true, along with all the other anti-evolution gripes in your post, none of it constitutes positive evidence for creation by a designer. Just because evolution is false it does not follow that design is the answer.Design is not the default explanation in case of evolutionary failure. There could be other explanations. Maybe we were created by accident by the machine elves from the other side. Maybe life always existed in its current form, or maybe we really were created by the Biblical God. The only sensible way to choose between these explanations is to provide some positive evidence for one of them, not just whining about rival theories.Say we set up two rival statements;i; pi=1
ii; pi=5Say I manage to prove that pi is absolutely not equal to 5. Does that prove that pi is 1? Of course not, both statements are wrong. This is the mistake you keep making. Evolution=false does not mean creation=true, especially if you are only talking about your favoured version of creationism, the Biblical one. Perhaps. Perhaps it was the machine elves. This thread is asking you to provide more positive evidence for your Bible ID hypothesis than I have for the machine elf hypothesis. No matter how many pot shots you take at evolution, none of them are going to provide that kind of evidence.

---

Mutate and Survive

Firstly, stromatolites aren't the only pre-cambrian fossils. The existence of various other forms (like the Cloudina, for example) will play havoc with your "similarity" argument. Incidentally, ID proponents are often skeptical of homology since each creature is thought of as a unique "design", so it seems odd for you to rely on it now.Secondly, and most importantly, before you go proposing an earlier creation you need to get to work on a model for the workings of your Cambrian "creation" if you want to do real science. Not an easy task you've set yourself, Beretta...Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Another way that could happen is for a theocracy, or at least religiously controlled, government. The Discovery Institute seems to favor this.Look at the Wedge Strategy--and what they advocate:

Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

The only way you will get tens of thousands of scientists to adhere to this type of stunted science is through theocratic rule. (Bring the Inquisition out of retirement?)

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

You been dropping some acid Granny?TTFN,WK