|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Science in Creationism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
Hi Dr,
Dr writes: Now let us turn our attention to a living thing, say an anteater. How are anteaters usually produced? By a Female anteater and a male anteater mating.
Dr writes: The creationist therefore needs evidence that some anteater was once produced in some way that is different from how anteaters are normally produced. Have you ever seen a anteater that was produced by any method other that by a female anteater and a male anteater mating? God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes: You Dr A. What your Mug factory does for you, specific revelation in the form of the word of God does for us. It supports our existing indirect evidence And so despite all of Dawns assertions that he is describing science the TRUTH finally slips out. Creationism is NOT Science and there is no Science, revelation to the select few. The Science in Creationism is ancient mythos.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined: |
DB - you are conflating function and purpose (as has been pointed out before).
To help, consider a lock on a door. Its function is to prevent the door being opened without a key. Its purpose, however, differs, dependent upon whether the door in question is to a safe or a prison cell. In both situations, its function remains constant, regardless of its purpose. If you conflate function and purpose, all you do is to beg your own question, through imprecise language and concepts. Edited by vimesey, : Autocorrect inserting bloody apostrophes !Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 852 Joined:
|
How did natural selection and mutation happen to be here to allow this order you say exists You're side-stepping the point. Since we know natural selection + random mutation can lead to the appearance of design, there's no such thing as an axiomatic, self-evident "truth of design."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
You Dr A. What your Mug factory does for you, specific revelation in the form of the word of God does for us. It supports our existing indirect evidence Do you have evidence that the Bible is specific revelation in the form of the word of God? Show me the evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
That is too funny. Natural selection does not just happen to be here, it is what IS here. Natural section is "HERE".
The question about mutation is even funnier. It is simply errors. Shit happens. And sometimes that is what saves you.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
The problem Dr A is you are hopelessly restrained by using Indirect evidence for the explanation of all things or existence But you pretend you have a better method for establishing evidence. You don't If this was not gibberish, it would probably be a lie. Could you try in future to make posts which are neither lies nor gibberish.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
'm going to presume you know the difference between direct and indirect I do not know what distinction you wish to make when you use those terms. Clarity is not your forte.
Are you being evasive and silly No.
We're you there to see things coming about by simply natural causes Things are still coming about as a result of solely natural causes. It's not like this stopped happening at some point and now when we look around all we see is stuff happening by magic. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
See that's your problem. Your stoping short of what the investigation invokes.
You DONT KNOW neither can you establish by direct evidence that sole y natural causes can account for apparent design Your assuming because some things in a system operate orderly that this how it all started. You would need direct evidence that all things were brought about in that manner What is your evidence
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
What is your evidence that things initially happened by Exclusively natural causes
Sho w it to me
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Have you ever seen a anteater that was produced by any method other that by a female anteater and a male anteater mating? No. Have you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Was the lock on the door designed or did it happen by itself. What is your evidence for why the lock is there
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes: What is your evidence that things initially happened by Exclusively natural causesSho w it to me And so the Gish Gallop continues on. Dawn, not a single person has said that things initially happened by Exclusively natural causes because it is utterly irrelevant. What people have said is that there is ample evidence that only natural causes have ever been found for anything other than those things where we definitely know the designer and that designer be us and that solely natural causes exist to explain all that is seen today and in the few cases remaining where we do not know the cause we can say "We don't yet understand that one. But since no cause other than solely natural ones have ever been seen it is likely that when we do understand that one the cause like all others will turn out to be solely natural." No God need apply. Edited by jar, : fix sub-titleAnyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Your second paragraph here is what makes your position completely silly for several reasons.
Saying it is irrelevant is admitting like us short of specific revelation, like Dr A's mug factory, that you have no Direct evidence for your conclusions Secondly, my indirect evidence from obvious design is sufficient to establish it as a scientic approach the same way you are assuming indirectly that the evidence establishes the conclusion of natural causes for its existence Where there is only indirect evidence Jar, there is NOT ample evidence as you suggest for sole y natural causes That does not mean indirect evidence as all of us use is not evidence Correct So your quote would intimate two things. We are using the same type of evidence and and design coupled with specific revelation is a valid approach as anyotherCorrect Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Faith writes: We don't need to point to the stamped information on the mug, we can tell it's the product of design just by looking at it -- or recognizing its function -- and we can tell the same from objects found in an archaeological dig: a pile of bones is easily distinguished from a clay vessel or an arrowhead and we don't need "Made in China" stamped on them to tell the difference. If we put two mugs together for a little while, we don't get a bunch of baby mugs. That's what differentiates the two. Biological reproduction is what allows life to produce intricate design through the mechanisms of evolution, and it is something that coffee mugs lack. That is why comparing the two is completely illogical.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024