|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Most convincing evidence for creation theory | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Whilst pointing out problems with the established scientific theories is perfectly valid this alone should not be considered as evidence in favour of creationism.
Establishing the validity of a theory requires positive evidence for the theory in question. Evolution (for example) does not base it's whole validity on the argument that creationism can be demonstrated to be wrong. Instead it bases it's arguments on the "evolution can be shown to have taken place due to....." type arguments. The equivalent "Most convincing evidence for evolution" thread consisted almost entirely of such exampes of positive evidence for evolution. All too often the arguments for creationism seem to rest purely and simply on the 'evolution must be wrong because.....' format of negative "evidence" Even if evolution was somehow shown to be false creationism would not have been proved to be true. I look forard to seeing some positive evidence for creationism. In this thread do you want non creationists to debate the examples that are cited? If not I will read with interest but remain a spectator. Let us know.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
As regards the best evidence for creationism (and related creator requiring theories) -
I would say the most convincing I have seen is Behe's argument for irreducible complexity at the molecular level. Not an argument for YEC as such but for ID integrated with evolution and the need for the presence of a 'creator' of some sort. At the very least this seems to ask a question that evolutionary biologists then needed to answer. However it is still a largely negative argument of the 'evolution must be wrong because...' type rather than positive evidence for design. It also suffers from the fact that the specific claims of irreducible complexity have since been widely refuted. BUT it at least posed a meaningful challenge to evolutionary theory and I have not seen many creationsit arguments that do that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
If you have some positive evidence for the creationist position then here is the place to present it.
Simply asserting that creationism is true doesn't count as evidence.Simply asserting that apparent design can only be due to actual design also does't count as evidence. If you read the thread thus far you will see that positive evidence for creationism is what is required. Do you have any?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
It would imply the Creator studied his Biology. Creationist would claim that the designer realised the importance that parasites play in the viability of an ecosystem, and within more complex organisms. Parasitic organisms are indeed essential in nature as we know it. An omnipotent designer should however be able to design an ecosystem that does not rely on the sort of suffering and brutality that parasitic organisms result in. The gist of IceAges point remains unanswered. Why design a system whereby such parasites are so essential? Why not create an ecosystem that does not require the suffering, brutality and destruction that we see inherent in nature as we know it? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
The question for this thread would probably be better stated 'What is the best Argument for Creationism?'. Yes this is very true and becoming more apparent as the conversation develops.However the argument does need to be based on, and consistent with, physical evidence. Irreducible complexity and the apparent design evident in nature are the only two arguments put forward so far. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Who, or what, the creator is reveals the only meaningful and thought-provoking difference between the two camps. Everything else is just window dressing.
How can we hope to investigate that? Without a basis for that debate in the form of physical evidence the converstaion can ONLY ever be "window dressing" Science cannot disprove a creator and (whether or not creationists actually believe it) science is not attempting to do this. But science may be able to demonstrate that natural proceses negate the NEED for a creator.This is not the aim of science but each new significant development does seem to take things further down that path.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Evolutionists have ample evidence to support their position, as do creationists. Evidence is not the problem I would argue that the theory of evolution was formed as a result of the evidence. Creationism on the other hand existed prior to any evidence and remains stubbornly unchanged in the face of evidence.
Interpreting that evidence correctly so that the destination acheived is both beneficial and accurate, this is the great challenge with which we are faced. The assessment of evidence to obtain objective conclusions is the whole point of the scientific method.Prediction and corroboration are extremely difficult to simulate if the theory in question is not actually a true reflection of reality. The fact that, for example, fossil evidence was interpreted in such a way that it is entirely consistent with the findings of genetics before genetics had even been discovered adds a great deal of weight to the evolutionary position. Creationism however makes no predictions and no has no corroboration between independent fields of study. It is merely an ad-hoc amalgam of alternative explanations for individual pheomenon. This thread is about the 'best' creationist arguments so if there is anything that can compare to, for example, the verification of evolutionary history as concluded from fossil evidence by genetics then now is the time to present it.............
Evolutionists have ample evidence to support their position, as do creationists Over to you to tell us about the creationist evidence as, so far, this thread has not presented much along that line despite that supposedly being it's main aim.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
I accept Divine Revelation as truth, just as you scientists accept the Scientific Method This would be a good topic for another thread An analysis of why such things as prediction and independent corroboration of theories are so compelling to scientists. A discussion as to which of divine revelation and scientific method is the best means of investigating reality and why each camp believes their methods to be superior. However as Admin has stated we need to let this thread get back on track. Personally I think the lack of evidence that is likely to be presented on topic in this thread will speak volumes about the creationist position (or more exactly the lack of it)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Which of your evidences listed do you consider to be the most compelling?
How does this chosen line of evidence fare in terms of prediction and independent corroboration? Do you even accept that prediction and independent corroboration are useful criteria for assessing the validity of a theory/interpretation?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
How does this chosen line of evidence fare in terms of prediction and independent corroboration? Depends on the camp examining the evidence, now doesn't it. No. Consider the BB theory. CMB was PREDICTED as a logical and mathematical consequence of the theory. It had never been detected or even considered prior to that. The theory in question did not just predict the existence of an as yet undeteced phenomenon it provided an actual specific measurable figure for the expected value that should be detectable if the theory were indeed true. The CMB was then detected with the specific measurement predicted and BB theory considered to be wholly vindicated. That is convincing evidence. That is not dependent on who is evaluating the evidence or taking the measurements. If creationists want to measure the CMB for themselves they are free to do so. Do any of your evidences have anything that compares with the above in terms of prediction or corroboration? If not it can hardly be said that they are equally viable as you are claiming. I am asking you to put forward one of your evidences as the most convincing on the basis of prediction and/or independent corroboration. The OP requests one example in detail rather than a list.It has to be said that the non-creationist equivelent thread had no problem at all meeting that criteria. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Buz in summary you seem to be saying that the appearance of design is effectively evidence of design.
This argument has been put forwards within this thread as the best evidence for creationism already. You are making your argument on a cosmic scale with specific reference to the interdependency between the various components rather than the more limited context in which it was previously raised. That is fair enough and a point worth making But in terms of the OP and the discussion so far your argument does amount to "Apparent design is best explained by actual design" does it not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
To get back on topic........
Are you claiming that the existence of speech is the most convincing evidence for creation theory?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
I said (message 22)
Simply asserting that creationism is true doesn't count as evidence. You said in response
Show me where I made this bare assertion? Of course I made no such bare assertion, you are misrepresenting because you cannot refute. BUT in message 19 you said
Since evolution was never true, and since Darwin proposed his theory when science accepted Paleyan design as true, Creationism has always been true. So no misrepresentation at all then?
Simply asserting that apparent design is not actual design does not make actual design apparent design.
Agreed. Actual design is never apparent design but that does not make apparent design necessarily actual design.What exactly is your point? Once again, the appearance of design seen in nature corresponds to invisible Designer, logically. I agree that the appearance of design is the best evidence that creationists have for their views.
I think you should refrain from derailing this topic with well known Darwinian claims about how apparent design is interpreted.
For what it is worth I feel that I have been one of the few people trying to stay broadly on topic in this thread. Oh well. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
no. an omnipotent designer can do whatever he likes. an omnibenevolent densigner should be able to design an ecosystem that does not rely on the sort of suffering and brutality that parasitic organisms result in.
Fair point. The designer we seem to be mainly focussing on in this discussion however is the Christian God. As I understand it that designer is meant to be both omnipotent and benevolent. minor difference there. In the that context I believe that my original point stands but wholly accept that in a broader context what you say is absolutely true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Interesting post
I disagree fundamentally with much of what you say (in ways that are totally off topic) but your post was interesting reading.
Proving creationism: what does this mean - what proof is expected and what would satisfy here? We cannot expect an answer here - else we would have long ago pursued such a path. Lets determine then, what is NOT a proof of the universe or against Creationism 'Proof' of anything is not the issue in this thread.Negative evidence is also ideally off limits The most convincing evidence is what is required. Preferably physical evidence of creation or creationist arguments In summary you seem to be saying that the best physical evidence for creation is the fact that matter exists because 'random' (your word)or uncaused (my interpretation) effects are impossible (so you assume) and therefore cannot account for the origin of matter. Is that essentially correct? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024