|
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 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: I gave my view here. The pivotal factor is cause and effect, and here cause means being transcendent of the effect. While this is not provable in a lab, it is well defined by the term Omnipotent. But even academically, this factor is missing with non-creationalists, even discounted from the equation, but it is encumbent on them to nominate, as opposed proving, a causation factor. Evolution is an effect. The more sound premise prevails. Randomness is another term for NO CAUSE - because to evidence randomness, one has to identify an origin point, which has never been possible. The latter signifies that matter or anything else cannot emerge on their own, as does the intergration factor. I have heard of some imaginative appraisals to contrive randomness, but it is laced with glitches: infinite universe; it just happened; miraclulous odds which occured only outside of humanity's spacetime; etc. These are retreats. Creationism is the superior science and logic here. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Creationism depends on the non-random, and no singularity premises. If radioactive decay is not random why can you not predict when a single atom will decay? Unless you can answer that you have no valid answer.
None of these have ever been identified anyplace in the universe.
Individual atoms are randomly decaying all around you. All the time. You are so wrong I barely know where to start! Mathematically the probability of decay can be described as a distribution dependent on the number of atoms in question. With an infinite number of atoms of half life X the probability of predicting the number that decay in a given time is 1 (i.e. certain) For ANY number of atoms LESS than INFINITY the result is not certain. It may be accurate for a large number of atoms but you cannot predict EXACTLY how many will decay or which INDIVIDUAL atoms will decay.For a small number of atoms the results will in fact be extremely inaccurate. There is an element of uncertainty that increases the less atoms under consideration due to the inherently random nature of the underlying process. For one atom the distribution flattens out to 0In other words it can decay at any time from time=0 to time=infinity In other words it is not predictable In other words it is fundamentally and inherently random None of these have ever been identified anyplace in the universe. You could not be more wrong if you tried.Random processes take place in nature all the time everywhere. IF
Creationism depends on the non-random, and no singularity premises. THEN your whole creationist argument is founded on a mathematically and empirically refuted premise. No need to take my word for it. There is reams of documented evidence that you could refer to if you were not so irrevocably immersed in your warped fantasy. Again I repeat the question so that you cannot evade it - If radioactive decay is not random why can you not predict when a single atom will decay? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I gave my view here. To reiterate and summarize then, the "most convincing evidence for creation theory" is: (1) the assertion that the appearance of design IS design and thus requires a designer (2) the assertion that nothing is random (down to behavior of subatomic particles and the patterns of snowflakes) (3) the assertion that the bible is true At 200 plus posts there isn't anything else. These are at best subjective opinions, not facts.
Creationism is the superior science and logic here. Science is built on objective facts and so far none have been presented. Valid logical conclusions are built on validated premises and proper structure, neither of which have been presented here. Instead we have a list of logical fallacies. The above arguments are neither science nor logic, but bald unsupported assertions. Where are the facts? Where are the premises devoid of logical fallacies?
Message 209 it does represent a significant opportunity for creationists to enumerate their most convincing evidence. ... it also leaves the impression that creationists are not talking about positive evidence because they don't really have any. Particularly where is the evidence that supports just biblical creationism? Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
The leading creationists have been telling us for decades that they have a wealth of evidence for creation. In the mid-80's, a creationist co-worker and I went to see a debate by Gish & H. Morris vs Thwaites and Awbrey. My co-worker was devastated by it. As we were walking out, he kept muttering, "Why didn't they present it? They have all this evidence for creation. Why didn't they present it?"
This thread is a golden opportunity for creationists to present their evidence, so why don't they? The only conclusion we can draw from their failure to even give it a good try is that even they realize that they don't have any evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Any argument of the following form is invalid: If A then B B Therefore, A # If I am in Calgary, then I am in Alberta. I am in Alberta, thus, I am in Calgary. (Of course, even though the premises are true, I might be in Edmonton, Alberta.) ----------------------------------------------- In your case:If a designer then a design DESIGN! Therefore a designer! Any person of ordinary intelligence can see the illogic (= rhetoric) of the top scenario. The top scenario is a straw man; application of straw man ("In your case"/bottom scenario) makes perfect sense even though it is stated awkwardly. Again, appearance of design logically corresponds to Designer and not an antonym.
It's not rocket science Ray, it's logic. Again, how is design corresponding to Designer illogical? Of course my question is rhetorical. The logic is invulnerable and any disagreement by said evolutionist tells any objective person everything they need to know about the way evolutionists think (perverted). By RAZDs "logic": Nouns (design) and pronouns (Designer) do not exist (when it comes to biology, of course). Ray
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
This thread is a golden opportunity for creationists to present their evidence, so why don't they? We have. Your "question" above is attempting to evade caused by the inability to refute. Ray
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Any person of ordinary intelligence can see the illogic (= rhetoric) of the top scenario. The top scenario is a straw man; application of straw man ("In your case"/bottom scenario) makes perfect sense even though it is stated awkwardly. You are forgetting that you are using the appearance of design as evidence of design. Let me rephrase the bottom scenario with an example in place of "DESIGN" In your case:If a designer then a design SNOWFLAKE! Therefore a designer! Again, appearance of design logically corresponds to Designer and not an antonym. An evolutionist and a creationist are walking behind an elephant in a parade when the elephant drops a steaming load. The evolutionist goes to step around it when the creationist says "Don't you see the awesome intricate design of these droppings? Don't you see how they were intentionally designed and placed just for us to walk through?"
Again, how is design corresponding to Designer illogical? Because you have not refuted apparent design produced by random processes. Claiming this does not make it happen, as nature is surprisingly unimpressed by your opinion of what it can and cannot do.
The logic is invulnerable and any disagreement by said evolutionist tells any objective person everything they need to know about the way evolutionists think (perverted). By RAZDs "logic": By Ray's "logic" we need to joyfully walk through steaming piles of elephant dung while singing praise to the designer. Now that's perverted. Enjoy. ps -- just for the sake of the topic, where is your evidence for biblical creation? What is the evidence that ties the "evidence" provided so far to biblical creation versus any other possible creation? Edited by RAZD, : ps compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... attempting to evade caused by the inability to refute. One cannot refute that which does not exist. Inability to provide evidence = inability to make argument. Where is the evidence for biblical creation? What gets us from these simplistic (at best) arguments given above to being evidence for biblical creation? So far = (nada). To quote an old ad: WHERE'S THE BEEF? Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
dwise1 writes: We have. This thread is a golden opportunity for creationists to present their evidence, so why don't they? Your "question" above is attempting to evade caused by the inability to refute. Refute what? If any real, physical evidence has been presented, then please point me to it. Admittedly, I haven't been glued to this thread, but in reading through it I have only seen creationists offering "appearance of design" claims. So what is the evidence for "creation theory"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
....I have only seen creationists offering "appearance of design" claims. So what is the evidence for "creation theory"? Phrased as a "genuine" question, it is, in fact, a rhetorical question denying the evidence to be evidence, probably due to the inability to refute. In addition, Creationism is not a theory per se in the way evolution is a theory of how nature came to be without the aid of a Divine Being. Creationism is an observation - the hallmark of science. Creationism says that reality and scientific data is best explained to be the work of invisible Divine power. Since 45 percent of all Americans, according to polling data are Creationists, this fact means tens of millions of persons see reality as I just described; therefore, the main scientific evidence for Creationism is observational reality. Cannot see or connect reality to be the work of Divine power? This is Atheism or Darwinism. Ray
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
You are forgetting that you are using the appearance of design as evidence of design. Since I initiated said evidence, you are mistaken. Logically, appearance of design is evidence of design. How else should design appearance be interpreted? It is the evolutionist who special pleads the appearance, RAZD. You are forgetting the subject of this topic and there have been at least 3 major evolutionists who have already objectively recognized that from the Creationist perspective, design indicating invisible Designer is prima facie evidence for Creationism.
Let me rephrase the bottom scenario with an example in place of "DESIGN" In your case:If a designer then a design SNOWFLAKE! Therefore a designer! Awkwardly stated, but still true. Since every snowflake is different but generally the same, that is, a snowflake, we have face value evidence of special creation. No special pleading required.
An evolutionist and a creationist are walking behind an elephant in a parade when the elephant drops a steaming load. The evolutionist goes to step around it when the creationist says "Don't you see the awesome intricate design of these droppings? Don't you see how they were intentionally designed and placed just for us to walk through?" Absurd misrepresentation or bad joke. Keep your day job, RAZD. RAY: "Again, how is design corresponding to Designer illogical?" RAZD: "Because you have not refuted apparent design produced by random processes. Claiming this does not make it happen, as nature is surprisingly unimpressed by your opinion of what it can and cannot do." RAY: We already know that Atheist-Darwinism special pleads the appearance to not correspond to Designer, what is your point RAZD? How did stepping stone evolution create bat echolocation and leave the flying creature with the ability to navigate a lightless cave and secure prey? Will you assert a macromutation or single step selection? Since random processes are not really random when one forces the evolutionist to cough up a definition of random, you are, via sock puppet, providing the intelligence and guidance to the selection process. Biology Teachers have said natural selection has no specific direction, yet this contradicts published data ad nauseum which says natural selection has the ability to direct in a general direction. Here we have two sets of evolutionists quibbling over two synonyms. The point is that NS is guided, by the minds of Darwinists, ad hoc and after the fact. Ray
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Logically, appearance of design is evidence of design. How else should design appearance be interpreted? We have, in recent decades, found two methods for producing an apparently designed object: 1) The Old Fashioned Way.We apply intelligence to understanding the problem. We look far and wide to see what alternative solutions there maybe. We consider what we are attempting to solve. We take into account the costs and limitations we are operating under. We strive for "elegance" in the design -- which usually means simplicity and comprehensibility. This can be likened to someone solving a puzzle by examining the picture on the box, considering the shape and pattern on a piece in hand and looking over the partially completed picture to find likely spots to place it. This is most satisfying when we triumphantly put a piece in directly. Let's call this Intelligent Design; since we carefully make us of our intelligence to derive it. 2) The New Fangled Way.We construct an environment where evolutionary processes can be applied to the problem at hand. We attempt to not "second guess" the possible solutions. We simply allow the maximum of trail and error. We allow the process to run without guidance or input other than the selection part of the evolutionary paradigm. This maybe likened to doing a jigsaw puzzle by randomly grabbing a piece and trying it in all available spots. Let's call this "Unintelligent Design" since we produce a design but we do not apply any intelligence in the actual process. Now let's look at the outcome of the two processes:1) Intelligent Design Some degree of elegance is achieved (mostly ). The solutions will contain components that have been used in all sorts of other places. 2) Unintelligent DesignThe solutions can be of arbitrary complexity. The solutions are constrained by where the process started. Now let's look at the world of living things. Which do the "designs" found here look like? The answer is clear: Number 2 Of course, anyone who will state this:
Since every snowflake is different but generally the same, that is, a snowflake, we have face value evidence of special creation. No special pleading required. and apparently suggests that there is a snowflake gremlin crafting each snowflake is so far removed from the real world that they will never be able to look at the two kind of designs and make any rational assessment of them. But this post is for the others who keep forgetting that the "designs" we see do speak volumes about the type of process that formed them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Ray in Message 220:
Since 45 percent of all Americans, according to polling data are Creationists, this fact means ... Diddly boo. This is the logical fallacy of the Appeal to Popularity quote: And he hasn't yet dealt with the logical fallacies already exposed.
How else should design appearance be interpreted? As what it is ... the appearance of design. You need to show there is a designer that makes snowflakes to go any further. It's called connecting the dots.
... from the Creationist perspective, design indicating invisible Designer is prima facie evidence for Creationism. How does it relate to biblical creationism Ray? All you have are two buns (randomness and appearance of design) and a pickle (the bible says the bible is true so therefore the bible is true): Where's the BEEF?Where's the rest of the picture? How do you get from appearance of design to biblical creation and ONLY biblical creation? How do you get to the Cheeseburger in Paradise?
Awkwardly stated, but still true. Since every snowflake is different but generally the same, that is, a snowflake, we have face value evidence of special creation. No special pleading required. No, STILL a logical fallacy. It is the form of the argument that makes it a logical fallacy, Ray, irrespective of the argument, and you STILL fail to deal with this issue honestly.
Absurd misrepresentation or bad joke. Keep your day job, RAZD. The steaming pile of elephant dung is just as designed as the snowflake Ray, don't forget to praise the designer as you embrace it. Praise the dung, Ray, full steam ahead ...
RAY: We already know that Atheist-Darwinism special pleads the appearance to not correspond to Designer, what is your point RAZD? That it is STILL a logical fallacy, no matter how you try to hide the pea Ray: your latest argument is both the logical fallacy of the Red Herring and the logical fallacy of Style Over Substance. It is a matter of the FORM of the argument that makes it invalid, regardless of what is IN the argument. What you believe about other people and their argument is irrelevant, because YOUR argument is STILL invalid. Stop trying to avoid the issue: failure to refute and all that eh? And still no connection to biblical creation ... Where's the BEEF?Enjoy. (theme music) But at night I'd have these wonderful dreamsSome kind of sensuous treat. Not zucchini, fettuccini, or bulgur wheat, But a big warm bun and a huge hunk of meat. Cheeseburger is paradise.Heaven on earth with an onion slice. Not too particular, not too precise. I'm just a cheeseburger in paradise. I like mine with lettuce and tomato,Heinz Fifty-seven and French fried potatoes. Big kosher pickle and a cold draft beer. Well, good God Almighty, which way do I steer For my cheeseburger in paradise. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
So the question still stands: what evidence?
That is not a rhetorical question. It is a question that demands an answer. What evidence? And it's a question that's not been answered in decades, at least not that I've ever seen. You say it's "an observation". What observations? You say "Creationism says that reality and scientific data is best explained to be the work of invisible Divine power." Precisely how? And specifically which scientific data are you talking about and precisely how has it been determined that that data "is best explained to be the work of invisible Divine power."? Nor is it up to any popularity vote. It's been a while since I've read any of the polls testing the American public's understanding of very basic science, but as I recall a rather large percentage holds many wildly wrong ideas about science and about nature. How then could you invoke them as experts for deciding scientific questions? You say that they see reality as you do and yet we find that they are so very wrong about most of reality, so what does that say about your ability to see reality? Also, you are wrong in your statement about evolution. Evolution is a theory (which is to say a comprehensive explanation of natural phenomena based on observation and constructed through an iterative method of hypothesis-building and testing and which has been tested extensively) which describes how certain aspects of nature work. It says absolutely nothing about the supernatural, though, like every other scientific theory, it shows how nature can operate on its own such that concocting a supernatural explanation (eg, Zeus throwing lightning bolts) is not necessary. It does not preclude a Divine power being ultimately behind nature. Regardless of the ultimate origin of nature, nature does work and science studies how nature works. Not a difficult concept, really. And I do agree with you that creationism is not a theory, since it is not based on observation and hence not on the evidence, nor was it constructed through hypothesis building and testing. However, the topic title does say "creation theory", so you'll have to take that up with the OP. So the question still stands: what evidence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Now let's look at the world of living things. Which do the "designs" found here look like? I have read your argument several times now through and through. The above sentence appears to be your rhetorical conclusion. Let me critique your two methods:
1) The Old Fashioned Way.... ....is the conventional human design argument intended to represent, as a general model, like you said, "Intelligent Design." The problem with this scenario is that it is narrow in its definition as to what constitutes ID. Your description sounds like the minutes of a board meeting attempting to streamline costs without reducing quality and efficiency. I agree that said description corresponds to human design objectives in general. But human designers are not limited to this model. There is nothing simple about modern rocket engines or spacecraft navigation systems. While both strive for the goals you outline, neither can be considered simple and comprehensible by one person or even a small group. Both are the product of teams of intelligent persons working at the height of their capabilities. Engines and navigation systems clearly correspond to any given organism and their unique complexities, features and abilities, whether a dolphin or a bat. Except for my ending point, the conventional analogy to human design is a straw man since the issue is ID by Divine Being. Paley is correct: organisms correspond to watches in their arranged complexity. It is perfectly logical and sensible to conclude living organisms and their designs to be real - the product of invisible Designer.
2) The New Fangled Way.... ....is the evolutionary interpetation of Paley's watches. This interpretation is comparable to a map of the United States with everything normal except Rhode Island is depicted to be the size of Texas and Texas is depicted to be the size of Rhode Island. In other words, alleged sub-optimality is blown out of proportion and the Swiss chronometer is hand-waved away. And the proposed interpretation has no satisfying explanation for organism functionality during the under construction process. Organized complexity is real. This second method or explanation does not correspond to living organisms - organisms which command the intellect of our brightest scientists to explain. Logically, Divine intelligence crafted said objects since it takes many persons with Ph.D.s to figure them out and disect how they work, none being alike, and each exhibiting differences in complexities that are comparable and correspond to Intelligence. I simply assert that your assertion as to which scenario explains reality better is evidently inferior to the ID explanation.
and apparently suggests that there is a snowflake gremlin crafting each snowflake is so far removed from the real world that they will never be able to look at the two kind of designs and make any rational assessment of them. Since each is different how is special creation implausible? But you are dismissing on philosophical grounds - correct? At face value snowflakes correspond to special creation. Ray
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024