Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discussing the evidence that support creationism
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 286 of 301 (444051)
12-27-2007 11:59 PM


Cell & Brain Complexity
Having not had time to read the whole thread I'm not aware as to whether the Cell & Brain complexity evidence has been debated and if the following items have been discussed relative to it.
9. Design in Living Systems...A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations. A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations.16 The chance of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in 10 4,478,296 .17
10. Design in the Human Brain...The human brain is the most complicated structure in the known universe.18 It contains over 100 billion cells, each with over 50,000 neuron connections to other brain cells.19 This structure receives over 100 million separate signals from the total human body every second. If we learned something new every second of our lives, it would take three million years to exhaust the capacity of the human brain. 20 In addition to conscious thought, people can actually reason, anticipate consequences, and devise plans - all without knowing they are doing so.21
http://www.creationevidence.org/...dencefor/evidencefor.html

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by jar, posted 12-28-2007 12:04 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 288 by molbiogirl, posted 12-28-2007 4:02 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 290 by Percy, posted 12-28-2007 1:14 PM Buzsaw has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 287 of 301 (444052)
12-28-2007 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by Buzsaw
12-27-2007 11:59 PM


Re: Cell & Brain Complexity
Sorry but that is nothing but the old fallacy of Argument from Incredulity.
In addition, it is NOT support for Biblical Creationism.
AbE:
Remember Buz, proving one model is wrong does not add any credence to some other model.
You might want to study How can "Creationism" be supported? to learn how to go about supporting Creationism.
Edited by jar, : add some help for Buz

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Buzsaw, posted 12-27-2007 11:59 PM Buzsaw has not replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 288 of 301 (444062)
12-28-2007 4:02 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by Buzsaw
12-27-2007 11:59 PM


Buz, you're a moderator.
Dude. Rule 6.
PS
Is that all you've got?
"Garsh! It's awful durn com plee kated."?
A modern cell (complete with DNA, proteins, enzymes, etc.) is quite different from a proto-cell, dear.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Buzsaw, posted 12-27-2007 11:59 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by AdminPD, posted 12-28-2007 9:42 AM molbiogirl has not replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 289 of 301 (444088)
12-28-2007 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 288 by molbiogirl
12-28-2007 4:02 AM


Re: Buz, you're a moderator.
And you are not a moderator molbiogirl, which means you don't have the luxury to post correcting someone else without also moving the discussion forward.
His cut and paste wasn't that lengthy and he doesn't make a habit of it as some do.
Please refrain from conversational posts this close to the end of the thread.
Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread.
Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour timeout.
Thank you Purple

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by molbiogirl, posted 12-28-2007 4:02 AM molbiogirl has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 290 of 301 (444141)
12-28-2007 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by Buzsaw
12-27-2007 11:59 PM


My Summary
First, how does incredulity combined with a lack of understanding of evolution constitute evidence for Creationism? No one here argues, "Evolution is true because creationism requires Santa Claus, and I just can't believe Santa Claus exists." (In case this requires explanation, I'm combining an argument from incredulity with ignorance of Christianity.)
Evidence for creation would be the discovery of flood traces in the same geological strata around the globe. Evidence for creation would be the discovery of an organism genetically unrelated to all other life. Evidence for creation would be the discovery that human habitation at ancient sites all ended at the same time around 4500 years ago.
Second, I'm certainly not going to pick up discussion of those points, and I wouldn't encourage anyone else to, because I suspect, just as with the previous point about population growth, that you're quoting instead of describing them in your own words because you don't understand them. Plus there's only a dozen messages to go, so I'm going to skip ahead to my summary.
No evidence for creationism was presented in this thread, only fatally flawed and uninformed arguments against well-supported views of modern science. Creationists seem to have an innate misunderstanding of the nature of positive evidence. If evolution were shown wrong, it would only mean that we have no scientific explanation for the diversity of life on earth, but would provide no support for creationism, which itself has no positive evidence.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Buzsaw, posted 12-27-2007 11:59 PM Buzsaw has not replied

obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4116 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 291 of 301 (444244)
12-28-2007 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by Buzsaw
12-27-2007 11:40 PM


Alright. Fair enough.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Buzsaw, posted 12-27-2007 11:40 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 292 of 301 (444263)
12-28-2007 7:37 PM


Summarization
Since my last message and evidence link I see nothing but responses pertaining to bashing creationism/creationists and nothing directly addressing the cited evidence for creationism in the link. Admittedly I am not in the position to debate the science of the links pertaining to cells and the brain, but I figured folks here who are able might have some comments of significance to refute the claims of the statements if indeed they were able.
Anyhow with the thread winding down it's likely just as well. In summary, there have been discussed some of the evidences we creationists consider to be worthy of citing but given the unknowns like pre-flood climatology, atmospheric properties and such we creationists just have to say much is unknown. We don't claim to know nearly all evolutionists are assuming to be factual relative to tens of thousands, millions and billions of years ago.
Evolutionists in responses to me in this thread relative to the population debate are essentially saying we don't know either as per Malthusian irregularities along the way yet they claim to be debating with ever so much authority when they make their assertions about how things allegedly were in eons past.
Much of the credibility of the Biblical model lies in corroborating data like the fulfilled prophecies, the Exodus crossing reseach, history, interpretation of the observed, but to them it's all whistling in the wind and they have no interest in any of it since much of it is not directly related to science itself. Creationists like myself see much of this as supportive to the Biblical record so we begin with that as our model and debate falsification attempts.
Imo, the greatest debate of all boils down to dating methodology. Our argument is somewhat like Malthusian except that instead of unknows about population survival capabilities etc it's about unknow conditions preflood, when the Biblical flood model is applied. Jar denies there is such a thing as flood or Biblical model, but that's as foolish as if we were to try to deny the models evolutionists use for arguing their POV. The Biblical and flood model has no resemblence whatsoever to the secularist evolutionist POV yet they insist that our evidences must be based on their model. It just ainta gona work thataway if we are to have real fair and balanced evo-creo debate here. W can't debate the Biblical model exclusive of the book itself and the evidences observed relative to the supernatural aspects of it. That is not to say the Bible itself is evidence. No way! It's what we see as a credible model from which to base our research so as to either verify or falsify the model.
Admittedly I got careless in the earlier segment of the population arguments in that the first link was too ambiguous as to exactly how the math was done and the online calculator which I applied was too simplistic. I endeavored to rectify that in the latter messages which appeared to lend some credibility to my POV.......IMO.
Edited by Buzsaw, : clarify wording

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by CK, posted 12-29-2007 4:28 AM Buzsaw has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 293 of 301 (444283)
12-28-2007 8:09 PM


Summary: there is no support for Creationism.
as Buz says:
Buz writes:
Much of the credibility of the Biblical model lies in corroborating data like the fulfilled prophecies, the Exodus crossing reseach, history, interpretation of the observed, but to them it's all whistling in the wind and they have no interest in any of it since much of it is not directly related to science itself. Creationists like myself see much of this as supportive to the Biblical record so we begin with that as our model and debate falsification attempts.
Imo, the greatest debate of all boils down to dating methodology. Our argument is somewhat like Malthusian except that instead of unknows about population survival capabilities etc it's about unknow conditions preflood, when the Biblical flood model is applied. Jar denies there is such a thing as flood or Biblical model, but that's as foolish as if we were to try to deny the models evolutionists use for arguing their POV. The Biblical and flood model has no resemblence whatsoever to the secularist evolutionist POV yet they insist that our evidences must be based on their model. It just ainta gona work thataway if we are to have real fair and balanced evo-creo debate here. W can't debate the Biblical model exclusive of the book itself and the evidences observed relative to the supernatural aspects of it. That is not to say the Bible itself is evidence. No way! It's what we see as a credible model from which to base our research so as to either verify or falsify the model.
... all even he has is assertions of fact like "Much of the credibility of the Biblical model lies in corroborating data like the fulfilled prophecies, the Exodus crossing reseach, history, interpretation of the observed, but to them it's all whistling in the wind and they have no interest in any of it since much of it is not directly related to science itself." yet he has NEVER been able to support any one of those things and in fact things like "the Exodus crossing reseach" don't even exist; what he is referencing is not research but a frikking infomercial.
The only support that has been presented has been fallacious attacks on the conventional models and assertions of fact that they seem unwilling to support.
Biblical Creationism and ID are not just non-explanations, they are perversions of theology.

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

Aquilegia753
Member (Idle past 5901 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 294 of 301 (444347)
12-28-2007 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Cold Foreign Object
12-22-2007 7:02 PM


"Could you please also show us where any Evolutionist was recognized as a teacher and accepted in that role by any Creationist?"
I do accept evolutionist proffessors and teachers as teachers. They're all over the schools.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-22-2007 7:02 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Aquilegia753
Member (Idle past 5901 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 295 of 301 (444348)
12-28-2007 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by ringo
12-22-2007 7:10 PM


Re: Thread Reopened
"show us your calculations of the odds for God existing."
Okay.
Life is here, therefore God exists. Quite simple.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by ringo, posted 12-22-2007 7:10 PM ringo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by obvious Child, posted 12-29-2007 1:54 AM Aquilegia753 has not replied

Aquilegia753
Member (Idle past 5901 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 296 of 301 (444349)
12-28-2007 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by subbie
12-22-2007 7:42 PM


Re: A new, all-time low for Ray
"So, you put forth this list of PRATTs, which you refer to as "quite a bit of evidence," but then immediately disclaim any belief in the evidence by saying that you are not a YEC. I think the internal consistency meter has just blown itself out of existence."
This is a perfect example of what I'm saying. Evolutionists point to anything that argues against them and say "PRATT, PRATT, PRATT, PRATT, PRATT, PRATT, PRATT, PRATT, PRATT, PRATT, and PRATT." They never say "PRATT because of this, this, this, and this." Then, show them evidence that supports evolution and they say "HA! That is totally factual!"
Edited by Aquilegia753, : No quote

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by subbie, posted 12-22-2007 7:42 PM subbie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by Lithodid-Man, posted 12-29-2007 4:41 AM Aquilegia753 has not replied
 Message 300 by dwise1, posted 12-29-2007 5:12 AM Aquilegia753 has not replied

obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4116 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 297 of 301 (444362)
12-29-2007 1:54 AM
Reply to: Message 295 by Aquilegia753
12-28-2007 11:10 PM


Re: Thread Reopened
Let's run with that shall we?
Which God? Which set of Gods? Do we even have knowledge of the true God(s)?
Why wouldn't life arise on its own without Gods?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by Aquilegia753, posted 12-28-2007 11:10 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 298 of 301 (444371)
12-29-2007 4:28 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by Buzsaw
12-28-2007 7:37 PM


Buzz - you presented nothing
I cannot believe after all this time that you still do not understand that arguments against evolution are not arguments for creationism - how long have you been here? 4 years? And you still don't understand that very basic point - what are people suppose to conclude?
Either you have a learning difficulty (which I see no evidence for) or you know this but also know that you don't actually have any evidence for creationism and mentally you push that to the back of your mind.
Let's be clear about this - no evidence AT ALL was presented for creationism, the nearest we got to any evidence was your attack on population models - which was a) full of noddy numbers and a complete disregard for resource allocation/ultisation; and b) if it was correct (which it wasn't) would DISPROVE the bible because exodus could not have happened with your numbers.
If you claim in any future thread that you have provided evidence for creationism via population numbers, you should be blocked on the spot for lying.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Buzsaw, posted 12-28-2007 7:37 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 2931 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 299 of 301 (444373)
12-29-2007 4:41 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by Aquilegia753
12-28-2007 11:15 PM


Re: A new, all-time low for Ray
Aquilegia writes:
This is a perfect example of what I'm saying. Evolutionists point to anything that argues against them and say "PRATT, PRATT, PRATT, PRATT, PRATT, PRATT, PRATT, PRATT, PRATT, PRATT, and PRATT." They never say "PRATT because of this, this, this, and this." Then, show them evidence that supports evolution and they say "HA! That is totally factual!"
So that is the most you got out of this thread. Then I concede, Ray is right. You did not come here to learn a thing. I am a fool for thinking someone might have bettered themselves with this thread (or others on EvC). Sorry for wasting your time.

"I have seen so far because I have stood on the bloated corpses of my competitors" - Dr Burgess Bowder

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Aquilegia753, posted 12-28-2007 11:15 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 300 of 301 (444374)
12-29-2007 5:12 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by Aquilegia753
12-28-2007 11:15 PM


Re: A new, all-time low for Ray
"So, you put forth this list of PRATTs, which you refer to as "quite a bit of evidence," but then immediately disclaim any belief in the evidence by saying that you are not a YEC. I think the internal consistency meter has just blown itself out of existence."

This is a perfect example of what I'm saying. Evolutionists point to anything that argues against them and say "PRATT, PRATT, PRATT, PRATT, PRATT, PRATT, PRATT, PRATT, PRATT, PRATT, and PRATT." They never say "PRATT because of this, this, this, and this." Then, show them evidence that supports evolution and they say "HA! That is totally factual!"
Aquila, what part of PRATT do you not understand? The distinguishig featuer is that they have been "refuted a thousand times". Actually, that is a gross underestimate. Others refer to it as "refuting the dead". Someone else long ago on another forum refered to it as "beating a patch of grass where ten years ago there laid a dead horse."
How old are you? I have the impression that you're around 20 years old. That means that the vast majority of PRATTs were not only concocted long before you were born, but they were also refuted long before you were even born. I've been studying and following this "creation/evolution" nonsense (the only "controversy" is pure creationist invention) since about 1981, which by my estimate is also long before you were even born. To you, those PRATTs are probably new and exciting, but to those of us who have studied "creation science", they are just the same old lying crap that the creationists have been dishing out since Day One. They are PRATTs! They are pure crap. They are lies and deceptions.
I mean, just look at how Buzsaw just tried to foist the "Bunny Blunder" on us. That's what the creationist human population model claim is better known as, since the current world population of rabbits can be accounted for by two bunnies way back about 100 years ago, which "proves" that the earth can be no older than 100 years old. Way back around 1990, I wrote an article about it based on the early 1980's refutation of it, though I also research Dr. Henry Morris' writings about his claim (oh yes, he's the one who developed it). You can read it at No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/bunny.html. You can also read how the introductory texts on population modelling warn against Morris' and Buz' over-simplistic "pure birth" model.
Now, I do understand that you are not in a very good position to spot PRATTs on your own. That is because the creationist community just keeps recirculating all the old PRATTs and never tells you about their history, most especially they never tell you about their refutations. You think that they're handing you good stuff, while they're really only handing you pure crap. As one former creationist (oh, yes, there are a lot of former creationists who had been burned by "creation science's" PRATTs), Scott Rauch, had put it:
quote:
I still hold some anger because I believe the evangelical Christian community did not properly prepare me for the creation/evolution debate. They gave me a gun loaded with blanks, and sent me out. I was creamed.
Similarly, around 1990 I witnessed a young new creationist get up in an open debate format and with complete and utter confidence told the "evolutionist" half of the audience that he had brand-new scientific evidence that would blow them away: the speed of light was slowing down. He was himself blown away when half the audience burst into uncontrollable laughter because they were already very familiar with that decade-old claim of Setterfield's and he almost visibly melted as they informed him exactly why that claim was so false.
Now, I know that we are supposed to be as respectful of other people's beliefs as we possibly can, but we have heard and seen that PRATT crap presented so many times, we just cannot help but laugh at it. Because it is so completely and utterly false. And we just cannot believe that anyone can be so willfully ignorant or so utterly dishonest as to still be hawking that crap. And to insist that Christianity depends on that contrary-to-fact crap being true.
OK, you're new the fray. You're the proverbial "sucker born every minute" who gets fed creationist PRATTs and believes them to be true. Well, sorry, but they are not. And in this forum they get far too much more respect than they deserve.
Now, if any real evidence were to be presented for creation, then it would need to be considered. But we're getting ready to wrap up this topic and all that anyone has been able to present are PRATTs. Which we can only view as creationists' admission that all they have are PRATTs. No real evidence, just PRATTs. In other words, absolutely nothing.

{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)
Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)
Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Aquilegia753, posted 12-28-2007 11:15 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024