|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Most convincing evidence for creation theory | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Three evolutionists disagree. You are out of step with your people, placing your hands over your ears, and babbling incoherently the same drivel over and over. They only said it was the best evidence not that it was good evidence: you need to stop posting falsehoods Ray. One of them has even specifically stated this. Your inability to deal with the issue is your problem.
What has happened is that you have mindlessly asserted against all sound logic that design does not indicate or correspond to Designer. Objective persons, which, of course, include the three evolutionists know that it is not a matter of opinion: appearance of design logically corresponds to work of a Designer. I am very glad to see this. It gives onlookers an excellent taste of how deluded (or dishonest) the average Darwinist is. Design indicates Designer, it is perfectly logical and nature exudes design on a scale ungaugeable in the positive sense. No matter how you rant and rave about this issue it is still a logical fallacy, Ray: it is the FORM that makes if a fallacy. You on the other hand are misrepresenting what other people said and still claiming a logical fallacy after the issue has been pointed out. You are unable to refute it being a logical fallacy and so you resort to attacking me -- adding the ad hominem logical fallacy to your list of failed arguments. This is the form of your argument, it is called the Affirming the Consequent logical fallacy:
If A then B B Therefore, A IF {a designer} then {design}{design} Therefore {a designer} You cannot escape the form of the argument being the criteria for the logic being false regardless of the argument: that is how logic works Ray. You are unable to refute the fact that the FORM of this argument is invalid.
In reply, the Darwinist must assert that the appearance of design, contrary to all logic and intuition, corresponds to an antonym: anti-intelligence natural selection, or in other words, extreme Atheist nonsense. I don't need to assert anything to show that your argument is invalid, Ray. We are not dealing with evidence for evolution, but evidence for creation, and that evidence needs to stand on its own. We have been over this several times and you still fail to deal with the issue.
The issue was: The Bible IS evidence for Creationism. And biblical creationism is based on the bible being true so you are assuming the bible to be true to prove that the bible is true.
If the Bible does not support your theory (and it most certainly does not) then on this level your theory is fucking false as a four dollar bill. Again you are assuming that the bible is true. Where is your evidence that it is true? In your language? In your ability to deal with the issue?
Five items on said list say the Bible is true. Asserting this does not make it so Ray. I have asked several times now for the connection between your list of evidence and biblical creation and have not had any reply on that issue. You are still missing the logical step between your weak (at best) evidence and biblical creationism:
Premise 1: Any one of your five items Premise 2: (missing) Conclusion: Bible is true Where is your premise 2 argument?
Comment presupposes that the appearance is on the defensive. Evolutionary processes are eliminated as a possible source because the same claims that intelligence is not involved in nature. This means we have an overwhelming appearance of design in nature asserted to be the product of the opposite of intelligence or "design = unconscious process" which is extreme and gross illogic. The issue is not what evolution claims Ray: it is about how good your evidence is for making logical conclusions. You have not eliminated the possibility of appearance of design by other factors therefore you have not made the case that design can ONLY be due to an intelligent designer. Appearance of design is in the eye of the beholder Ray, it is not objective evidence. That was the point behind my previous little story:
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?" Embrace the pile Ray.
Bat sonar, electric fish, the human brain, humming birds, the product of something that is unconscious? The product of selection. Now we add the argument from ignorance and incredulity to your list of logical fallacies. You need to show that these cannot evolve, not just claim it to be so (aside from your usual misrepresentation of what evolution processes involve). You need to eliminate the other possibilities before you can claim they can't apply. The evolution of each of these is fairly easy to imagine, complete with evidence of intermediate organisms to substantiate it, but that is not the point of this thread: the point of this thread is for you to present evidence FOR creationism not evidence against evolution. If your only evidence for creationism is that you cannot figure out how evolution works, then your only evidence is your own lack of imagination and willingness to look at the evidence honestly.
The CE is exactly that. Again, you are relying on perverted logic. The CE corresponds perfectly to Genesis special creation. What more could the Creationist want? We could not ask for better evidence for Genesis. Asserting it does not make it so. You need to provide the logical argument that gets from the evolving life during the millions of years of the "cambrian explosion" to biblical creation. Where are the fish, the reptiles, the mammals, the birds, etc Ray?
By definition, IC means non-evolvable. If it exists (and it does) then the main claim of evolution (gradualism) is falsified. This too is a falsehood: please read Behe again. You castigate IamJoseph for falsely portraying Einstein as a theist, and yet here you gratuitously misrepresent what IC means. Here is the definition Michael Behe used when he made the term up ("Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution." - p 39):
By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution.
The conclusion made by Behe (and others) is that IF evolution cannot produce these systems, THEN they must have been made, designed, created. The fact is that at least one has evolved and been documented, and this invalidates this concept as being evidence that must be for creation. See Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experiments for more on this issue.
The main claim of your theory is not seen in the undisturbed geological crust of the Earth. Punctuated equilibria says species stasis corresponds to intervals of rapid evolution. But the point here is stasis and at face value microevolution is not seen. Again you are misrepresenting punkeek AND missing the fact that there are still transitional fossils. You are trying to use punkeek as a red herring to divert the argument away from the existing of transitional fossils. The issue is your false claim previously that
5. Lack of species transitionality seen in the undisturbed geological crust of the Earth. This is false. There are transitional fossils. See Use and Abuse of the Fossil Record: The Case of the ”Fish-ibian’ By Penny Higgins for discussion of some of those transitions. There are many others. Your inability to deal with the evidence does not make it dissappear Ray.
Why? Because evolution is not true, that's why. The topic is positive evidence FOR creationism Ray, NOT evidence against evolution: proving evolution wrong (which you have not even begun to do) does not make creationism true by default. This is just another in a loooong line of logical fallacies. Enjoy
over 285 posts and still no real positive evidence for creationism, no "evidence" that does not rely on incredulity, falsehood, assuming the conclusion and other logical fallacies. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
You are the one playing the semantics game: the book is it's written contents Ray. That was my exact point. Your brazen misrepresentation is caused by no fear of a Moderator putting you in your place.
books by Gould, Dawkins and Myers refer to external evidence -- scientific studies -- and are not themselves evidence. Again, that was my exact point. It was Ned's point too even though he stated it badly. Again, you have misrepresented.
Where is the external evidence for the bible? Appearance of design in nature is overwhelmingly real to a ridiculous level. Logically, it testifies to the work of invisible Designer. In other words, it proves the existence of God who in this case is the Genesis Creator. There are five other evidences that I have listed and argued, but I will not run through them again here unless you ask for review.
No Ray it is just basic logic. A book cannot be the only evidence for its truth. Re-use of an already identified straw man. I have listed 5 external evidences that correspond to the textual evidence. The universe contains untold examples. Ray
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jaderis Member (Idle past 3425 days) Posts: 622 From: NY,NY Joined: |
Now, I have posted 3 different evolutionists (in four posts) recognizing the best positive evidence for Creationism. Straggler's post preceded my post (but acknowledges IC in my post) and Percy and Crashfrog's posts were replies to my post. Ray, I addressed back in Message 237, where I said
Yes, it is prima facie evidence. From Wikipedia quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prima facie is a Latin expression (which originates from Middle English) meaning "on its first appearance", or "by first instance", and is used in modern legal English to signify a matter that appears on first examination to be self evident from the facts. In common law jurisdictions, prima facie denotes evidence that is sufficient (if not rebutted) to prove a particular proposition or fact. Most legal proceedings require a prima facie case to exist, at which point proceedings can commence in order to test it, and create a ruling. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Meaning that it looks good at first glance, but it needs to be able to stand up to contradictory evidence. I doubt that these 3 evolutionists rule in favor of your evidence in light of the evidence for evolution. All they were really saying is that it looks good on its face and (I don't mean to put words into people's mouths, but this is how I took it) that it's kinda pathetic if this is all you have, especially if you can't back it up. Now, it seems to me like you either didn't bother to read my reply or you did and are trying to make it seem like these 3 people still support your evidence in light of all the evidence for evolution. I doubt they enjoy you misrepresenting their views. One of the three (Straggler) has already agreed with my assessment. I can't speak for the other two, but I am willing to bet that they feel the same. Care to address this? "You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Appearance of design in nature is overwhelmingly real to a ridiculous level. Logically, it testifies to the work of invisible Designer. In other words, it proves the existence of God who in this case is the Genesis Creator. Unfortunately, Ray, it is the w r o n g kind of design! We have two examples of apparent design available to us. The apparent design in nature is exactly the kind that we have shown evolutionary processes to produce. This doesn't prove that nature is produced by only these processes. But it removes the apparent design in nature as the proof of any kind of god. You protestations based on not understanding the nature of the design of any kind are weak and hysterical. Here's a link that discusses some aspects of the problem of recognizing design:Page not found | Skeptical Inquirer
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
You are the one playing the semantics game: the book is it's written contents Ray.
That was my exact point. Your brazen misrepresentation is caused by no fear of a Moderator putting you in your place. Message 274 A book is not evidence.
The object itself - no - of course not. Its written contents - yes, of course. Your words Ray.
No Ray it is just basic logic. A book cannot be the only evidence for its truth. Re-use of an already identified straw man. I have listed 5 external evidences that correspond to the textual evidence. The universe contains untold examples. Calling it a strawman does not make it one Ray. Your "5 external evidences" have also been reviewed and found wanting on the basis of fact and logic. They also do not necessarily support biblical creationism as the link from one to the other has not been provided. Deal with the issue Ray. Enjoy Over 290 posts ... 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Now, I have posted 3 different evolutionists (in four posts) recognizing the best positive evidence for Creationism. I notice that you snipped a bit of Straggler's post. Let's quote him in full, shall we.
Straggler writes: 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. You got that? He says that your best argument has been refuted. So, a fortiori, have all your worse arguments. However, as he points out, the nice thing about Irreducible Complexity was that it was a genuine attempt to raise a scientific question, rather than a religious fanatic screaming halfwitted lies. As such, it did make a nice change. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
As I point out in Message 8, even the appearance of design is not actually present when you honestly look at living creatures and what is seen definitely does not show signs of intelligence.
A big issue is that the designer, if one exists, is too stupid to adopt good ideas. As I pointed out in the other thread, one hallmark of design is that those ideas that are better get incorporated across all lines.
There is also the fact that the designer is too stupid to adopt good ideas. Consider cars. There are many species or kinds of cars, Packard, Ford, Chevy, Mercedes, Humber, DKW, AutoUnion, Alfa Romeo, Citroen just as there are many kinds of mammals, lions, tigers, bears, man, orangutan, elephant, horse and of course, ohmys. The difference between something designed, like cars, and those things that are not designed like mammals though can be seen in the difference in how good ideas do not propagate through out the living species or kinds. In the early 1920s power windshield wipers appeared on the first car. Within only a few years they were found on every car. In 1923 the first standard equipment radio appeared. Within only a few years they were found on every car. In 1939, Buick introduced turn signals. Within only a few years they were found on every car. No Ray, the appearance of design, even if it really did exist, does not support Intelligent Design, but on examination it supports exactly the type of design we would expect from an undirected system such as Evolution. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
I notice that you snipped a bit of Straggler's post. Let's quote him in full, shall we. You have misunderstood. The context was the best positive evidence for Creationism, it is a given that Straggler disagrees. He was merely participating in the narrow topic subject just stated.
You got that? He says that your best argument has been refuted. We already know that all Darwinists reject Behe IC. Behe 1996 has never been refuted. It falsified your theory in its tracks. Since no Darwinist has ever recognized any refutation evidence (obviously) the rejection of IC is of no surprise. Honest and intelligent persons know IC imploded your theory into oblivion. Ray
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Now, it seems to me like you either didn't bother to read my reply or you did and are trying to make it seem like these 3 people still support your evidence in light of all the evidence for evolution. I doubt they enjoy you misrepresenting their views. You too have misunderstood. It is a given that the three evolutionists disagree with the Creationist interpretation. The issue and point was that they were objectively listing the best evidence that Creationism has. And, by the way, Wikipedia is not a source. It is a public and anonymous conglomeration of subjective "knowledge." Any person with a computer can contribute, even Britney Spears. We also know Wikipedia is run by Atheists. This could explain the format. For Wikipedia to be a valid source we would need the real name of the scholar who wrote any given article. If a scholar did not write any given article then the next question is why would anyone use Wikipedia as a source when the world is full of scholars and their published data? Ray
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Since the 300 limit is just ahead I thought I would make one last post. I hope RAZD or Adequate or any other Darwinist will create another topic so we can continue. I believe that we can address their misunderstandings and come to a satisfying closure.
If not, then I am very satisfied with this 300 post topic to be archived just the way it is. Any person attempting to learn about the Creation-Evolution debate can read this topic and get a good handle on the foundational Creationist evidence and the only way the evolutionist "refutes": misrepresentation, perverted logic and evasion of evidence and argument. Of course, we exempt evolutionists Percy, Crashfrog and Straggler from this criticism since they had the objective integrity to participate in the topic subject. We recognize that their objective admissions are not reflective of their real personal views, but were, like I said, objective opinions offered in the context of the topic subject. Ray Martinez, Old Earth/Young Biosphere Creationist-Paleyan Designist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
To summarize my views on this issue:
It is telling that the topic is the "most convincing evidence for creation theory," and that not one creationist has posted a single piece of convincing evidence. What has been presented is a mixture of opinions, misrepresentations, refuted concepts and logical fallacies. When this was pointed out, rather than make any corrections or propose any additional evidence, all that was done was to argue over points and try to obscure the very real problems with the evidence. My intent was to encourage if not cajole creationists to make a more convincing case than what was presented, fill in some of the blanks and add information where it was (badly) needed, and (sadly) this was not done. The "most convincing evidence for creation theory" is therefore a mixture of bad logic, failed concepts, falsehoods and assumed conclusions. With the exception of the bible as evidence for biblical creation, not one of the pieces of evidence show anything beyond a vague and undefined possible designer -- if the arguments were valid -- and not one of them connect to biblical creation in anyway. As a Deist I find it humorous that the evidence presented can't get beyond a deist concept of a universe created to run by the natural laws that we see in operation, from the orbit of planets and stars to the behavior of subatomic particles to the formation of snowflakes and the evolution of life on earth -- without invoking the bible. Personally I make no pretense that there is good evidence ... because belief is a matter of faith. I also think it was unfortunate that only three biblical creationists responded, each a mix of old earth creationism, IDism, etc, and one carried most of the weight (with another getting suspended in the middle). I have to wonder where the others were. Where were the YEC posters? If this topic were to be done again I would suggest that each poster (creationists only) get one post (which they can edit) on what their "best" evidence was and that side topics (or a "peanut gallery") be started to discuss the validity of each one. A similar approach could be done with "most convincing evidence for evolution" with evolutionist only posters. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : .. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Behe 1996 has never been refuted. It falsified your theory in its tracks. Since no Darwinist has ever recognized any refutation evidence (obviously) the rejection of IC is of no surprise. But this is a lie, isn't it? It's very easy to refute Behe's ideas. As the court found in the Dover Trial (remember that? wasn't it fun!) "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large." Here's a brief refutation: By definition, an system is irreducibly complex if removing one of its parts causes it to lose function. As Behe writes in Darwin's Black Box. an irreducibly complex system is: "A single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning" This means that such a system can't have evolved by a process the last step of which was the wholesale addition of an entire part to a non-functioning system. But of course no-one claims that evolution works like that, so Behe is fighting a straw man. Besides this massive gaping theoretical flaw in the I.C. palaver, we can also see the evolution of irreducibly complex structures in the fossil record, e.g. the mammalian inner ear. At no point do any parts pop into existence by magic, because evolution doesn't work like that.
Honest and intelligent persons know IC imploded your theory into oblivion. I take it that by "honest and intelligent persons" you mean "halfwitted liars". Even Behe is honest enough to admit that his idea doesn't do what he wants it to. In 2001, Michael Behe wrote: "[T]here is an asymmetry between my current definition of irreducible complexity and the task facing natural selection. I hope to repair this defect in future work." Behe specifically explained that the "current definition puts the focus on removing a part from an already functioning system", but the "difficult task facing Darwinian evolution, however, would not be to remove parts from sophisticated pre-existing systems; it would be to bring together components to make a new system in the first place". So, he doesn't know that I.C. "imploded evolution into oblivion". Would you tell us why not? Is he not an "honest and intelligent person"? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Any person attempting to learn about the Creation-Evolution debate can read this topic and get a good handle on the foundational Creationist evidence and the only way the evolutionist "refutes": misrepresentation, perverted logic and evasion of evidence and argument. You know, you could turn that from a dirty, stinking, filthy, loathsome, idiotic, drooling, moronic, disgusting, loathsome, degraded, cretinous, drooling, drivelling, halfwitted lie into a truthful statement simply by removing the inverted commas --- and the colon. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Since the 300 limit is just ahead I thought I would make one last post. I hope RAZD or Adequate or any other Darwinist will create another topic so we can continue. If you enjoy being humiliated in public, and sometimes it's hard to see any other explanation for your behavior, then why don't you bump your thread about the Great Pyramid? As I recall, I'd just exposed your silly lies about the Egyptian Book Of The Dead, and then for some reason you ran away. As you've claimed that this is in the top 6 pieces of evidence for Creationism, perhaps it's worth another look at it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
petrophysics1 Inactive Member |
As a Deist I find it humorous that the evidence presented can't get beyond a deist concept of a universe created to run by the natural laws that we see in operation How true indeed! Who made the universe? Get up from your computer,and go look in a mirror.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024