wisp
|
 |     |  Report Post
|
Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
| I originally got into this forum not to prove Creationism |
|
Of course, of course. U_Ubut to see how strong the case for evolution is.
I say up front that you cannot prove God's existence as clear and shut case because that is not in the nature of nature. |
|
If your god acts upon this "natural" world, things could be deduced about him/her/them/it.| Rather it is based on faith and logic and observation, not a mathematical proof. |
|
Logic and Mathematics are pretty much the same thing. I bet you mean "reason", not "Logic". And there's no logic or reason at the foundation of the god of Abraham.| God reveals himself in subtle ways, |
|
Not the god of Abraham, no.| we a not robots who follow lockstep and know the certainty of the Divine, but rather free willed beings with minds to interpret and come to our own conclusions. |
|
There is no free will.
Free from what?
If you mean "Free from my god", then yes, we do have free will.
| So we cannot prove creationism but at the same time evolution, as accepted as "fact", has many shortcomings to the point where it is not believable. |
|
You don't even understand the basics, no matter how many times they're spelled out to you. So you're clueless as to what's "believable" or not. Your opinion doesn't count, i'm sorry to say. U_U| That is my point so I have taken the burden of proof off creationism becasue it cannot be proven, rather it can logically be deduced, that's about it |
|
It can?
Why don't you try? Show me a syllogism.
As for the relatedness of living things, you can demonstrate it with the same methods of paternity tests, which amount to legal proof of it.
(Edited by wisp 7/24/2010 at 10:37 AM).
-------
Lester| (...) since convergent evolution does NOT lead to homology. |
|
According to people who believe in convergent evolution, it does lead to homologous structures by pure chance mutations in different lines altogether. |
|
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)? |
|
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com |
| |
Posts: 2551 | Posted: 10:34 AM on July 24, 2010 | IP
|
|
Gaunt
|
| | Report Post
|
Regular
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Quote from porkchop at 04:11 AM on July 24, 2010 :
I say up front that you cannot prove God's existence as clear and shut case because that is not in the nature of nature. Rather it is based on faith and logic and observation, not a mathematical proof. |
|
Faith I accept completely, of course. But Logic and observation? logic and observation are what led scientists to reject creationism in favour of evolution. There is little to no logic to creationism, and there is no observational evience of it...
There should be a clear destinction here: arguing for or against the existence of God is somewhat pointless, as there is no evience for, but only circumstantial evidence against.
But CREATIONISM is not about God, it is about a theory for the development of humanity. The majority of Christians do not believe in creationism, the two are not linked.
So if one wishes to propose creationism as a viable alternative to evolution, one must present some evidence for it. There is really no way around that fact.
| So we cannot prove creationism but at the same time evolution, as accepted as "fact", has many shortcomings to the point where it is not believable. |
|
Its not just a matter that you cannot 'prove' creationism, in fact you cannot evidence it at all. That makes it an invalid theory not worthy of scientific or logical consideration.
Furthermore, many of the 'shortcomings' of evolution are figments of the imagination of creationists, or borne of a lack of understanding about how evolution actually works, but this is being ably deate in other threads.
Though it does bring up an interesting point, one you rarely see creationists willing to engage upon. There is absolutely no evidence FOR creationism whatsoever, but since creationists like to play the negatives game (supposed shortcomings with evolution), why dont we discuss the massive logical shortcomings of creationism, ever apart from the fact there is no evidence for it whatsoever?
-Massive design flaws in the human body: why would God suck so badly in his work?
-Random extinctions of the majority of species that have ever lived on earth: why is god so genocidal?
-Generic markers for evolutionary throwbacks: why would god give mankind many of the DNA markers of monkey organs and attributes, no longr active or complete?
-There are plenty more, let me know if you wish to actually discuss the many massive logical contradictions in creationist theory, even ovr and above the simple fact that there is not a single shred of positive evidence for it, whatsoever.
| That is my point so I have taken the burden of proof off creationism becasue it cannot be proven, rather it can logically be deduced, that's about it |
|
Firstly, let me say that I applaud you for your honesty in regards to the complete lack of any evidence whatsoever for creationism, kudos.
Howevr, you have NOT taken the burden of proof off creationsim: rather all you have done is admit that creationsim as a theory simply cannot fulful the logical burden of proof laid upon it.
Sorry, admitting you have no evidence for your beliefs, however couragious, does not take the buden of proof off you.
Oh and by the way, creationism can certainly NOT be logically deduced, there is no logic to it whatsoever.
-------
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane... or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that." (R Dawkins, 1989).
Direct quote from Lester10, in a post referencing Creationism:
"There's absolutely no evidence for it ever having happened. It remains imaginary and philisophical."
|
| |
Posts: 190 | Posted: 10:35 AM on July 24, 2010 | IP
|
|
Fencer27
|
|  | Report Post
|
Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Quote from porkchop at 2:37 PM on July 24, 2010 :
I stated that evolution is not believable enuf that everyone accepts it as they do the fact that there are 24 hrs in a day, but there are legions of scientists, biologists who see the shortcomings of evolution.
|
|
Not everyone accepts it like 24 hrs per day because evolution requires a little more time and knowledge to understand it (as well as religious reasons, just look at Tod Wood). Most people don't understand the theory while having grave misconceptions about it thanks to the media and entertainment business.
Evolution, like any theory, is not perfect nor claims to be. However, that doesn't mean that legions of biologists reject evolution, in fact less than 1% do. This is another problem with the creo-evo 'debate'. Most people don't understand scientific language, and can be equivocated to change the meaning of statements made by scientists, or trick scientists into 'accepting' some creationist poll. I suspect that if your statement, "legions of scientists see the shortcomings of evolution", is at all backed up by polling data it is a trick by creationists.
-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12) |
| |
Posts: 421 | Posted: 3:46 PM on July 24, 2010 | IP
|
|
Apoapsis
|
| | Report Post
|
Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Quote from porkchop at 2:37 PM on July 24, 2010 :
I stated that evolution is not believable enuf that everyone accepts it as they do the fact that there are 24 hrs in a day, but there are legions of scientists, biologists who see the shortcomings of evolution.
|
|
Can you clarify this?
Let's set the ground rules that:
1. The person must have a PhD and be actively employed as a scientist/biologist.
2. They cannot be dead.
3. They cannot have been tricked into signing some innocuously worded statement that was floated by someone and was later trumpeted as being an acknowledgment of creationism.
I can give you two to start your list, Todd Wood, and Kurt Wise.
-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No
|
| |
Posts: 1348 | Posted: 3:54 PM on July 24, 2010 | IP
|
|
Gaunt
|
| | Report Post
|
Regular
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Quote from porkchop at 08:37 AM on July 24, 2010 :
What you have indicated strikes me as nothing more than your opinion. |
|
Well, you are wrong.
I stated that evolution is not believable enuf that everyone accepts it as they do the fact that there are 24 hrs in a day, but there are legions of scientists, biologists who see the shortcomings of evolution.
|
|
No.
Yes some people dont accept it, but it has nothing to do with it being 'believable enough'. Do you really think, if a scientist created a time accelerating machine, and then advanced a lump of chemical through to a higher bipedal life form through accelerated growth, observing the natural process every step of the way and recording it on film: do you think if that could happen, people like Lester would admit they were wrong?
Of course not. Its not about what is believable, its about what you choose to want to believe.
And by the way "legions of scientists, biologists who see the shortcomings of evolution"? Not even close.
There are legions of scientists, biologists who are still trying to learn certain as of yet unknown specifics to evolution, and resolve puzzles, but that in no way equates to abandoning something they KNOW to be true and adopting a religious fairy tale.
Did you know there are legions of scientists, physicists mostly, debating the speed of light? See we actually dont know EXACTLY how fast it is. Different experiemnts have produced slightly ifferent results, so there is a lot of debate about the uncertaintaies of the issue.
A creationist would come along, look at that debate and say "see? They dont even agree amongst themselves, therefore there is no science to it, there for there is no such thing as light, only the gleam of God!"
Disagreement is ENCOURAGED in science, in fact it is the basis of science. Every scientists is told they must question, relearn, reprove, everything they think they know as part of scientific method. They advance by challenging what they know and seeking better answers, it is the entire basis of scientific method and the last 300 years of human progress.
religion tells people not to question, not to ask, not to point out flaws or inconsistencies, or just accept them as the unfathomable will of god. It refuses evidence, argumentation, or challenge.
That is why in every single time in the last 300 years that Science and religion have gone toe to toe on an issue relating to the nature of things, Science ALWAYS wins.
So Evolution is a fact. It is supported by voluminous mountains of evidence that is being tested, challenged and expanded every day. If you want to propose an alternative to evolution, then it needs to be as good or better evienced than the status quo.
Seeing as you have admitted that there is absolutely NO positive evience whatsoever for creationism, then that pretty much ends the debate. You admitting you cannot meet the burden of proof for creationism does not shift that burden of proof away, its just an admision of total defeat.
-------
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane... or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that." (R Dawkins, 1989).
Direct quote from Lester10, in a post referencing Creationism:
"There's absolutely no evidence for it ever having happened. It remains imaginary and philisophical."
|
| |
Posts: 190 | Posted: 4:54 PM on July 24, 2010 | IP
|
|
Lester10
|
| | Report Post
|
Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Porkchop
Rather it is based on faith and logic and observation, not a mathematical proof. |
|
The existence of God is based on faith inasmuch as you can’t observe God as is required by science as direct evidence.
You can’t observe evolution (the controversial evolution/ macroevolution) either since nobody has ever seen it happening.
Logic and observation reveals complex systems derived from coded genetic material that cannot be created by any purely physical means. Information only comes from intelligent input and never from natural law giving us good reason to believe that intelligent input must have been required for genetic material and thus for life.
Experimentation over many decades have failed to produce anything approaching life in the laboratory. Even the sum of the intelligent input on earth has failed to produce anything approaching life. Thus we can safely conclude that the intelligence required for the programming of life was well beyond our abilities.
Therefore logic and observation and mathematical probabilities show conclusively that life could not have organized itself naturally. Belief that it did can only be concluded on a faith basis.
Porkchop
So we cannot prove creationism but at the same time evolution, as accepted as "fact", has many shortcomings to the point where it is not believable. |
|
I suppose you can’t prove either since creation by whatever means is historical and not observable, but while evolution depends on unobservable imaginings, evidence for the creation spoken of in the Bible is clearly evidenced in the fact that
life cannot come from non-life (decades of experimentation can’t even come close),
variation within types of animals and plants clearly shows natural limits (E.Coli and Fruit flies, dogs etc.) in contradiction to the claims of evolution that there are no limits to the change that is possible.
Mutations are generally heading in a negative direction (consistent with the Biblical curse on mankind and evidenced by laws of thermodynamics and the obvious fact that we all must die).
Natural selection does not give rise to anything new but the unfit die. All of this is consistent with the Biblical story more than any other explanation of origins.
Evolution is the creation myth of atheism and theists that accept it generally do so because it matters too much to them what people think of them and it is not PC to deny evolution since it is the current consensus in science. Frankly it all boils down to an aversion to the truth and the most obvious and clear evidences - and that is, of course, my biased opinion.
-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door” |
| |
Posts: 1308 | Posted: 10:47 AM on July 25, 2010 | IP
|
|
Apoapsis
|
| | Report Post
|
Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Quote from Lester10 at 10:47 AM on July 25, 2010 :
Experimentation over many decades have failed to produce anything approaching life in the laboratory.
|
|
Dream on Lester.
How Did Life Begin? RNA That Replicates Itself Indefinitely Developed For First Time
A few years after Tracey Lincoln arrived at Scripps Research from Jamaica to pursue her Ph.D., she began exploring the RNA-only replication concept along with her advisor, Professor Gerald Joyce, M.D., Ph.D., who is also Dean of the Faculty at Scripps Research. Their work began with a method of forced adaptation known as in vitro evolution. The goal was to take one of the RNA enzymes already developed in the lab that could perform the basic chemistry of replication, and improve it to the point that it could drive efficient, perpetual self-replication.
Lincoln synthesized in the laboratory a large population of variants of the RNA enzyme that would be challenged to do the job, and carried out a test-tube evolution procedure to obtain those variants that were most adept at joining together pieces of RNA.
-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No
|
| |
Posts: 1348 | Posted: 12:05 PM on July 25, 2010 | IP
|
|
wisp
|
| | Report Post
|
Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
LesterPorkchop
Rather it is based on faith and logic and observation, not a mathematical proof. |
|
The existence of God is based on faith inasmuch as you can’t observe God as is required by science as direct evidence. |
|
Science requires evidence. That's all. Your god requires faith because there's no evidence for it. | You can’t observe evolution |
|
Yes, we can. | (the controversial evolution/ macroevolution) either since nobody has ever seen it happening. |
|
You don't get to redefine what words mean for everyone else, including those who came up with them.
Microevolution = within species.
Macroevolution = between species.
You want to add the bogus condition of "increase of information", which is an ethereal ingredient that cannot be detected or measured.
As bogus as it gets.
| Logic and observation reveals complex systems derived from coded genetic material that cannot be created by any purely physical means. |
|
 | Information only comes from intelligent input and never from natural law giving us good reason to believe that intelligent input must have been required for genetic material and thus for life. |
|
OK. Then no information is required for Evolution to happen.
| Experimentation over many decades have failed to produce anything approaching life in the laboratory. |
|
It has failed to produce you. You must not exist then.
There are the ingredients i care about in life: Sustained imperfect self-replication.
From Apoapsis' link:| They mixed 12 different cross-replicating pairs, together with all of their constituent subunits, and allowed them to compete in a molecular test of survival of the fittest. Most of the time the replicating enzymes would breed true, but on occasion an enzyme would make a mistake by binding one of the subunits from one of the other replicating enzymes. When such "mutations" occurred, the resulting recombinant enzymes also were capable of sustained replication, with the most fit replicators growing in number to dominate the mixture. |
|
That's what i'm talking about, baby!
| Even the sum of the intelligent input on earth has failed to produce anything approaching life. |
|
By "life" you mean what?
Define "life", please.
| Thus we can safely conclude that the intelligence required for the programming of life was well beyond our abilities. |
|
You can say the same thing about tsunamis, you know? | Therefore logic and observation and mathematical probabilities |
|
Your logic is flawed. Your Math is non-existent. | show conclusively that life could not have organized itself naturally. |
|
It's organized by Chemistry. | Belief that it did can only be concluded on a faith basis. |
|
A faith that things used to happen in the same way they still do doesn't sound like faith at all.
But what about blowing on dirt to produce life? 
| I suppose you can’t prove either since creation by whatever means is historical and not observable, |
|
Another bogus element.
There is no difference. In History you can postulate hypotheses that allow for predictions (of findings, for instance) and test them. Some hypotheses can be confirmed or refuted by DNA tests.
DNA and archaeological findings are observable.
Would you go to a crime-lab and tell them they're doing historical science, and therefore can rely on nothing observable?
Get a grip on reality, Lester.
| but while evolution depends on unobservable imaginings, |
|
Simple Chemistry. | evidence for the creation spoken of in the Bible is clearly evidenced in the fact that |
|
I wonder what portentous piece of evidence comes next! | life cannot come from non-life (decades of experimentation can’t even come close), |
|
Oh... That...
But not only that's not true: even if it was, that would also be just as good evidence for the Farting Interdimensional Leprechaun Theory of Life!
If a single piece of evidence points to infinite mutually exclusive options, then it's just not evidence.
You could only call it "evidence" from a false dichotomy.
| variation within types of animals and plants clearly shows natural limits (E.Coli and Fruit flies, dogs etc.) in contradiction to the claims of evolution that there are no limits to the change that is possible. |
|
Who says there are no limits?
Natural selection imposes limits. Evolutionarily stable strategies are an important limit.
| Mutations are generally heading in a negative direction |
|
The operative word being "generally".
Actually they're generally heading in no direction at all. But yeah, harmful mutations should be more common than beneficial ones. aaand that's not a problem at all.
| (consistent with the Biblical curse on mankind and evidenced by laws of thermodynamics and the obvious fact that we all must die). |
|
Individuals die. Populations, not necessarily. They can evolve and diversify.
And you don't understand Thermodynamics. Seeds couldn't produce trees if what you say was right.
| Natural selection does not give rise to anything new but the unfit die. |
|
"New" is a bogus condition too. | All of this is consistent with the Biblical story more than any other explanation of origins. |
|
Evolution is the creation myth of atheism and theists that accept it generally do so because it matters too much to them what people think of them and it is not PC to deny evolution since it is the current consensus in science. Frankly it all boils down to an aversion to the truth and the most obvious and clear evidences - and that is, of course, my biased opinion. |
|
Instead of the blablablah you could have addressed some of your own claims. Like the orchard thing, or the ape thing, or the information thing, or the tiktaalik thing...
-------
Lester| (...) since convergent evolution does NOT lead to homology. |
|
According to people who believe in convergent evolution, it does lead to homologous structures by pure chance mutations in different lines altogether. |
|
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)? |
|
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com |
| |
Posts: 2551 | Posted: 2:51 PM on July 25, 2010 | IP
|
|
derwood
|
| | Report Post
|
Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Quote from porkchop at 10:11 AM on July 24, 2010 :
I originally got into this forum not to prove Creationism |
|
No creationist ever does....
but to see how strong the case for evolution is. |
|
And you have brilliantly shown that you are not in aposition to judge the evidence. Your responses, if you can call them that, to any explanations provided to you have been disbelief and more 'questions', to include repetitive ones premised on what has to be purposeful misinterpretation/misrepresentation of the answers given to you.
IOW - standard YEC antics.
I say up front that you cannot prove God's existence as clear and shut case because that is not in the nature of nature. Rather it is based on faith and logic and observation, not a mathematical proof. |
|
What observation? What logic?
| So we cannot prove creationism |
|
No, but since you believe it did happen, it should be easy to provide some actual evidence that it did. One need only read YEC writigns to see that their YEC 'evidence' is almost always just whining about how some evidence for old earth evolution is somehow flawed, and upon closer inspection, we find that it is almost always the supposed flaws that are, in fact, flawed.
but at the same time evolution, as accepted as "fact", has many shortcomings to the point where it is not believable. |
|
Right - like how did the 1' neck of the pre-giraffe get to be 8'? Right? Strawmen and nonsense are a major part fo the YEC bag o' tricks.
That is my point so I have taken the burden of proof off creationism becasue it cannot be proven, rather it can logically be deduced, that's about it
|
|
Not really.
Of course, in real life, the burden of proof falls on the one making a claim, and it falls to those looking at the proof to honestly assess it, and when unable to do so, to recuse themselves.
(Edited by derwood 7/26/2010 at 08:08 AM).
-------
Lester:
"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..." |
| |
Posts: 1355 | Posted: 5:52 PM on July 25, 2010 | IP
|
|
Sure it is!
Sure it is!
(Edited by porkchop 7/25/2010 at 9:01 PM).
(Edited by porkchop 7/25/2010 at 9:02 PM).
(Edited by porkchop 7/25/2010 at 9:03 PM).
(Edited by porkchop 7/25/2010 at 9:04 PM).
-------
Our knowledge on the process is increasing, and will increase. And yet we can't know for sure every small step on the way. -Wisp................. What? Are biologists lacking knowledge for mutation experiments to turn one type of animal into another? This is a small step? ?
|
Creationism vs Evolution Debates
