Other Than "The Bible Tells Me So," Your Single Best Argument for Creationism

[McBell]

Right. The problem with evolution is that scientits cant get past first cause. Life can only beget life. So where did life come from? The more we know about science, the more evolution (Darwinian Evolution that is) becomes bankrupt as an alternative to creation.

So then god is alive, right?
If not, you just shot your "life begets life" in the foot.

If god is alive, what life beget god?

 

[McBell]

I believe I have mentioned repeatedly such evidence is available to those interested in seeing both sides of this issue. Merely claiming IC has been refuted is just that, an unproven assertion.

Only if you ignore the fact that IC has been refuted.

One wonders how those who claim to want the truth, throw said truth out the window whenever it conflicts with their beliefs can do so with a straight face?

 

[Jose Fly]

Sorry, I couldnt help myself, Natural selection is overrated.

Regardless of its rating, it exists.

 

[Jose Fly]

All fossils are transitional... Therefore, it won't crumble based on that.

Since we've already found more than one.

Not sure how it happened, but that wasn't my post you responded to.

 

[Darkstorn]

Not sure how it happened, but that wasn't my post you responded to.

I don't know what happened either... But i think it's a bug. I pressed quote, and i get your name for some reason. He wasn't even replying to you.

/E: Could have been i was replying to you somewhere and forgot to post, leaving the quote in your name by accident.

 

[Jose Fly]

The single best argument for there having been a creation event in the past is that "The present is the key to the past". Only intelligence has been observed to form the types of complexity that could even hope to be causal to what occurred in the past that we can observe in the here and now.

Really? Can you point to a complex biological structure or system that has been "formed by intelligence"?

 

[Jose Fly]

@Skwim, and yet, that same source calls it, "sudden appearance"!

My previous prediction is spot -on: y'all just don't want to accept the evidence for what it indicates....specific acts of creation!

For those who are interested about the details surrounding the Cambrian Explosion, you too, Skwim, read "Darwin's Doubt", by Dr. Stephen Meyer. Awesome book!

So I guess all it took was a couple of key questions to get you to back off, eh?

 

[Jose Fly]

As I mentioned in a previous post, I do not wish to debate.

Then you should probably not be in this forum. It's a place specifically for debate, and as soon as you say things like you have, people are going to expect you to defend them.

What you're doing is actually rather cowardly. You want to come here, make some claims, but not have those claims subjected to any scrutiny.

Your behavior doesn't show that you have much confidence in what you're saying.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

As mentioned, the idea that irreducible complexity has been successfully refuted comes from the evolutionary camp. Is this to discourage people from examining the evidence for themselves? Not very scientific, IMO. And a quick search online debunks the claim that IC has been successfully debunked.

Maybe I was ambiguous with, "Even after every such claim has been debunked?". Every specific claim of irreducible complexity such as the bacterial flagellum, the eye, the coagulation cascade, and the immune system has been shown to be false, that is, not irreducibly complex.

Irreducible complexity has never been demonstrated to occur in a biological system, and frankly, even if existed in one, I don't see how one could demonstrate it. And that would be the case if authentic irreducible complexity is ever encountered, since nobody can assert with authority that a discovery that shows that a given biological entity is irreducibly complex not might be right around the corner. Had we not found the bacterial type II secretion system, the bacterial flagellum might still be deemed potentially irreducibly complex. It would have been an error to say anything stronger than that the flagellum appears irreducibly complex but in fact may not be.

So what evidence is it you wish examined? The evidence we have is that the intelligent design people have claimed irreducible complexity was present when it was not.

Irreversible complexity isn't so much debunked as treated as the unsupported claim that it is. There is no duty to show the evolutionary pathway every time another claim is made that a system is irreducibly complex, and as I explained, failure to be able to do so would not demonstrate the validity of the claim.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So, let's sum up what we have so far.

The *best* evidence for creationism is:
1. Irreducible complexity. But no examples have been given of such that hold up to scrutiny.
2. Origin of life is unknown. But this has nothing to do with evolution, per se. Plus, the evidence points to a natural origin.
3. Bad calculations of probabilities that assume independence where it is known to fail.
4. God told me so. Right.

Just so!

This is an endless repeated dialogue -- here and elsewhere -- but it always and without ever failing comes down to this: those who accept evolution use science at every step of the way, and can and have demonstrated that science. Those who accept creation or intelligent design make endless claims about what is impossible (like they could know that) without ever producing evidence to demonstrate that impossibility.

But in the end, what's really going on is this: when you have a need to be "saved" by your "god," no argument, however well constructed and well attested, is ever going to convince you. The need for that belief is, as I think we can all see, infinitely strongly than any need for knowledge. Knowledge won't get you to heaven, after all.

 

[Daisies4me]

Excuse me for jumping in here Sapiens, but I couldn't resist.



Actually, the climate is the same for all 21 islands. Variations in weather only present where there is an appreciable change in elevation: The highlands have significantly more rain than the lowlands.


Whether or not they're becoming something new, as in new species, is impossible to say. That's something only the future can reveal. However, they did become something new. They became new species.

And your point?


What methods are these?

.((
(quote)

Are they still finches?

How many different breeds of dogs exist? are they all still dogs?

inbreeding creates many 'mongrels' , but how many are called 'new species'?

If humans inbreed enough, and look different from 'the norm', and upon first blush it may be difficult to distinguish their 'race' or 'nationality', do you call that a 'new species'? Hardly

Does natural selection really create an entirely new species?

Finches are still finches. not a new species.

Sudden Origins—Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species, by Jeffrey H. Schwartz, 1999, pp. 317-320.

Adaption and Natural Selection, by George C. Williams, 1966, p. 54.

There is no end to attempts to mislead people and turn them away from the reality that there IS A Creator, and hold them responsible for their own actions, rather than blowing it all off with the fake Big Bang and other God dishonoring 'theories'.

If that is what people desire in their hearts, then go for it. Any thinking persons who are sincere in their hearts when seeking the knowledge that saves lives, as per John 17:3, will be able to determine the aggressive fake attempts to discredit the Creator and find refreshment for their souls in the Bible truths that lead to everlasting life.

Peace to you

 

[Skwim]

Are they still finches?

Yes they are.

How many different breeds of dogs exist? are they all still dogs?

There are about 340 breeds recognized by the Fédération Cynologique Internationale (FCI), and yes, they are all dogs.

inbreeding creates many 'mongrels' , but how many are called 'new species'?

"Mongrel" is mixed-breed dog that does not belong to one recognized breed and is not the result of intentional breeding. And none are considered to be a new species. All dogs are classified as Canis lupus familiaris. "Canis lupus" is their species designation, one they share with wolves, and "familiaris" is their subspecies designation.

Does natural selection really create an entirely new species?

Yes it does.

Finches are still finches. not a new species.

Then it's obvious you have no concept of species. Simply looking at their various taxonomic names would tell you that finches are comprised of various species: On the Galapagos Islands alone we have the following five species.

Sharp-beaked ground finch (Geospiza difficilis)
Medium ground finch (Geospiza fortis)
Small ground finch (Geospiza fuliginosa)
Large ground finch (Geospiza magnirostris)
Common cactus finch (Geospiza scandens)​

among others. The last term in each designation, such as "difficilis" and "fortis," indicate a specific species within the genus Geospiza.

Sudden Origins—Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species,

by Jeffrey H. Schwartz, 1999, pp. 317-320.

Adaption and Natural Selection, by George C. Williams, 1966, p. 54.

I have no idea whatsoever what this means.

And I have no idea why this attached dog picture comes up, or how to get rid of it.

.

 

[Darkstorn]

There is no end to attempts to mislead people and turn them away from the reality that there IS A Creator

Have you shown that there is? I don't think you have. I think you're making an empty claim. I think you're misleading people. You can't even defend this position, you can only try to attack its opponents directly.

Any thinking persons who are sincere in their hearts when seeking the knowledge that saves lives, as per John 17:3, will be able to determine the aggressive fake attempts to discredit the Creator and find refreshment for their souls in the Bible truths that lead to everlasting life.

I find this highly insulting. You are trying to posit that only those who share your beliefs are "thinking persons."

You are dishonest.

 

[rusra02]

Then you should probably not be in this forum. It's a place specifically for debate, and as soon as you say things like you have, people are going to expect you to defend them.

What you're doing is actually rather cowardly. You want to come here, make some claims, but not have those claims subjected to any scrutiny.

Your behavior doesn't show that you have much confidence in what you're saying.

This forum is "Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism'". The request was for one's single best evidence for creation. There are many reasons why one may choose not to debate. Your baiting me with baseless insults will not succeed. Those sincerely interested in finding the facts about irreducible complexity can find these online.

 

[rusra02]

Please provide a link?

Just search on "irreducible complexity " to see numerous links.

 

[Darkstorn]

This forum is "Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism'".

It's a SUBforum of "religious debates." It's a debate forum.

The request was for one's single best evidence for creation.

Have you provided said evidence?

There are many reasons why one may choose not to debate. Your baiting me with baseless insults will not succeed. Those sincerely interested in finding the facts about irreducible complexity can find these online.

The only fact about irreducible complexity is this: Every single example provided in its name has been debunked by the same methodology its proponents are trying to adhere to. It CANNOT be a matter of faith. It must be within purview of the scientific method.

I'm going to agree with Jose. His "insults" are not baseless. They are based upon your understanding of your own stance.

Just search on "irreducible complexity " to see numerous links.

Please provide one that has not been falsified and debunked in its entirety.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

As I mentioned in a previous post, I do not wish to debate. I find the evidence of IC virtually everywhere in living creatures. There is abundant information about the evidence for IC for those interested in learning both sides of the issue.

You don't need to debate.

But if you make a claim such as the one you just made about there being abundant evidence for irreducible complexity - I presume you mean in biological systems and not pocket watches - somebody may choose to rebut it as I will now: I have found no such evidence and am fairly certain none exists for a variety of reasons, including those I provided in my previous post to you, namely, that I can't imagine what that could be.

Also, its extremely likely that all life arose and differentiated naturalistically. If so, there is no irreducible complexity in any biological system, meaning that it will never be found. If so, obviously, there can be no evidence for it.

Behe has conceded that, "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred.

Even worse than having no peer reviewed support for irreducible complexity or intelligent design, there's not even a conception of where to look for any. Creationist and Discovery Institute fellow Paul Nelson said, "Easily, the biggest challenge facing the I.D. community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don't have such a theory right now, and that's a real problem. Without a theory, it's very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we've got a bag of powerful intuitions and a handful of notions, such as irreducible complexity, but as yet, no general theory of biological design."

Judge John Jones III, who presided over the Kitzmiller trial, said, "Not a single expert witness over the course of the six week trial identified one major scientific association, society or organization that endorsed ID as science," and, "The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory."

What is the likeliest reason why nobody here or elsewhere can provide evidence for creationism? It never happened.

 

[rusra02]

Again, your assertions that IC has been debunked are just that, assertions. Attempts to explain away (debunk) published examples of IC have been answered by IC proponents. That is why I believe each person should examine the evidence for themselves and not take your word for what is the truth; nor take my word.

 

[Polymath257]

Just search on "irreducible complexity " to see numerous links.

OK. Did that. Found standard misunderstandings, bad arguments, and faulty logic. Anything specific you want me to consider?

 

[Darkstorn]

Again, your assertions that IC has been debunked are just that, assertions.

Behe has asserted that as well. So...

Attempts to explain away (debunk) published examples of IC have been answered by IC proponents.

You have yet to show that they have done so successfully though. Anyone can try to "explain away" things.

That is why I believe each person should examine the evidence for themselves and not take your word for what is the truth; nor take my word.

But you are taking something at faith because you have no evidence. ID and IC are both attempts at bringing creationism into the purview of science. They are an evidence-based argument. Not a very strong one, because of the lack of evidence. But it's by their own admission subject to the same methodology as "regular" science.

And those methodologies have debunked each and every claim for IC.