-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Other Than "The Bible Tells Me So," Your Single Best Argument for Creationism
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
That's not a part of science
If any particular scientist has made that claim, he doesn't speak for the collective, and he is making a claim to knowledge that others realize that he cannot possibly possess.
The claim of rational skeptics is that no idea should be believed without testing it against reason and reality. If we can't detect it even in principle because it has no impact on reality, then its existence is irrelevant.
Wasn't behe the guy who admitted lying in court then promptly repeated those lies to his followers (presumably because lies are what they wanted to hear)?
Irreducible complexity cannot be demonstrated in any biological system. Claiming it is not demonstrating it.
Can you name an irreducibly complex biological system? If so,on what basis can you declare it irreducibly complex? Do you have an algorithm for identifying irreducible complexity?
And let's keep it to your single best argument. Don't want to be all over the map.
So, what ya got? Although be aware, non-creationists may take exception, but this should be expected. Shouldn't it?
EDITED TO NOTE: Because this is in the "EVOLUTION Vs CREATIONISM" forum and one may wish to base an argument for creationism on a perceived shortcoming of evolution, please keep in mind that abiogenesis (the natural process by which life arises from non-living matter) is NOT a part of evolution. Evolutionists don't care how life first came into being, be it through abiogenesis or the hand of god.
.
Mind you that I'm an Atheist...
My single best reason for Creationism is that we can't disprove God.
But it's the same best reason to believe Unicorns.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Um....no. If you want to "clear up", you should explain what IC is and why you find it compelling.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Can you show where anyone, operating via creationism, predicted the specifics of the Cambrian?
"Sudden"? Can you clarify what you mean by "sudden"?
Please explain what you mean by "usually static genetic code". And I have to ask.....have you ever heard of this thing called "natural selection"?
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
What miracle are you talking about?
Well, that's an interesting set of empty assertions, but do you have any actual substance behind them?
stevevw
Member
Actually, the way evolution describes how life can adapt to almost any environment makes you wonder there aren't some forms of life everywhere throughout the universe. It doesn't matter if the environment is hostile or does not contain oxygen or the other intelligent life forming conditions because we know life is able to survive in all sorts of conditions on earth. We know that there is or has been liquid of some sort on many planets so it's claimed and even water on a some so this would be conducive of the possibility of life everywhere we look. I would say that makes the possibility of life in our solar system now or in the past high. But the only life we have so far in just us in our little corner of a massive universe. But not just any life, intelligent life that is able to ask these very questions and needs very specific conditions to live which are said to be highly rare that its almost as though they were purposely made that way.
Last edited:
stevevw
Member
Sorry, I couldnt help myself, Natural selection is overrated.
Then you morally outperform the creator of hell.
Skwim
Veteran Member
And I'd say that our inability to disprove the existence of unicorns is a far better reason. At least the nature of unicorns isn't comprised of so many conflicting and illogical characteristics.
.
Skwim
Veteran Member
And this is exactly how creationists suck the unwary into their fold: distracting them from the meat of the issue by creating strawmen to cut down. Devious and unprincipled? Of course it is, but when faced with the irrefutable evidence of one's opponent sometimes deceit is the only way to keep the kids in check.Well, I finally got round to reading this.
It really is drivel, the 'paper' spends most of its time setting up straw men and knocking them down.
It goes on and on about "The problem of the origin of life" - but as has been stated many times; Darwin's book was on evolution, not Abiogenesis. His book talked about the diversity of life, not how it started.
It then rambles about 'transitional fossils'
When will creationists realise that every fossil is a transitional fossil.
Then we have 'complex organs' and goes on with an argument from incredulity; even having the audacity to cite the eye, that has been explained time and again.
I could go on but if is the best creationists have to offer, it is a bad show. It really is poor and I have the feeling that I have wasted an hour or two of my life reading it.
.
Altfish
Veteran Member
That's sorted then.
We can now close down all science labs, universities, stop teaching science in school, stop developing new medicines, stop exploring space and all get on our knees and pray.
But back to reality....
Your lack of knowledge is frightening,
"Race" to a 19th century naturalist simply meant distinct populations within a specific species, not necessarily human races. Indeed, human races, nor even human evolution are not discussed at all in Darwin's first book on evolution. And as such, given as how the "races" mentioned in Darwin's book included various pigeon and pig breeds, as well as certain mollusks, any claim that suggests that Darwin was "racist" is totally absurd.
Look how the religious Southern States of the US justified slavery - convenient that you forget that.
Is the stone age man who discovered the wheel responsible for all the road deaths? Then why is Darwin in any way responsible for the Nazi atrocities?
Evolution is real, proven and a fact...get over it
leibowde84
Veteran Member
The Cambrian Explosion took place over 30 million years. It wasn't a short period of time by any stretch of the imagination.
So, why, in your opinion, does it contradict evolution?
Not exactly a difficult thing to do.
That's not an argument and it need not be argued against. It's an unsupported claim. Like all unsupported claims, it it an opinion that needs no response.
KBC1963
Active Member
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.
There has been no empirical scientific evidence produced to back a hypothetical POV that the complexity of life formed by non-intelligent causes which does not itself require the same or greater level of belief and faith as any current religious view.
There has been no empirical scientific evidence produced to back a hypothetical POV that the complexity of life formed by non-intelligent causes which does not itself require the same or greater level of belief and faith as any current religious view.
Sapiens
Polymathematician
Actually you are woefully misinformed. What you perceive to be "complexity" argues quite precisely against intelligent design since the hallmark of good design is simplicity. What you are trying to get to is an argument from irreducible complexity, which is a very different kettle of fish that has been discredited at every turn. You are also running afoul of the fact that you are confusing the construction of inanimate objects from lifeless materiel with the reproduction and evolution of living organisms that are molded by natural selection.
I don't think that Behe was accused of lying or did lie. His problems include
- The fact that his definition of a scientific theory was shown at the Kitzmiller trial to not only be incorrect, but to include astrology as a scientific theory.
- His claim of there being irreducible complexity in biological systems has been refuted whenever it has been made, and the fact that there is no test of irreducible complexity, meaning that even were it present, it could never be demonstrated. Nor can it be demonstrated that somebody won't show why any particular claim of irreducible complexity is false tomorrow by finding the stepwise path to any level of complexity.
- He was shamed by Kenneth Miller following his ill-advised effort to use a mousetrap as a proxy for a biological system.
- His employer, Lehigh University, where he has tenure and meaning that he cannot be fired, has disavowed his claims and distanced itself from him.
- He's been rejected by the scientific community.