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

[Polymath257]

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.

OK. The most common example by far is the bacterial flagellum.

Bacterial flagellum: We know that flagella are descended from secretory proteins combined with ATP synthase. The genetics alone shows this. But we can go further and see the sequence of events leading to the flagellum. The point is that the *original* proteins do not work *as a flagellum*, but do work as a secretory protein and an independent power source. This refutes the claim that IC systems cannot evolve.

The next favorite is the clotting cascade.

We know that components of this supposedly IC system fail to exist in other organisms. For example, Factor XII doesn't appear in whales. This alone shows that the definition of IC fails here. But even more, simpler cascade systems, based on similar proteins exist in other species. This again shows that the cascade we see today could have evolved, thereby refuting Behe's claim.

Any others you want to suggest we look at?

 

[rusra02]

Seems to be a change of subject going on. I will accept your quote of Behe as accurate: "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." Imagine that! To provide "rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of biological systems occurred", would one not have to get such from the intelligent Designer?
A house is evidence of a house designer. The house can be reverse engineered to determine how it was constructed. To some degree, so can living things be examined and such examination yields proof positive to me of a creative Genius, but are inadequate to provide insights as to how he created such wonders. Irreducible complexity is evidence of a designer who created whole functional biological systems, IMO.

 

[Polymath257]

Seems to be a change of subject going on. I will accept your quote of Behe as accurate: "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." Imagine that! To provide "rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of biological systems occurred", would one not have to get such from the intelligent Designer?
A house is evidence of a house designer. The house can be reverse engineered to determine how it was constructed. To some degree, so can living things be examined and such examination yields proof positive to me of a creative Genius, but are inadequate to provide insights as to how he created such wonders. Irreducible complexity is evidence of a designer who created whole functional biological systems, IMO.

Irreducible complexity - Wikipedia

 

[Sapiens]

But the formations contain many soft-bodied organisms, also... perfectly preserved, in pristine fashion. It can't be disregarded.

I submit the record showcased by fossilized remains, overall, is more complete than most CDers want to accept.

Your submission is highly imaginative.

"Fossils of soft-bodied animals are a rare find because squishy body parts tend not to hold up as well as hard shells and bones over time, wearing away before they can leave an impression" - LIVESCIENCE.

"Further, only the parts of organisms that were already mineralised are usually preserved, such as the shells of mollusks. Since most animal species are soft-bodied, they decay before they can become fossilized." - WIKI

"The Cambrian fossil record includes an unusually high number of lagerstätten, which preserve soft tissues. These allow paleontologists to examine the internal anatomy of animals, which in other sediments are only represented by shells, spines, claws, etc. – if they are preserved at all. The most significant Cambrian lagerstätten are the early Cambrian Maotianshan shale beds of Chengjiang (Yunnan, China) and Sirius Passet (Greenland);[36] the middle Cambrian Burgess Shale (British Columbia, Canada);[37] and the late Cambrian Orsten (Sweden) fossil beds.

While lagerstätten preserve far more than the conventional fossil record, they are far from complete. Because lagerstätten are restricted to a narrow range of environments (where soft-bodied organisms can be preserved very quickly, e.g. by mudslides), most animals are probably not represented; further, the exceptional conditions that create lagerstätten probably do not represent normal living conditions.[38] In addition, the known Cambrian lagerstätten are rare and difficult to date, while Precambrian lagerstätten have yet to be studied in detail.

The sparseness of the fossil record means that organisms usually exist long before they are found in the fossil record – this is known as the Signor–Lipps effect.[39]" - WIKI

 

[Jose Fly]

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

You need to pay closer attention. This forum is titled "Evolution Vs. Creationism" and is a sub-forum within "Religious Debates".

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

And you've not cited any evidence.

There are many reasons why one may choose not to debate.

Then one has to wonder what you're doing in a Religious Debates sub-forum.

Your baiting me with baseless insults will not succeed.

I've not insulted you; I've merely been pointing out facts. If you see that as insulting, then your problem is with reality, not me.

Those sincerely interested in finding the facts about irreducible complexity can find these online.

That's true of pretty much anything, so what you think you've contributed to the discussion is a mystery.

 

[Jose Fly]

Then it's obvious you have absolutely 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.

So we have yet another creationist who thinks "finch" is a species. I'd say I'm surprised, but...........

 

[Jose Fly]

Attempts to explain away (debunk) published examples of IC...

Wait....."published examples of IC"? You're going to have to give a citation, otherwise it's looking very much like you're just making things up and expecting others to accept them unquestioningly.

 

[Sapiens]

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

Then go somewhere that there is a choir you can sing to.

I find the evidence of IC virtually everywhere in living creatures.

That is not evidence, that is personal delusion.

There is abundant information about the evidence for IC for those interested in learning both sides of the issue.

[/quote]No there is not. There is abundant claptrap and logical fallacies, but there is NO evidence.

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.

You keep making the clam and you keep failing to support it.

Seems to be a change of subject going on. I will accept your quote of Behe as accurate: "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." Imagine that! To provide "rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of biological systems occurred", would one not have to get such from the intelligent Designer?

Hardly, you need to provide evidence that does not fail in the analysis. Behe's attempts to do so have all resulted in massive fails, especially his attempts at demonstrating irreproducable complexity.

A house is evidence of a house designer. The house can be reverse engineered to determine how it was constructed.

Houses are non-living and non-reproducing so it is rather a tautology that they must have both a designer and a builder ... such is not the case for organisms.

To some degree, so can living things be examined and such examination yields proof positive to me of a creative Genius,

Then, I guess, you are rather gullible.

but are inadequate to provide insights as to how he created such wonders.

Mutation and natural selection is a sufficient and demonstrable explanation.

Irreducible complexity is evidence of a designer who created whole functional biological systems, IMO.

Except for the fact that all proposed examples of allegedly irreducible complexity have been falsified.

 

[Daisies4me]

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.



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

You are dishonest.

(quote)

Dark, sorry that you feel personally 'insulted' by my beliefs on a matter. I have no intention of 'insulting' anyone. Not even you. (wink) j/k

what "opponents" are you talking about?

"thinking persons" search for answers. Curious ones seek answers. Anyone with a desire to learn truths about a matter, and searches out the facts in order to prove or disprove a matter, is a 'thinking' person -- would you not agree? Are you 'insulted' by that wording? Why?

Now, please tell me what I said that was 'dishonest' and why you make that claim ?
Dishonestly is not a thing that I adhere to, and dislike it when others are dishonest. So please, do explain your meaning. If , in your opinion, I am 'misleading' people, also, please do explain exactly how and why you make that accusation?

If you find my postings to be something that you dislike, please feel free to block my postings from your vision.

I seek peace for you and all others reading these postings.
--------------

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.



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

You are dishonest.

 

[Sapiens]

Are they still finches?

Sure, in the same way that you are still a fish.

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

Who aid that inbreeding, in and of itself, produces new species?

Does natural selection really create an entirely new species?

Yes it does.

Finches are still finches. not a new species.

Please tell me what you think a new species is.

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

Poor science, almost 20 years old. Typical review: "... his dense book is neither sufficiently innovative to gain the attention of most experts nor sufficiently eloquent to hold the interest of the general science reader."

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

Williams had some interesting and groundbreaking insights for his time, but his time was a half century ago and progress in genomics has passed him by. Williams pushed clade selection, which he argued could potentially explain phenomena such as adaptive radiations, long-term phylogenetic trends, and biases in rates of speciation/extinction. He abandoned what he suggested in Adaption and Natural Selection and decided that these phenomena cannot be explained by selectively-driven allele substitutions within populations, the evolutionary mechanism as he had originally argued.

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

You have some evidence for this?

and hold them responsible for their own actions,

Atheists are more responsible for the own actions than any theist group, we can't blame it on Satan or an other deity, its no one's fault but our own.

rather than blowing it all off with the fake Big Bang and other God dishonoring 'theories'.

I can not help it if all the evidence fails to honor your private belief system. I recommend to you the words of the Dali Lama: "If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.”

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.

How small minded of you.

 

[InChrist]

And let's keep it to your single best argument.
.

Besides, the fact that God said He is the Creator and I take His word....

DNA

We can see examples of patterns: snowflakes, tornadoes, stalactites, sand dunes, ocean waves, etc. Patterns can and do occur naturally.
We can also see examples of symbolic codes: sheet music, written language and alphabets, blueprints, computer software, etc. Codes and symbols contain information. Information is not a property of matter or energy alone and it does not occur naturally, randomly, or through chaos.

DNA is the genetic code which contains the information and instructions for all living organisms.

1) DNA is not simply a molecule of matter and energy with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and a storage mechanism containing information for life.

2) All codes we know of originate and are created by a conscious mind.

3) Therefore, DNA was designed by a mind, and the language and information of DNA point to an intelligent Creator.

 

[Skwim]

So we have yet another creationist who thinks "finch" is a species. I'd say I'm surprised, but...........

When a person has absolutely no familiarity whatsoever with evolution, or taxonomy in particular, I kind of think it's to be expected. Thing is, around here this degree of ignorance is pretty rare.

Besides, the fact that God said He is the Creator and I take His word....

I guess if that's your argument then that's your argument.

DNA

FBI, MPH, and PSI. ....................... I win.

DNA is the genetic code which contains the information and instructions for all living organisms.

1) DNA is not simply a molecule of matter and energy with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and a storage mechanism containing information for life.

2) All codes we know of originate and are created by a conscious mind.

Who's this "we" you speak of? And, how did you come to know they are all created by a conscious mind?

3) Therefore, DNA was designed by a mind, and the language and information of DNA point to an intelligent Creator.

This is typically called the fallacy of Hasty Generalization or Illicit Generalization, and it doesn't fly.

.

 

[stevevw]

We expect that life formed wherever it could.

We expect that life continues to exist wherever it can.

We expect that most life is unicellular and marine, therefore not visible to us from afar, nor able to communicate with us.

We wonder why we have not heard from intelligent alien civilizations (Fermi paradox), but do not consider the fact that we haven't evidence against their present or past existence. There are many possible explanations for this including the idea that most if not all sufficiently advanced technological civilizations destroy themselves or send themselves back to their stone ages.

When you throw the multiverse theory in there could be multitudes of lives and even another you and me out there doing something slightly different in a slightly different universe. So according to the theories of science, there is a multitude of life out there somewhere. Still, we only know of ourselves and that's all we can count on, the rest is speculation.

Regardless of its rating, it exists.

Yes but not as much as many think, and not as great as many think of its ability, that's why it's overrated.

 

[InChrist]

Who's this "we" you speak of? And, how did you come to know they are all created by a conscious mind?



.

Okay, forget the "we" and give an example of a code or language containing information which does not have a conscious mind as its source.

 

[gnostic]

Right. The problem with evolution is that scientits cant get past first cause. Life can only beget life. So where did life come from?

You are talking about abiogenesis, not evolution.

Evolution is about how life, or more precisely, how species changes.

For instance, why is polar bears different from brown bears, how are they different, and when did the species split.

So researchers who studied differen species of bears, are not concern with dinosaurs or with the first animals that walked the earth, nor of the first single cell organism. They are only interested in the bear family or genus.

The changes occurred during the Ice Age. The Pleistocene Ice Age didn't covered the whole Earth; the ice sheets only covered only certain regions of Euroasian continent, and isolated pockets in the high lands, such as the alps in France, Italy and Switzerland.

So areas not covered ice sheets, brown bears continued to thrive, but those areas that were covered the brown bears began gradual change, until they were a new species of bear. And when the ice age ended in 10,000 BCE, those still living in the polar regions, covered in ice, thrive even today.

That's Natural Selection. It didn't happen by magic, but by circumstances.

 

[Skwim]

Okay, forget the "we" and give an example of a code or language containing information which does not have a conscious mind as its source.

That isn't how it works here: I ask--you ignore--you ask--I'm supposed to answer. Nope.

FIRST you answer my questions, THEN I'll answer yours.
that's the way fair-minded people conduct a conversation

So​

​

Who is this "we" you speak of? ​

​

And​

​

How did you come to know they are all created by a conscious mind?
​

Not that I expect you can come up with reasonable answers---actually, I expect more tap dancing---but to let you know that before making statements you might want to think them through.

 

[Daisies4me]

Sure, in the same way that you are still a fish.
Who aid that inbreeding, in and of itself, produces new species?
Yes it does.
Please tell me what you think a new species is.
Poor science, almost 20 years old. Typical review: "... his dense book is neither sufficiently innovative to gain the attention of most experts nor sufficiently eloquent to hold the interest of the general science reader."

Williams had some interesting and groundbreaking insights for his time, but his time was a half century ago and progress in genomics has passed him by. Williams pushed clade selection, which he argued could potentially explain phenomena such as adaptive radiations, long-term phylogenetic trends, and biases in rates of speciation/extinction. He abandoned what he suggested in Adaption and Natural Selection and decided that these phenomena cannot be explained by selectively-driven allele substitutions within populations, the evolutionary mechanism as he had originally argued.
You have some evidence for this?
Atheists are more responsible for the own actions than any theist group, we can't blame it on Satan or an other deity, its no one's fault but our own.
I can not help it if all the evidence fails to honor your private belief system. I recommend to you the words of the Dali Lama: "If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.”
How small minded of you.

(quote)

hello

I am sorry that you find addressing the Bible passage as "small minded" at John 3:

16 “For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, so that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life.
17 For God did not send his Son into the world for him to judge the world, but for the world to be saved through him.
18 Whoever exercises faith in him is not to be judged. Whoever does not exercise faith has been judged already, because he has not exercised faith in the name of the only-begotten Son of God.
19 Now this is the basis for judgment: that the light has come into the world, but men have loved the darkness rather than the light, for their works were wicked.
20 For whoever practices vile things hates the light and does not come to the light, so that his works may not be reproved.
21 But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that his works may be made manifest as having been done in harmony with God.”

I find it to be most enlightening.

Hasta la vista

 

[Sapiens]

You need to take some time to learn how to use the quote function.

I inquired of you: "Who said that inbreeding, in and of itself, produces new species?"

You answered: "Yes it does."

That is unresponsive to the question.

I said: "He abandoned what he suggested in Adaption and Natural Selection and decided that these phenomena cannot be explained by selectively-driven allele substitutions within populations, the evolutionary mechanism as he had originally argued."

You asked, "You have some evidence for this?"

I suggest that you read his book: Natural Selection: Domains, Levels, and Challenges. Oxford University Press, New York (1992) and judge for yourself.

 

[leibowde84]

(quote)

Hi lieb,
sounds like you have 'faith' in scientists....

peace

I do in that respect. Absolutely.

 

[Daisies4me]

You need to take some time to learn how to use the quote function.

I inquired of you: "Who said that inbreeding, in and of itself, produces new species?"

You answered: "Yes it does."

That is unresponsive to the question.

I said: "He abandoned what he suggested in Adaption and Natural Selection and decided that these phenomena cannot be explained by selectively-driven allele substitutions within populations, the evolutionary mechanism as he had originally argued."

You asked, "You have some evidence for this?"

I suggest that you read his book: Natural Selection: Domains, Levels, and Challenges. Oxford University Press, New York (1992) and judge for yourself.

(quote)

Hi
I think you have someone else' s responses confused with me....