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

[Polymath257]

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.

And this is false. We know from multiple simulations that high levels of complexity spontaneously arise when there are three tings: 1) reproduction, 2) mutation, and 3) selection. No intelligence needs to exist to promote that complexity; just those attributes.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

IIRC, he stated in court that he had not researched his proposed examples of IC before publishing them. In other words, he lied when he claimed otherwise by publishing them.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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.

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.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

Given how humans have done over the past 200 years, this may not be too much of a stretch. If technological civilizations (say, those that can use radio) exist for 'only' 1000 years on average, it is actually quite likely that we do not overlap with other technological civilizations in our galaxy. And even if we *do*, the distances are such that we would never actually meet.

 

[Sapiens]

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.

Behe is, at best, a hack ... at worst, a deluded fool who has sacrificed all scientific cred on the altar of his religious persuasions. A major turning point in the trial came when Behe failed miserably when trying to make the claim that the immune system could not have evolved because it was was irreducibly complex: Kitzmiller v. Dover: Day 12, PM: Michael Behe

Behe's own department issued the following disclaimer:

Lehigh University Department of Biological Sciences Position
on Evolution and "Intelligent Design​

The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.

The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.

 

[KBC1963]

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.

So you are intimately informed about how to form the complexity of the living system and what would be actually simple in its structuring?

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.

is it really? so you believe you understand exactly what I am think do you... nice.

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.

Actually I am only running afoul of your belief system. Describe in detail if you can exactly how NS can mold anything.

 

[KBC1963]

And this is false. We know from multiple simulations that high levels of complexity spontaneously arise when there are three tings: 1) reproduction, 2) mutation, and 3) selection. No intelligence needs to exist to promote that complexity; just those attributes.

"We Know" thats a fairly strong statement from a scientific position where I view things.
What "exactly do you really know from an intelligently designed simulation? Do you possess an intimate understanding of how the simulator functions? Do you possess empirical reproducible tests that show that the simulator functions exactly as the natural environment?

 

[Sapiens]

So you are intimately informed about how to form the complexity of the living system and what would be actually simple in its structuring?

Don't need to be, all I need to do is identify useless and/or wasteful existing design features, and that is passing easy to do.

is it really? so you believe you understand exactly what I am think do you... nice.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt ... if that is not the case, please tell us what you meant to say and failed to elucidate.

Actually I am only running afoul of your belief system. Describe in detail if you can exactly how NS can mold anything.

It is all contained, rather neatly, in a single, slim, volume that has well stood the test of time:

Try reading it some time with someone to help you understand the Victorian language used.

Then ... bring yourself up-to-date with:

 

[KBC1963]

Given how humans have done over the past 200 years, this may not be too much of a stretch. If technological civilizations (say, those that can use radio) exist for 'only' 1000 years on average, it is actually quite likely that we do not overlap with other technological civilizations in our galaxy. And even if we *do*, the distances are such that we would never actually meet.

by what observable evidence can you assert:
"technological civilizations (say, those that can use radio) exist for 'only' 1000 years on average"

To be able to form a rationale for an average would require you to have observed the forming and ending of multiple "technological civilizations" in order to rationalize any foundational metric to base an average on. How many of these civilization have you observed and measured?

Suppose a civilization arose and moved on from their origination point to other worlds that they have terraformed for that express purpose. We are even now defining how we would do exactly the same thing.

The Definitive Guide To Terraforming
The Definitive Guide To Terraforming - Universe Today

 

[KBC1963]

Don't need to be, all I need to do is identify useless and/or wasteful existing design features, and that is passing easy to do.

So you are an expert in the design of living systems by which you can point out what is wasteful in the design. wow

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt ... if that is not the case, please tell us what you meant to say and failed to elucidate.

I meant exactly what I said. If you cannot understand the exact meaning of exactly what I said without attempting to interject more into it then, there is not much I can do to enlighten you.

It is all contained, rather neatly, in a single, slim, volume that has well stood the test of time

I did not ask you for any reference to anything anything else. You are making the assertion of understanding NS and I am calling you out on it. You can either answer my question all by yourself or you cannot. I am quite sure that you are simply talking to impress and don't really have any intimate understanding of the point in question.

 

[Polymath257]

by what observable evidence can you assert:
"technological civilizations (say, those that can use radio) exist for 'only' 1000 years on average"

To be able to form a rationale for an average would require you to have observed the forming and ending of multiple "technological civilizations" in order to rationalize any foundational metric to base an average on. How many of these civilization have you observed and measured?

Suppose a civilization arose and moved on from their origination point to other worlds that they have terraformed for that express purpose. We are even now defining how we would do exactly the same thing.

The Definitive Guide To Terraforming
The Definitive Guide To Terraforming - Universe Today

As I thought I was clear, it was a *guess* and I said it would not be too much of a stretch to think this might be the case.

I'm certainly not stating it as anything other than a pure guess.

 

[Polymath257]

"We Know" thats a fairly strong statement from a scientific position where I view things.
What "exactly do you really know from an intelligently designed simulation? Do you possess an intimate understanding of how the simulator functions? Do you possess empirical reproducible tests that show that the simulator functions exactly as the natural environment?

That is part of the point. The simulation doesn't have to be exactly like the environment because the conclusion that complexity arises happens throughout a wide variety of different parameters as long as those three things happen.

The point is that the simulations have reproducing entities with a mutation rate and some sort of selection by the environment. As long as the mutation rate isn't too small compared to how fast the environment changes and isn't too large to allow stable properties of the individuals, populations will tend to higher complexity, split, form complex 'ecosystems', etc. This is ahrdly news. it has been known for at least 3 decades at this point and is even used in 'genetic algorithms' for computer programming.

That the *actual* biosphere satisfies the basic properties of the simulations is clear: we have reproducing organisms that experience randomized mutations and also experience selection pressure from the environment. Given that, complexity will form spontaneously and naturally.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Describe in detail if you can exactly how NS can mold anything.

That has been done on the order of thousands of times -- many of those times mentioned right here on this forum. As you have apparently not bothered reading any of those thousands, it's probably fair to conclude that you won't read (yet) another one written here, but instead will branch off onto some other distraction -- and as a result I would not waste the energy, and would advise other members with some science knowledge to also not waste their time and knowledge in a futile effort.

When one's mind is made up, what the hell do facts and data have to do with anything?

 

[Sapiens]

So you are an expert in the design of living systems by which you can point out what is wasteful in the design. wow

Actually I do know a fair amount on the subject, however, that is hardly required to evaluate the wastefulness of design non-features such as the recurrent laryngeal nerve.

I meant exactly what I said. If you cannot understand the exact meaning of exactly what I said without attempting to interject more into it then, there is not much I can do to enlighten you.

OK, then we'll take your original statement which is wrong as wrong can be: "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."

It is true that "The present is the key to the past," but that requires just the sort of uniformitarianism that you and your fellow travelers reject when it comes to natural selection, paleontology or radiometric dating. However your idea that, "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." is the height of absurdity. That type of complexity has never been demonstrated to be the result of anything except natural selection, intelligent design has never been shown to be at the root of anything except non-living, non-reproducing items produced by living organisms. If you have examples that indicate otherwise, please bring them forward. Do not bother with examples that have already been falsified.

I did not ask you for any reference to anything anything else. You are making the assertion of understanding NS and I am calling you out on it. You can either answer my question all by yourself or you cannot. I am quite sure that you are simply talking to impress and don't really have any intimate understanding of the point in question.

Don't be so lazy, read the books like everyone else. Consider that I've taken the trouble to read Behe and Meyer's writings.

Spoon feeding you with nutritive substances that you are ill prepared to digest is a waste of both of our time. If you actually wish to learn, and can convince me that you have the native intelligence to benefit from the study then I might feel moved to help to educate you. But that would only mean providing you with a reading list and an opportunity to engage in a dialectic with those better educated on the subject(s) than yourself.

 

[Esaurus]

Why does anyone think their religion or opinion is better than those of others?


You're not supposed to notice these things.

.

Hello again, Skwim,

You ask why do some think their religion or opinion is better than those of others. Maybe it is because they think that their's contain the words from the horse's mouth. It then becomes necessary to determine which of the many views are correct. That appears the purpose of this discussion. Even if not in the presence of the "horse," documentation is the next best thing. Whose documentation to follow? The tree is determined by its fruit.

I know that God created because I was informed based on the documentation that's very well supported by the universe around us as well as my personal awareness of the reality of His presence because of my decision to follow. I think you know what documentation I'm speaking of. Even though I did not mention the Bible in my last post #154, per your request, may I ask if you please return the favor to me if the following scenario ever takes place? Suppose I borrow thousands of dollars from you, a banker and refuses to pay and that you have the documentation that I borrowed. When you take me to court, you may testify to the judge that I borrowed the money as much as you like but please(!), please(!), please(!) don't mention or give the judge the documentation! Would you please return that favor to me if that's the case?

The creation vs evolution controversy only amounts to a war over worldviews. Did God create or did we arrive by chance? Who's in authority? God or man? Both views cannot be true at the same time. Aren't we aware of the ever present danger of someone talking us out of conformance to knowledge given us by the mouth of higher authority?

Does evolution stand on solid ground? Let's please consider the words of Darwin himself. He said (I paraphrase) that if no transitional forms are ever found from the evolution of one species to another, his theory will only crumble.

Earl

 

[Darkstorn]

He said (I paraphrase) that if no transitional forms are ever found from the evolution of one species to another, his theory will only crumble.

Earl

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

Since we've already found more than one.

 

[Daisies4me]

1. Evolution doesn't speak to the origin of life. It only speaks to speciation.
2. Scientists are getting closer and closer to realizing how life came about from non-life. It happened in the ocean around thermal vents, most likely. So, no problem there. They will figure it out.

(quote)

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

peace

 

[Skwim]

Hello again, Skwim,

You ask why do some think their religion or opinion is better than those of others. Maybe it is because they think that their's contain the words from the horse's mouth. It then becomes necessary to determine which of the many views are correct. That appears the purpose of this discussion. Even if not in the presence of the "horse," documentation is the next best thing. Whose documentation to follow? The tree is determined by its fruit.

My question was rhetorical. Jews and Christians think their version is better than the Native American or Aboriginal ones because, like everyone else, the evidence that supports their religious needs is more reasonable to them and therefore more convincing.

I know that God created because I was informed based on the documentation that's very well supported by the universe around us as well as my personal awareness of the reality of His presence because of my decision to follow. I think you know what documentation I'm speaking of. Even though I did not mention the Bible in my last post #154, per your request, may I ask if you please return the favor to me if the following scenario ever takes place? Suppose I borrow thousands of dollars from you, a banker and refuses to pay and that you have the documentation that I borrowed. When you take me to court, you may testify to the judge that I borrowed the money as much as you like but please(!), please(!), please(!) don't mention or give the judge the documentation! Would you please return that favor to me if that's the case?

Sorry, but as much as you understand what your point is here, I do not. In fact, I can't really follow what you've said.

The creation vs evolution controversy only amounts to a war over worldviews.

Actually, creationists engage evolution---they're really the only ones who are going to "war"---by choosing to do so in the arena of science, trying to prove evolution is wrong, and thus believing that having done so, they win by default. Thus the "war," as you put it, all takes place within the worldview of science. That said, I do recognize that each is rooted in very different basis of certainty. One grounded in faith and the other in science.

Did God create or did we arrive by chance?

Short question, short answer: chance.

Who's in authority? God or man?

I'm tempted to ask, in authority of what? but lacking a clear understanding will simply opt for "man."

Aren't we aware of the ever present danger of someone talking us out of conformance to knowledge given us by the mouth of higher authority?

??????????

Does evolution stand on solid ground?

Indeed it does. Very solid ground.

Let's please consider the words of Darwin himself. He said (I paraphrase) that if no transitional forms are ever found from the evolution of one species to another, his theory will only crumble.

What Darwin actually said was:

"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."
Charles Darwin (1859), The Origin of Species, p. 280​

Get it? "The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."
And this is exactly the case.

I suggest you check your sources before paraphrasing them.

.

 

[Sapiens]

Actually, my question was rhetorical. Jews and Christians think their version is better than the Native American or Aboriginal ones because, like everyone else, the evidence that supports their religious needs is more reasonable to them and therefore more convincing.


Sorry, but as much as you understand what your point is here, I do not. In fact, I can't really follow what you've said.


Actually, creationists engage evolution, and they're really the only ones who are going to "war," by choosing to do so in the arena of science, trying to prove evolution is wrong, and thus believing that having done so, they win by default. Thus the "war," as you put it, all takes place within the worldview of science.


Short question, short answer: chance.


I'm tempted to ask, in authority of what? but will ignore it and simply opt for "man."


??????????


Indeed it does. Very solid ground.


What Darwin actually said was:

"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."
Charles Darwin (1859), The Origin of Species, p. 280​

Get it? "The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."

I suggest you check your sources before paraphrasing them.

.

... and then perhaps look into the unequivocal support that the new field of science (molecular biology, immunology, genetics, genomics, etc.) provides (dare I say, "proof" in conventional terms) for Darwin's vision.

 

[Daisies4me]

... and then perhaps look into the unequivocal support that the new field of science (molecular biology, immunology, genetics, genomics, etc.) provides (dare I say, "proof" in conventional terms) for Darwin's vision.

(quote)

Hi Sapiens
IMHO, at best, Darwin's finches show that a species can adapt to changing climates.
Darwin's finches are not becoming anything 'new', they are still finches.
And the fact that they are interbreeding cast doubts on the methods some evolutionists use to define a species.

peace to you