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

[Skwim]

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

IMHO, at best, Darwin's finches show that a species can adapt to changing climates.

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.

Darwin's finches are not becoming anything 'new.'

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.

they are still finches.

And your point?

And the fact that they are interbreeding cast doubts on the methods some evolutionists use to define a species.

What methods are these?

.

.

 

[Sapiens]

(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

No professional level biologist today uses that definition of species, for that matter few if any see the term "species" as biologically useful anymore, it is a useless holdover from Platonic idealism. Go look up "ring species."

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Sudden? Hehehehehe.

Uhh...yeah, sudden.

"Uniqueness and Timing
The "Cambrian Explosion" refers to the sudden appearance in the fossil record of complex animals with mineralized skeletal remains. "

From The Cambrian Explosion - Origin of Animals and the Cambrian Explosion - Science - The Burgess Shale

It would behoove you to read up a little more, maybe. At least before you attempt to belittle.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

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?

Because the 30-m-y span includes all the 1000's of diversified organisms. But each species appears abruptly, without precursor!!

 

[Sapiens]

Because the 30-m-y span includes all the 1000's of diversified organisms. But each species appears abruptly, without precursor!!

That is not entirely true. However, the paucity of fossil evidence is likely due, at least in part, to the fact that the development of hard body structures, that permitted any fossilization at all, occurred then.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The detrimental ones die quickly and don't reproduce...

Then the fossil record should be overflowing with these defective mutants! As it is, we see stasis and function in the strata formations.

 

[Skwim]

Because the 30-m-y span includes all the 1000's of diversified organisms.

About 50-55 million years.

But each species appears abruptly, without precursor!!

Really? You might want to consult your favorite Cambrian Explosion resource site. It has the following diagram.

See anything suggesting "each species appears abruptly, without precursor!!"? Nope. Neither do I.
In fact, it shows just the opposite.

.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

That is not entirely true. However, the paucity of fossil evidence is likely due, at least in part, to the fact that the development of hard body structures that permitted any fossilization at all occurred then.

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.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

@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!

 

[corynski]

I need only to look around to see and understand that no god could create anything so stupid and ridiculous as human beings. Where would any god come from, and what would it's Being be? You're suggesting that perfection can create imperfection? Perfection would want to create imperfection? You're telling me that a god can create itself? To say one 'believes' in a god is meaningless, when there is no evidence of any god.......

 

[Darkstorn]

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

Yet it wasn't sudden. So their sudden is different than yours: The time frame is long enough to discount your observation of the issue. It's millions of years.

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

Show us the evidence. Show us that you even HAVE evidence: The text you use is definitely not evidence for you even knowing what you're talking about.

"Ya'll." No, "You." Accusing everyone but you for not wanting to accept evidence... It's funny. Firstly: If it was a matter of evidence, you wouldn't rely on faith. You'd have evidence, and you'd show us this evidence. But it's not a matter of evidence, it's a matter of faith.

it's FAITH on your part to even make the conclusion that your non-existent evidence is indicative of acts of creation. It's only indicative of intellectual laziness on your part.

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!

Would you call a book that DOESN'T try to conform to your conclusions awesome? I think not. First you need to support the conclusion, not invent an argument for it afterwards.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Then the fossil record should be overflowing with these defective mutants! As it is, we see stasis and function in the strata formations.

I'm afraid your thinking apparatus is not up to your hockey prowess.

Look, mutations are not common, they are rare. That's number 1. Number 2, fossilization is also not common -- it, too, is rare. Are you with me so far? Let's see if we can finish this up:

1. There are a few, rare mutations, many of them bad, a few good
2. If they are bad, they will not result in the animal (assuming it survives to sexual maturity) producing viable offspring -- that mutation dies out
3. It might, in very rare circumstances, leave a fossil. That fossil, in very rare circumstances, might be found.
4. If a mutation permits the animal to leave more offspring, for whatever reason given the competitive environment in which it lives, then more of that mutation will be passed on the next generation. This is an ADDITIVE process. A 1% increase in offspring, over many generations, will completely overwhelm the non-favoured, non-mutation.
5. A rare few of those new creatures will leave a fossil when they perish -- but many, many, many more than were left by the non-procreating bad mutation. And a rare few of those may be found by paleontologist seekers.

Do the math. It really isn't hard at all.

 

[Polymath257]

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?

Documentation? You mean the Quran? Or the Bagavad-Gita? Or perhaps the Tao-te_Ching?

What do you think a judge would do if several people claimed to have documentation for that debt with *completely* different contracts? Do you think that judge might be a bit skeptical?

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?

Yes, it is a fight over world views, but not the type you seem to think. It is a fight between evidence and logic on one side and faith and superstition on the other.

Humans have a limited authority on this Earth. Very limited. But *nobody* has 'authority' concerning the stars. There is no 'mouth of a higher authority'. There are books written by men attempting to explain their superstitions. The Bible is one among many in this regard.

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

And several such transitional fossils have, in fact, been discovered. Perhaps you are unaware of them. But there are many for the evolution of birds, of amphibians, of reptiles, of whales, of horses, and even of humans.

 

[rusra02]

Even after every such claim has been debunked? Wouldn't that be evidence against Behe's claim?

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.

 

[Darkstorn]

As mentioned, the idea that irreducible complexity has been successfully refuted comes from the evolutionary camp.

Every single example of so called irreducible complexity HAS been debunked using the same methodology they claimed to be using to come up with those "theories."

I mean, it might not be right to say that the entire idea has been successfully refuted. But every single example brought on by the proponents of the idea HAS been debunked. With evidence.

If you're trying to use science, you must also be subject to its methods. IC is an attempt to bring Creationism into a scientific debate. Faith cannot be used in context of IC in an argument: It's subject to evidence because its proponents specifically defined it as such. And as such, there is NO evidence to support it.

None.

Unless you show it. Making empty unsubstantiated claims goes AGAINST the agenda of the ID movement. They are trying to use science.

My favourite quote of all time is:

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" - Hitchens

In its claims, ID is an evidence based argument. But so far there is no such compelling evidence to verify any of the claims. You must abandon faith when arguing about ID. Otherwise you're shooting your own agenda in the foot.

 

[rusra02]

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?

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.

 

[rusra02]

Every single example of so called irreducible complexity HAS been debunked using the same methodology they claimed to be using to come up with those "theories."

I mean, it might not be right to say that the entire idea has been successfully refuted. But every single example brought on by the proponents of the idea HAS been debunked. With evidence.

If you're trying to use science, you must also be subject to its methods. IC is an attempt to bring Creationism into a scientific debate. Faith cannot be used in context of IC in an argument: It's subject to evidence because its proponents specifically defined it as such. And as such, there is NO evidence to support it.

None.

Unless you show it. Making empty unsubstantiated claims goes AGAINST the agenda of the ID movement. They are trying to use science.

My favourite quote of all time is:

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" - Hitchens

In its claims, ID is an evidence based argument. But so far there is no such compelling evidence to verify any of the claims. You must abandon faith when arguing about ID. Otherwise you're shooting your own agenda in the foot.

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.

 

[Darkstorn]

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

Wrong forum then.

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

That statement goes against the agenda of the ID movement: They are a so called evidence based argument. You can't use your subjective observations as compelling evidence. Even most "Creation scientists" understand this and argue with better logic than:

"I personally find the evidence to be compelling. Oh, i'm not going to give you the evidence."

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

Yes there is. And every one of them as been debunked so far successfully by the same methodology IC claims to subject itself to.

And just because every single one of their examples has been debunked, doesn't mean they can't conceivably be right as well... It's just... They don't have compelling evidence, while competing viewpoints DO have that.

But you are kidding yourself: You can't accept IC by faith. It's supposed to be an evidence based argument. So where exactly is your 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.

"Such evidence" is the problem here. FIRST you have to SHOW us that what you claim to be evidence even IS evidence. You can't just make up empty claims like that.

Claiming that IC has been evidenced is an "unproven assertion." Because no one has seen such compelling evidence. Those who accept it on faith are going against the dogma of IC.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

Please provide a link?

 

[Polymath257]

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.