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

[Hockeycowboy]

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.

Lol. No, I've read your replies (to him and others -- me included); it's you. Subtle at times, but it's you.

 

[Jose Fly]

Lol. No, I've read your replies (to her and others -- me included); it's you. Subtle at times, but it's you.

Let's see.....when asked who's at fault, a Jehovah's Witness decides it's the "evolutionist" rather than a fellow Jehovah's Witness.

Surely you don't expect anyone to be surprised at that.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Let's see.....when asked who's at fault, a Jehovah's Witness decides it's the "evolutionist" rather than a fellow Jehovah's Witness.

Surely you don't expect anyone to be surprised at that.

I can go through your latest posts, and quote them. (The evidence is there.) you want me too?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

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

Huh?

 

[Jose Fly]

I can go through your latest posts, and quote them. (The evidence is there.) you want me too?

Please proceed.......

 

[Jose Fly]

Huh?

In Post #207 I asked you a series of questions, and you ignored them.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

"Chapter 1: Darwin’s Nemesis
Darwin’s theory says that all life is related through universal common ancestry by a process of descent with modification. Descent with modification is brought about by random variations acted upon by natural selection. Change would necessarily be gradual. Natural selection would preserve all adaptive variations and reject harmful ones. Over geological deep time, the accumulation of these beneficial variations would eventually lead to new species and body plans. Hence Darwin envisioned the history of life as a tree with the first living thing at the base of the trunk of the tree.

Darwin was aware of the fossil record in the Cambrian (called the Silurian in his day) and admitted that it was a mystery not readily explained by his theory. Louis Agassiz, a contemporary of Darwin and a Harvard-trained paleontologist, said that the fossil record did not fit Darwin’s theory, especially the Cambrian. The Cambrian is full of well preserved fossils of many very complex and different animals such as brachiopods and trilobites.4

Darwin’s theory requires much time to bring about large changes. But the Cambrian records many disparate animals appearing suddenly without precursors over a relatively brief period of time, something Darwin’s theory could not readily explain. Agassiz thought the fossil record refuted Darwin’s theory. Other paleontologists pointed out that the general character of the fossil record—abrupt appearance, stasis, extinction—did not fit Darwin’s theory.

Darwin said future research would vindicate his theory, but Agassiz said that the record already contained fossils of soft-bodied animals without hard body parts. Agassiz said the missing intermediates and precursors Darwin’s theory predicted were not an artifact of the fossil record but were truly missing.

Nevertheless, many of Darwin’s other contemporaries embraced his theory and soon it was widely accepted. Science was shifting from “idealism,” which held that animals were the product of ideas and a mind, to methodological naturalism, which holds that everything must have a natural cause."

That last paragraph reveals evolutionary science to hinge on vacillating conjecture. That's why evolutionary scientists argue so much among themselves!

Then your best argument for creationism is the paucity of fossils from the Cambrian explosion?

I notice that when phrases like "a relatively brief period of time" appear, we don't usually see numbers. Are you aware that we are talking about 20-25 million years, and that it was a period immediately following a critical breakthrough in biological evolution - the advent of multicellular, metazoan animals? It's not surprising at all that these creatures experienced an adaptive radiation to exploit all existing niches. They wouldn't have had much competition from unicellular life forms or colonies. This is exactly what the concept of punctuated equilibrium predicts - periods of relative stasis punctuated by periods of relatively rapid evolution.

Furthermore, none of this supports the biblical view, which has a god creating one single, special species made in that god's image and possessing a soul. These creatures were all low intelligence marine life. Our closest relatives at that time looked like this guy, Haikouichthys:

If this is the product of an intelligent designer, it wouldn't be the god of the Christian Bible, would it? If the ID ever find the evidence they're looking for, it will overturn their religion.

I doubt that anybody is listening to the creationists any more, and probably won't until they produce positive, physical evidence of creation, and I can't imagine what that would be. Arguments without demonstrable evidence aren't enough.

I doubt that anybody will want to spend much effort elucidating a putative evolutionary pathway to refute future claims of irreducible complexity. The creationists have demonstrated that they're only guessing, and guessing badly.

It's clear that they want creationism to be true, and we know what happens when we investigate reality with a confirmation bias. We see what we want to see.

Science has to be done impartially, with a willingness to go wherever reason applied to the existing evidence takes us. Good science does everything in its power to eliminate investigator bias. Clinical trials are prospective, randomized, use control groups and are double blinded (neither investigator or subject knows who is getting treatment and who is getting placebo), then peer reviewed and replicated when feasible. Everything possible is done by colleagues to refute any new finding.

The creationists are doing the opposite. They're starting with a premise and trying to make it look like a sound conclusion. They cannot be expected to try to refute one another. They can't be expected to do what the non-creationists had to do for them regarding their claims of irreducible complexity. The creationists have no desire to refute one another.

 

[stevevw]

What is the scientific paradigm for life? Do you mean the features of living things as we know them, or their expected origin and evolution, or something else?

More to do with the scientific approach in general. Everything has to be explained in scientific terms which of course is the whole point. One thing will naturally lead to another whether it is supported by the evidence or not. For example, existence has to be created naturally so the position is there has to be some way that everyone began naturally and so science comes up with a hypothesis about this. It's a case of it being true first and then trying to find the evidence later. The attitude is the evidence will be found one day and it's just a matter of time. So if one supports evolution then a natural extension of this is life there has to be life on other planets whether there is evidence or not. In some ways, it's like looking at life through scientific glasses which can bias your view because it cannot allow for any other possibilities.

Life may not exist on Mars any more if it ever did at all. Or it might, and our rovers haven't identified it yet.

I would have thought at some stage in the billions of years since Mars was formed that it was in a position to have life of some sort. It's not too cold or hot and once had water or some sort of liquid. The Earth may have been similar as it was once an alien environment as well when it first spawned life.

I don't think that you can place much significance in the fact that we haven't found extraterrestrial life yet. We've barely begun looking.

I just think there should be more evidence than there is when you consider how life can survive in almost any conditions and the age of the universe.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

More to do with the scientific approach in general. Everything has to be explained in scientific terms which of course is the whole point. One thing will naturally lead to another whether it is supported by the evidence or not. For example, existence has to be created naturally so the position is there has to be some way that everyone began naturally and so science comes up with a hypothesis about this. It's a case of it being true first and then trying to find the evidence later. The attitude is the evidence will be found one day and it's just a matter of time. So if one supports evolution then a natural extension of this is life there has to be life on other planets whether there is evidence or not. In some ways, it's like looking at life through scientific glasses which can bias your view because it cannot allow for any other possibilities.

This is not what science is or is about, and there are no scientific glasses. Scientists are rational skeptics and empiricists. So am I. And wherever you use reason and evidence rather than faith, so are you.

I would have thought at some stage in the billions of years since Mars was formed that it was in a position to have life of some sort

Many agree with you. The rovers made an effort to find proxies of life, but found none (I think I recall hearing about a false alarm, but that's an indistinct memory that may well be wrong).

Still, there may be life there yet. Or not. We don't know.

Europa and Enceladus are considered moons of interest, as is Gannymede and Titan.

Would it matter to you if we found extraterrestrial unicellular life in the solar system? I'd be thrilled.

 

[Sapiens]

It would matter to me if we found extraterrestrial unicellular life in the solar system? I'd be thrilled.

 

[minorwork]

And let's keep it to your single best argument. Don't want to be all over the map.
.

All kinds of things change between the time I lay in bed till I get up. The clock changes, it's light out, birds are chirping, it's now raining but wasn't. Creation is only going on when I'm awake. Creationism is the study and exposition of Consciousness, not unconsciousness. What is the name of this peculiar type of Creationism? InstantON Creationism.

 

[savagewind]

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

So, what ya got?​

.​

​

There is no single best argument for you. For myself, there is the fact that whatever is needed for life is present.​

 

[leibowde84]

There is no single best argument for you. For myself, there is the fact that whatever is needed for life is present.​

Why does that convince you?

 

[savagewind]

Why does that convince you?

That there exists whatever any of the billions of Earth's organisms need convinces me that
intelligence is involved in it.

 

[leibowde84]

That there exists whatever any of the billions of Earth's organisms need convinces me that
intelligence is involved in it.

You said that. I'm asking why does it convince you?

 

[savagewind]

You said that. I'm asking why does it convince you?

I know about odds. I have played the lottery and I have gambled a little bit of money now and again. I also used to send in the Publisher's Clearing House bull****.
There are billions upon billions upon billions of successful acts of conformity which I know could not have happened without HELP. There exists a helper or helpers. OK?

 

[leibowde84]

There are billions upon billions upon billions of successful acts of conformity which I know could not have happened without HELP.

I guess this is what I'm really curious about. How do you KNOW that it couldn't have happened without help? It seems like you are saying it just seems, in your opinion, like it couldn't have happened without help. But, you contend that you "know". I'm interested to know what makes you so confident.

 

[savagewind]

I guess this is what I'm really curious about. How do you KNOW that it couldn't have happened without help? It seems like you are saying it just seems, in your opinion, like it couldn't have happened without help. But, you contend that you "know". I'm interested to know what makes you so confident.

The number of times it had to have happened convinces me.

 

[leibowde84]

The number of times it had to have happened convinces me.

Well, you are describing an opinion. It isn't as unlikely as you think when you consider the 4.5 billion years (age of the earth) it had to happen and how natural selection is a driving force. I don't see it as unlikely at all. In fact, I am convinced that there absolutely has to be life elsewhere in the universe. Obviously, if there is, chances are we will never come into contact with it, as the nearest star would take thousands of years to get to. But, the likelihood is out of control ... 40 billion earth like planets in the Milky Way alone.

 

[minorwork]

I know about odds. I have played the lottery and I have gambled a little bit of money now and again. I also used to send in the Publisher's Clearing House bull****.
There are billions upon billions upon billions of successful acts of conformity which I know could not have happened without HELP. There exists a helper or helpers. OK?

What? No unsuccessful acts at all? For each intentioned act that is successful, I've had hundreds, sometimes thousands of unsuccessful attempts, but then that's how to learn banjo riffs.

What is an act of conformity? Why does it(?) require this help thing? Doesn't anything get done without help in your view? If not then you have gained not a thing because there is no exception in your view of acts that are not in conformity.