Total Posts:800|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Creation on Trial

medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2014 6:45:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
In response to Theta's "Evolution on Trial" thread, in the spirit of fairness, I'm willing to switch roles and let evolutionists go on the attack against creation. Creation and ID are the defendants, and evolutionists/atheists can act as the prosecutors.

Court is now in session.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 4:03:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/5/2014 6:45:32 PM, medic0506 wrote:
In response to Theta's "Evolution on Trial" thread, in the spirit of fairness, I'm willing to switch roles and let evolutionists go on the attack against creation. Creation and ID are the defendants, and evolutionists/atheists can act as the prosecutors.

Court is now in session.

Creationism/intelligent design make no testable predictions and are largely based on arguments from ignorance/incredulity.

Agree ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 5:13:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/6/2014 4:03:44 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/5/2014 6:45:32 PM, medic0506 wrote:
In response to Theta's "Evolution on Trial" thread, in the spirit of fairness, I'm willing to switch roles and let evolutionists go on the attack against creation. Creation and ID are the defendants, and evolutionists/atheists can act as the prosecutors.

Court is now in session.

Creationism/intelligent design make no testable predictions and are largely based on arguments from ignorance/incredulity.

Agree ?

No, I don't agree.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 5:49:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/6/2014 12:59:06 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Looks like the prosecution forgot to show up.

At least we gave them the opportunity.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 6:20:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Do you consider intelligent design a scientific theory?

If you do consider it a scientific theory, what predictions does it make?
joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 8:19:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/6/2014 6:20:37 AM, Floid wrote:
Do you consider intelligent design a scientific theory?

If you do consider it a scientific theory, what predictions does it make?

here's one that goes directly against assumptions from the evolutionary paradigm: For decades, the evolutionary assumption was that the majority of the genome (over 90%), because it does not code for proteins, was nothing more than an evolutionary relic. In fact, it was termed "junk DNA"

As far back as the early 1990s, several design theorists independently predicted that these regions were in fact functional. As we learn more about the genome, we are finding this prediction of design to be true. Indeed these regions, thought to be mere "junk" from the evolutionary paradigm are proving to control higher regulatory levels, adding a brand new obstacle to a naturalistic narrative. Indeed, such controls are now known as the "epigenome (meaning "above the genome").

A stunning victory for design theory and another major hurdle for the naturalistic narrative.

Your witness....
NightofTheLivingCats
Posts: 2,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 8:48:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/6/2014 8:19:10 AM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 2/6/2014 6:20:37 AM, Floid wrote:
Do you consider intelligent design a scientific theory?

If you do consider it a scientific theory, what predictions does it make?

here's one that goes directly against assumptions from the evolutionary paradigm: For decades, the evolutionary assumption was that the majority of the genome (over 90%), because it does not code for proteins, was nothing more than an evolutionary relic. In fact, it was termed "junk DNA"

As far back as the early 1990s, several design theorists independently predicted that these regions were in fact functional. As we learn more about the genome, we are finding this prediction of design to be true. Indeed these regions, thought to be mere "junk" from the evolutionary paradigm are proving to control higher regulatory levels, adding a brand new obstacle to a naturalistic narrative. Indeed, such controls are now known as the "epigenome (meaning "above the genome").

A stunning victory for design theory and another major hurdle for the naturalistic narrative.

Your witness....

Oh. These generalizations.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 9:32:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/6/2014 6:20:37 AM, Floid wrote:
Do you consider intelligent design a scientific theory?

If you do consider it a scientific theory, what predictions does it make?

As junior counsel here, I'll offer a response: "Your honor, we don't claim that creationism is a scientific theory. That does not mean that creationism is un-scientific, just that, like Darwinism, it is not subject to the scientific method.

What we are claiming, your honor, is that creationism is correct. We are claiming that we were created. We can discuss what methods the court will admit in evaluating this claim, but our claim is that we were created, not that creationism is scientific."
This space for rent.
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 9:33:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/5/2014 6:45:32 PM, medic0506 wrote:
In response to Theta's "Evolution on Trial" thread, in the spirit of fairness, I'm willing to switch roles and let evolutionists go on the attack against creation. Creation and ID are the defendants, and evolutionists/atheists can act as the prosecutors.

Court is now in session.

If the defense would please provide one example of a falsifiable prediction that demonstrates creationism/ID, then of course showing how that prediction stands.

Thank you,
TrueScotsman
v3nesl
Posts: 4,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 9:37:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/6/2014 8:19:10 AM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 2/6/2014 6:20:37 AM, Floid wrote:
Do you consider intelligent design a scientific theory?

If you do consider it a scientific theory, what predictions does it make?

here's one that goes directly against assumptions from the evolutionary paradigm: For decades, the evolutionary assumption was that the majority of the genome (over 90%), because it does not code for proteins, was nothing more than an evolutionary relic. In fact, it was termed "junk DNA"

As far back as the early 1990s, several design theorists independently predicted that these regions were in fact functional. As we learn more about the genome, we are finding this prediction of design to be true. Indeed these regions, thought to be mere "junk" from the evolutionary paradigm are proving to control higher regulatory levels, adding a brand new obstacle to a naturalistic narrative. Indeed, such controls are now known as the "epigenome (meaning "above the genome").

A stunning victory for design theory and another major hurdle for the naturalistic narrative.

Your witness....

And to me, this sad story shows that the evolution model is not only wrong, but bad for clear thinking. When one understands that a human, for instance, comes from two microscopic cells, it should be immediately obvious that we are looking at a data compression scheme orders of magnitude more sophisticated than anything computer scientists have ever invented. So, to assume any part of the genome is junk is close to insanity. No one would ever have made that assumption if they weren't corrupted by Darwinian thought, and we would likely know a lot more about the genome at this point in history.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 9:43:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/6/2014 9:33:43 AM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 2/5/2014 6:45:32 PM, medic0506 wrote:
In response to Theta's "Evolution on Trial" thread, in the spirit of fairness, I'm willing to switch roles and let evolutionists go on the attack against creation. Creation and ID are the defendants, and evolutionists/atheists can act as the prosecutors.

Court is now in session.

If the defense would please provide one example of a falsifiable prediction that demonstrates creationism/ID, then of course showing how that prediction stands.

Thank you,
TrueScotsman

Why? Would you ask an arresting police officer to make one falsifiable prediction? What exactly does that have to do with anything?
This space for rent.
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 9:44:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/6/2014 9:32:33 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/6/2014 6:20:37 AM, Floid wrote:
Do you consider intelligent design a scientific theory?

If you do consider it a scientific theory, what predictions does it make?

As junior counsel here, I'll offer a response: "Your honor, we don't claim that creationism is a scientific theory. That does not mean that creationism is un-scientific, just that, like Darwinism, it is not subject to the scientific method.

What we are claiming, your honor, is that creationism is correct. We are claiming that we were created. We can discuss what methods the court will admit in evaluating this claim, but our claim is that we were created, not that creationism is scientific."

Objection, your honor the junior counsel has misrepresented Darwinism by saying that it is not subject to the scientific method. This is a naked assertion backed up with no evidence whatsoever, and is only used to attempt to put Creationism on the same level.

This is not so, but even so, the point is moot as Creationism is the one under trial so the point is moot.

The junior counsel also failed to produce any predictions.
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 9:45:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/6/2014 9:43:47 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/6/2014 9:33:43 AM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 2/5/2014 6:45:32 PM, medic0506 wrote:
In response to Theta's "Evolution on Trial" thread, in the spirit of fairness, I'm willing to switch roles and let evolutionists go on the attack against creation. Creation and ID are the defendants, and evolutionists/atheists can act as the prosecutors.

Court is now in session.

If the defense would please provide one example of a falsifiable prediction that demonstrates creationism/ID, then of course showing how that prediction stands.

Thank you,
TrueScotsman

Why? Would you ask an arresting police officer to make one falsifiable prediction? What exactly does that have to do with anything?

Objection your honor, the defense is dodging the question. Given that creationism is on trial in matters that relate to science, the subject of falsifiable predictions is relevant.

The question is again forwarded.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 10:03:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/6/2014 9:45:47 AM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 2/6/2014 9:43:47 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/6/2014 9:33:43 AM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 2/5/2014 6:45:32 PM, medic0506 wrote:
In response to Theta's "Evolution on Trial" thread, in the spirit of fairness, I'm willing to switch roles and let evolutionists go on the attack against creation. Creation and ID are the defendants, and evolutionists/atheists can act as the prosecutors.

Court is now in session.

If the defense would please provide one example of a falsifiable prediction that demonstrates creationism/ID, then of course showing how that prediction stands.

Thank you,
TrueScotsman

Why? Would you ask an arresting police officer to make one falsifiable prediction? What exactly does that have to do with anything?

Objection your honor, the defense is dodging the question. Given that creationism is on trial in matters that relate to science, the subject of falsifiable predictions is relevant.

The question is again forwarded.

As I said, my claim is that we were created. If the correctness of that claim is not what interests you, I'm not the one to talk to.
This space for rent.
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 10:06:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/6/2014 8:19:10 AM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 2/6/2014 6:20:37 AM, Floid wrote:
Do you consider intelligent design a scientific theory?

If you do consider it a scientific theory, what predictions does it make?

here's one that goes directly against assumptions from the evolutionary paradigm: For decades, the evolutionary assumption was that the majority of the genome (over 90%), because it does not code for proteins, was nothing more than an evolutionary relic. In fact, it was termed "junk DNA"

It was actually termed Noncoding DNA, and scientists have known for decades that they do have functions.

As far back as the early 1990s, several design theorists independently predicted that these regions were in fact functional. As we learn more about the genome, we are finding this prediction of design to be true. Indeed these regions, thought to be mere "junk" from the evolutionary paradigm are proving to control higher regulatory levels, adding a brand new obstacle to a naturalistic narrative. Indeed, such controls are now known as the "epigenome (meaning "above the genome").

Predicted... because it was actually already known that those areas were functional but in a non-coding way.

How does this demonstrate ID exactly?

A stunning victory for design theory and another major hurdle for the naturalistic narrative.

Your witness....

A stunning fantasy this man has painted, your honor.
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 10:08:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/6/2014 10:03:04 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/6/2014 9:45:47 AM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 2/6/2014 9:43:47 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/6/2014 9:33:43 AM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 2/5/2014 6:45:32 PM, medic0506 wrote:
In response to Theta's "Evolution on Trial" thread, in the spirit of fairness, I'm willing to switch roles and let evolutionists go on the attack against creation. Creation and ID are the defendants, and evolutionists/atheists can act as the prosecutors.

Court is now in session.

If the defense would please provide one example of a falsifiable prediction that demonstrates creationism/ID, then of course showing how that prediction stands.

Thank you,
TrueScotsman

Why? Would you ask an arresting police officer to make one falsifiable prediction? What exactly does that have to do with anything?

Objection your honor, the defense is dodging the question. Given that creationism is on trial in matters that relate to science, the subject of falsifiable predictions is relevant.

The question is again forwarded.

As I said, my claim is that we were created. If the correctness of that claim is not what interests you, I'm not the one to talk to.

I'm asking you to provide some evidence for that claim, such as a prediction that one could make if this proposition were true.

Your honor, the defense has again refused to answer the question and simply restated his initial assertion.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 11:02:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/6/2014 9:32:33 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/6/2014 6:20:37 AM, Floid wrote:
Do you consider intelligent design a scientific theory?

If you do consider it a scientific theory, what predictions does it make?

As junior counsel here, I'll offer a response: "Your honor, we don't claim that creationism is a scientific theory. That does not mean that creationism is un-scientific, just that, like Darwinism, it is not subject to the scientific method.

What we are claiming, your honor, is that creationism is correct. We are claiming that we were created. We can discuss what methods the court will admit in evaluating this claim, but our claim is that we were created, not that creationism is scientific."

And how could you demonstrate that your claim is true without using science? You realize that the scientific method is the best method that the human race has ever come up with, in determining truth from fiction?
v3nesl
Posts: 4,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 11:50:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/6/2014 11:02:08 AM, tkubok wrote:
...

And how could you demonstrate that your claim is true without using science? You realize that the scientific method is the best method that the human race has ever come up with, in determining truth from fiction?

It's pretty good for testing things that can be reproduced, we can agree on that. So how do you propose to reproduce the origin of the ecosystem?
This space for rent.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 11:58:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/6/2014 11:50:19 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/6/2014 11:02:08 AM, tkubok wrote:
...

And how could you demonstrate that your claim is true without using science? You realize that the scientific method is the best method that the human race has ever come up with, in determining truth from fiction?

It's pretty good for testing things that can be reproduced, we can agree on that.

Its pretty good for determining truth from fiction without reproducing the actual event, too. I mean, our understanding of stars doesnt come from testing or reproducing the actual inner workings of a star, and yet science has accurately determined that our current understanding is correct.

So how do you propose to reproduce the origin of the ecosystem?

Why would it matter if we reproduced the origin of the ecosystem, in terms of determining whether creation is true? Couldnt this creator God just have easily created life on the moon?
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 12:18:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/6/2014 11:50:19 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/6/2014 11:02:08 AM, tkubok wrote:
...

And how could you demonstrate that your claim is true without using science? You realize that the scientific method is the best method that the human race has ever come up with, in determining truth from fiction?

It's pretty good for testing things that can be reproduced, we can agree on that. So how do you propose to reproduce the origin of the ecosystem?

The best ID defenders can do is point to something complex and say, "goddit." Or attempt to say (this is more often the case) "evolution couldn't have done it."

There are no falsifiable claims that ID makes, instead it is an ever shrinking pile of evidence. As evidence is clarified and shown to demonstrate that such complexity could have arisen via natural causes, the data that ID defenders use will shrink and shrink.

Intelligent Design is at its heart, a god of the gaps fallacy.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 2:20:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/6/2014 11:58:51 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 2/6/2014 11:50:19 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/6/2014 11:02:08 AM, tkubok wrote:
...

And how could you demonstrate that your claim is true without using science? You realize that the scientific method is the best method that the human race has ever come up with, in determining truth from fiction?

It's pretty good for testing things that can be reproduced, we can agree on that.

Its pretty good for determining truth from fiction without reproducing the actual event, too. I mean, our understanding of stars doesnt come from testing or reproducing the actual inner workings of a star, and yet science has accurately determined that our current understanding is correct.


And how did they do that? By saying so?

See, this is one of the problems I have with evolution - I think it has severely harmed science literacy in general. People today can recite many facts but understand little. People are taught to just trust scientists, which is not a scientific mindset.


So how do you propose to reproduce the origin of the ecosystem?

Why would it matter if we reproduced the origin of the ecosystem, in terms of determining whether creation is true?

You were the one asking for the scientific method, weren't you? Make up your mind, do you want this to be a science experiment or not.
This space for rent.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 4:16:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/6/2014 11:58:51 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 2/6/2014 11:50:19 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/6/2014 11:02:08 AM, tkubok wrote:
...

And how could you demonstrate that your claim is true without using science? You realize that the scientific method is the best method that the human race has ever come up with, in determining truth from fiction?

It's pretty good for testing things that can be reproduced, we can agree on that.

Its pretty good for determining truth from fiction without reproducing the actual event, too. I mean, our understanding of stars doesnt come from testing or reproducing the actual inner workings of a star, and yet science has accurately determined that our current understanding is correct.

Firstly, science has determined our current understanding of stars to the best of our current knowledge, NOT "accurately"

Secondly, we are expected to make a star on earth: http://www.wired.co.uk...

We are NOT expected to evolve a bacterium into a person.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 5:21:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/6/2014 2:20:42 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/6/2014 11:58:51 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 2/6/2014 11:50:19 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/6/2014 11:02:08 AM, tkubok wrote:
...

And how could you demonstrate that your claim is true without using science? You realize that the scientific method is the best method that the human race has ever come up with, in determining truth from fiction?

It's pretty good for testing things that can be reproduced, we can agree on that.

Its pretty good for determining truth from fiction without reproducing the actual event, too. I mean, our understanding of stars doesnt come from testing or reproducing the actual inner workings of a star, and yet science has accurately determined that our current understanding is correct.


And how did they do that? By saying so?
By the evidence provided and its ability to predict things accurately.


See, this is one of the problems I have with evolution - I think it has severely harmed science literacy in general. People today can recite many facts but understand little. People are taught to just trust scientists, which is not a scientific mindset.

Well, yes and no. I agree, its never good to simply accept something because it is being taught by an authority figure. But at the same time, we necessarily have to trust authorities. I do not know the first thing about brain surgery, but when a surgeon at a general hospital tells me that I have a tumour and i need surgery, I would generally trust his expertise.

But the problem here, isnt that Evolution harmed scientific literacy in general, its that the general public never really had a good understanding of what science is. And thats part of the problem, is that the layman doesnt understand science or evolution enough to comment on it.




So how do you propose to reproduce the origin of the ecosystem?

Why would it matter if we reproduced the origin of the ecosystem, in terms of determining whether creation is true?

You were the one asking for the scientific method, weren't you? Make up your mind, do you want this to be a science experiment or not.

If possible, yes, but again, within the paradigm of the existance of a God, setting up the origins of the ecosystem is meaningless, wouldnt you agree? I mean, this is partly why it is unscientific, is that you cannot set up the science experiment, because it is meaningless to do so. But if you can set it up as a scientific experiment, id love to see it.
theta_pinch
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 5:46:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/5/2014 6:45:32 PM, medic0506 wrote:
In response to Theta's "Evolution on Trial" thread, in the spirit of fairness, I'm willing to switch roles and let evolutionists go on the attack against creation. Creation and ID are the defendants, and evolutionists/atheists can act as the prosecutors.

Court is now in session.

I will present three arguments against young earth creationism:
1. ICE CORES: We have ice cores with 680,000 layers; each layer represents 1 summer/winter cycle(that is observable fact.) If the young earth creationism model is correct than that's 680000 summer/winter cycles divided by 6000 years which comes out to be: 113.3 summer/winter cycles every year, and remember this is in the time frame of recorded history; so Mr. Young Earth Creationism: how do you explain that no one ever noticed winter happening every 1.5 days?

2. TREES
A tree in the rocky mountains is 5062 years old; Noah's Flood happened 3428 years ago. Mr. Young Earth Creationism, I ask you: How did that tree survive being underwater for an entire year?

http://creation.com...
http://news.nationalgeographic.com...

3. RADIOMETRIC DATING
When we date the earth using radiometric dating we get an age of 4.5 billion years. Young Earth Creationists in an attempt to save their doctrine say radioactive decay rates(specifically uranium) were faster in the past giving the illusion of a 4.5 billion year old earth. Now for a little math: 4,500,000,000yr/6000yr=750000; that's how many times more radioactive the uranium would have to be over a 6000 year period(assuming that the 6000 years used in my calculation abruptly changed to present rates when uranium dating was first used.)

A lethal dose of radiation is 5 sieverts. The radiation produced by the accelerated decay rate uranium: 75000 sieverts. Now Mr. Young Earth Creationism; Tell me how humans and every other animal survived 15,000 times the lethal dose of radiation.
Any sufficiently complex phenomenon is indistinguishable from magic--Me

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
Niel deGrasse Tyson
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 6:29:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
As far back as the early 1990s, several design theorists independently predicted that these regions were in fact functional. As we learn more about the genome, we are finding this prediction of design to be true. Indeed these regions, thought to be mere "junk" from the evolutionary paradigm are proving to control higher regulatory levels, adding a brand new obstacle to a naturalistic narrative. Indeed, such controls are now known as the "epigenome (meaning "above the genome").

Unfortunately you didn't really answer either question. I am assuming from your answer that you are stating that creation makes predictions.

Evolutions prediction about junk DNA could be phrased something like the following (and this is probably a very poor statement on the subject but I think it conveys the point):
"Natural processes, including the copying of genes, are imperfect. Given how long evolution is proposed to have been happening it is highly likely that when examining genomes that portions will have been copied incorrectly rendering them useless or unused yet still present".

So I have to ask again: what exactly is creations prediction? Would it be something like:
"Being a part of creation by a perfect designer, DNA is 100% utilized in all creatures because that is the most efficient utilization of resources"

Please answer the question instead of creating a strawman. I don't know that you would find a scientist alive that claimed that are understand of genetics and more specifically our understanding of how every gene works is complete and accurate.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 6:30:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/6/2014 9:32:33 AM, v3nesl wrote:
As junior counsel here, I'll offer a response: "Your honor, we don't claim that creationism is a scientific theory. "

Then we have nothing to discuss. This is the science forums.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 6:30:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/6/2014 5:46:33 PM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 2/5/2014 6:45:32 PM, medic0506 wrote:
In response to Theta's "Evolution on Trial" thread, in the spirit of fairness, I'm willing to switch roles and let evolutionists go on the attack against creation. Creation and ID are the defendants, and evolutionists/atheists can act as the prosecutors.

Court is now in session.

I will present three arguments against young earth creationism:
1. ICE CORES: We have ice cores with 680,000 layers; each layer represents 1 summer/winter cycle(that is observable fact.) If the young earth creationism model is correct than that's 680000 summer/winter cycles divided by 6000 years which comes out to be: 113.3 summer/winter cycles every year, and remember this is in the time frame of recorded history; so Mr. Young Earth Creationism: how do you explain that no one ever noticed winter happening every 1.5 days?

2. TREES
A tree in the rocky mountains is 5062 years old; Noah's Flood happened 3428 years ago. Mr. Young Earth Creationism, I ask you: How did that tree survive being underwater for an entire year?

http://creation.com...
http://news.nationalgeographic.com...

3. RADIOMETRIC DATING
When we date the earth using radiometric dating we get an age of 4.5 billion years. Young Earth Creationists in an attempt to save their doctrine say radioactive decay rates(specifically uranium) were faster in the past giving the illusion of a 4.5 billion year old earth. Now for a little math: 4,500,000,000yr/6000yr=750000; that's how many times more radioactive the uranium would have to be over a 6000 year period(assuming that the 6000 years used in my calculation abruptly changed to present rates when uranium dating was first used.)

A lethal dose of radiation is 5 sieverts. The radiation produced by the accelerated decay rate uranium: 75000 sieverts. Now Mr. Young Earth Creationism; Tell me how humans and every other animal survived 15,000 times the lethal dose of radiation.

Well, he could be an old earth creationist.
theta_pinch
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 6:43:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/6/2014 6:30:59 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 2/6/2014 5:46:33 PM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 2/5/2014 6:45:32 PM, medic0506 wrote:
In response to Theta's "Evolution on Trial" thread, in the spirit of fairness, I'm willing to switch roles and let evolutionists go on the attack against creation. Creation and ID are the defendants, and evolutionists/atheists can act as the prosecutors.

Court is now in session.

I will present three arguments against young earth creationism:
1. ICE CORES: We have ice cores with 680,000 layers; each layer represents 1 summer/winter cycle(that is observable fact.) If the young earth creationism model is correct than that's 680000 summer/winter cycles divided by 6000 years which comes out to be: 113.3 summer/winter cycles every year, and remember this is in the time frame of recorded history; so Mr. Young Earth Creationism: how do you explain that no one ever noticed winter happening every 1.5 days?

2. TREES
A tree in the rocky mountains is 5062 years old; Noah's Flood happened 3428 years ago. Mr. Young Earth Creationism, I ask you: How did that tree survive being underwater for an entire year?

http://creation.com...
http://news.nationalgeographic.com...

3. RADIOMETRIC DATING
When we date the earth using radiometric dating we get an age of 4.5 billion years. Young Earth Creationists in an attempt to save their doctrine say radioactive decay rates(specifically uranium) were faster in the past giving the illusion of a 4.5 billion year old earth. Now for a little math: 4,500,000,000yr/6000yr=750000; that's how many times more radioactive the uranium would have to be over a 6000 year period(assuming that the 6000 years used in my calculation abruptly changed to present rates when uranium dating was first used.)

A lethal dose of radiation is 5 sieverts. The radiation produced by the accelerated decay rate uranium: 75000 sieverts. Now Mr. Young Earth Creationism; Tell me how humans and every other animal survived 15,000 times the lethal dose of radiation.

Well, he could be an old earth creationist.

In the case of old earth creationism: God created plants before he created light giving objects; Plants can't survive without light for photosynthesis. The light he created on the first day couldn't have lasted without a source long enough for plants be be created.
Any sufficiently complex phenomenon is indistinguishable from magic--Me

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
Niel deGrasse Tyson
joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 6:46:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/6/2014 9:33:43 AM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 2/5/2014 6:45:32 PM, medic0506 wrote:
In response to Theta's "Evolution on Trial" thread, in the spirit of fairness, I'm willing to switch roles and let evolutionists go on the attack against creation. Creation and ID are the defendants, and evolutionists/atheists can act as the prosecutors.

Court is now in session.

If the defense would please provide one example of a falsifiable prediction that demonstrates creationism/ID, then of course showing how that prediction stands.

Thank you,
TrueScotsman

Prediction: the DNA/RNA protein synthesis system manifests universal information.

The evidence: by definition, any system that manifests universal information contains code, syntax, semantics and pragmatics. The DNA/RNA protein synthesis system contains code (the four nucleotides), syntax (codons must be triplets), semantics (each codon prescribes a specific amino acid or a "stop" codon), and pragmatics (prescribed chains of amino acids result in functional, three dimensional proteins for use in the living system). Thus, this system manifests universal information.

Included among the scientific laws of universal information, universal information can only be created by an intelligent agent and allocating meaning to, and determining meaning from, sequences of symbols, are intellectual processes requiring intelligence.

Conclusion: None of the above has ever been falsified. Clearly, the process of life requires intelligence; i.e. a Creator.

The defense would like to thank the prosecution for the opportunity to present a clear case for the veracity of our model. Nonetheless, we would like to gently remind the prosecution that the burden of proof is his, not ours.

In light of this overwhelming evidence, the defense should move for immediate dismissal, but we have a feeling that this is going to get real fun and would not want to miss anything. We can't help but wonder what sort of practical, useful testable prediction that could be falsified the prosecution could offer for his model. In proposing this challenge to the prosecution, we remind the court of our documentation of a clash of opposing predictions from our side vs the prosecution's side in post #7 of this thread, and the ongoing triumph for design (and defeat for the prosecution's side) that has emerged from this clash.