Total Posts:262|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Request for creationists.

KthulhuHimself
Posts: 994
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2016 8:55:00 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
I'm tired of hearing the same fallacious arguments over and over again.

Creationists; can you provide me with any positively indicative evidence that creationism is scientific, instead of would-be negatively indicative evidence ragarding evolution? i.e. that doesn't try to disprove evolution, but actually tires to support creationism? Can you? Because so far, not even one creationist has given me proper evidence.
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 3:15:58 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/23/2016 8:55:00 AM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
I'm tired of hearing the same fallacious arguments over and over again.

Creationists; can you provide me with any positively indicative evidence that creationism is scientific, instead of would-be negatively indicative evidence ragarding evolution? i.e. that doesn't try to disprove evolution, but actually tires to support creationism? Can you? Because so far, not even one creationist has given me proper evidence.

Who were you talking to about this that gave you all those fallacious arguments?

One piece of evidence positively indicative of creation is that we live in an ordered universe. It seems plausible that an orderly system (life, and orderly universe with definite laws) that has lasted for as long as it has would arise from planned events.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
distraff
Posts: 1,004
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 5:19:01 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/24/2016 3:15:58 AM, Skynet wrote:
At 5/23/2016 8:55:00 AM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
I'm tired of hearing the same fallacious arguments over and over again.

Creationists; can you provide me with any positively indicative evidence that creationism is scientific, instead of would-be negatively indicative evidence ragarding evolution? i.e. that doesn't try to disprove evolution, but actually tires to support creationism? Can you? Because so far, not even one creationist has given me proper evidence.

Who were you talking to about this that gave you all those fallacious arguments?

One piece of evidence positively indicative of creation is that we live in an ordered universe. It seems plausible that an orderly system (life, and orderly universe with definite laws) that has lasted for as long as it has would arise from planned events.

You can believe anything you want about how the universe was created and in fact a lot of evolutionists who are not creationists believe that God made the universe and the first life.

However, the fact that humans evolved from lower life-forms is undeniable. We have examples of complex abilities evolving like bacteria evolving the ability to digest nylon, and bacteria resistance.

We have a fossil record showing the evolution of humans from ape in the lower layers to more and more human-like.
keithprosser
Posts: 1,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 5:24:58 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
I'm tired of hearing the same fallacious arguments over and over again.

I thought that was what internet forums were for. There are only 6 approved topics and 4 of them are about evolution.
Looncall
Posts: 449
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 11:30:13 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/24/2016 3:15:58 AM, Skynet wrote:
At 5/23/2016 8:55:00 AM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
I'm tired of hearing the same fallacious arguments over and over again.

Creationists; can you provide me with any positively indicative evidence that creationism is scientific, instead of would-be negatively indicative evidence ragarding evolution? i.e. that doesn't try to disprove evolution, but actually tires to support creationism? Can you? Because so far, not even one creationist has given me proper evidence.

Who were you talking to about this that gave you all those fallacious arguments?

One piece of evidence positively indicative of creation is that we live in an ordered universe. It seems plausible that an orderly system (life, and orderly universe with definite laws) that has lasted for as long as it has would arise from planned events.

I do not see how this follows. Please explain.

Plausible is not good enough. Do you have evidence?
The metaphysicist has no laboratory.
keithprosser
Posts: 1,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 12:15:37 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
I would say that the evidence for creationism was 'common sense', or 'everyday experience'. If we disregard life, the natural processes we are familiar with are relatively simple systems, certainly much simpler than the simplest of living things. The complex things we are familiar with - cars, computers, the WWW, pocket watches - are the product of conscious and intentional design. That is everyone's common experience of the world.

To deny that what we experience every day of our lives and is confirmed by all we can see around us is 'evidence' is to rely on a technical definition of evidence that denies what is plain and obvious about the world we live in counts. There is no need for a peer-reviewed paper to prove that complexity requires conscious design - it is obvious to anyone with any experience of the world that such is the case.

Another line of evidence is the failure of evolutionists to make any direct demonstration of speciation, beyond some minor changes in bacteria gaining drug resistance and similar. There is considerable circumstantial evidedence that is consistent with evolutionary theory (such as Darwins Galapagos finches), but such consistency does not constitute proof.

Another related line of evidence is the failure of evolutionists to elucidate any credible scenario for the origin of life beyond unsupported speculations.

Finally (for now) is the failure of evolution to demonstrate conclusively that complex organs - such as the eye - can/did arise by stepwise refinement. To evolve an eye in stages means each step must be a) achievable by mutation b) be sufficiently advantageous over the previous stage to be positively selected for. Evolutionists have not - so far - detailed what the stages were, and certainly not demonstrated a) and b) for each step.

Evolution is a theory that is a framework with remarkably little flesh on its bare bones. It may seem fine as a 'big picture',but when you get up close and look at it in detail it is full of holes.

So speaks a Devil's advocate - but I suppose it should be God's advocate in this case!
Daedal
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 2:04:52 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/24/2016 12:15:37 PM, keithprosser wrote:
I would say that the evidence for creationism was 'common sense', or 'everyday experience'. If we disregard life, the natural processes we are familiar with are relatively simple systems, certainly much simpler than the simplest of living things. The complex things we are familiar with - cars, computers, the WWW, pocket watches - are the product of conscious and intentional design. That is everyone's common experience of the world.

To deny that what we experience every day of our lives and is confirmed by all we can see around us is 'evidence' is to rely on a technical definition of evidence that denies what is plain and obvious about the world we live in counts. There is no need for a peer-reviewed paper to prove that complexity requires conscious design - it is obvious to anyone with any experience of the world that such is the case.

Another line of evidence is the failure of evolutionists to make any direct demonstration of speciation, beyond some minor changes in bacteria gaining drug resistance and similar. There is considerable circumstantial evidedence that is consistent with evolutionary theory (such as Darwins Galapagos finches), but such consistency does not constitute proof.

Another related line of evidence is the failure of evolutionists to elucidate any credible scenario for the origin of life beyond unsupported speculations.

Finally (for now) is the failure of evolution to demonstrate conclusively that complex organs - such as the eye - can/did arise by stepwise refinement. To evolve an eye in stages means each step must be a) achievable by mutation b) be sufficiently advantageous over the previous stage to be positively selected for. Evolutionists have not - so far - detailed what the stages were, and certainly not demonstrated a) and b) for each step.

Evolution is a theory that is a framework with remarkably little flesh on its bare bones. It may seem fine as a 'big picture',but when you get up close and look at it in detail it is full of holes.

So speaks a Devil's advocate - but I suppose it should be God's advocate in this case!

I'm not sure common sense is the same thing as evidence. It's common sense that the sun goes around the earth, but it doesn't.

The 'failure' - if it's that - of evolution to explain the origin of species is not evidence for a creator. The 'it must be god because we can't explain it' argument fails because there used to be many things we couldn't explain, but now we can, like electricity and the motion of the planets, and most of what science now explains.

The OP was specific: provide evidence of creationism.
Looncall
Posts: 449
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 2:06:32 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/24/2016 12:15:37 PM, keithprosser wrote:
I would say that the evidence for creationism was 'common sense', or 'everyday experience'. If we disregard life, the natural processes we are familiar with are relatively simple systems, certainly much simpler than the simplest of living things. The complex things we are familiar with - cars, computers, the WWW, pocket watches - are the product of conscious and intentional design. That is everyone's common experience of the world.

To deny that what we experience every day of our lives and is confirmed by all we can see around us is 'evidence' is to rely on a technical definition of evidence that denies what is plain and obvious about the world we live in counts. There is no need for a peer-reviewed paper to prove that complexity requires conscious design - it is obvious to anyone with any experience of the world that such is the case.

Another line of evidence is the failure of evolutionists to make any direct demonstration of speciation, beyond some minor changes in bacteria gaining drug resistance and similar. There is considerable circumstantial evidedence that is consistent with evolutionary theory (such as Darwins Galapagos finches), but such consistency does not constitute proof.

Another related line of evidence is the failure of evolutionists to elucidate any credible scenario for the origin of life beyond unsupported speculations.

Finally (for now) is the failure of evolution to demonstrate conclusively that complex organs - such as the eye - can/did arise by stepwise refinement. To evolve an eye in stages means each step must be a) achievable by mutation b) be sufficiently advantageous over the previous stage to be positively selected for. Evolutionists have not - so far - detailed what the stages were, and certainly not demonstrated a) and b) for each step.

Evolution is a theory that is a framework with remarkably little flesh on its bare bones. It may seem fine as a 'big picture',but when you get up close and look at it in detail it is full of holes.

So speaks a Devil's advocate - but I suppose it should be God's advocate in this case!

Evidence against evolution is not evidence for creationism.

We often see complex objects arise without intelligent interference. Snowflakes are an example.

Common sense is often found to be faulty in finding explanations. General relativity and its consequences are an example of counterintuitive phenomena that are actually the case.
The metaphysicist has no laboratory.
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 994
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 3:06:37 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/24/2016 3:15:58 AM, Skynet wrote:
At 5/23/2016 8:55:00 AM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
I'm tired of hearing the same fallacious arguments over and over again.

Creationists; can you provide me with any positively indicative evidence that creationism is scientific, instead of would-be negatively indicative evidence ragarding evolution? i.e. that doesn't try to disprove evolution, but actually tires to support creationism? Can you? Because so far, not even one creationist has given me proper evidence.

Who were you talking to about this that gave you all those fallacious arguments?

Creationists.
One piece of evidence positively indicative of creation is that we live in an ordered universe. It seems plausible that an orderly system (life, and orderly universe with definite laws) that has lasted for as long as it has would arise from planned events.

At the core, this is nothing more than confirmation bias. Order can arise from mathematical systems, without any "planned events"; and the universe is mathematical.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 3:12:04 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/24/2016 2:04:52 PM, Daedal wrote:
At 5/24/2016 12:15:37 PM, keithprosser wrote:
I would say that the evidence for creationism was 'common sense', or 'everyday experience'. If we disregard life, the natural processes we are familiar with are relatively simple systems, certainly much simpler than the simplest of living things. The complex things we are familiar with - cars, computers, the WWW, pocket watches - are the product of conscious and intentional design. That is everyone's common experience of the world.

To deny that what we experience every day of our lives and is confirmed by all we can see around us is 'evidence' is to rely on a technical definition of evidence that denies what is plain and obvious about the world we live in counts. There is no need for a peer-reviewed paper to prove that complexity requires conscious design - it is obvious to anyone with any experience of the world that such is the case.

Another line of evidence is the failure of evolutionists to make any direct demonstration of speciation, beyond some minor changes in bacteria gaining drug resistance and similar. There is considerable circumstantial evidedence that is consistent with evolutionary theory (such as Darwins Galapagos finches), but such consistency does not constitute proof.

Another related line of evidence is the failure of evolutionists to elucidate any credible scenario for the origin of life beyond unsupported speculations.

Finally (for now) is the failure of evolution to demonstrate conclusively that complex organs - such as the eye - can/did arise by stepwise refinement. To evolve an eye in stages means each step must be a) achievable by mutation b) be sufficiently advantageous over the previous stage to be positively selected for. Evolutionists have not - so far - detailed what the stages were, and certainly not demonstrated a) and b) for each step.

Evolution is a theory that is a framework with remarkably little flesh on its bare bones. It may seem fine as a 'big picture',but when you get up close and look at it in detail it is full of holes.

So speaks a Devil's advocate - but I suppose it should be God's advocate in this case!

I'm not sure common sense is the same thing as evidence. It's common sense that the sun goes around the earth, but it doesn't.


The evidence would be the observed motion of the sun. "Sun goes around the earth" is explanation, not evidence.

The evidence for a creator is the creation. What *doesn't* point to a creator? What would make a person say "No, a designer wouldn't do that" - ? The vast apparently unused expanse of the heavens, maybe? Certainly not life, life is eminently compatible with the idea of design and notably different from the vast and apparently random expanse of the heavens or a college dorm room.

Evidence is not proof. Evidence isn't even explanation, potential or otherwise. Evidence is raw material. So the evidence for creationism is the ecosystem. The human mind is able to arrange raw physical material into complex designs, so design is the obvious and default explanation for the extreme sophistication of the ecosystem. Somebody arranged it. Somebody designed it, somebody deployed it.

Everyone should feel free to consider other explanations, but if you can't acknowledge the comfortable fit of design, then I personally don't think you are to be taken seriously.

Maybe the first thing is to have the maturity to understand that nobody is going to prove anything to us about anything. Get used to seeing through a glass darkly, 'cause that's the human experience.
This space for rent.
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 994
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 3:12:18 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/24/2016 12:15:37 PM, keithprosser wrote:
I would say that the evidence for creationism was 'common sense', or 'everyday experience'. If we disregard life, the natural processes we are familiar with are relatively simple systems, certainly much simpler than the simplest of living things. The complex things we are familiar with - cars, computers, the WWW, pocket watches - are the product of conscious and intentional design. That is everyone's common experience of the world.

To deny that what we experience every day of our lives and is confirmed by all we can see around us is 'evidence' is to rely on a technical definition of evidence that denies what is plain and obvious about the world we live in counts. There is no need for a peer-reviewed paper to prove that complexity requires conscious design - it is obvious to anyone with any experience of the world that such is the case.

Well, you're using intuition here; which isn't exactly evidence.
Another line of evidence is the failure of evolutionists to make any direct demonstration of speciation, beyond some minor changes in bacteria gaining drug resistance and similar. There is considerable circumstantial evidedence that is consistent with evolutionary theory (such as Darwins Galapagos finches), but such consistency does not constitute proof.

Another related line of evidence is the failure of evolutionists to elucidate any credible scenario for the origin of life beyond unsupported speculations.

Finally (for now) is the failure of evolution to demonstrate conclusively that complex organs - such as the eye - can/did arise by stepwise refinement. To evolve an eye in stages means each step must be a) achievable by mutation b) be sufficiently advantageous over the previous stage to be positively selected for. Evolutionists have not - so far - detailed what the stages were, and certainly not demonstrated a) and b) for each step.

Evolution is a theory that is a framework with remarkably little flesh on its bare bones. It may seem fine as a 'big picture',but when you get up close and look at it in detail it is full of holes.

Oh well, I assume that creationism really doesn't have any positively indicative evidence supporting its claims. All you've tried to do here is refute evolution, not positively support your own claims. You've just done the very error this topic was meant to avoid.
So speaks a Devil's advocate - but I suppose it should be God's advocate in this case!
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 994
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 3:15:39 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/24/2016 3:12:04 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/24/2016 2:04:52 PM, Daedal wrote:
At 5/24/2016 12:15:37 PM, keithprosser wrote:
I would say that the evidence for creationism was 'common sense', or 'everyday experience'. If we disregard life, the natural processes we are familiar with are relatively simple systems, certainly much simpler than the simplest of living things. The complex things we are familiar with - cars, computers, the WWW, pocket watches - are the product of conscious and intentional design. That is everyone's common experience of the world.

To deny that what we experience every day of our lives and is confirmed by all we can see around us is 'evidence' is to rely on a technical definition of evidence that denies what is plain and obvious about the world we live in counts. There is no need for a peer-reviewed paper to prove that complexity requires conscious design - it is obvious to anyone with any experience of the world that such is the case.

Another line of evidence is the failure of evolutionists to make any direct demonstration of speciation, beyond some minor changes in bacteria gaining drug resistance and similar. There is considerable circumstantial evidedence that is consistent with evolutionary theory (such as Darwins Galapagos finches), but such consistency does not constitute proof.

Another related line of evidence is the failure of evolutionists to elucidate any credible scenario for the origin of life beyond unsupported speculations.

Finally (for now) is the failure of evolution to demonstrate conclusively that complex organs - such as the eye - can/did arise by stepwise refinement. To evolve an eye in stages means each step must be a) achievable by mutation b) be sufficiently advantageous over the previous stage to be positively selected for. Evolutionists have not - so far - detailed what the stages were, and certainly not demonstrated a) and b) for each step.

Evolution is a theory that is a framework with remarkably little flesh on its bare bones. It may seem fine as a 'big picture',but when you get up close and look at it in detail it is full of holes.

So speaks a Devil's advocate - but I suppose it should be God's advocate in this case!

I'm not sure common sense is the same thing as evidence. It's common sense that the sun goes around the earth, but it doesn't.


The evidence would be the observed motion of the sun. "Sun goes around the earth" is explanation, not evidence.

The evidence for a creator is the creation. What *doesn't* point to a creator? What would make a person say "No, a designer wouldn't do that" - ? The vast apparently unused expanse of the heavens, maybe? Certainly not life, life is eminently compatible with the idea of design and notably different from the vast and apparently random expanse of the heavens or a college dorm room.

Evidence is not proof. Evidence isn't even explanation, potential or otherwise. Evidence is raw material. So the evidence for creationism is the ecosystem. The human mind is able to arrange raw physical material into complex designs, so design is the obvious and default explanation for the extreme sophistication of the ecosystem. Somebody arranged it. Somebody designed it, somebody deployed it.

Everyone should feel free to consider other explanations, but if you can't acknowledge the comfortable fit of design, then I personally don't think you are to be taken seriously.

Maybe the first thing is to have the maturity to understand that nobody is going to prove anything to us about anything. Get used to seeing through a glass darkly, 'cause that's the human experience.

Not one of any the creationists I've talked to had ever given basis to why "design" indicates "designer"; they just assert it.

Go ahead, I'll give you a chance to base your assertions.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 3:21:36 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/24/2016 2:06:32 PM, Looncall wrote:
At 5/24/2016 12:15:37 PM, keithprosser wrote:
I would say that the evidence for creationism was 'common sense', or 'everyday experience'. If we disregard life, the natural processes we are familiar with are relatively simple systems, certainly much simpler than the simplest of living things. The complex things we are familiar with - cars, computers, the WWW, pocket watches - are the product of conscious and intentional design. That is everyone's common experience of the world.

To deny that what we experience every day of our lives and is confirmed by all we can see around us is 'evidence' is to rely on a technical definition of evidence that denies what is plain and obvious about the world we live in counts. There is no need for a peer-reviewed paper to prove that complexity requires conscious design - it is obvious to anyone with any experience of the world that such is the case.

Another line of evidence is the failure of evolutionists to make any direct demonstration of speciation, beyond some minor changes in bacteria gaining drug resistance and similar. There is considerable circumstantial evidedence that is consistent with evolutionary theory (such as Darwins Galapagos finches), but such consistency does not constitute proof.

Another related line of evidence is the failure of evolutionists to elucidate any credible scenario for the origin of life beyond unsupported speculations.

Finally (for now) is the failure of evolution to demonstrate conclusively that complex organs - such as the eye - can/did arise by stepwise refinement. To evolve an eye in stages means each step must be a) achievable by mutation b) be sufficiently advantageous over the previous stage to be positively selected for. Evolutionists have not - so far - detailed what the stages were, and certainly not demonstrated a) and b) for each step.

Evolution is a theory that is a framework with remarkably little flesh on its bare bones. It may seem fine as a 'big picture',but when you get up close and look at it in detail it is full of holes.

So speaks a Devil's advocate - but I suppose it should be God's advocate in this case!

Evidence against evolution is not evidence for creationism.

We often see complex objects arise without intelligent interference. Snowflakes are an example.


I dunno, it might be more accurate to say that we notice snowflakes because of LACK of complexity. The water molecules all line up in neat rows when they lose thermal energy. As fractal math shows us, the shape of a snowflake could be coded with far less bits than the positions of the same water molecules when they have evaporated.

Like the red of a rose, snowflakes are perhaps more about human perception than innate complexity. What jumps out at us is order, not complexity, perhaps. Now, there is a complexity that comes from the cycles of thawing and re-freezing that a typical snowflake experiences before hitting the ground, we should note that.

Common sense is often found to be faulty in finding explanations.

And common people notice this. Isn't that extraordinary? What sort of cosmic mystery is this that humans can be aware of their own incorrectness???
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 3:24:11 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/24/2016 3:15:39 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
...

Not one of any the creationists I've talked to had ever given basis to why "design" indicates "designer"; they just assert it.


Holy Kubota Tractors! Are you serious? That's worthy of becoming a sig line, if I did that kind of nastiness. "You just assert truckers drive trucks. Prove it or shut up!"
This space for rent.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 3:28:26 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/24/2016 3:21:36 PM, v3nesl wrote:
Common sense is often found to be faulty in finding explanations.

And common people notice this. Isn't that extraordinary? What sort of cosmic mystery is this that humans can be aware of their own incorrectness???

This sorcery is called "experiment".
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 994
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 3:30:33 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/24/2016 3:24:11 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/24/2016 3:15:39 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
...

Not one of any the creationists I've talked to had ever given basis to why "design" indicates "designer"; they just assert it.


Holy Kubota Tractors! Are you serious? That's worthy of becoming a sig line, if I did that kind of nastiness. "You just assert truckers drive trucks. Prove it or shut up!"

No; what I'm saying is more like this: "You just assert that all trucks must have truck drivers. Prove it."
Looncall
Posts: 449
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 3:32:39 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/24/2016 3:12:04 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/24/2016 2:04:52 PM, Daedal wrote:
At 5/24/2016 12:15:37 PM, keithprosser wrote:
I would say that the evidence for creationism was 'common sense', or 'everyday experience'. If we disregard life, the natural processes we are familiar with are relatively simple systems, certainly much simpler than the simplest of living things. The complex things we are familiar with - cars, computers, the WWW, pocket watches - are the product of conscious and intentional design. That is everyone's common experience of the world.

To deny that what we experience every day of our lives and is confirmed by all we can see around us is 'evidence' is to rely on a technical definition of evidence that denies what is plain and obvious about the world we live in counts. There is no need for a peer-reviewed paper to prove that complexity requires conscious design - it is obvious to anyone with any experience of the world that such is the case.

Another line of evidence is the failure of evolutionists to make any direct demonstration of speciation, beyond some minor changes in bacteria gaining drug resistance and similar. There is considerable circumstantial evidedence that is consistent with evolutionary theory (such as Darwins Galapagos finches), but such consistency does not constitute proof.

Another related line of evidence is the failure of evolutionists to elucidate any credible scenario for the origin of life beyond unsupported speculations.

Finally (for now) is the failure of evolution to demonstrate conclusively that complex organs - such as the eye - can/did arise by stepwise refinement. To evolve an eye in stages means each step must be a) achievable by mutation b) be sufficiently advantageous over the previous stage to be positively selected for. Evolutionists have not - so far - detailed what the stages were, and certainly not demonstrated a) and b) for each step.

Evolution is a theory that is a framework with remarkably little flesh on its bare bones. It may seem fine as a 'big picture',but when you get up close and look at it in detail it is full of holes.

So speaks a Devil's advocate - but I suppose it should be God's advocate in this case!

I'm not sure common sense is the same thing as evidence. It's common sense that the sun goes around the earth, but it doesn't.


The evidence would be the observed motion of the sun. "Sun goes around the earth" is explanation, not evidence.

The evidence for a creator is the creation. What *doesn't* point to a creator? What would make a person say "No, a designer wouldn't do that" - ? The vast apparently unused expanse of the heavens, maybe? Certainly not life, life is eminently compatible with the idea of design and notably different from the vast and apparently random expanse of the heavens or a college dorm room.

Evidence is not proof. Evidence isn't even explanation, potential or otherwise. Evidence is raw material. So the evidence for creationism is the ecosystem. The human mind is able to arrange raw physical material into complex designs, so design is the obvious and default explanation for the extreme sophistication of the ecosystem. Somebody arranged it. Somebody designed it, somebody deployed it.

Everyone should feel free to consider other explanations, but if you can't acknowledge the comfortable fit of design, then I personally don't think you are to be taken seriously.

Maybe the first thing is to have the maturity to understand that nobody is going to prove anything to us about anything. Get used to seeing through a glass darkly, 'cause that's the human experience.

Your argument holds only if nothing but conscious design can produce sophisticated complexity. You have not shown that.

Your argument is not even a false dichotomy. (false monchotomy?)
The metaphysicist has no laboratory.
Daedal
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 3:41:31 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/24/2016 3:12:04 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/24/2016 2:04:52 PM, Daedal wrote:
At 5/24/2016 12:15:37 PM, keithprosser wrote:
I would say that the evidence for creationism was 'common sense', or 'everyday experience'. If we disregard life, the natural processes we are familiar with are relatively simple systems, certainly much simpler than the simplest of living things. The complex things we are familiar with - cars, computers, the WWW, pocket watches - are the product of conscious and intentional design. That is everyone's common experience of the world.

To deny that what we experience every day of our lives and is confirmed by all we can see around us is 'evidence' is to rely on a technical definition of evidence that denies what is plain and obvious about the world we live in counts. There is no need for a peer-reviewed paper to prove that complexity requires conscious design - it is obvious to anyone with any experience of the world that such is the case.

Another line of evidence is the failure of evolutionists to make any direct demonstration of speciation, beyond some minor changes in bacteria gaining drug resistance and similar. There is considerable circumstantial evidedence that is consistent with evolutionary theory (such as Darwins Galapagos finches), but such consistency does not constitute proof.

Another related line of evidence is the failure of evolutionists to elucidate any credible scenario for the origin of life beyond unsupported speculations.

Finally (for now) is the failure of evolution to demonstrate conclusively that complex organs - such as the eye - can/did arise by stepwise refinement. To evolve an eye in stages means each step must be a) achievable by mutation b) be sufficiently advantageous over the previous stage to be positively selected for. Evolutionists have not - so far - detailed what the stages were, and certainly not demonstrated a) and b) for each step.

Evolution is a theory that is a framework with remarkably little flesh on its bare bones. It may seem fine as a 'big picture',but when you get up close and look at it in detail it is full of holes.

So speaks a Devil's advocate - but I suppose it should be God's advocate in this case!

I'm not sure common sense is the same thing as evidence. It's common sense that the sun goes around the earth, but it doesn't.


The evidence would be the observed motion of the sun. "Sun goes around the earth" is explanation, not evidence.

The evidence for a creator is the creation. What *doesn't* point to a creator? What would make a person say "No, a designer wouldn't do that" - ? The vast apparently unused expanse of the heavens, maybe? Certainly not life, life is eminently compatible with the idea of design and notably different from the vast and apparently random expanse of the heavens or a college dorm room.

Evidence is not proof. Evidence isn't even explanation, potential or otherwise. Evidence is raw material. So the evidence for creationism is the ecosystem. The human mind is able to arrange raw physical material into complex designs, so design is the obvious and default explanation for the extreme sophistication of the ecosystem. Somebody arranged it. Somebody designed it, somebody deployed it.

Everyone should feel free to consider other explanations, but if you can't acknowledge the comfortable fit of design, then I personally don't think you are to be taken seriously.

Maybe the first thing is to have the maturity to understand that nobody is going to prove anything to us about anything. Get used to seeing through a glass darkly, 'cause that's the human experience.

You've answered the question then: there is no proof.
keithprosser
Posts: 1,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 3:55:38 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Not one of any the creationists I've talked to had ever given basis to why "design" indicates "designer"; they just assert it.

That complexity requires conscious design is taken to be self-evident from everyday experiences of and exposure to 'natural' and 'artificial' things.

In my view, that intuition is broadly correct! It is quite true that if you find a watch on a beach you can be sure it was not produced by natural processes - but a living thing is much more complicated than a watch. Natural processes can produce the sand on the beach by the simple weathering of rocks, but weatering rocks into sand can't produce a working watch. Yet we evolutionists claim that the even more complex crab sitting next to the watch was produced by natural processes. So super-simple sand and super-complex crabs are naturally produced, but the intermidate complexity of a watch can't be produced naturally.

I think I have some idea of why creationists and ID fans have problems with evolution. Of course they are wrong because the analysis offered above is superficial and ignores (inter alia) the critical difference in the way that artificial things like watches and living things like crabs come in to existence. But unless a creationist or ID fan wants to examine their assumptions and take on board ideas they find personally distateful - even evil - it isn't possible to persuade them of the merits of the science.

Which is why I don't bother to try anymore. I admire posters who do answer fatuous posts from creationist posters who are unwilling/incapable of changing their minds, but I don't feel much motivation to wade in. I'd rather discuss evolution with evolutionist and treat other posters as line-noise.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 4:00:55 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/24/2016 3:30:33 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 5/24/2016 3:24:11 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/24/2016 3:15:39 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
...

Not one of any the creationists I've talked to had ever given basis to why "design" indicates "designer"; they just assert it.


Holy Kubota Tractors! Are you serious? That's worthy of becoming a sig line, if I did that kind of nastiness. "You just assert truckers drive trucks. Prove it or shut up!"

No; what I'm saying is more like this: "You just assert that all trucks must have truck drivers. Prove it."

The things about this godawful argument is not whether every trucker must have trucks or whether every creation must have a creator, these things are analytically true.
The question is whether the thing we are considering is in fact a trucker / creation, yet everyone who uses this (look it's creation!) as a premise to prove a creator. That's just begging the question par excellence.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 994
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 4:14:15 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/24/2016 4:00:55 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/24/2016 3:30:33 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 5/24/2016 3:24:11 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/24/2016 3:15:39 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
...

Not one of any the creationists I've talked to had ever given basis to why "design" indicates "designer"; they just assert it.


Holy Kubota Tractors! Are you serious? That's worthy of becoming a sig line, if I did that kind of nastiness. "You just assert truckers drive trucks. Prove it or shut up!"

No; what I'm saying is more like this: "You just assert that all trucks must have truck drivers. Prove it."

The things about this godawful argument is not whether every trucker must have trucks or whether every creation must have a creator, these things are analytically true.
The question is whether the thing we are considering is in fact a trucker / creation, yet everyone who uses this (look it's creation!) as a premise to prove a creator. That's just begging the question par excellence.

I see your point.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 5:19:47 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/24/2016 3:55:38 PM, keithprosser wrote:
Not one of any the creationists I've talked to had ever given basis to why "design" indicates "designer"; they just assert it.

That complexity requires conscious design is taken to be self-evident from everyday experiences of and exposure to 'natural' and 'artificial' things.

In my view, that intuition is broadly correct! It is quite true that if you find a watch on a beach you can be sure it was not produced by natural processes - but a living thing is much more complicated than a watch. Natural processes can produce the sand on the beach by the simple weathering of rocks, but weatering rocks into sand can't produce a working watch. Yet we evolutionists claim that the even more complex crab sitting next to the watch was produced by natural processes. So super-simple sand and super-complex crabs are naturally produced, but the intermidate complexity of a watch can't be produced naturally.

I think I have some idea of why creationists and ID fans have problems with evolution. Of course they are wrong because the analysis offered above is superficial and ignores (inter alia) the critical difference in the way that artificial things like watches and living things like crabs come in to existence.

Sheesh, talk about begging the question!
This space for rent.
Rukado
Posts: 527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 5:46:24 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/23/2016 8:55:00 AM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
Creationists; can you provide me with any positively indicative evidence that creationism is scientific, instead of would-be negatively indicative evidence ragarding evolution? i.e. that doesn't try to disprove evolution, but actually tires to support creationism? Can you? Because so far, not even one creationist has given me proper evidence.

My skepticism of Evolution makes me a Creationist. You want evidence that dogs give birth to dogs, not cats? How stupid! But, if your mom gave birth to a monkey, maybe I am in error.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,651
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 6:08:38 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/24/2016 5:46:24 PM, Rukado wrote:
At 5/23/2016 8:55:00 AM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
Creationists; can you provide me with any positively indicative evidence that creationism is scientific, instead of would-be negatively indicative evidence ragarding evolution? i.e. that doesn't try to disprove evolution, but actually tires to support creationism? Can you? Because so far, not even one creationist has given me proper evidence.

My skepticism of Evolution makes me a Creationist.

Well that doesn't make any sense. Being hesitant about accepting the truth of the evolutionary theory has directly caused you to embrace an entirely unrelated and religiously founded explanation? Even if the ToE were proven to be entirely false, somehow, that would not imply that creationism is then correct.

You want evidence that dogs give birth to dogs, not cats? How stupid! But, if your mom gave birth to a monkey, maybe I am in error.

I can't think of anyone who believe that dogs give birth to cats or that humans give birth to monkeys (or vice-versa), so I don't see what relevance this remark has. :/
Daedal
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 6:15:17 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
I'm surprised that no-one has mentioned prayer. If it works its effects should be noticeable. I've seen some sites where both sides claim victory. Any input?
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 6:19:09 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/24/2016 6:15:17 PM, Daedal wrote:
I'm surprised that no-one has mentioned prayer. If it works its effects should be noticeable. I've seen some sites where both sides claim victory. Any input?

Prayer definitely doesn't hold up under controlled testing. But any believer can explain that away by saying god deliberately changes what he does during the tests. And that exposes the whole problem with trying to apply scientific reasoning to a theistic problem.
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 994
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 6:21:08 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/24/2016 5:46:24 PM, Rukado wrote:
At 5/23/2016 8:55:00 AM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
Creationists; can you provide me with any positively indicative evidence that creationism is scientific, instead of would-be negatively indicative evidence ragarding evolution? i.e. that doesn't try to disprove evolution, but actually tires to support creationism? Can you? Because so far, not even one creationist has given me proper evidence.

My skepticism of Evolution makes me a Creationist. You want evidence that dogs give birth to dogs, not cats? How stupid! But, if your mom gave birth to a monkey, maybe I am in error.

I don't want evidence against evolution. I want evidence supporting creationism. If you don't provide it; I can say with certainty that creationism is at best dishonest.
keithprosser
Posts: 1,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 6:45:10 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
The evidence for creationism is the complexity of living things coupled with the observation that complex things - such as pocket watches - don't happen by themselves.

For 99.99% of complicated things that is true. Something as complex as a pocket watch or the internet is the product of conscious, purposeful design. It is we evolutionists who are asking for an exception to that rule be made in the case of living things.
Daedal
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 7:11:08 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/24/2016 6:45:10 PM, keithprosser wrote:
The evidence for creationism is the complexity of living things coupled with the observation that complex things - such as pocket watches - don't happen by themselves.

For 99.99% of complicated things that is true. Something as complex as a pocket watch or the internet is the product of conscious, purposeful design. It is we evolutionists who are asking for an exception to that rule be made in the case of living things.

I don't think we should turn this into another evolution thread: there are plenty of those. What you're saying is that we can't explain the complexity of living things without a god/creator. As I said in another post, this breaks down immediately because the absence of an explanation does not mean god did it: it means we don't yet know (assuming the position that evolution is not correct).

For example, in the past we didn't know what caused natural phenomena like lightning and earhquakes, so god did it. Now we know god didn't do it. Our knowledge is expanding and soon there will be no place for god to hide.

What the OP has asked for is evidence of a creator, and there is no such thing, otherwise it would be shouted from every rooftop. And it isn't.
Rukado
Posts: 527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 7:27:29 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/24/2016 6:21:08 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
I don't want evidence against evolution.

Creationism is the disbelieve in Evolution. What does your simian brain not understand?