An open debate to Atheists on a creator.

[Sorn]

That isn't the model proposed by evolutionary scientists.

Hence the title of the book 'In Six Days', most of the authors are creationist believing Christian scientists.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Well the main argument in many of the chapters is that they present evidence of the complexity of the subject matter (mostly at the cellular level but not always) of the chapter and then go onto argue that such complexity could not have arisen by chance or, in many case, over the extended period and via the multiple steps that evolution would need.
The point being that for many of the systems discussed in the book, either the entire system is there from the start or nothing works, ie 50% of the system doesn't work, 70% doesn't either, nor does 90%, you need the system, 100%, fully assembled for it to do its job.
In other words, until the system was fully formed, the creature lugging it around would just be carrying around useless structures that provide no benefit but take effort to build.

Nobody in evolution says that complexity just arose by chance. Hence, if that's your summary of the book, then the book is useless as it is not addressing the theory of evolution but something completely different that nobody claims to be true.

Your second bit is irreducible complexity. Irreducible complexity is not a problem for evolution at all as it can easily arise through evolution. In the irreducible complexity arguments from creationists, there is again the problem of a completely wrong assumption about how evolution works.

Let's look at it this way. Imagine that a living thing has both A and B, and both are required for life to continue. E.g. A is a modern eukaryote (e.g. human) cell, and B is a mitochondria. This is irreducible as the cell can't live without the mitochondria and the mitochondria can't live without the cell. The creationist argument is to depict evolution as the mitochondria arising fully formed first, and then the cell arising, or vice versa.

However, the plausible way (and what is predicted by evolution and supported by evidence) is that the symbiosis arose first, when both the cell and mitochondria (or what would become these) could live independently. And that after symbiosis arose, they became co-dependent. This is no problem for evolution at all.

So, in both these cases, the argument does not argue against evolution. They create other straw man theories and knock those ones down.

Also, I asked you for arguments FOR creationism. You've answered with arguments AGAINST evolution. Even if you did disprove evolution (which these arguments fail to do as they are not arguing against evolution but something different that nobody believes) that still wouldn't support creationism.

Hence the title of the book 'In Six Days', most of the authors are creationist believing Christian scientists.

But they claim that they are arguing against evolution. They are not. If you want to argue against evolution, you have to address the actual theory of evolution. Not something else.

Yes, of course, but the assumption is mistaken because science does not know if miracles exist or not.
By definition a miracle is a rare event, hence may never be captured by science which needs repeatable events or consistent evidence to form hypothesis or laws etc.

To say that 'science does not know' shows a misunderstanding of what science is and what it does.

What in the world is better described by miracles than it would be by alternative hypotheses that don't involve miracles?

 

[Strathos]

I hear these ideas that the science is settled ... that evolution is a fact

It is.

or that there is science prooving no God

That would be impossible, and anyone claiming such a thing is ignorant of science.

 

[Sorn]

Also, I asked you for arguments FOR creationism. You've answered with arguments AGAINST evolution. Even if you did disprove evolution (which these arguments fail to do as they are not arguing against evolution but something different that nobody believes) that still wouldn't support creationism.

It is very very difficult to prove creationism, maybe even impossible, not least because you practically have to prove that God exists!.
Read a few of the books chapters, ultimately its a leap of faith to go one way or the other, yes both are a leap of faith.
Their arguments, if you find them convincing, are that evolution is so unlikley that it makes sense to accept the premise that God exists and He created life and its various creatures.

Also, remember that science was helped along by judeo-christianity precisely because they saw that the world seemed ordered and they believed in a God of order, logic and intelligence so the assumption was made it it is possible to study the natural world and figure out stuff about it.
This did not precluded God existing or overruling natural laws on occasion.
Fast froward to today and that scientific approach has yielded enormous knowledge and has also now taken the position, held by many, that there is no God and by extension no occasional dabbling.
Science tells us nothing about God, just about how the natural world behaves on its own.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

I have no problems with Micro evolution and I know of no one that does. Its very simple we can see this in Darwin's finches or in dogs. Of course life evolves on a micro adapting level. This is self evidenced and can be proven.

Macro evolution is something very different. There are tons of problems as I'm sure you are aware of but just in short I would go with this:
GRN's not synching to the reality of transition methodology.
DNA would need new information.
New body plans.
The problem of having to go backwards at times to go forwards in biological efficiency. If you have to backwards to go forward this would indicate design.

The Math problems starting with a single protein fold is enourmous but it get far worse on every level above that and there are too many levels above that for example the GRN's and then we go beyone the GRN's in our current models and understanding to incorporate the epigenetic information.
Just like before we have a serious problem do I need to spell out the math or the history?
So now what everything is going against this idea of no design. The Scientists are trying to figure it out. What do you do when nothing lines up with your belief system?

You argue.
you debate.
You look for other possabilities.
What do you think they are doing right now?
They are argueing.
They are debating.
They have problems.

We have not gone into the serious stuff
I want to go into the serious stuff.
We have not gone into the math or the science yet.
But that is the fun part.
But I have other things ... so maybe later . ... but that's the fun part .
I love it because it is so clear. Its not like the science or the math is both or every way ... umm no its just one way.
All roads lead to a creator ... I'm sorry I know that is not sexy or something but that is how it works.

The fact is that science is on the side of God or on a creator.

Science was never on the side of evolution lol.
Honestly its bad on the evolution side ... its really bad.
And I hate that part because I spend so many hundreds of hours on the side of evolution and to have to turn away from it is not something I like.

This is like the "That 70's Show" smoking circle version of Evolution. :-/

 

[SkyWriting]

Yes, of course, but the assumption is mistaken because science does not know if miracles exist or not.
By definition a miracle is a rare event, hence may never be captured by science which needs repeatable events or consistent evidence to form hypothesis or laws etc.

Miracles can not be captured or verified by any scientific methods
which need repeatable events or consistent evidence to form hypothesis or laws etc.

 

[SkyWriting]

It is very very difficult to prove creationism, maybe even impossible, not least because you practically have to prove that God exists!

That is correct. If you can't repeat an event, then it cannot be scientifically verified.

 

[Belk]

Science is based on the assumption that miracles don't exist
and never happen.

No it is not. Science is based on the idea that miracles are not something addressed by science.

 

[Belk]

Atheism includes a lot of presuppositions that end up at a wild amount of deadends.

Atheism includes exactly zero presuppositions. It is a lack of belief in a single claim.

 

[ChristIsSovereign]

Atheism includes exactly zero presuppositions. It is a lack of belief in a single claim.

It takes belief to believe in nothing, as it takes belief to believe in something, unless you chose to live life in the moment only.

 

[jayem]

I have been involved with many a debate especially latley on the science of the creation of life as we know it. I hear these ideas that the science is settled ... that evolution is a fact or that there is science prooving no God and so on. This is not true.

Science is not on the side of Atheism and that is why I turned away from it. I can not do theology or bible debates as I am not a Christian buy I can do science because the science is easy. It leads ti God.

2 comments to start:

1) The origin of life (biogenesis) and the origin of species (evolution) are different phenomena. You're commingling them to support your beliefs. But their postulated mechanisms are quite different.

2) You should be more precise in your terminology. You are not arguing against science, but against metaphysical (AKA ontological) naturalism. Which is the idea that everything in the universe is purely a function of matter/energy and the fundamental forces of nature. Its corollary is that there is nothing supernatural. Which would be anything outside of, or beyond the natural realm, which somehow can affect the behavior of matter. Such as, a god. Science, OTOH, is based on methodological naturalism. Which the concept that observation of natural phenomena and experimentation are the only reliable ways to gain accurate knowledge. Metaphysical and methodological naturalism are related (like 2 sides of a coin.) But they are not the same.

As to your argument:

It seems to be the argument from ignorance. You can't imagine how complex life could appear and develop by purely natural means. So there must be some supernatural agency involved. I realize that I can't disprove that with absolute certainty. But as a mode of thinking, it's refuted by a posteriori logic. People have always created supernatural mechanisms for what wasn't understood. Things like weather, diseases, earthquakes, floods, and the motions of the sun, moon, and stars were all once thought to result from gods, spirits, or other supernatural forces. But as knowledge has advanced, we know that all of these are perfectly natural events. In the entire history of human knowledge, a supernatural explanation has never been valid for anything. So--by simple inductive reasoning--why should anyone accept a supernatural causation for all those things we still don't understand? 500 years ago, who would have thought that the sun's light and heat result from nuclear fusion? Or that subatomic events are described by quantum mechanics? Or that inheritance is transmitted by DNA? None of us have the faintest idea of what we may learn in 500 years to come.

 

[Tayla]

evolution is a fact or that there is science prooving no God and so on. This is not true.

I doubt scientists say evolution is a fact. It is a theory, close to fact (they say).

I am a young earth creationist for the reason that I think evolution has a fatal flaw. There must be a God, and this God must be the creator and designer (intelligent design). Yet there is no mechanism for God to intervene in the intricate chemical biological structures of living organisms.

 

[SkyWriting]

No it is not. Science is based on the idea that miracles are not something addressed by science.

Same thing, different wording.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

S

Science is based on the idea that God does not interfere with the natural world, and as a result the physical aspects of matter can be counted on not to change due to supernatural influence.

Science is based on the assumption that miracles don't exist and never happen.

No, that's not the case. Science is based on the assumption that there are observable patterns of behaviour in nature, and we may be able to explain how they're causally related.

If God detectably interfered with the natural world, or if miracles could be shown to happen, scientists would collect those observations and attempt to explain them.

There are many observations that are unexplained (though few that match what one might expect from Godly interference or miracles), and you can attribute them to God or miracles if you like. However, this tactic is a false dichotomy generally known as the 'God of the gaps' fallacy - the fact that observations are unexplained doesn't lend support to any particular explanation. As far as science (and logic) is concerned, unexplained observations are just unexplained.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I doubt scientists say evolution is a fact. It is a theory, close to fact (they say).

Evolution (the change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations) is a fact, it has been observed many times in many different circumstances.

The Theory of Evolution, a framework that explains the fact of evolution, is not a fact, it's a theory. Theories are not factual, they are explanations for facts and they are supported by, or can be falsified by, facts.

Having said that, the principle on which the ToE is based is factual - given a population with heritable characteristics that vary between individuals, and where certain variations of those characteristics lead to more, or less, reproductive success, those characteristics, in the population as a whole, will change over successive generations.

This change has been observed in real populations (i.e. the fact of evolution, as above), and it is also a fact that biological populations do have heritable characteristics that vary between individuals, and that certain variations of those characteristics do lead to more, or less, reproductive success.

So the ToE does have a strong factual basis, but it also builds on that to explain the various ways that this process plays out and the mechanisms that underlie it.

 

[FormerAtheist]

I've never seen a clear qualitative difference between the mechanisms of micro and macro evolution.

Now I don't have a professional biological background, so I'll leave the specifics of gene regulatory networks to an expert. (maybe @sfs has time to engage).
.

There are very serious differences between micro and macro. On the micro level the life form stays in its Phylum and does not change the mechanics in a serious way. For example we may need a new respiratory system or ability to drink sea water completely rework the eye design etc. There is no evidence of this because it can't be done. We can't even come up with a hypothetical design.

However, I do know enough to see flaws in your other points.

New information:
Given that genes can mutate and duplicate in the genome of a life form I see no barrier to completely new variations and traits entering a population. If this doesn't qualify as information, could you please describe what information actually is in your usage and how you objectively measure it.

New genetic information is almost often a bad thing. We did thousands of experiments on Fruit flies for example and not a single one survived long enough to reproduce which is obviously important from an evolutionary perspective. I'm glad you asked for a definition on information as this is very important. There are two types of information "Shanon" information which is just random information and there is specified information. Information that performs function. Because it is necessary for the design of which it is a part. We used to think that 98% of DNA was "Junk" or garbage. We then realized it was 10% useful and 90% junk. Then 50/50. Now we are at over 75% useful and many scientists think it will go to 100%. To get new information for a new Protein fold would require a serious mathematical hurdle to be over come. The process would require searching the combinational possibilities that would lead to the outcome at being less then 1 in 10 to 78power ... This is not reasonable to suggest its possible and that is for one new protein. With a new body plan there will need to be many new proteins and other macro molecules.

New body plans:
While a frog hatching from a fishes egg or a chimp giving birth to a man would be preposterous I've never seen that kind of radical change proposed by evolutionary scientists. All the large shifts involve a whole lot of in-between structures, like arms that work for gliding or webbed legs that work as flippers.

Actually there was a theory as outlandish as it sounds from one scientist. And that was that perhaps a bird hatched out of a reptile egg. Imagine the shock on the lizards face when one of his kids was a bird. That theory was discarded pretty rapidly. The problem with these intermediate transitional species is that we haven't been able to find any. There are some theories of some but there are problems even in those examples but just try to find the ancestor to the Arthropod, Trilopod, Brakeopod or any of the other 20 Phyla's from the Cambrian explosion.

The awesome thing about the diversity of body plans is that we don't need to wonder if the concept is sound, because there are analogous animals living today.

I think to not look at whether the concept is sound is why we are
Going backwards:
I'm not 100% sure what you mean in this statement, could you please link to an example of the necessity of this in evolution?

I think something more interesting is to begin to look at the problems of the theory from a scientific perspective. Did you know that there are many Evolutionary Scientists that are having serious problems with the theory itself. What they are finding is not lining up with what they are seeing within their research.
http://www.programmed-aging.org/theories/evolution_issues.html
Debunking Evolution - Scientific evidence against evolution - Clash between theory and reality

There isn't an issue of a linage going back and forth between environments and different variations becoming more common. But no one I've ever seen has proposed that life can actually return to an earlier evolutionary form. For example, mammals are descended from ancient fish, but mammals who live full time in the ocean aren't fish, they are whales, with a great many mammal markers that show they are descended from land animals.

The problem is you would need to go backwards for example to go from Reptile to Avian the bones will have to be hollowed out to allow for the invention of a brand new respiratory system. This has to happen while the reptile is still using the old system and in need of its bones just the way they are. It's like reworking the design of a jet plane while in flight. Not a good idea.



I'm dubious about your claims that evolution is not supported by science, but it's also not positive evidence for a creator.

If the big bang and evolution both turn out to not work at such fundamental levels that need to be abandoned, that just leaves the diversity of life and development of the universe as mysterious.

I'd love to see actual scientific reasons to believe, not just a false dichotomy about creation being true because evolution is false.

In the creation of the universe there can only be two possibilities.
Option1. You have an intelligent outside agent that was responsible for life as we know it on some level.
Option2. There was no intelligent outside agent.

You have 3 problems for life as we know it and all 3 need to be correct for atheism works. For those that believe in a creator they only need 1 to be wrong.
1. Creation of the Universe.
2. Creation of life from non-life.
3. Creation of complex life in current forms.

 

[Ophiolite]

I'd love to see actual scientific reasons to believe, not just a false dichotomy about creation being true because evolution is false.

If only Creationists could understand and accept this point, then around 99.5% of arguments on evolution versus creation could be eliminated. Of course, then I would have to take up lawn bowls to pass the time.

 

[FormerAtheist]

In addition, we have macro evolution and the common ancestry which obviously are difficult to observe directly, but are very well evidenced in fossils and the genetic make up of living and slightly less recent extinct species.
QUOTE]
Actually you would be surprised to realise how little evidence there actually is. I don't remember any fossils in precrambrian era that are related to the Phyum we see in the Cambrian explosion. There is a time problem that is critical and then there is the fact that the genetic research is not lining up with the supposed tree of life at all. In fact we have many tree's of life that conflict. One scientist exclaimed that we have just annihilated the tree of life. Some are beginning to wonder about common descent. The molecular clock data for finding the Deep Divergence is off by billions of years one study caim to the conclusion that they were 95% certain of Deep Divergence at 13.5 billion years ago. That would be interesting since there would not have been a planet around at that time.

I was in a debate with one scientist not that long ago and he brought up the GULO gene that is found in Chimps and humans and is broken in the same place. To have this gene develop randomly from two different species and be broken in the same place would be pretty ridiculous. In his words if this God then God is punking us on a universal level. He didn't know what to say when I told him that same gene is found in Rats, Bats, Birds, Guinea Pigs. Let me ask you how is it possible to have this gene in these different unrelated animals? The timeline doesn't match the genetic evidence doesn't match. The morphological distance from these different species and yet they have some of the same building blocks. Like a common designer was being efficient.

Life as you know it is not possible without a designer.

 

[FormerAtheist]

Well the main argument in many of the chapters is that they present evidence of the complexity of the subject matter (mostly at the cellular level but not always) of the chapter and then go onto argue that such complexity could not have arisen by chance or, in many case, over the extended period and via the multiple steps that evolution would need.
The point being that for many of the systems discussed in the book, either the entire system is there from the start or nothing works, ie 50% of the system doesn't work, 70% doesn't either, nor does 90%, you need the system, 100%, fully assembled for it to do its job.
In other words, until the system was fully formed, the creature lugging it around would just be carrying around useless structures that provide no benefit but take effort to build.

You say in here the multiple steps but its worse then that. We need coordinated steps coming together at the same time or in a specific sequence. In science lingo we need multiple evolutionary lines converging. This takes the math from impossible to impossible squared.

 

[FormerAtheist]

Who claims that there is science 'proving no God'. There is science that indicates that there is no God who did or doees X and Y if we can show that X and Y didn't/don't happen or that they happen/happened for other reasons.

.

Actually I believe the evidence goes the other way to a point of beyond ... "beyond reasonable doubt". And I do not have to show you picture of God or something silly like that. I simply have to show that the universe the way it now could not happen with out an outside intelligent agent. That's easy.