Creationists: What Was Wrong With The Dover Trial?

[KWCrazy]

I wasn't talking about the origin of the universe. I was talking about the origin of life.

That's another impossibility. Miller-Urey proved that.
So now they are claiming that life began with bacteria in thermal currents; but that doesn't work either because water contains oxygen; proven to inhibit the formation of proteins; and the likelihood of all the necessary amino acids coming together in a thermal vent is somewhat lower than non-existent.

Even the simplest of life forms has complex DNA which could not self assemble.

Complete lack of evidence for angels or demons has convinced me there are no angels or demons.

Once again, you demonstrate that you don't understand the difference between evidence and proof.
All you have to do is read this forum and you'll find 25 people who had personal experiences with angels, demons or both. Such experiences are only uncommon with the unsaved. In addition, there are thousands of images captured on film and electronic media that can't be explained by faulty equipment or tampering. Even if 99.9999% were fake, the presence of one destroys your argument.

This is because I've also "seen" them, but have no reason to believe they exist beyond a product of the mind.

If God is real then angels are real.
If angels are real then demons are real.
If demons are real then the devil and his influence is real.
If these entities are real, why would they not be seen?

Except it looks billions of years old.

How would you know what a billion year old planet looked like? I'm quite sure you're not that old.

Doomsday predictions are quite bluntly rather lame.

The Revelation is a pretty scary doomsday prediction, and all the precursers have been fulfilled.

 

[mark kennedy]

That's another impossibility. Miller-Urey proved that.
So now they are claiming that life began with bacteria in thermal currents; but that doesn't work either because water contains oxygen; proven to inhibit the formation of proteins; and the likelihood of all the necessary amino acids coming together in a thermal vent is somewhat lower than non-existent.

Even the simplest of life forms has complex DNA which could not self assemble.

Once again, you demonstrate that you don't understand the difference between evidence and proof.
All you have to do is read this forum and you'll find 25 people who had personal experiences with angels, demons or both. Such experiences are only uncommon with the unsaved. In addition, there are thousands of images captured on film and electronic media that can't be explained by faulty equipment or tampering. Even if 99.9999% were fake, the presence of one destroys your argument.

If God is real then angels are real.
If angels are real then demons are real.
If demons are real then the devil and his influence is real.
If these entities are real, why would they not be seen?

How would you know what a billion year old planet looked like? I'm quite sure you're not that old.

The Revelation is a pretty scary doomsday prediction, and all the precursers have been fulfilled.

The latest is the DNA first idea since there are very short sequences that are actually functional. The problem is that the waters of the primordial oceans boiled like a cauldron and DNA is fragile. It's long been a chicken and egg question, was it proteins first then spotaeously engineering DNA or did the DNA get tired of building proteins from scratch. This gets vastly more problematic with organelles and highly sophisticated genes responsible for their development. They talk about transitional but there are impossible gaps in the Darwinian tree of life at every major node.

 

[xianghua]

A person builds an artificial waterfall in their back yard. 3 miles away, there is a natural waterfall. They are the exact same thing, but one is created, and the other naturally formed. Thus, one being designed isn't evidence that the other is too.

so a motor doesn't need a designer and can evolve naturally? ok. i think otherwise.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Your whole argument is faulty because you based it on the faulty premise that science is the ultimate infallible epistemological means and that nothing can be proven without it. However, the very claim that nothing can be proven without science cannot be proven through science (it is a statement that belongs to philosophy, which is not a branch of science), so it's a paradox.

Furthermore, science claims that the only means of achieving knowledge is by using the capabilities of our brains, but it defines the brain as the end result of a mindless unguided process, so what reason is there to believe its capacity to tell us the truth?

Because it continually produces reliable results. Same with Science and the Scientific Method. You're right though, neither are 100% reliable - but to paraphrase Winston Churchill:- "The Scientific Method is the worst method we've tried, except for all the other methods..."

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

so a motor doesn't need a designer and can evolve naturally? ok. i think otherwise.

And you'd be Wrong. We only have evidence of it coming about naturally.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

If that's true -- and I don't think it is* -- but if that's true, God help us.

* We support Israel, and the Abrahamic Covenant is still in effect today.

All the old testament laws are still in effect too, just ask Jesus.

 

[tas8831]

He can't do anyhing else. The only thing ID and the Intelligent Design movement have is the assertion that complexity needs an intelligent designer. It's false, but that's all he has to hammer on.

And worse than that - the only 'evidence' they have of this is an analogy to human design. It gets old after they use it once...

 

[tas8831]

You don't understand evidence.
You want physical proof. There is no physical proof of miracles.

I understand evidence very well - to the point that I understand that anecdotes, feelings, beliefs, etc. are NOT evidence.

Evidence is not proof. I want evidence.

Finding a finger print at a crime scene is evidence that a specific person was at the scene.

Finding flood damage is evidence of a flood.

Finding a layer of iridium in the same strata around the world is evidence that an iridium-laden asteroid struck the earth.

Even 'miracles' should leave some evidence, regardless of their origin.

There have been witnesses; sometimes thousands of witnesses to events, but that isn't enough for you.

Witnesses sometimes lie (Steve Austin, creationist geologist, in his Christian "witnessing" claims he was converted to YECism by evidence in 1980 - but we know he was writing YEC articles at least 4 years prior).
Witnesses are very often mistaken (see http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/10/how-reliable-eyewitness-testimony-scientists-weigh ).
And if a Witness already 'believes', well...


So obviously no - 'witnesses' are not reliable, why would I accept that as evidence?

You want someone to prove God to you and God said to come to him through faith. You won't have any such irrefutable proof until you stand before Him, and then it will be too late.

I asked for evidence. If God exists and has done the things claimed of Him, the there should be SOMETHING tangible besides tales and myths and beliefs.

I'm sorry that your mind cannot grasp the existence of the supernatural. That isn't our failing.

No - your failing is believing something for which there is no good reason to.

Sometimes you misread the evidence because you see the world as a self creating entity that took billions of years to come about. That mindset blinds you to evidence of God's perfect creation.

Sometimes you engage in special pleading and circular arguments and question begging because that is all you can muster.

Like fossils on mountain peaks or whale skeletons in deserts? When you find such evidence you make excuses for it.

It is not an excuse to understand geology.

So you claim.
You can't have a bottleneck without understanding the previous and subsequent quantity of living things, which cannot be known.

So you do not understand what a population bottleneck is, or how it can be 'seen' in genomes. Yet you pontificate on it.

You have to know the reproduction rate than the speciation rate of species after the flood, which you have no way of knowing.

One does not need to know any of these things to see the signs of population bottlenecks (see, for a nice overview, Tajima's D - Wikipedia ).

Which we do not see in humans.

Speaking of speciation rates - if there were 2 'Kinds' of bats on the ark, how did they go from 2 species to more than 1000 in 4500 years with nobody noticing? and what is the mechanism for such rapid speciation?

I you reject the origin of man, the fall of man and the judgement of God, then you understand nothing about human history.

If you believe the bible's version of origin of man, the fall of man and the judgement of God, then you believe myths and tales from ancient, pre-technological, superstitious people.

Or you could consider that intelligent people wouldn't allow themselves to be tortured rather than renounce a lie.

Or you could consider the power of brainwashing.

The early Christians paid a great price to spread the news of Christ's ministry. Many were killed in the most gruesome manners imaginable.

Lots of people were tortured and murdered in those times. Some of the torturing and murdering was done by followers of Yahweh and Jesus. Heck - your bible tells us how God ordered the slaughter of pregnant women and their fetuses and children for the terrible sin of being born to or conceived by people that did not believe in Him!


Poor argument on your behalf.

I would think there would be an ever greater price to pay for one who comes among believers and spends his time trying to turn them away from their belief. Such a person does not serve God. Rather, such a person does the will of Satan without even believing he exists. How strange it must be to serve a master which you don't believe even exists.

Perhaps I could imply that Vishnu will deal with YOU when you die? I'm sure you would re-consider your chosen faith...


How pathetic and ignorant to think that such threats and condescension have any impact on someone sensible enough not to accept and live their lives based on fairy tales from ancient folk.



And to use such sad tactics to justify their own mere belief in myths that have no basis in reality and no means of demonstration.

Bye.

 

[tas8831]

If it's wrong, yes.
Scientists will never uncover a natural cause for the creation of the universe.
They may come up with an excuse that sounds good.
They can't "uncover" a natural causation because there was nothing natural about God speaking the universe into existence.
They may be able to convince people like you that the great flood didn't happen, but they can't convince us that God's word is not God's word.
They may be able to convince you that there are no angels or demons, but those of us who have seen them recognize that the "experts" speak from profound ignorance.

The world is not and will never be millions of years old, much less billions. In all likelihood it will all be gone in 100 years. Christ could return at any time. When He returns it will be too late for the scoffers. When the trumpet sounds your window of opportunity to come to the Lord by faith will be closed.

Lego man?

 

[tas8831]

That's another impossibility. Miller-Urey proved that.

My how creationists love misrepresenting Miller-Urey.

 

[tas8831]

All the old testament laws are still in effect too, just ask Jesus.

So, wearing a shirt that is a poly-cotton blend is still an abomination to the Lord?

 

[tas8831]

The problem is that the waters of the primordial oceans boiled like a cauldron and DNA is fragile. It's long been a chicken and egg question, was it proteins first then spotaeously engineering DNA or did the DNA get tired of building proteins from scratch. This gets vastly more problematic with organelles and highly sophisticated genes responsible for their development. They talk about transitional but there are impossible gaps in the Darwinian tree of life at every major node.

So...

Now the Darwinian tree of life encompasses abiogenesis.

Can we lump Hinduism and Animism and Islam and polytheism in with Christianity and dismiss them all because believing in Aphrodite is silly?

 

[mark kennedy]

So...

Now the Darwinian tree of life encompasses abiogenesis.

Can we lump Hinduism and Animism and Islam and polytheism in with Christianity and dismiss them all because believing in Aphrodite is silly?

What does mock satire and equivocation have to do with origins theory or the Dover case? I happen to enjoy reading the scientific literature on the subject, you should try it sometime.

 

[tas8831]

What does mock satire and equivocation have to do with origins theory?

I don't know - why do you employ such tactics?

I happen to enjoy reading the scientific literature on the subject, you should try it sometime.

Then surely you can point out where in your reading of the scientific literature it is indicated that the Theory of evolution encompasses abiogenesis?

I am thinking no.

 

[joshua 1 9]

because if you examine creationist claims with the rigors of science, there is no evidence behind them; whereas there is plenty with evolution.

Creationism was not on trial, ID was on trial. This is a very small part of Creationism. Theistic Evolution is also Creationism. All of the evidence for Evolution can be used for Creationism. So there is just as much evidence and more for Creationism compared to Evolution-ism.

 

[joshua 1 9]

And believing someone "simply spoke and the earth appeared ex nihilo" is a misunderstanding of reality.

According to Francis Collins, the leading expert on the subject: DNA is the "Language of God". He even wrote a book on the subject. According to Collins the New Paradigm in Science is that DNA us the: "Language of Life". He directed the Human Genome Project so that makes him the leading expert on the subject.

 

[mark kennedy]

I don't know - why do you employ such tactics?



Then surely you can point out where in your reading of the scientific literature it is indicated that the Theory of evolution encompasses abiogenesis?

I am thinking no.

Do you read scientific literature, my thinking is no. Abiogenisis isn't a part of evolutionary biology, because the later is a natural phenomenon while the former is a myth. You keep saying evolution like it means something to you and ignore any mention of adaptive evolution, you say evolution but you talk audacious Darwinian naturalistic assumptions drenched in fallacious logic. So why don't you give up the pretense of having the slightest interest in the life sciences.

 

[HitchSlap]

According to Francis Collins, the leading expert on the subject: DNA is the "Language of God". He even wrote a book on the subject. According to Collins the New Paradigm in Science is that DNA us the: "Language of Life". He directed the Human Genome Project so that makes him the leading expert on the subject.

LOL...

Yeah, I read his book.

He's the guy who saw a frozen waterfall, and decided god exists.

BTW, no one considers him to be the "leading expert on DNA." Hence the lulz.

 

[mark kennedy]

And believing someone "simply spoke and the earth appeared ex nihilo" is a misunderstanding of reality. The bible is myopic, once you except this, you will see the world as it really is.

God being the auther and artifacer of the universe, life in general, and man in particular is essential Christian theism. The promise of eternal life is moot if God didnt create life in the first place. Denying that is to reject a reality you will answer to at the end of the age.

 

[tas8831]

Do you read scientific literature, my thinking is no.

And you would be wrong.
Again.

Abiogenisis isn't a part of evolutionary biology, because the later [sic] is a natural phenomenon while the former is a myth. You keep saying evolution like it means something to you and ignore any mention of adaptive evolution, you say evolution but you talk audacious Darwinian naturalistic assumptions drenched in fallacious logic. So why don't you give up the pretense of having the slightest interest in the life sciences.

I have done none of that, I merely asked why you considered abiogenesis to be part of evolution, even as you now claim you do not.

"The problem is that the waters of the primordial oceans boiled like a cauldron and DNA is fragile. It's long been a chicken and egg question, was it proteins first then spotaeously engineering DNA or did the DNA get tired of building proteins from scratch. This gets vastly more problematic with organelles and highly sophisticated genes responsible for their development. They talk about transitional but there are impossible gaps in the Darwinian tree of life at every major node."





Please try to remain consistent.