Once again, CREATIONISTS!

[AV1611VET]

I'll ask you again: Why would anyone bother believing in a model that has no evidence and makes absolutely no predictions? You have made Creationism into a useless story.

Because that's the nature of ex nihilo Creation. It was a one-time occurrence --- an act of God.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Is He now? A deceiver wouldn't document what He did, when He did it, and how He did it, would He?

Except God did not document that he "embedded" age. That's your invention.

 

[AV1611VET]

Except God did not document that he "embedded" age. That's your invention.

Then He's not a deceiver, is He?

 

[Patashu]

So be it --- models are made to be broken.

I would like to disagree; models are made to not be broken. An ideal model is identical to what it simulates, ie is never broken. When we make a model and the model is found to be wrong, we revise the model to take this into account.

 

[Patashu]

But then it wouldn't be ex nihilo, would it?



I'd like to see creatio ex nihilo address; not creatio ex materia.

Yes, it wouldn't, that's the idea, those are other ways for the apple to come to be that aren't ex nihilo. Even in my desert scenario those could all be alternate explainations . Ex nihilo is still possible, even a likely hypothesis as the situation and conditions in which it's done get stricter, harsher and more rigorous. The reverse is true, of course; the evidence for it being ex nihilo decreases the more likely it is that there is some other reason for the apple's existence, ie taking it from the kitchen while no one was looking.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Then He's not a deceiver, is He?

No, then the Bible is either wrong or wasn't meant to be taken literally on issues of age.

 

[ondaball]

No, then the Bible is either wrong or wasn't meant to be taken literally on issues of age.

Evolutionists are so scared of exposure that each time I post about how Darwin is disproved by DNA..fossils.. mutations etc they get the evidence deleted

& this isn't just google links - it opens up & prints details:-

Now how mutations disprove Darwin:-

ProgettoCosmo - Thermodynamics disproves Darwin

Information for macroevolution does not exist in nature, or better, it cannot be given by Darwinian evolution. The environment selects individuals and rewards the fittest but it does not give sufficient information for the huge transformations involved in the biological novelties of species. Evolutionists have asked whether in their evolutionary process (mutations + selection) information increases. In which of the two factors might the information generator be found? Remember information is what reduces uncertainty. R.Dawkins, an evolution authority, answers this question:

«Mutation is not an increment in the true informative content, but it is rather the contrary, since mutation, in the analogy of Shannon, contributes to increase the previous uncertainty. But now let's consider the natural selection, which reduces the previous uncertainty and then, supplies an informative contribution to the genetic pool [...] If the natural selection supplies information to the genic pool, what sort of information is? It is information about surviving»[15].

Hence mutations do not provide information and natural selection supplies only information for survival. But to supply the modest information to survive to a reptile is the same thing of providing the immense CSI (Complex Specified Information) necessary " to transform it in ... a bird? Sure it is not.

Analogously to give alms to a beggar, perhaps will allow him to survive today, but it does not transform him miraculously in a ... king. The same way that alms are not enough to avoid many people die of hunger, information " on surviving has not been enough to avoid that the 99% of animal species died out in the course of geological era instead of evolving.

Darwinians emphasize that, of its two parts, mutations and selection, mutations are random but selection is an algorithm, i.e. a law. If there were only random mutations there would be nothing to pretend: chance is impotent to design. To say, as Dawkins said above, that mutations do not create information is practically the same thing. But it is due to natural selection if evolution would work.

Mutations are only the engine that produces the variations in input to the selection algorithm, that acts as a post-processor. For first we must note that this engine is inefficient (in order to stimulate macroevolution), since the variations it generates can help at the most microevolution.

[SIZE=-1]Hence mutations do not provide information and natural selection supplies ..... until arriving to quantum particles and events for disproving neo-Darwinism. ...[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]progettocosmo.altervista.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=85 - Similar pages[/SIZE]


Darwinism; Too Old-Fashioned To Be True - HUMAN EVENTS

New York Times columnist John Tierney recently offered a materialist version of "intelligent design": All of us are actually characters in a computer simulation devised by some technologically advanced future civilization.

Fanciful to the extreme, sure, but the growing number of such theories -- life comes from the past (Mars, when it was theoretically livable) or future (Tierney) -- is one more indication that Darwinism no longer satisfies. Reporters pretending to referee the origin debate used to have it easy: slick evolutionists vs. hick creationists, progress vs. regress.

Now, Darwinism is looking fuddy-duddy, and sophisticated critiques of it are becoming more diverse...

I interviewed Michael Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution" and a new book, "The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism.

This Lehigh University biology professor points out that Darwin and his contemporaries knew very little about the cell, which is the foundation of life. Microscopes of that era were too crude to see many critical details. So 19th-century scientists thought the cell was simple protoplasm, like a piece of microscopic Jell-O

Behe explained what has changed: "Now we know that the cell is chock-full of sophisticated nanotechnology, literally machines made from molecules. The same goes for the universe.

In Darwin's era, the universe was thought to be pretty simple. Now we know its basic laws are balanced on a razor's edge to allow for life and that our planet may be the only one in the universe that could support intelligent life. The more we know about nature, the more design we see

We also have data now from a half-century of careful malaria-watching, which -- because malaria reproduce so quickly -- lets us see what happens to thousands of generations of parasites that are under constant attack from man-made drugs. Darwin predicted that random mutation and natural selection would lead to the development of new species, but no new kinds of malaria have emerged, just tiny changes in existing strains.



[SIZE=-1]The mass killer HIV also has provided evidence to disprove Darwin. ... HIV has actually undergone more of certain kinds of mutations than all cells have ...[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23046 - Similar pages[/SIZE]



Newsvine - Being Wrong in Science

The history of scientific discovery is littered with failed theories and disproved notions. Great discoveries often overturn seemingly brilliant ideas that may have been held for centuries...

Scientists may have spent their entire life developing a concept only to have it crumble before their very eyes when an onslaught of new evidence and thinking arises. Sometimes the demise of a scientific principle takes longer and the idea is only put to bed decades after the death of those who originally thought it up...

[SIZE=-1]In terms of genetics, it is saying that mutations in the genome are not random in ... was done in attempts to either prove Lamarck or just disprove Darwin. ...[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]praetor605.newsvine.com/_news/2006/09/26/376054-being-wrong-in-science - Similar pages[/SIZE]

 

[AV1611VET]

I would like to disagree; models are made to not be broken. An ideal model is identical to what it simulates, ie is never broken. When we make a model and the model is found to be wrong, we revise the model to take this into account.

Ergo, the model is broken.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, it wouldn't, that's the idea, those are other ways for the apple to come to be that aren't ex nihilo. Even in my desert scenario those could all be alternate explainations . Ex nihilo is still possible, even a likely hypothesis as the situation and conditions in which it's done get stricter, harsher and more rigorous. The reverse is true, of course; the evidence for it being ex nihilo decreases the more likely it is that there is some other reason for the apple's existence, ie taking it from the kitchen while no one was looking.

You didn't take if from the kitchen though, did you? I (that's me) put it in your hand myself, right? Please focus on the scenario, or you'll confuse yourself.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

That thread got you (plural) to admit there's no evidence for ex nihilo creation.

Thus why would there be a thread asking for it?

There is no evidence for ex nihilo creation of the universe 6,000 years ago because it didn't happen so I was not admiting anything, just stating a fact. There are threads asking for it because many other YECs claim there is evidence for there falsified hypothesis.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Evolutionists are so scared of exposure that each time I post about how Darwin is disproved by DNA..fossils.. mutations etc they get the evidence deleted

& this isn't just google links - it opens up & prints details:-

Now how mutations disprove Darwin:-

ProgettoCosmo - Thermodynamics disproves Darwin

Information for macroevolution does not exist in nature, or better, it cannot be given by Darwinian evolution. The environment selects individuals and rewards the fittest but it does not give sufficient information for the huge transformations involved in the biological novelties of species. Evolutionists have asked whether in their evolutionary process (mutations + selection) information increases. In which of the two factors might the information generator be found? Remember information is what reduces uncertainty. R.Dawkins, an evolution authority, answers this question:

«Mutation is not an increment in the true informative content, but it is rather the contrary, since mutation, in the analogy of Shannon, contributes to increase the previous uncertainty. But now let's consider the natural selection, which reduces the previous uncertainty and then, supplies an informative contribution to the genetic pool [...] If the natural selection supplies information to the genic pool, what sort of information is? It is information about surviving»[15].

Hence mutations do not provide information and natural selection supplies only information for survival. But to supply the modest information to survive to a reptile is the same thing of providing the immense CSI (Complex Specified Information) necessary " to transform it in ... a bird? Sure it is not.

Analogously to give alms to a beggar, perhaps will allow him to survive today, but it does not transform him miraculously in a ... king. The same way that alms are not enough to avoid many people die of hunger, information " on surviving has not been enough to avoid that the 99% of animal species died out in the course of geological era instead of evolving.

Darwinians emphasize that, of its two parts, mutations and selection, mutations are random but selection is an algorithm, i.e. a law. If there were only random mutations there would be nothing to pretend: chance is impotent to design. To say, as Dawkins said above, that mutations do not create information is practically the same thing. But it is due to natural selection if evolution would work.

Mutations are only the engine that produces the variations in input to the selection algorithm, that acts as a post-processor. For first we must note that this engine is inefficient (in order to stimulate macroevolution), since the variations it generates can help at the most microevolution.

[SIZE=-1]Hence mutations do not provide information and natural selection supplies ..... until arriving to quantum particles and events for disproving neo-Darwinism. ...[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]progettocosmo.altervista.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=85 - Similar pages[/SIZE]


Darwinism; Too Old-Fashioned To Be True - HUMAN EVENTS

New York Times columnist John Tierney recently offered a materialist version of "intelligent design": All of us are actually characters in a computer simulation devised by some technologically advanced future civilization.

Fanciful to the extreme, sure, but the growing number of such theories -- life comes from the past (Mars, when it was theoretically livable) or future (Tierney) -- is one more indication that Darwinism no longer satisfies. Reporters pretending to referee the origin debate used to have it easy: slick evolutionists vs. hick creationists, progress vs. regress.

Now, Darwinism is looking fuddy-duddy, and sophisticated critiques of it are becoming more diverse...

I interviewed Michael Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution" and a new book, "The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism.

This Lehigh University biology professor points out that Darwin and his contemporaries knew very little about the cell, which is the foundation of life. Microscopes of that era were too crude to see many critical details. So 19th-century scientists thought the cell was simple protoplasm, like a piece of microscopic Jell-O

Behe explained what has changed: "Now we know that the cell is chock-full of sophisticated nanotechnology, literally machines made from molecules. The same goes for the universe.

In Darwin's era, the universe was thought to be pretty simple. Now we know its basic laws are balanced on a razor's edge to allow for life and that our planet may be the only one in the universe that could support intelligent life. The more we know about nature, the more design we see

We also have data now from a half-century of careful malaria-watching, which -- because malaria reproduce so quickly -- lets us see what happens to thousands of generations of parasites that are under constant attack from man-made drugs. Darwin predicted that random mutation and natural selection would lead to the development of new species, but no new kinds of malaria have emerged, just tiny changes in existing strains.



[SIZE=-1]The mass killer HIV also has provided evidence to disprove Darwin. ... HIV has actually undergone more of certain kinds of mutations than all cells have ...[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23046 - Similar pages[/SIZE]



Newsvine - Being Wrong in Science

The history of scientific discovery is littered with failed theories and disproved notions. Great discoveries often overturn seemingly brilliant ideas that may have been held for centuries...

Scientists may have spent their entire life developing a concept only to have it crumble before their very eyes when an onslaught of new evidence and thinking arises. Sometimes the demise of a scientific principle takes longer and the idea is only put to bed decades after the death of those who originally thought it up...

[SIZE=-1]In terms of genetics, it is saying that mutations in the genome are not random in ... was done in attempts to either prove Lamarck or just disprove Darwin. ...[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]praetor605.newsvine.com/_news/2006/09/26/376054-being-wrong-in-science - Similar pages[/SIZE]

In addition to a general collection of PRATTS including the totally bogus claim that Thermodynamics refutes Darwin (with a link that doesn't work) this post is a classic example of one of Creationisms favorite logical fallacies the logical error of the false dichotomy. Alleged evidence against evolution is not evidence for creationism even if it were valid.

Now do you have any evidence FOR creationism that is not from the standard PRATT list?

 

[AV1611VET]

There is no evidence for ex nihilo creation of the universe 6,000 years ago because it didn't happen so I was not admiting anything, just stating a fact. There are threads asking for it because many other YECs claim there is evidence for there falsified hypothesis.

Fine --- then kindly direct them to my Apple Challenge.

Or is it that you spent so much time ridiculing it, that you overlooked the fact that it actually supports what you guys say?

( You atheists are a riot! )

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Fine --- then kindly direct them to my Apple Challenge.

Or is it that you spent so much time ridiculing it, that you overlooked the fact that it actually supports what you guys say?

( You atheists are a riot! )

I am not an atheist and your apple challenge is ridiculous. However it is very amusing that you think your own bogus analogy actually supports our position. You are a laugh a minute.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

( You atheists are a riot! )

Here we have the fallacy of hasty generalization. Some people who support the old earth and evolution are atheists so all are. It is not an issue of atheists verses Creationists. It is a question of science (old earth and evolution) verses anti-science( young earth with special creation).

In any case we now have two of creationism's three favorite logical fallacies, the false dichotomy and hasty generalization on the same page of a thread. Can "No True Scotsman" be far behind?

 

[AV1611VET]

I am not an atheist...

Oops, sorry --- my bad.

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck - (you know).

 

[AV1611VET]

Here we have the fallacy of hasty generalization. Some people who support the old earth and evolution are atheists so all are.

Like someone is fond of saying --- if it walks like a duck...

 

[shmee]

Why would God create a world that looks much, much older than 6000 years old, then "document" that it was only 6000 years old? Why wouldn't he explain why it looks so old? What would his reasoning be for making the world appear older than it really is? It still seems deceptive.

Or is it more likely that the people who wrote the Bible thought the world was much younger than it really is because they didn't know as much about the world as we do today?

As to the whole ex-nihilo argument, if there is no evidence for something outside of what some people wrote down in a book (there is no way to know that God wrote or inspired it, this is something that's taken on faith, similar to believers of other religions with their religious texts), and the evidence we DO have points to the contrary, it makes more sense to go with the evidence we do have: that the world is 4.5 billion years old.

 

[Psudopod]

Why? Because you can't provide evidence for it, even though it did happen?

Because no one can provide the evidence. You've admitted that much yourself. No evidence = no models = no understanding = no point wasting time over it.

You're going to stand in front of your friend with an apple and say, "Nevermind, this apple is useless."

No, I'd probably eat it. I like apples. However, it's useless for learning from. If I wanted to teach my friend about apples, and how to grow the best apple tree with the most fruit, I wouldn't say "AVET did it, case closed", I'd show him about apple trees, run experiments to see where they grew best, cross breed them for flavour and crop.

In short, I'd use science to get my orchard of perfect apples by studying other apples. We can't do anything with your one off ex-nihilo apple to study apples in general that we couldn't do from a normal apple. You've said so yourself.

Then walk away saying to yourself, "Ex nihilo creation doesn't happen"?

In relation to the world, I've never denied that it could exist. However either:

a) the world is 4.6 billion years old, the universe is 13.7 billion years old, evolution happens etc - this is what the evidence points to

or
b)God created the world 6000 years ago in 6 days with all creatures created special and there was a global flood, but he made it in such a way that it is completely totally and absolutely impossible to tell from scenario a.

Whether a or b is true, we will never know (at least while we are alive). So there is no reason to change the way we preform science. No need to assume things for which there is no evidence and no reason to deny what we see. We can use what we know about evolution, we can use what we know about geology and we can get useful results out. If we assume scenario b is correct and just stop there - we learn nothing.

 

[Allister]

In creating the apple, AV, you are essentially copying a pre-existing object, therefore your apple will have all the traits as that of a ripe apple, evidence of age and history. The universe, however, let us assume, isn't a copy of a pre-existing object but was the first and possibly only universe ever to be created. Why would this universe have what appears to be history and age?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Like someone is fond of saying --- if it walks like a duck...

So are you claiming that anyone who doesn't accept that the world was created 6,000 years ago and that there was a global flood 4,500 years ago and that evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth walks, looks and talks like an atheist? I guess you have never heard of theist evolution and don't even know that there are millions of members of every major religion who accept the scientific explanation of the world and reject your extreme interpretation of the Bible. You on the other hand make a list of specific claims that brand you specifically as a young earth creationists espousing the Omphalos hypothesis.