STILL no evidence FOR creation/ID

[Speedwell]

Yes, I agree. But evolution doesn't generate design but, rather, chaos as I noted. Therefore, evolution is untrue.

So you have no answer to my post--you just deny it?

 

[Old Trapper]

Of course - we don't have the time or facilities to study evolution for 364,000 years

Then don't rely on it for your beliefs since it is based not on reality, but on fiction.

That's true, but irrelevant - just as the material the pages in a book are made out of is irrelevant to the information in the book. We know that genetic information is coded at molecular level.

No, you are guessing that it does. When the smaller components are finally catalogued who is to say what will appear.

 

[Old Trapper]

If God is the Designer, as one could believe if they like me believe God created all things, instead of only some things, then of course His design -- the Laws of Nature, physics, chemistry -- will work quite well ("and it was very good"), and not at all result in 'chaos' -- because it's His design, not yours or mine. See? We can only guess and try to figure out small details about creation not said in the text, such as mere time quantity (trivial numerical amounts) of years and such. Either way, no matter which totally trivial theory about such trivial details you or I think is the right one, all things are His creation.

He is the designer, and we are the stewards of His creation. In the "Garden of Eden" disease was unknown. It took the deviant acts of man to bring that about.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Then don't rely on it for your beliefs since it is based not on reality, but on fiction.

Models and simulations are used in all scientific and technical fields to guide our understanding of real-world situations. They're the best way we have of understanding what will, or has, happened. As long as we acknowledge their limitations, they're useful tools.

No, you are guessing that it does. When the smaller components are finally catalogued who is to say what will appear.

We already know what molecules are made up of, and how those components interact. The substrate isn't the code, and we know how the code is implemented - we can, and do, manipulate it for our own purposes, and when we change the substrate by using different nucleotide bases, it still works.

What you're suggesting is equivalent to saying we can't be sure what the pages of a book tell us because there might be something in the paper fibres that tells us more.

 

[PhantomGaze]

The last thread I started commenting on this phenomenon got bogged down by trolls and eventually closed.

Most interestingly, no creationists presented anything even close to evidence. It was all the usual antics...



And it is always... ALWAYS... 'arguments' against evolution.

NEVER arguments FOR creation/ID.

Analogies to human activity, bible verses, 'problems' with evolution - none of these, not one of them, is evidence FOR creation or ID.


It is almost as if creationists have admitted to themselves, subconsciously, that they cannot actually offer any positive supporting evidence FOR their mere beliefs, and are content to simply attack 'the other.' This is true, whether the creationist is a one-line snark master, or a verbose citation and quote bombing autodidact.

This topic seems like it runs the risk of being trollish depending upon how it's pursued.

As one leaning toward Intelligent Design, I'd like to ask what would you consider evidence of design?

Would you consider Evolution based upon pre-determined functional information (akin to the unfolding of a computer program) evidence of design?

 

[Aman777]

Would you consider Evolution based upon pre-determined functional information (akin to the unfolding of a computer program) evidence of design?

No, since everyone knows that it was evolution which created everything. Magical evolution is God to the godless people who preach it. Amen?

 

[tas8831]

He is the designer, and we are the stewards of His creation. In the "Garden of Eden" disease was unknown. It took the deviant acts of man to bring that about.

Begging the question and 2 unsupported assertions.

 

[tas8831]

It's up to you, not us, what you look for.

I've looked.

And found nothing tangible, verifiable, or even sensible.

 

[tas8831]

As I said earlier, and obviously you chose to ignore it, I was referring to the creationist theories of a 10,000 year existence, and then to the secular claim of evolution when the article refers to "hundreds of thousands of years" just for the "evolution" of the eye.

I did not ignore what I did not see, I only remarked on the folly of citing a paper that said 'no problem for eye evolution' in response to my asking you for support of your unsupported assertion regarding it being impossible for the eye to evolve.

But hey, you are welcome to your own beliefs, and your own arrogance.

Well, at least my beliefs are rooted in reality and supported by evidence.

 

[tas8831]

Here's evidence: Assume materialistic evolution is true. Obviously there must be a designer

1. a non sequitur
2. a direct contradiction

Neither is evidence.

to design all the intricate biological lifeforms, randomness of mutations and gene copy errors can't design anything except chaos. But there is no mechanism within chemistry or biology or quantum mechanics for a designer to inject his designs. Therefore, young earth creationism is the correct view.

That was pretty funny.

But it is not evidence, it was a confused, contorted mish-mash of gibberish.

 

[tas8831]

A living Being, with which Whom you'd hope to meet (a Savior no less!) -- that would be a relationship, not an inert object of 'evidence'.

His existence should be able to be verified. I.e., there should be evidence for it.

It's like how if you wanted to meet a woman and marry, you'd not ask for evidence she is real even before you meet right at first contact, first communication, but instead you'd set up a local meeting and then find out directly.

But we are not talking about this kind of thing, are we?

Analogies only work so well.

 

[tas8831]

Yes, I agree. But evolution doesn't generate design but, rather, chaos as I noted. Therefore, evolution is untrue.

By 'you noted', you really mean 'I asserted with no support', right?

 

[tas8831]

This topic seems like it runs the risk of being trollish depending upon how it's pursued.

Well, sure - asking creationists/designits for evidence for their claims is, oddly, seen as baiting or an attack. I guess that is how it goes when one realizes that they rely on mere beliefs.

As one leaning toward Intelligent Design, I'd like to ask what would you consider evidence of design?

Something tangible and verifiable and not reliant upon 'already believing'.

Would you consider Evolution based upon pre-determined functional information (akin to the unfolding of a computer program) evidence of design?

No, for that presupposes 'design' and ignores the fact that analogies are not evidence.

 

[tas8831]

No, since everyone knows that it was evolution which created everything. Magical evolution is God to the godless people who preach it. Amen?

Such a precious strawman!

 

[Aman777]

Aman777 said: ↑
No, since everyone knows that it was evolution which created everything. Magical evolution is God to the godless people who preach it. Amen?

Such a precious strawman!

a. It's not a strawman but God's Truth, unless you can tell us where the first creature, which evolved into a living kind, (cat, dog, fish, etc) came from. According to the Evol Religion, it was just there so we can ignore where it came from or as Stevie Hawking believed, came from nothing.

b. According to Science, it came from its parents, which came from the last universal common ancestor, which came from WATER.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/.../behold-luca-last-universal-common-ancestor-life...

c. According to Genesis 1:21 "every living creature that moveth" came forth from WATER, when God created them on the 5th Day, which was some 3.8 Billion years ago, in man's time.

Science and Scripture AGREE. Odd man out is the False Religion of Evolism. So take your choice. Believe what God and Science tell you OR believe the biggest satanic Lie ever forced upon our children and vote for 'a'. Amen?

 

[tas8831]

Aman777 said:

No, since everyone knows that it was evolution which created everything. Magical evolution is God to the godless people who preach it.

a. It's not a strawman but God's Truth,

What you wrote previously is a strawman. What your wrote in a. is question begging.

unless you can tell us where the first creature, which evolved into a living kind, (cat, dog, fish, etc) came from. According to the Evol Religion, it was just there so we can ignore where it came from or as Stevie Hawking believed, came from nothing.

Strawman after strawman.

Boring.

b. According to Science, it came from its parents, which came from the last universal common ancestor, which came from WATER.

Yes... Science says life came from water.

You rank right down there is kenny.

 

[PhantomGaze]

No, for that presupposes 'design' and ignores the fact that analogies are not evidence.

So you're going to argue that we cannot describe real aspects of the world through analogy?

Of course calling something a "language" when it comes to DNA may not be a mere analogy. Languages, like computer languages have certain objective characteristics that can be measured.

There's also forensic analysis that is a test for evidence of intent, insight, and/or premeditation. This sort of evidence is acceptable in courtrooms, would you consider that acceptable evidence of design?

Well, sure - asking creationists/designits for evidence for their claims is, oddly, seen as baiting or an attack. I guess that is how it goes when one realizes that they rely on mere beliefs.

Or it could be a veiled blanket assertion that everything's "not evidence", and then making up ridiculous rationalizations why not as people actually present legitimate arguments... but you wouldn't do that now would you?

 

[Ophiolite]

As one leaning toward Intelligent Design, I'd like to ask what would you consider evidence of design?

It is an excellent question and it is unfortunate that ID proponents have not done a better job of both defining what would constitute evidence and then providing it: irreducible complexity simply doesn't make the grade. Here is my list of evidence for design:
1. Things exist. We know some things have been designed, therefore the potential exists that all things might be designed, or at least that some things not currently thought to be designed might be so. (We should not forget Slartibartfast's work with fjords!) However, while this is evidence, it is not very good evidence.
2. Identifiable code within DNA equivalent to a PIN number, patent identifier, or similar. Alternatively a coded value of pi to, let's say, around 1000 places; or similar for any fundamental constant. Think Pioneer plaque writ in adenine, thymine, guanine and cytosine.
3. Genotypes that stand outside a nested hierarchy.
4. A message from an extraterrestrial source explaining that their ancestors designed us.
5. This is highly speculative as I just don't know enough about this field, but I wonder if a Bayesian analysis might be able to demonstrate that known examples of poor design were more likely to be the result of convenient (lazy) adaptation of existing sub-routines (i.e. genes) rather than chance/natural selection.

If I come up with anymore I'll post them, but I really think it is up to those promoting, or leaning towards design to come up with categories of evidence, not those who doubt it. If there were some convincing identifiers we could look for then a search would become practical.

 

[DogmaHunter]

To challenge Creationism, you MUST have a counter argument, otherwise you have lost even before you begin!

No. Wheter or not creationism is a valid model, is not dependend on other competing/alternative models.

Claims fall and stand on their own merrit.
To challenge creationism, one only has to challenge creationism on its own merrit.
One doesn't need an "alternative".

To challenge creationist claims, all one has to do is point out the total lack of supporting evidence. That alone is already enough to dismiss it as a model of reality.

 

[DogmaHunter]

WHY are you afraid to tell us how the world began. It is a very simple question

Why are you afraid of providing evidence for your claims?
Why do you insist on shifting the burden of proof instead?