The science of creationism: where is it?

[Hespera]

1. Show me which part of the theory of evolution deals with the origin of the first life on earth.

2. You ignored my point that you are offering a choice between creation by evolution vs. creation by any other means (regardless if you are referring to life or species).



1. How disengenuous. Your "second option" is everything other than evolution. By definition, there can be no "third option."

2. Go ahead and disprove evolution.

A lot of talk but never one piece of data.

All I see is word tricks.

You'd think with all of the universe, reality, truth, and God on their side, that something more solid than a word trick would be available to disprove godless satanistic commie evolution.

 

[juvenissun]

A lot of talk but never one piece of data.

All I see is word tricks.

You'd think with all of the universe, reality, truth, and God on their side, that something more solid than a word trick would be available to disprove godless satanistic commie evolution.

Nonsense.
Lamarckian heredity, theres an alternative right there. And when you say "creation", do you include Hindu, Norse, Budhist, Native American or Australian Aboriginal origin myths, or just the Judeo Christian version?

I am sorry that this heredity has been mentioned at least three times. Is it just another version of evolution theory? Take the word evolution out, would it still exist?

And yes, creation is creation, no matter by who. As I said again and again, as long as it has nothing to do with evolution.

 

[juvenissun]

Read the Origin of Species, the first published paper on the subject, and tell me where abouts it says how life was started.

You won't find it. It's not in there. Evolution deals with how life became varied after it began.

Note, the "Origin of SPECIES.", not the "Origin of LIFE.

How can you possibly refute something you don't even understand?

This is called wisdom. I am afraid that you don't have much of it yet.

 

[juvenissun]

But that wouldn't be proving creationism via negative argumentation, since one of the underpinnings of creationism is a young earth and proving the earth is 6000 years is different from proving the earth is not billions.

"Evolution relies on the assumption x while creationism relies upon the assumption y. The two assumptions are diametrically opposed to each other, therefore proving one right disproves the other. Therefore proving y right (positive argumentation) proves x wrong."

Let's break this down into it's basic logic:

If X then not Y.
If Y then not X.

In this case, If we prove X is true then Y is not true, and if we prove Y is true then X is not true. However, and this is the crux of it: If X is proven NOT true, this does not mean Y is true, and if Y is proven NOT true, then X is not necessarily true. So, if we prove the earth is not over 4 billion years old, this does not mean it's 6000 years old (it could be 600,000 or 6 million or 6 years old), and if we prove that the earth is not 6000 years old, this does not mean it's over 4 billion (same is true, it could be 6, 60, 6000, 6 million, 6 quintillion years old).

Does that explain it?


The problem with this whole "If X is wrong then Y is true" philosophy is that it completely discounts the potential of the unknown. We cannot know everything, therefore we cannot know if there are more than two possibilities. If there are potential unknown possibilities then negative argumentation cannot make effective claims since they can only negate possibilities rather than support possibilities whereas positive argumentation will make effective claims by advancing the likelihood of possibilities over others. Given this, negative argumentation will never build a theory to be more likely than the unkown, only make them less likely than the unkonwn while positive argumentation will never make a theory less likely than the unknown but will make them more likely than the unknown. In this way we can say that yes, evolution may be wrong, creationism may be right, but <place holder for infinite number of unthought of hypothesis> may be right as well.

Why does it take you so long to point this one out? That is why I asked you about the third option. Yes, it is the "not-known". But, practically, it is not an option. Our life is too short to afford the not-known. And in a debate, it is awkward to use not-known as a defense.

 

[juvenissun]

1. Show me which part of the theory of evolution deals with the origin of the first life on earth.

2. You ignored my point that you are offering a choice between creation by evolution vs. creation by any other means (regardless if you are referring to life or species).



1. How disengenuous. Your "second option" is everything other than evolution. By definition, there can be no "third option."

2. Go ahead and disprove evolution.

Today, the burden of proving evolution is almost entirely upon the genetics. My idea is that genetics should include the study of the first "life". So, evolution SHOULD include the origin problem.

My way of "disprove" evolution is another illogical, but practical one: If there still existed one unanswered question about evolution, then evolution is disproved. Based on this premise, even me can easily give 10 (or 100, if time allowed) unanswered questions.

 

[OldStyleBlues]

If there still existed one unanswered question about evolution, then evolution is disproved.

Meteor crater was formed 50,000 years ago when a meteorite about 54 yards across crashed into the Arizona desert. No one was there to see this happen however we know that is what happened. There are a couple unanswered questions about this crater and the impact itself. Do these unanswered questions mean that the cause of the crater or even what it is exactly is "disproven"? You're logic is seriously flawed and is rooted in back in 14th century Medevial Europe.

 

[Split Rock]

My way of "disprove" evolution is another illogical, but practical one: If there still existed one unanswered question about evolution, then evolution is disproved. Based on this premise, even me can easily give 10 (or 100, if time allowed) unanswered questions.

That does it! I call POE!

You are not for real, Juvie.... confess!

 

[BananaSlug]

Today, the burden of proving evolution is almost entirely upon the genetics.

Modern genetic analysis is the most important tool we have. Care to explain the very close relationship of whales and hippos? What about birds and crocodiles?

My idea is that genetics should include the study of the first "life". So, evolution SHOULD include the origin problem.

But it doesn't.

My way of "disprove" evolution is another illogical, but practical one: If there still existed one unanswered question about evolution, then evolution is disproved.

I guess gravity is disproved now because we still don't know what causes it. Watch out for floating objects since gravity obviously stopped working because we have unanswered questions.
Or how about the alternative logic... If we have one unanswered question about God does it disprove God? If you cannot accept the opposite side of your logic, do not use that logic!

Based on this premise, even me can easily give 10 (or 100, if time allowed) unanswered questions.

Based on this premise, what if we give you 1 unanswerable question about God?

 

[juvenissun]

Meteor crater was formed 50,000 years ago when a meteorite about 54 yards across crashed into the Arizona desert. No one was there to see this happen however we know that is what happened. There are a couple unanswered questions about this crater and the impact itself. Do these unanswered questions mean that the cause of the crater or even what it is exactly is "disproven"? You're logic is seriously flawed and is rooted in back in 14th century Medevial Europe.

It depends on what question about the meteorite strike is unanswered. I think you just said we "know" it is done by a meteorite strike. How could we know if there are unanswered question? I am sure you can answer that. And that is the answer to your question.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

It depends on what question about the meteorite strike is unanswered. I think you just said we "know" it is done by a meteorite strike. How could we know if there are unanswered question? I am sure you can answer that. And that is the answer to your question.

There are unanswered questions about Creationism. Does that mean Creationism is disproven?

 

[ragarth]

Why does it take you so long to point this one out? That is why I asked you about the third option. Yes, it is the "not-known". But, practically, it is not an option. Our life is too short to afford the not-known. And in a debate, it is awkward to use not-known as a defense.

I'm sorry, I thought a few posts back I stated I was dropping that conversation with you. I apologize if I wasn't sufficiently clear on that, but I just don't enjoy discussing things with you. If you want, I'll message you more detail, but saying any more than this will just get this post deleted. :-(

 

[OldStyleBlues]

How could we know if there are unanswered question?

As Bananaslug stated. Gravity must be then disproven because we aren't sure what causes it. Or how could homicide detectives gathering evidence at a crime scene eventually know the perpetrator of the murder even with an unanswered question or two. After all thet weren't there to witness the crime so how could they really be sure.

 

[juvenissun]

Modern genetic analysis is the most important tool we have. Care to explain the very close relationship of whales and hippos? What about birds and crocodiles?



But it doesn't.



I guess gravity is disproved now because we still don't know what causes it. Watch out for floating objects since gravity obviously stopped working because we have unanswered questions.
Or how about the alternative logic... If we have one unanswered question about God does it disprove God? If you cannot accept the opposite side of your logic, do not use that logic!



Based on this premise, what if we give you 1 unanswerable question about God?

You are a very confused science thinker.

We recognize the facts. For example, gravity and fossils. But we do not know the origin. The current interpretation of gravity takes a high level understanding of physics. Not everyone can question it. But the current interpretation of fossil only need your head and your eyes. Evolution does a very poor job in interpreting the facts. Questions to it are obvious and are everywhere.

God? It does even take one unanswered question. Even every question is answered, He is still disproved by many.

 

[juvenissun]

I'm sorry, I thought a few posts back I stated I was dropping that conversation with you. I apologize if I wasn't sufficiently clear on that, but I just don't enjoy discussing things with you. If you want, I'll message you more detail, but saying any more than this will just get this post deleted. :-(

Then don't even start it next time.

 

[juvenissun]

There are unanswered questions about Creationism. Does that mean Creationism is disproven?

Name one.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Name one.

Sure. Explain the mechanism by which God manipulates the physical to create matter from null states.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sure. Explain the mechanism by which God manipulates the physical to create matter from null states.

Your question leads to a 404 error --- unless I'm reading it wrong.

The mechanism by which God manipulates the physical is called, depending on what He does with it: miracles, or creatio ex materia.

The mechanism by which God calls matter into existence from a null state (nothing?) is creatio ex nihilo and done by "speaking".

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Your question leads to a 404 error --- unless I'm reading it wrong.

The mechanism by which God manipulates the physical is called, depending on what He does with it: miracles, or creatio ex materia.

The mechanism by which God calls matter into existence from a null state (nothing?) is creatio ex nihilo and done by "speaking".

So what, precisely, constitutes God's "speaking"?

God lacks physical mouth, tongue, vocal chords, broca's area and all the other identified "organs of speech". Even if he DID have them, you can see yourself that normal everyday speech does not generally result in the creation of new matter from nothing, so there must be more to it.

How does an entity without vocal chords speak, how does speech result in creation?

Unanswered questions. Using Juvenison's model, that unanswered questions=false doctrine, apparently this proves Creationism false.

Please note, I am not submitting this as an argument against Creationism, but rather as an argument against Juvenison's "logic"

 

[OldStyleBlues]

Name one

If according to the Bible all humans have descended from Adam and Eve has humanity been living in sin all this time by marrying relatives?

 

[dad]

So what, precisely, constitutes God's "speaking"?

God lacks physical mouth, tongue, vocal chords, broca's area and all the other identified "organs of speech". Even if he DID have them, you can see yourself that normal everyday speech does not generally result in the creation of new matter from nothing, so there must be more to it.
How does an entity without vocal chords speak, how does speech result in creation?

A computer can genrate speech, how much more GOD?!


Are you done with Afghanistan?