What creationists need to do to win against evolution.

[pitabread]

Ditto for Dr. Behe,,,,someone on here says he's been discredited, but I don't know how.

Behe's irreducible complexity concept, insofar as claiming it represents un-evolveable biological structures, has been discredited. You can read about it here: Irreducible complexity - Wikipedia

The onus is on Behe to demonstrate his concepts have biological validity and he hasn't really done that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course we're all unique ----
each PERSON is unique; but I was thinking of this definition:

1. unique(Adjective)
   
   Being the only one of its kind; unequaled, unparalleled or unmatched.
2. unique(Adjective)
   
   Of a feature, such that only one holder has it.
3. unique(Adjective)
   
   (disputed) Of a rare quality.
4. unique(Adjective)
   
   (disputed) Unusual.

Don't YOU think humans are unique?
Don' WE have attributes other animals do not have?

You don't really have to answer---I'm not debating this with someone that does not believe in the possibility of a God existing.

So you do not even understand what an atheist is and you use your mistaken belief as an excuse? That is very bad form. But then you did use the word unique incorrectly and that was shown to be the case.

 

[Speedwell]

Of course we're all unique ----
each PERSON is unique; but I was thinking of this definition:

1. unique(Adjective)
   
   Being the only one of its kind; unequaled, unparalleled or unmatched.
2. unique(Adjective)
   
   Of a feature, such that only one holder has it.
3. unique(Adjective)
   
   (disputed) Of a rare quality.
4. unique(Adjective)
   
   (disputed) Unusual.

Don't YOU think humans are unique?
Don' WE have attributes other animals do not have?

You don't really have to answer---I'm not debating this with someone that does not believe in the possibility of a God existing.

Of course we do. One need not be a theist to realize it, and no atheists claim that we do not.

The atheist says, "We are animals."
The creationist twists that to say, "The atheist claims that we are just animals."

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Of course we're all unique ----
each PERSON is unique; but I was thinking of this definition:

1. unique(Adjective)
   
   Being the only one of its kind; unequaled, unparalleled or unmatched.
2. unique(Adjective)
   
   Of a feature, such that only one holder has it.
3. unique(Adjective)
   
   (disputed) Of a rare quality.
4. unique(Adjective)
   
   (disputed) Unusual.

Don't YOU think humans are unique?
Don' WE have attributes other animals do not have?

Of course; our cognitive capabilities are, particularly in respect of abstraction, generalisation, and metacognition, far superior to those of other creatures. But there are many species that have extraordinary specializations that put them ahead of all others in different ways. Our specialisations have enabled us to develop amazing cultural and technological complexity and sophistication.

You don't really have to answer---I'm not debating this with someone that does not believe in the possibility of a God existing.

You're jumping to conclusions. Depending on the precise definition of 'God', I think a God of some sort (i.e. an entity that created and determined the universe and its laws and is, to us, effectively omnipotent) is possible but extremely unlikely, but I think the probability of the Abrahamic God existing is vanishingly remote.

As I see it, all the available evidence points to the Abrahamic God being just one more of a vast number of deities created by human imagination. There are literally thousands of Gods that have been recorded through history, of vast variety and disposition.

The simulation hypothesis, that our universe is some form of computer-like simulation by an advanced civilization, provides an example of what I think the most likely (though still extremely improbable) God-like entity would be.

 

[Lee Stuvmen]

Because your "irrefutable facts" were refuted a long time ago. Bring them up one at a time and see if any of them survive. Posting a link to a series of PRATT's only earns derision.

Refuted by who? What was refuted? Nothing from you at present. But I am hopeful you will try.

But I know better

 

[Subduction Zone]

Refuted by who? What was refuted? Nothing from you at present. But I am hopeful you will try.

But I know better

i offered to discuss them if you presented them properly. Now you are trying to change the claim. Are you afraid? Bring up your claims one at a time so that we can discuss them. A Gish Gallop indicates the poster knows that he is wrong. Plus when a demand was made for an honest discussion refuting one element in a Gish Gallop refutes them all.

Are you up to it?

 

[GodsGrace101]

I find this interesting because humankind is evolving today, and has been evolving as far back as we can find evidence.

Can you give a rough idea of when this creation came about, and what form it took - e.g. do you think our species (Homo sapiens) was created from scratch, or did God modify a suitable existing species?

It could have been either way.
There's no way to know.

I see a difference between tribes in So. America and us.
This has to do with how we live and our knowledge of the world. We look different, but we are not evolving...just adapting to our environment.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It could have been either way.
There's no way to know.

I see a difference between tribes in So. America and us.
This has to do with how we live and our knowledge of the world. We look different, but we are not evolving...just adapting to our environment.

Actually there is a way to know. That is the point of the scientific method.

 

[GodsGrace101]

You are correct!

What will come next? Is it better to know truth?

What if the corona virus is just the cartoon before the actual movie starts?

What if the USA IS not only mentioned in prophecy, but takes up an entire 10% of the entire Book of Revelation?

What if the evidence would point the the USA being destroyed in one hour? Would you want facts or conjecture and theory?

Is truth stranger than fiction?
www.sevenheadedscarletbeast.blogspot.com

Truth can be stranger than fiction.
I've never studied Revelation and don't intend to.
We don't know what will come next.
I'm thinking of the Black Plague
The Spanish Flu

Every generation thought they were the last...but we're still here. And after 2,000 years.

It might be the end...it might not.
Maybe when God can be scientifically proven.. then the end will come since all will be able to make an informed decision.
2 Peter 3:9

 

[GodsGrace101]

This is simply incorrect logic. If everything MUST have a cause, there cannot be a first cause (because that would contradict the first premise that everything must have a cause).


False dichotomy: If God doesn't have to come from nothing, then 'everything' need not come from nothing.

False logic: Implies God is not part of everything (i.e. doesn't exist), or that God made itself (logical contradiction).

Everything you've stated makes no sense.
But I expect that....
No reply.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Behe's irreducible complexity concept, insofar as claiming it represents un-evolveable biological structures, has been discredited. You can read about it here: Irreducible complexity - Wikipedia

The onus is on Behe to demonstrate his concepts have biological validity and he hasn't really done that.

As you know,,,I agree with him.
If you take any one item from this machine that makes bacteria move....then they'd stop moving.

I have the same belief about the eye.
How is it possible for an eye to take millions of years to evolve....what would be going on in the meantime?
Animals starving b ecause they can't see...
and how would any evolution then take place??

 

[GodsGrace101]

So you do not even understand what an atheist is and you use your mistaken belief as an excuse? That is very bad form. But then you did use the word unique incorrectly and that was shown to be the case.

Well, what WORD would you have used?????

I believe I'm unique in the sense that I posted...
if you believe you are NOT unique,,,it is your prerogative.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Everything you've stated makes no sense.
But I expect that....
No reply.

He demonstrated how your first cause argument was wrong, you did not understand it. The problem with the "first cause argument" is that it leads to infinite regress unless one relies on the logical fallacy of special pleading.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Of course we do. One need not be a theist to realize it, and no atheists claim that we do not.

The atheist says, "We are animals."
The creationist twists that to say, "The atheist claims that we are just animals."

That just may be because Christians do not believe we are animals.

They believe we are made in the image of God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As you know,,,I agree with him.
If you take any one item from this machine that makes bacteria move....then they'd stop moving.

I have the same belief about the eye.
How is it possible for an eye to take millions of years to evolve....what would be going on in the meantime?
Animals starving b ecause they can't see...
and how would any evolution then take place??

That is a failed argument. So what if it stops moving? And that is not the actual case. You did not understand the video that I linked that disproved that particular argument. You see Behe claimed that the rotor did not work without all of its components. That is false since it works just fine doing other jobs. In fact we can find bacteria today without the total rotor and they get along just fine. It simply has a different function.

This is why the mousetrap argument of biologist and Ken Miller refuted Behe a long long time ago.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That just may be because Christians do not believe we are animals.

They believe we are made in the image of God.

Correction, only some Christians believe that. Others recognize it as being false.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Of course; our cognitive capabilities are, particularly in respect of abstraction, generalisation, and metacognition, far superior to those of other creatures. But there are many species that have extraordinary specializations that put them ahead of all others in different ways. Our specialisations have enabled us to develop amazing cultural and technological complexity and sophistication.

You're jumping to conclusions. Depending on the precise definition of 'God', I think a God of some sort (i.e. an entity that created and determined the universe and its laws and is, to us, effectively omnipotent) is possible but extremely unlikely, but I think the probability of the Abrahamic God existing is vanishingly remote.

As I see it, all the available evidence points to the Abrahamic God being just one more of a vast number of deities created by human imagination. There are literally thousands of Gods that have been recorded through history, of vast variety and disposition.

The simulation hypothesis, that our universe is some form of computer-like simulation by an advanced civilization, provides an example of what I think the most likely (though still extremely improbable) God-like entity would be.

I've thought of that too.
But I'd still be faced with the problem of where THAT civilization came from....who or what created IT.

As to the Abrahamic God.....
I'll say that there is an Almighty God...
the Power Supreme....
the same one the American Indian believed in and the same one that ll religions worship.

There is ONLY ONE GOD.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Actually there is a way to know. That is the point of the scientific method.

Oh. So now science knows everything.
OK.

 

[GodsGrace101]

He demonstrated how your first cause argument was wrong, you did not understand it. The problem with the "first cause argument" is that it leads to infinite regress unless one relies on the logical fallacy of special pleading.

I didn't understand it?
You really do like to argue and belittle, don't you?
If there is a first cause there is no regress.
The first cause does not have a cause.
It is the first.

 

[GodsGrace101]

That is a failed argument. So what if it stops moving? And that is not the actual case. You did not understand the video that I linked that disproved that particular argument. You see Behe claimed that the rotor did not work without all of its components. That is false since it works just fine doing other jobs. In fact we can find bacteria today without the total rotor and they get along just fine. It simply has a different function.

This is why the mousetrap argument of biologist and Ken Miller refuted Behe a long long time ago.

You said the magic words:
IT HAS A DIFFERENT FUNCTION.

Thanks.