A Challenge to Creationists (worth >11,000,000 gold!)

[Necretian]

Shokushu

balgeron

It is surprising that this thread has gone on for 100 pages. Considering that the requirement to be successful is that you prove that the unprovable is true. And I don' plan on being the first correct person with what I am about to say, though it would be both funny and ironic.

Simply, the solution to the whole debate is this. If there is no God, or whatever higher power you want to believe or not believe in, then all the science of evolution, natural selection, the big bang, etc is proved true and we know that so yay, creationists lose. But, on the other hand, if there is an all powerful being out there somewhere that sculpted every aspect of the known and unknown universe, then guess what? All that same stuff is still proved to be true.

I find it increasingly incredible that people can't come to terms with the fact that yes, it is entirely possible that whether it be a single celled organism subsequently multiplied and eventually evolved into what is now known as human life could have done it purely on it's own, or how it is equally possible that some all powerful being put it there with the ability to do so. Science still proves that it evolved in that manner, but that in no way means that a higher being had nothing to do with it.

Look at the long red post a page back and you'll see that there's a pretty significnt history of people who think otherwise.

Necretian

gobbledegook

No, evolution has limits too. ID says that certain systems exceed those limits while things like biochemistry show that they don't.

Organisms adapt to their environment. If their environment changes one way the organisms will start to change but if the environment changes back why wouldn't the organisms? Are you trying to argue that environments can't ever change permanently?


Your argument seems to be that we can see trees grow little twigs but we can't see them grow a new trunk so someone must have put the trunk there.[/idea stolen from Dawkins]

Nah, I don't even support what I posted... I just want to see what people have to say. It's a way to learn without actually having to work at it. (Which, apparently very few people can give me opinions without making fun of me or my intelligence.)

Everyone just loves to voice their opinion... So I might as well post something that makes evolution look bad to get a reasonable response.

[Penamian]

How about providing a "possible" scientific theory that the universe was created by intelligent beings, one that is logical in the least.

[Lord Setar]

Penamian

How about providing a "possible" scientific theory that the universe was created by intelligent beings, one that is logical in the least.

Except that it wouldn't be a theory, it would be a hypothesis, as it wouldn't have evidence and testing behind it. Further, unless it's testable and falsifiable, it wouldn't even be science.

We didn't just slap the name "theory" on gravity. It actually required, you know, testing.

[Penamian]

Lord Setar

Penamian

How about providing a "possible" scientific theory that the universe was created by intelligent beings, one that is logical in the least.

Except that it wouldn't be a theory, it would be a hypothesis, as it wouldn't have evidence and testing behind it. Further, unless it's testable and falsifiable, it wouldn't even be science.

We didn't just slap the name "theory" on gravity. It actually required, you know, testing.

Its testable, just not this day and age. Maybe a long time ago in a galaxy far far away it might have, but not here in the milky way galaxy of the year 2008 AD.

What I am talking about is universe post mortum. What exactly happens when all of the stars die?

[Redem]

Necretian

The difference is that Darwinists claim that there is no limit to what this variation can produce

No limits beyond what is possible, no. i.e. it can only make anything that DNA can code for.

Necretian

, whereas ID proposes (from solid experimental evidence, in our view) that there are in fact limits.

Those limits are essentially based of a purely subjective "that looks really impossible to me" judgement, and nothing more.
See the flagellum.

Necretian

In addition, the grand claims for both (i.e., the appearance of novel, complex biochemical systems leading to “new” types of animals) have never been directly observed.

Novel features have been observed, case in point nylonase. An mutant enzyme that allows some species of bacteria to digest waste products from the nylon industry. Not very efficiently, but it's an uncontested food source, so it doesn't have to be. Other examples include new features in the digestive tracts of some lizards, and so on.
These are examples of the directly observed in the life scale of individuals.
Then there are the historical records of how we domesticated livestock and crops, and the massive changes we generated in those, from wolves to dogs for example.
And then there is the fossil record details still larger changes over longer periods of time.

And the various other direct methods for observing common descent of course, like genetics. ERVs are pretty concrete.

Necretian

For ID theorists this is because individual “designing events” are singularities—unique, onetime
occurrences that took place in the far distant past (as with the Big Bang theory).

That's one busy designer, it seems. Continually having to make changes.

Necretian

Darwinism’s claim that new species arose from very gradual changes from older species is not observable either because the process is so slow that no one can live
long enough to see it happen or because we have yet to fully understand the biochemistry which actually is the source of change. Accordingly, both theories rely upon indirect evidence.

It depends how narrowly you define species. You can see significant changes over short periods of time. usually IDists use the broadest possible definition of species in order to avoid having to acknowledge this. Continually altering the definition as necessary.

Necretian

ID theorists point to the presence of information in biological systems as indirect evidence of the activity of a past designing intelligence.

A use of the word "information" they leave undefined, and nebulous. It has no biological meaning.

Necretian

For Darwinists, the example of “Darwin’s finches” in the Galapagos Islands is highly touted. In this story, the average size of finch beaks was observed to increase in dry seasons.
This was heralded as compelling proof that if environmental conditions were right, a new species of finches would appear “in about two hundred years.” This conclusion becomes somewhat less compelling when the reader is told the whole story, not just the half that fits with evolutionary theory. In fact, the average beak sizes reverted back towards “normal” in subsequent rainy seasons. This oscillation in average beak sizes of the population is not a process by which new animals are produced (or even new beaks, for that matter); it is a process that allows the
species to thrive with changing environmental stresses. In the dry times, those finches with shorter, stouter beaks (that can crack the harder, dryer seeds) keep the species alive. In wet times, plentiful soft seeds allow a greater variety of minor variations to survive. Built into the finch genome is the ability to vary in response to environmental pressures, but again, only within limits.

You have the story wayyyy wayyy wrong.
The point was that individual species of finches evolved beak shapes to specialise in specific sources of food.
The story you are referencing here is a more recent study of how the beak sizes evolve in response to environmental changes. As the environment oscillates between states the creatures evolve to catch up with it. What is seen is entirely expected, and is an example of natural selection.

Necretian

This tendency of the Darwinist to uncritically accept tiny observed changes (microevolution, which is well accepted) and to then extrapolate (wildly, in our view) to “macro”- evolutionary conclusions is problematic. It is like concluding that humans reached the New World by leaping across the Atlantic Ocean based on the very precise, reproducible, and highly quantitative scientific observation that a man can jump over a three-foot creek. It is stories like that of the Galapagos finches that illustrate why schools should teach more about evolution, not less. All of the evidence is far less compelling than filtered bits and pieces.

Terrible analogy, and exposes the complete lack of understanding of the theory of evolution by IDists.
It is entirely logical to extrapolate that because someone can jump 3 feet in one bound ,that they could jump 30 feet in 10. Or 300 feet in 100.

Necretian

Of course... There is also the argument that DNA carries semantic information, which cannot be transferred, moved, or anything for that matter.

It is a false argument, as we know that DNA is entirely mutable.

[Lord Setar]

Necretian

There is no disagreement that small, adaptive changes can occur within species
in response to environmental forces. The difference is that Darwinists claim
that there is no limit to what this variation can produce, whereas ID proposes (from
solid experimental evidence, in our view) that there are in fact limits. In addition, the
grand claims for both (i.e., the appearance of novel, complex biochemical systems
leading to “new” types of animals) have never been directly observed. For ID theorists
this is because individual “designing events” are singularities—unique, onetime
occurrences that took place in the far distant past (as with the Big Bang theory).
Darwinism’s claim that new species arose from very gradual changes from older
species is not observable either because the process is so slow that no one can live
long enough to see it happen or because we have yet to fully understand the biochemistry
which actually is the source of change. Accordingly, both theories rely
upon indirect evidence.

All observation requires interpretation, you know.

Necretian

ID theorists point to the presence of information in biological systems as
indirect evidence of the activity of a past designing intelligence. For Darwinists,
the example of “Darwin’s finches” in the Galapagos Islands is highly touted. In
this story, the average size of finch beaks was observed to increase in dry seasons.
This was heralded as compelling proof that if environmental conditions were
right, a new species of finches would appear “in about two hundred years.” This
conclusion becomes somewhat less compelling when the reader is told the whole
story, not just the half that fits with evolutionary theory. In fact, the average beak
sizes reverted back towards “normal” in subsequent rainy seasons.

Proof of this, please?

Necretian

This oscillation
in average beak sizes of the population is not a process by which new animals
are produced (or even new beaks, for that matter); it is a process that allows the
species to thrive with changing environmental stresses. In the dry times, those
finches with shorter, stouter beaks (that can crack the harder, dryer seeds) keep
the species alive. In wet times, plentiful soft seeds allow a greater variety of
minor variations to survive. Built into the finch genome is the ability to vary in
response to environmental pressures, but again, only within limits. This tendency
of the Darwinist to uncritically accept tiny observed changes (microevolution,
which is well accepted) and to then extrapolate (wildly, in our view) to “macro”-
evolutionary conclusions is problematic It is like concluding that humans reached
the New World by leaping across the Atlantic Ocean based on the very precise,
reproducible, and highly quantitative scientific observation that a man can jump
over a three-foot creek. It is stories like that of the Galapagos finches that illustrate
why schools should teach more about evolution, not less. All of the evidence
is far less compelling than filtered bits and pieces.

Again? Also, speciation HAS been observed.

Necretian

Of course... There is also the argument that DNA carries semantic information, which cannot be transferred, moved, or anything for that matter.

Explain cancer, then.

[Lord Setar]

Penamian

Lord Setar

Penamian

How about providing a "possible" scientific theory that the universe was created by intelligent beings, one that is logical in the least.

Except that it wouldn't be a theory, it would be a hypothesis, as it wouldn't have evidence and testing behind it. Further, unless it's testable and falsifiable, it wouldn't even be science.

We didn't just slap the name "theory" on gravity. It actually required, you know, testing.

Its testable, just not this day and age. Maybe a long time ago in a galaxy far far away it might have, but not here in the milky way galaxy of the year 2008 AD.

So you're disqualifying your own theory? Sorry, but "it might have been testable but it isn't now" means it's not testable. If it can't be tested, we cannot make observations about it. If we cannot make observations about it, we can't interpret those observations and thus we can't come to a conclusion of what you would be proposing. This also means that there would be no evidence for it, not only disqualifying your "theory" as a scientific theory, but disqualifying it as science.

Penamian

What I am talking about is universe post mortum. What exactly happens when all of the stars die?

Answer: There are many hypotheses, but we can't really know. According to general relativity, we cannot determine the exact events before the Planck era, and owing to the conditions at the instant of the Big Bang, we can't determine anything that happened before the Big Bang. Thus, we cannot determine what the ultimate fate of the universe is.

If you're talking simply stars dying, you might be one to subscribe to heat death. Though, there's others, as I've said.

[geodesic42]

Hyper Silence

Scientific critique

As creationism is based on religious faith rather than evidence acquired through experiment and observation, it cannot be evaluated by science, which does not attempt to address issues of supernatural intervention in natural phenomena.[citation needed] The scientific consensus rejects any attempt to teach creationism as science.

The thing that always gets me is the assumption the universe can support the interactions of something supernatural with the natural world in a way that's consistent with what we already know to be true. Please read this thread for details

[geodesic42]

It also bugs me that I keep seeing "testable and falsifiable" pop up so much. Yes, it has to be testable and falsifiable for a theory to qualify as scientific, but it's not normally difficult to uncover an observable prediction of a theory if it makes any demand about how reality behaves. It'd be nice to see some better counter arguments to some creationist propositions here, because I frankly seeing the statement appear over and over is tantamount to making science sound weak and very restricted to me. Even if the alternative counter arguments aren't based on empirical import, I think insisting that natural and logical consistency be observed at least opens up some possibilities.

[Shokushu]

Necretian

Shokushu

balgeron

It is surprising that this thread has gone on for 100 pages. Considering that the requirement to be successful is that you prove that the unprovable is true. And I don' plan on being the first correct person with what I am about to say, though it would be both funny and ironic.

Simply, the solution to the whole debate is this. If there is no God, or whatever higher power you want to believe or not believe in, then all the science of evolution, natural selection, the big bang, etc is proved true and we know that so yay, creationists lose. But, on the other hand, if there is an all powerful being out there somewhere that sculpted every aspect of the known and unknown universe, then guess what? All that same stuff is still proved to be true.

I find it increasingly incredible that people can't come to terms with the fact that yes, it is entirely possible that whether it be a single celled organism subsequently multiplied and eventually evolved into what is now known as human life could have done it purely on it's own, or how it is equally possible that some all powerful being put it there with the ability to do so. Science still proves that it evolved in that manner, but that in no way means that a higher being had nothing to do with it.

Look at the long red post a page back and you'll see that there's a pretty significnt history of people who think otherwise.

Necretian

gobbledegook

No, evolution has limits too. ID says that certain systems exceed those limits while things like biochemistry show that they don't.

Organisms adapt to their environment. If their environment changes one way the organisms will start to change but if the environment changes back why wouldn't the organisms? Are you trying to argue that environments can't ever change permanently?


Your argument seems to be that we can see trees grow little twigs but we can't see them grow a new trunk so someone must have put the trunk there.[/idea stolen from Dawkins]

Nah, I don't even support what I posted... I just want to see what people have to say. It's a way to learn without actually having to work at it. (Which, apparently very few people can give me opinions without making fun of me or my intelligence.)

Everyone just loves to voice their opinion... So I might as well post something that makes evolution look bad to get a reasonable response.

If you're going to copy someone else's (bad) arguments why shouldn't I treat you like you think those ideas re your own?

[VoijaRisa]

geodesic42

It'd be nice to see some better counter arguments to some creationist propositions here

Have you not seem all the other threads I've made that explicitly do tackle creationist positions head on? At least two of them are linked in the first post.

They tend to have too much science and real thought for your average creationist. Thus, I'm trying a different approach.

[the_answer_is_spring]

darwin did it for creationists already.

charles darwin founded the theory of evolution to back up the theory of creation originally. it was at first widely accepted by the church and encouraged it. over time the theory got confused by other scientists and skewed from its original purpose. at this time the bible was also considered to be metaphoric, hence the timespans and universal creation being ok with the theory of evolution. they were theories meant to support eachother, not disprove eachother.

they shouldn't be at eachothers throats. accept that they are the same theory one less metaphoric than the other.

[Yubu]

Guys, this would get so many more attempts at the 11 Million if this was posted in M&R

[A Lost Iguana]

Yubu

Guys, this would get so many more attempts at the 11 Million if this was posted in M&R

No it would not. I hope the M&R regulars who have not spotted this yet would understand the conditions. This is asking for science, not theology or philosophy.

[Shokushu]

the_answer_is_spring

darwin did it for creationists already.

charles darwin founded the theory of evolution to back up the theory of creation originally. it was at first widely accepted by the church and encouraged it. over time the theory got confused by other scientists and skewed from its original purpose. at this time the bible was also considered to be metaphoric, hence the timespans and universal creation being ok with the theory of evolution. they were theories meant to support eachother, not disprove eachother.

they shouldn't be at eachothers throats. accept that they are the same theory one less metaphoric than the other.

This seems rather unlike the history I am familiar with.