Jump to content


Photo

Positive Evididence For Creationism


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
67 replies to this topic

#1 pwnagepanda

pwnagepanda

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Age: 16
  • Judaism non-orthodox
  • Agnostic
  • Piedmont, California

Posted 12 September 2007 - 08:55 AM

This came up in anothere forum I am posting in, and i am wondering what your answers are.

Quasar wrote: "Actually, I'll make my question even easier to answer: Demonstrate to me a single argument for Creationism OR Intelligent Design that isn't simply a hole picked in someone else's theory.

This is your chance Betta... show us that we have been wrong all along. Show us that argument. Change our opinion."

Remember, i am looking for polsitive evidence for ID or creationism, no just possible holes in evolutionary theory.

#2 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 September 2007 - 03:23 PM

Demonstrate to me a single argument for Creationism OR Intelligent Design that isn't simply a hole picked in someone else's theory.


The genetic code has no other reasonable answer. The vast majority of everything we see in nature has obvious design. What cracks me up the most is when some narrator for some type of film on nature will use the phrase "by an evolutionary stroke of genious". Even evolutionists see the design characteristics in nature, but they won't admit it.

Abiogensis is such an intractable problem that evolutionists try to claim that it has nothing to do with evolution, even though its the primary assumption that evolution is built on.

Terry

#3 Al650

Al650

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 153 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 12 September 2007 - 04:55 PM

We send yet another probe to Mars. It comes upon a machine, a device. Perhaps this device has the ability to move or take some other action in response to the probe. Men are sent to examine the device and confirm we didn't put it there. It is obviously designed. It could not have come into existence on its own. No indications are found that tell who the designer was, but it is clear, it was designed and built by an intelligence.






God bless,
Al

#4 pwnagepanda

pwnagepanda

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Age: 16
  • Judaism non-orthodox
  • Agnostic
  • Piedmont, California

Posted 12 September 2007 - 05:31 PM

[quote name='Al650' date='Sep 12 2007, 03:55 PM']
We send yet another probe to Mars. It comes upon a machine, a device. Perhaps this device has the ability to move or take some other action in response to the probe. Men are sent to examine the device and confirm we didn't put it there. It is obviously designed. It could not have come into existence on its own. No indications are found that tell who the designer was, but it is clear, it was designed and built by an intelligence.
God bless,
Al

View Post

[/quote
that seems a bit like a non sequitir...

#5 Al650

Al650

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 153 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 12 September 2007 - 08:57 PM

The genetic code has the signs of being assembled by an Intelligence, not random processes.

Non-sequiter? It is a perfect example of finding an obviously artificial construction and its attributes show that it was made by an intelligent agent. The same type of attributes that archaeologists look for all the time to determine if a rock is a triangular rock and not an arrowhead and vice versa.




God bless,
Al

#6 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 13 September 2007 - 01:17 AM

Let's keep our attitudes in check. This is a good debate, but I will close the thread if it keeps up.

#7 digitalartist

digitalartist

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • New York, NY

Posted 13 September 2007 - 11:44 AM

The genetic code has no other reasonable answer.  The vast majority of everything we see in nature has obvious design.  What cracks me up the most is when some narrator for some type of film on nature will use the phrase "by an evolutionary stroke of genious".  Even evolutionists see the design characteristics in nature, but they won't admit it.

Abiogensis is such an intractable problem that evolutionists try to claim that it has nothing to do with evolution, even though its the primary assumption that evolution is built on.

Terry

View Post


Saying there is no other reasonable answer does not mean that an answer won't be found or that Creationism is the answer. For as long as man has been able to think, we have wondered what the lights in the sky were made of, what is the earth made of, what makes this or that tick, and we came up with theories, theories for everything we could see, touch, smell, hear and taste.

Most of the original theories were that the spirits were restless or the gods were angry. Slowly, our knowledge increased and the wrong theories were replaced with scientifically proven fact. For instance we now know that the lunar eclipse isn't the result of the gods or spirits being angry but the simple fact of the Moon passing into and through the Earth's shadow. Likewise we know that some scientifically proposed theories were incorrect and have been disproven with further research and fact. One such theory of the 1800's was that a train could not go faster than 20 mph because it would create a major vacuum, sucking out all the air thus suffocating the passengers and crew.

Abiogenesis may be one of those incorrect theories that will be replaced when more information is gained or some discovery may prove it to be correct. Proving Abiogenesis wrong would not prove a creator's hand in any or all of it nor would it mean that a scientific answer doesn't exist. Lack of proof of A does not automatically prove B.

Our understanding of the universe, our world and ourselves has advanced greatly over the last 300 years. Imagine what we will discover in the next 300.

#8 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 13 September 2007 - 01:24 PM

Saying there is no other reasonable answer does not mean that an answer won't be found or that  Creationism is the answer.


Saying that doesn't mean one will.... :)

Its should be obvious to the casual observer that information is not a property of matter, and that a mental source is required to establish information and any code system that contains it.

There are only so many games in town, so if materialistic process did not and cannot create a code system, then its a logical conclusion that life did not evolve from nothing and must have been created by someone.

Its the only logical choice because of the Laws of Nature regarding information, not simply because of the lack of a materialistic solution.



For as long as man has been able to think, we have wondered what the lights in the sky were made of, what is the earth made of, what makes this or that tick, and we came up with theories, theories for everything we could see, touch, smell, hear and taste. 


Thinking should lead you to the conclusion that life was created.


Abiogenesis may be one of those incorrect theories that will be replaced when more information is gained or some discovery may prove it to be correct.  Proving Abiogenesis wrong would not prove a creator's hand in any or all of it nor would it mean that a scientific answer doesn't exist.  Lack of proof of A does not automatically prove B.


Well, if life could not come from materialistic processes, or natural processes, then what other choice are you left with besides something or someone that is supernatural?

In case your not aware of how a proof by contradiction works, you assume the opposite case is true, and when you prove its not true, then you logically prove the other one is.

Here is an example for you:

It is sometimes difficult (or impossible) to prove that a conjecture is true using direct methods. For example, to show that the square root of two is irrational, we cannot directly test and reject the infinite number of rational numbers whose square might be two. Instead, we show that the assumption that root two is rational leads to a contradiction. The steps taken for a proof by contradiction (also called indirect proof) are:

Assume the opposite of your conclusion.
For “the primes are infinite in number,” assume that the primes are a finite set of size n.
To prove the statement “if a triangle is scalene, then no two of its angles are congruent,” assume that at least two angles are congruent.
Use the assumption to derive new consequences until one is the opposite of your premise. For the two examples above, you would seek to establish:
that there exists a prime not counted in the initial set of n primes.
that the triangle cannot be scalene.
Conclude that the assumption must be false and that its opposite (your original conclusion) must be true.


Proof by conntradiction

Our understanding of the universe, our world and ourselves has advanced greatly over the last 300 years.  Imagine what we will discover in the next 300.


The more we discover about life, the more we understand how rediculous abiogensis is, and that someone created it. In 300 years people will have less reason to disbelieve than they do today. You of course will be fully aware of the truth by then, me too for that matter...:)

Terry

#9 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 13 September 2007 - 02:56 PM

Its should be obvious to the casual observer that information is not a property of matter, and that a mental source is required to establish information and any code system that contains it.

View Post


That's the problem with observing things casually. When you take a closer look at the building blocks of matter lots of information is readily available. For example, spin, momentum, and charge.

#10 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 13 September 2007 - 03:26 PM

That's the problem with observing things casually.  When you take a closer look at the building blocks of matter lots of information is readily available.  For example, spin, momentum, and charge.

View Post


You are make confusion between Attribute and Method.Attributes dont need a code.

#11 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 13 September 2007 - 04:52 PM

That's the problem with observing things casually.  When you take a closer look at the building blocks of matter lots of information is readily available.  For example, spin, momentum, and charge.

View Post


I would have thought you have been around here long enough to realize that nothing you just stated has anything to do with code systems and information, and consequently nothing to do with a debate on the origin of life.

I guess not... :(

Terry

#12 pwnagepanda

pwnagepanda

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Age: 16
  • Judaism non-orthodox
  • Agnostic
  • Piedmont, California

Posted 13 September 2007 - 05:15 PM

check this out

http://www.talkreaso...andsdembski.pdf

it refutes the "genetic information cant increase" argument

#13 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,541 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 13 September 2007 - 06:39 PM

check this out

http://www.talkreaso...andsdembski.pdf

it refutes the "genetic information cant increase" argument

View Post


Check this out:

http://www.evolution...forum_rules.htm

Forum Guideline #3:

Your post should not be simply a link or links to articles/websites, or a wholesale cut&paste of an article/web-page. Various snippets from articles are fine, provided it is in the context of the argument you are developing. This shows the reader you understand the topic you are debating and makes for more productive discussion.


Fred

#14 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 September 2007 - 02:34 AM

check this out

http://www.talkreaso...andsdembski.pdf

it refutes the "genetic information cant increase" argument

View Post


Please address the comments in this thread with whatever you think refutes it.

I seriously doubt you have any valid arguments.

Terry

#15 4jacks

4jacks

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 161 posts
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Maryland, Home of the Merry

Posted 14 September 2007 - 01:02 PM

This came up in anothere forum I am posting in, and i am wondering what your answers are.

Quasar wrote:  "Actually, I'll make my question even easier to answer: Demonstrate to me a single argument for Creationism OR Intelligent Design that isn't simply a hole picked in someone else's theory.

This is your chance Betta... show us that we have been wrong all along. Show us that argument. Change our opinion."

Remember, i am looking for polsitive evidence for ID or creationism, no just possible holes in evolutionary theory.

View Post


That's a strawman.

Sure Picking Holes in Evolution is fun for the whole family, but no doubt, creation theory and ID are mostly based on looking at what exists and comparing it to the bible for accuracy.

So this is a dead topic.

btw Kent H*vind, has a 17 hour video series on a lot of his theories of creation on his website. I'm sure you have the link.

#16 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 14 September 2007 - 01:05 PM

I would have thought you have been around here long enough to realize that nothing you just stated has anything to do with code systems and information, and consequently nothing to do with a debate on the origin of life.

I guess not... :(

Terry

View Post


As I've said before, DNA is a physical construct like a crystal or an enzyme. It is no more a code carrying medium than a punch die is.

#17 lordfaunswater

lordfaunswater

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 228 posts
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Liverpool

Posted 14 September 2007 - 02:05 PM

The genetic code has the signs of being assembled by an Intelligence, not random processes.

Non-sequiter? It is a perfect example of finding an obviously artificial construction and its attributes show that it was made by an intelligent agent. The same type of attributes that archaeologists look for all the time to determine if a rock is a triangular rock and not an arrowhead and vice versa.


Please specify which characteristics of genetics identify an intelligent origin.



ts should be obvious to the casual observer that information is not a property of matter, and that a mental source is required to establish information and any code system that contains it.


Yes but what is information? How can we judge what is information and what is not? Are DNA and RNA (and the huge variation that exists amongst them) intelligent in origin? How are sequences of DNA that dont code for anything intelligent? How can sequences coding for viral DNA be considered intelligent?
What allows us to say "humans understand the properties of creation, so everything was created". You can't generalise what humans can do and apply it to the natural world. Everything we do requires an intelligent origin by default - because humans are doing it. So does every action perfomed by a chimp.



There are only so many games in town, so if materialistic process did not and cannot create a code system, then its a logical conclusion that life did not evolve from nothing and must have been created by someone.


again, its not really. Such an assumption is based on the genetic code being an intelligent code, and its not. Even then, theres not enough evidence to catagorically state: "this is intelligent in origin".




Its the only logical choice because of the Laws of Nature regarding information, not simply because of the lack of a materialistic solution.


Could you say a bit about these laws? Who have they been discovered by? Where is the concensous about such laws?



Thinking should lead you to the conclusion that life was created.


Well will it? Does thinking alone lead us to the conclusion that god created everything? Some might say that thinking and analysis would lead us to the conclusions of mainstream science. How much of a part does the bible have in "creation worldview"?



Well, if life could not come from materialistic processes, or natural processes, then what other choice are you left with besides something or someone that is supernatural?


... a natural process we havent discovered yet?




The more we discover about life, the more we understand how rediculous abiogensis is, and that someone created it. In 300 years people will have less reason to disbelieve than they do today. You of course will be fully aware of the truth by then, me too for that matter..


Actually the more we know about life, the more plausible abiogenetic theories become. Could you state which discoveries about life make you come to such conclusions?

#18 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 508 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Philly

Posted 14 September 2007 - 03:41 PM

This came up in anothere forum I am posting in, and i am wondering what your answers are.

Quasar wrote:  "Actually, I'll make my question even easier to answer: Demonstrate to me a single argument for Creationism OR Intelligent Design that isn't simply a hole picked in someone else's theory.

This is your chance Betta... show us that we have been wrong all along. Show us that argument. Change our opinion."

Remember, i am looking for polsitive evidence for ID or creationism, no just possible holes in evolutionary theory.

View Post


Polonium halos show a rapid creation of granites...rather than a slow cooling process.
Click here if you want to learn more.

#19 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 14 September 2007 - 03:42 PM

As I've said before, DNA is a physical construct like a crystal or an enzyme.  It is no more a code carrying medium than a punch die is.

View Post


Of course it´s a physical construct , if not it would be a spiritual construct. The question is show me any natural phenomenon capable of building a DNA code.

#20 pwnagepanda

pwnagepanda

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Age: 16
  • Judaism non-orthodox
  • Agnostic
  • Piedmont, California

Posted 14 September 2007 - 03:50 PM

Of course it´s a physical construct , if not it would be a spiritual construct. The question is show me any natural phenomenon capable of building a DNA code.

View Post

like evolution?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users