Jump to content


Photo

Give Creation A Chance


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

#21 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 02 August 2009 - 10:29 AM

Eighteen posts in and no-one has come up with any theories of creation. science yet. In fact, it looks like this thread is just being turned into the usual attack on evolution. Pity.

View Post

I predict that creation would demonstrate that there is stuff that can't account for its own existence and that any quantity and any physical entity, that is examined closely or at a distance, will always have missing attribute that demands its own cause from another source.

There is no physical entity that can attribute its own being to itself. Therefore it must have been created.

Show me any material thing that holds the key to its own being, therefore it explains in itself why it exists and you can disprove creation.

#22 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 02 August 2009 - 01:08 PM

Parts of gravity that we don't know about are the THEORY, but gravity itself is a fact that I can demonstrate in my own house, at this very moment.  Verified, end of discussion.

Evolution on the other hand, cannot be tested at this very moment or verified as a fact, so you do stand corrected.  I haven't seen any proofs for evolution actually, on any board, or any fossil site I've been to, ever.

View Post



OK I was already corrected once...but I'll play!

So do you refute the existence of micro-evolution? Something that can be and has been tested many times? Or what happens when one group of a species changes enough so that it cannot mate with the species it orgionally came from. As far as I know that is one way scientists tell the difference between 2 species..."Can it mate with that one? Nope...Okay different species."

such as this wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia...._moth_evolution

#23 Guest_Franklin_*

Guest_Franklin_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 August 2009 - 01:50 PM

No Franklin,  Creationist collect, test and analyze data for a Creationist point a view.  An Evolutionist on the other hand collects, tests and analyzes for their belief in evolution.  

View Post


Was this how it all started?
Did Darwin, brought up to be a Creationist, as were all Christians in 19th century Europe, think "I know! It's all down to something I'll call 'evolution' and I'll make everything I find fit what I define 'evolution' to be."

Or did Darwin collect a mass of data, discover that the account in Genesis didn't explain it, and begin to look for a naturalistic mechanism which did?

Why would the scientific community, Christians and non-Christians alike, have a "belief" in evolution?
Scientists are only interested in stuff that works; that can be tested and which they can use to make accurate predictions.
They are apparently satisfied that evolution can be tested, and they are apparently satisfied that the theory as to how it works enables them to make accurate predictions.

If someone switches on an electric light, is that because she "believes in electricity"? Or is it because she knows what electricity does?

The scientific method may be described as the collecting, analysing and testing of data, and then searching for the best ways of accounting for it.

What is the "Creationist scientific method?"

"...a truth, will always be a truth, no matter what new truths we find. Evolution itself has not been proven as a fact, or truth therefore it's still a theory, or hypothesis." (Scott)

Actually defining a "truth" isn't that easy - what's true for Jane may not be true for John. For Jane, it is a truth that the sun rises every morning. For John, who's blind, the sun only exists to the extent that he can feel it's warmth. He has no idea about its rising or setting.
Peter has a mental disorder and for him it is a truth that the Government is tracking his every move and monitoring his every conversation, and even making him ill from time to time. Try persuading him it isn't true, and see how far you get.

As for evolution, the scientific community, consisting of Christians and non-Christians, is satisfied it exists. The Theory of Evolution which accounts for it is not a hypothesis, just as Einstein's Theory of Relativity is not a hypothesis.
It provides a working model which will only be discarded when something better comes along.
So...big moment for the Creationist Scientists.
Except there's a snag there because accounting for all the data according to the Creationist model requires miracles and interventions by a supernatural entity, neither of which can be explained or understood.

If I'm wrong, please put me right.

#24 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 02 August 2009 - 07:05 PM

OK I was already corrected once...but I'll play!

So do you refute the existence of micro-evolution?  Something that can be and has been tested many times?  Or what happens when one group of a species changes enough so that it cannot mate with the species it orgionally came from.  As far as I know that is one way scientists tell the difference between 2 species..."Can it mate with that one? Nope...Okay different species."

such as this wikipedia article  http://en.wikipedia...._moth_evolution

View Post


Most evolutionist would say that the production of different breeds through cross breeding is micro evolution. Well, the way I see it, is that it cannot be properly called micro evolution, when existing information is being used to create an organism with no new information. Just a mix of existing information, but I do agree with the extremely demonstratable breeding process.

Now the peppered moth fails at an example of evolution because the dark colored moths existed before the pollution even took place, it just made the dark colored moths better protected from predators, while the lighter colored moths who also already existed at the time, become fodder for predators. I do agree that more and more dark colored moths would show up simply because of Natural Selection. Now just because natural selection exist, does not mean that evolution will take place.

#25 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 02 August 2009 - 07:19 PM

Yes Franklin, you'd be correct when you say that Darwin collected evidence to FIT his little pet theory that he created. Yes, he actually did do that.

Now, there is no theory of Creation. It was a historical account, not a theory. We don't call the Civil War, the Theory of the Civil War. A truth is truth, no matter who or what's opinion on the truth is. Someone's lack of understanding, or inability to understand truth does not change truth. Which is something you seem not to understand.

You think that Creationist are simple minded folk like oh, we just believe that electricity exist, or that cars exist, or that our grandmothers exist... no reason they just exist because God made them. Now you'd have to be EXTREMELY naive to NOT think or search about anything.

You see, Creationist, are creationist because of a historical account, not a theory. The Scientific method is used by Creationist, to figure out all the same things as everyone else in the universe does. We all do it through the same process.

No, it is certain people who believe in Evolution, and certain scientist who believe in Evolution, that are satisfied, with the unproven, untested theory/ hypothesis of evolution.

#26 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 02 August 2009 - 08:30 PM

Eighteen posts in and no-one has come up with any theories of creation. science yet. In fact, it looks like this thread is just being turned into the usual attack on evolution. Pity.

View Post


Hi falcone,

You know the predictions that creation makes and they are all testable in the present.

1)Life only comes from life.

2)Life only inherents traits from it's ancestors.If this has been true through out the past,then stasis should be the "rule" in the fossil record.

I don't see how you think that those clear,unchanging,and undeniable predictions are an attack on evolution.The funny part is watching evolutionists try to change their theory to either fit those predictions or deny the ones they can't explain.



Enjoy.

#27 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 02 August 2009 - 08:54 PM

OK I was already corrected once...but I'll play!

So do you refute the existence of micro-evolution?  Something that can be and has been tested many times?  Or what happens when one group of a species changes enough so that it cannot mate with the species it orgionally came from.  As far as I know that is one way scientists tell the difference between 2 species..."Can it mate with that one? Nope...Okay different species."

such as this wikipedia article  http://en.wikipedia...._moth_evolution

View Post


Does this explain the creation of new genetic information and new traits?A mutation in the DNA/RNA that has reached fixation in an isolated population (making it interfertile with it's parent population) does not explain the origin of the population.In fact,it's powerful evidence that mutations will produce degradation of the information in the genome.

Darwinism and the Deterioration of the Genome

The evolutionists peppered moth,is not only not an example of evolution,but the predictions of natural selection actually failed.In highly poluted areas there is actually a much higher ratio of light colored moths than dark colored.

Second Thoughts About Peppered Moths



Enjoy.

#28 Guest_Franklin_*

Guest_Franklin_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 August 2009 - 02:13 AM

Yes Franklin, you'd be correct when you say that Darwin collected evidence to FIT his little pet theory that he created.

View Post


I didn't say that's what he did; I asked if that's what Scott thinks that what he did.
He does.
But that's because he has not read Origin of Species in which Darwin presents a mass of data arising from his extensive observations, and then puts forward a mechanisim which, he suggests, accounts for it. And let's not forget he delayed writing his book and suggesting that mechanism (because it was so revolutionary and potentially controversial) until he received a paper from that other great collector, Alfred Russell Wallace, in which Wallace proposed a similar mechanism which he was proposing to publish. Darwin, pushed into a corner, was forced to publish his own work.
Or is what he and Wallace did illegal; is it inappropriate to investigate the world around us and attempt to find natural explanations for what we observe? Was it inappropriate to investigate why plagues and diseases occur, when accordinbg to Christian belief - based on the Bible - plagues and diseases are punishments inflicted by God?



Now, there is no theory of Creation.  It was a historical account, not a theory.

View Post


Historical accounts aren't worth the paper they're written on - or the breath expensed in expressing them - unress they are supported by corroborating evidence.
Where is the corroborating evidence that supports the historial account given in Genesis?

That is the crux of the matter.



The Scientific method is used by Creationist, to figure out all the same things as everyone else in the universe does.  We all do it through the same process..

View Post

And what have Creationists's figured out that they didn't already know because it's in Genesis?

(Since evolution is a very gradual process, unless accelorated by natural disasters which wipe out certain dominant species, making room for new ones to take their place, a Young Earth Creationist, believing the cosomos is no more than 6,000 years old, couldn't possibly believe it occurs)

#29 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 03 August 2009 - 06:16 AM

But that's because he has not read Origin of Species in which Darwin presents a mass of data arising from his extensive observations...

View Post

What observations haven't we discussed?

Franklin, would you be willing to comment on the rhetoric of Darwin? It seems this thread has remained ignored and silent.

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=2335

#30 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 03 August 2009 - 08:53 AM

(Since evolution is a very gradual process...)

View Post

Please utilize this following thread to show us this gradual process. Since it has been confirmed so many times, show us the evidence:

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=2474

I don't know how we can be any more benevolent, then that thread, to demonstrate all this evolution that has occurred. :huh:

#31 Guest_Franklin_*

Guest_Franklin_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 August 2009 - 09:02 AM

What observations haven't we discussed?

Franklin, would you be willing to comment on the rhetoric of Darwin? It seems this thread has remained ignored and silent.

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=2335

View Post

That is a very long video and I may come back to it. But without seeing it I cannot comment.

But perhaps I can consider Darwin's observations we haven't discussed?

Where shall I begin?
Variation under domestication (Ch 1)?
Variation under Nature (Ch2)?
S@xual selection (Ch 3)?
His difficulties with the theory of descent with modification (Ch 6)
Instinct? (Ch 7)?
Hybridism? (Ch 8)?
The imperfection of the Geological record (Ch 9)?
The geographical distribution of organic beings (Ch 10)?
Or the mutual affinities of organic Beings (Ch 13)?

In the meantime, I have a question:
Basing their observations as they relate to information provided by Genesis,
what can Creationist scientists tell us about:
night and day;
the seasons;
the phases of the moon;
where rain comes from;
the movement of the planets;
why the stars revolve around the sky;
the circulation of the blood;
why plants need sunlight;
why humans need oxygen;
what the causes are of influenza, the common cold, typhoid, cholera, malaria, holes in the heart;
why there are more differences to be found in a gene which humans share with rats than there are in the same gene which humans share with chimpanzees;
mitochondrial DNA;
Why the more-than 200 species of cichlid fish in Lake Tanganyika are found nowhere else on the planet, and how did they get there.?

I predict that Creation scientists cannot, in fact, help us with any of these issues without abandoning their reliance on the Bible and resorting to the standard scientific method as employed by Darwin and his successors.

(NB - 'fraid I can't do anything about "S@xual")

#32 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 03 August 2009 - 09:22 AM

I predict that Creation scientists  cannot, in fact, help us with any of these issues without abandoning their reliance on the Bible and resorting to the standard scientific method.

View Post

Why is a creation scientist not allowed to use the standard scientific method, along with standard logic and a Biblical philosophy to anchor it?

You are trying to paint discrepancies where none reasonably exist. From previous posts I can tell that you intend on using pedantic means to justify your perspective and insist that we blame scripture for historical misunderstandings rather than letting scripture speak for itself.

I assure you that ordinary reason is quite useful along with the Bible mandates that we explore and seek understanding of both His world and His Word.

The Bible gives us the big picture so that we understand the conditions and state of the particulars as we do science.

This was the major feud between Platonic thinking and Aristotelian thinking:

Posted Image

Plato argued that the universals must be sought so the particulars could be understood. Aristotle thought the particulars could reveal the universals. While I believe that Plato was right, he didn't know where the universals were.

#33 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 03 August 2009 - 09:51 AM

Where shall I begin?
Variation under domestication (Ch 1)?
Variation under Nature (Ch2)?
S@xual selection (Ch 3)?
His difficulties with the theory of descent with modification (Ch 6)
Instinct? (Ch 7)?
Hybridism? (Ch 8)?
The imperfection of the Geological record (Ch 9)?
The geographical distribution of organic beings (Ch 10)?
Or the  mutual affinities of organic Beings (Ch 13)?

View Post

If doing a search on the forum is too difficult or time consuming, please consider starting a thread arguing for any of the specific principles that you believe Darwin has demonstrated that we avoid analyzing here at EFT.

Your assertion that we haven't discussed any of Darwin's ideas is repugnant and hasty.

Do you think lambasting people with your long laundry lists of assertions is intellectually appealing? Maybe consider exploring what we actually believe here rather than assuming that you already know so you can assert your straw-men that are meaningless.

Are you surprised that nobody participated in this thread:

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=2530

#34 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 03 August 2009 - 10:59 AM

If doing a search on the forum is too difficult or time consuming, please consider starting a thread arguing for any of the specific principles that you believe Darwin has demonstrated that we avoid analyzing here at EFT.

Your assertion that we haven't discussed any of Darwin's ideas is repugnant and hasty.

Do you think lambasting people with your long laundry lists of assertions is intellectually appealing? Maybe consider exploring what we actually believe here rather than assuming that you already know so you can assert your straw-men that are meaningless.

Are you surprised that nobody participated in this thread:

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=2530

View Post



Adam,

just a quick question, I'm personally new to these formal debate terms/tactics/uses, but you used the term straw-men here... is there an example of a straw-man argument in those posts that you think best demonstrates a straw-man fallacy?

I'm not trying to call you out on this, but I would like to know for my own curiosity. I've been wondering why no one has been participating in that thread.

Thanks!

#35 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 03 August 2009 - 01:04 PM

I'm not trying to call you out on this, but I would like to know for my own curiosity.  I've been wondering why no one has been participating in that thread.

View Post

Franklin is trying to assert that we aren't familiar with Darwin's work or that because someone hasn't memorized 'Origin of Species' they aren't qualified to discuss evolution. Then he goes on to assert that we haven't discussed any of Darwin's ideas by claiming that we haven't discussed even one general concept of his book by outlining every chapter as unaddressed. :huh:

Do you think Franklin's assessment is accurate or a straw man?

#36 Guest_Franklin_*

Guest_Franklin_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 August 2009 - 01:14 PM

Why is a creation scientist not allowed to use the standard scientific method, along with standard logic and a Biblical philosophy to anchor it? 

View Post


What is a "Creation Scientist"?
(Rhetorical question; I ask it because I'm not clear how Adam's definition differs from mine.
i.e. that a Creation Scientist is obliged, because of being a Creationist, to provide an explanation for the natural environment which accords with the Creation story as recounted in Genesis. In other words [if he be a Young Earth Creatiionist] that it all happened around 6,000 years ago, in six days, and that God made every creature that's ever lived appear all at once.
Scientists of the non-Creationist sort are obliged - because it's the only way they can operate - to look for naturalistic explanations for the natural environment.
Is that a fair summary?)

If doing a search on the forum is too difficult or time consuming, please consider starting a thread arguing for any of the specific principles that you believe Darwin has demonstrated that we avoid analyzing here at EFT.

View Post


To be clear, is that an invitation to start a thread in which members of this forum discuss Origin of Species chapter by chapter (and if necessary, line by line)
because if it is, I'm certainly up for it?

#37 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 03 August 2009 - 01:47 PM

To be clear, is that an invitation to start a thread in which members of this forum discuss Origin of Species chapter by chapter (and if necessary, line by line)
because if it is, I'm certainly up for it?

View Post

To be clear, it's an invitation to engage in a dialogue with other human beings where there is a debate that allows ideas to be discussed.

Why don't you start a thread with any one of the chapters of Origin of Species and briefly explain what is so important about it. Put into your own words what is so profound about it. Then we can talk but I have to warn you, if you continue to make assertions without giving people the opportunity to explain what they understand or believe while you accuse them of not understanding evolution simply because they disagree with it will end your tenure here quickly.

#38 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 03 August 2009 - 03:42 PM

Was this how it all started?
Did Darwin, brought up to be a Creationist, as were all Christians in 19th century Europe, think "I know! It's all down to something I'll call 'evolution' and I'll make everything I find fit what I define 'evolution' to be."

View Post

Are you talking about the grandson of Erasmus Darwin? Erasmus Darwin who wrote his own evolution story and big bang poem?

Evolutionists should listen to that little voice that tells them never to discuss history.

#39 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 03 August 2009 - 03:50 PM

Where is the corroborating evidence that supports the historial account given in Genesis?

View Post

Everywhere - absolutely everywhere. A more sensible question would be "Where isn't there such evidence?"

#40 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 03 August 2009 - 08:20 PM

Franklin is trying to assert that we aren't familiar with Darwin's work or that because someone hasn't memorized 'Origin of Species' they aren't qualified to discuss evolution. Then he goes on to assert that we haven't discussed any of Darwin's ideas by claiming that we haven't discussed even one general concept of his book by outlining every chapter as unaddressed. :huh:

Do you think Franklin's assessment is accurate or a straw man?

View Post



Adam! No you misunderstood me!!! lol

I was refering to the thread of his that no one else is participating in.

Although after reading the definition of Straw men on wiki(yes wiki but I promise to double check the definition elsewhere if this is incorrect) is that it is a weakened for of someone else's argument. And that if it is too far off from the original argument then it is a flawed refutation of the original argument.

But if you can use 2??? different straw-men to refute, then the original point is considered to be refuted. Specifically as long as the straw-men are not too far off of the original argument...

Like I said I'm not 100% sure on how logical fallacies are used correctly/incorrectly???

So going by that definition I would say that he is not building a straw-man, but he is probably just wrong on his assessment of some of the creationists on this site.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users