Our Creationism Is Only Ever As Good As Your Evolutionism!

newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Our Creationism Is Only Ever As Good As Your Evolutionism!

Creationists should really be applauding evolutionists. The strength of our position depends upon the thoroughness with which you attempt to show proof of yours. A sloppy evolutionist means a weak creationist.

Take code-breaking for example, a code-breaker can only be sure that any information he gleans from an intercepted message is real and not imagined, if randomness can be ruled out as an explanation of the product of any decryption. In other words, if the result of his efforts were actually allowed by probability, then he would have a very weak case. If the product of decryption were the defence in a court of law, and the calculation of probability were the prosecution. Then the strength of the defence is the thoroughness of the prosecution.

Similarly it is with creation and evolution except of course that it is nature and randomness acting together that has to be ruled out as opposed to just randomness on its own. Only if evolution is sufficiently ruled out will creation have any case at all (I am using creation in a general sense here and do not mean to imply genesis). The more rigorously evolutionists try to show that the forms of life we see around us (including ourselves) can be attributed to their model, the more creationism can be certain of its validity (I say this as one of them of course, evolutionists would disagree).

So the two models of the origin of species are actually partners so to speak. At least this is true (or should be true) from a creationist perspective. Evolutionism depends upon the skepticism of belief in the supernatural, ironically it would seem, so does creationism.


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
How Does One Test For

How Does One Test For Creationism?


newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
One doesn't test for

One doesn't test for creationism, that's the point.  Creationism is only successful upon the faliure of evolutionism.


Rev0lver
Posts: 171
Joined: 2007-02-24
User is offlineOffline
and there has not yet been a

and there has not yet been a failure of evolutionism, so whats your point?


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
newmodeltheist wrote: One

newmodeltheist wrote:
One doesn't test for creationism, that's the point. Creationism is only successful upon the faliure of evolutionism.

That sounds silly, if not A therefore B.

You know there is more than Evolution and creationism. I think it's rude to just say "They were wrong, so you're wrong to." 

At least you admit creationism isn't scientific.

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


Rev0lver
Posts: 171
Joined: 2007-02-24
User is offlineOffline
well in this case it is b

well in this case it is b if not a

 if this world was not created by natural means, then it would be created by unnatural means, which is creationism.


newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
My point is that I as a

My point is that I as a creationist can only be certain of my position when the only other alternative is ruled out.  The more comprehensive the attempt to proove evolution, the more comprehensive the case for creation.

Creationism is not scientific at all.  But it is true.


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
newmodeltheist

newmodeltheist wrote:
Creationism is not scientific at all. But it is true.

 

 If it were true then it would be scientific, right?

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


Noor
Posts: 250
Joined: 2006-11-18
User is offlineOffline
I've always wanted a

I've always wanted a creationist response to this.


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
noor wrote:

noor wrote:
I've always wanted a creationist response to this.

 

I doubt a creationist will respond.


Connor
Connor's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2006-12-01
User is offlineOffline
newmodeltheist wrote:My

newmodeltheist wrote:

My point is that I as a creationist can only be certain of my position when the only other alternative is ruled out.  The more comprehensive the attempt to proove evolution, the more comprehensive the case for creation.

Creationism is not scientific at all.  But it is true.

So...by that logic I could say that the more comprehensive we get in proving the theory of gravity, the more comprehensive the case for my computer randomly floating off into space...?

What makes you so sure evolution will be eventually ruled out?


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
So I take it my law of

So I take it my law of intelegent snowflake creation has a chance of being real?


Noor
Posts: 250
Joined: 2006-11-18
User is offlineOffline
American Atheist

American Atheist wrote:

noor wrote:
I've always wanted a creationist response to this.

 

I doubt a creationist will respond.

Me too. 


newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Gosh!! what a lot of

Gosh!! what a lot of anomolies.  I can't respond to all of them (haven't even got time to read all of them).  From the first few on the list though I would explain these with reference to a common ancestor that did in fact need the functions discribed.   You weren't expecting that were you?

"So...by that logic I could say that the more comprehensive we get in proving the theory of gravity, the more comprehensive the case for my computer randomly floating off into space...?"

This is a good response.  Gravity of course is a phenomenon that is happening now.  It can be described and demonstrated.  Evolution is more akin to trying to find out about what caused something.  In this way it is more akin to history than science.  There are of course only two possible explanations for the genetic code.

There is a line of enquiry that must be exhausted before science. All science is true.  But not all truth is science. 


newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Hang on...I wrote common

Hang on...I wrote common ancestor...I just meant ancestor!!!   In other words The descendant evolved into something different from its ancestor.


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
newmodeltheist wrote: My

newmodeltheist wrote:

My point is that I as a creationist can only be certain of my position when the only other alternative is ruled out.  The more comprehensive the attempt to proove evolution, the more comprehensive the case for creation.

Creationism is not scientific at all.  But it is true.


See Creation and evolution are the only two models of origins and Problems with evolution are evidence for creationism

"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought


newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Thanks qbg. I would still

Thanks qbg.

I would still maintain there are just two possible explanations for the genetic code.  Nature (represented by various schools of evolutionary thought).  And Culture (religious creation myths would be symbolic representations, but philosophically represented by the ID theorists who advocate the design inference).

 Pure chance is of course not an option and theistic evolution is a very unsatisfactory god-of-the-gaps fudge.  As of yet unknown explanations falling outside of these need not be considered until we become aware of them.


Noor
Posts: 250
Joined: 2006-11-18
User is offlineOffline
newmodeltheist

newmodeltheist wrote:

Gosh!! what a lot of anomolies. I can't respond to all of them (haven't even got time to read all of them). From the first few on the list though I would explain these with reference to a common ancestor that did in fact need the functions discribed. You weren't expecting that were you?

 A common ancestor? My apologies if I misunderstood you, but you're saying they evolved from a common ancestor that needed the functions?

Here is one of the best:

The genetic code

DNA has a remarkable copying fidelity... yet mutations -- errors -- are far from rare. If the Good Lord wanted all his creations to be separate, immutable kinds, all he had to do was make the copying mechanism flawless. Meiotic recombination and outcrossing (sex) would still make different individuals. Hey presto -- no evolution. But the system is flawed... so the designer must... want evolution?


newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Theology alert….Theology

Theology alert….Theology alert…You brought it up….Theology alert….

“DNA has a remarkable copying fidelity... yet mutations -- errors -- are far from rare. If the Good Lord wanted all his creations to be separate, immutable kinds, all he had to do was make the copying mechanism flawless. Meiotic recombination and outcrossing (sex) would still make different individuals. Hey presto -- no evolution. But the system is flawed... so the designer must... want evolution?”

Mutations are the result of a degenerating universe. Without the Supreme Personality the material universe is subject to decay.

“Lift up your eyes up to the heavens and look upon the earth beneath: For the heavens will vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax like an old garment, and they that dwell therein will die in like manner” Isaiah 51:6.

The checking mechanism is as good as it needs to be to allow biological life to survive until the Supreme Personality of Godhead returns. Evolution is not necessarily through genetic mutation. Consider the dog. Bred from Wolf stock artificially of course but the various varieties might as well have come about from natural selection. (this provides an illustration at least). The genes for the dogs present in the wolf at the start.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
newmodeltheist you are

newmodeltheist you are saying some of the most bizarre things I have ever encountered.

You have not made it clear how all the evidence for evolution exactly helps creationism

You have not made it clear why you are setting up a false dichotomy.

Mutations are the result of a degenerating universe. Without the Supreme Personality the material universe is subject to decay.

Evidence?

The checking mechanism is as good as it needs to be to allow biological life to survive until the Supreme Personality of Godhead returns.

Evidence?

Personality the material universe is subject to decay.

Evidence?

This is not the same newmodeltheist I had such an intelligent discussion with...What on earth do you mean "once evolution is ruled out, creationism will be accepted". Please explain to me how the huge amount of evidence I gave you (the evidence I gave you was a tiny chunk of the evidence from MY field only, to say nothing of the paleontology, geology, gross anatomic biology etc etc) will be ruled out.

Creationism is not scientific at all. But it is true.

What?

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
Bizarre indeed.

Bizarre indeed.


newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
I didn’t bring up the

I didn’t bring up the G-word. If someone talks about what a certain G-word wants or doesn’t want or is like or isn’t like….then, ‘leave the G-word out of the discussion’ newmodeltheist changes into ‘AWOOOGA AWOOOGA AWOOOOOOGA’ newmodeltheist. I make no apologies for that nor do I go through the trauma of providing non-existent (as you well know) positive evidence.

I simply make the point in my original post that we as creationists can only really be sure of our position if evolution theories cannot account for life and origin of species. And so the more thoroughly evolutionists do their job, the better the position for creationism due to the fact as you are aware and point out constantly, our position is not one that can be proven in a positive sense. Evolution can and so we rely on its failure. Please bare in mind I was only speaking as a creationist from a creationist point of view (I did make a comment to that effect) I was just pointing out an irony that’s all. From our perspective, we should be applauding your efforts. If you are not thorough, then our position (by our own admission) is weak.


newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
How do you do that?  How do

How do you do that?  How do you change your posts once there submitted.  Its like the Ministry of Truth sometimes.


My Name is Chelsea
Posts: 69
Joined: 2007-02-23
User is offlineOffline
Confused

I must admit, I am confused. You are saying that the better evolution is proved the more creationism is proved? Or is it that the more we try to prove evolution and (theoretically) fail, the better creationism looks?

First, I will say again what every one else says. If evolution turns out to be false, that does not, not, make creation true. Just because we can't think of a third alternative does not mean it doesn't exist.

Second, Evolution is not a historic subject. Evolution is occuring right now. Scientists have observed speciation. No we haven't seen a fish grow legs but we have only been around 10,000 years or so, and we have only been paying attention for a much shorter time.

Third, do I have this right? God only made things good enough to get by, not perfect? Why not perfect? I must say it is a bit misleadin.

I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.
Robert A. Heinlein


Roisin Dubh
Roisin Dubh's picture
Posts: 428
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10138
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
The amusing problem here is

The amusing problem here is that evolution and creationism have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Neither of them can prove or disprove the others veracity. Evolution is the study of mutation, natural selection, and other observable events that combine into what happens when life exists. Creationism is the creation of life. Evolution has nothing to do with the creation of life, merely what happens when life is already there.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
LOL!

LOL!


newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Chelsea.   Yes I was

Chelsea.

 

Yes I was saying the second one.  And speaking as a creationist.  I know what evolutionists think of evolution but if you look at things from a creationist perspective, we need you to be as thorough as you can in trying to show how nature can account for living things to be more and more sure that the only other alternative (ie not nature, or supernatural intelligence) is a valid option.  I am asking you to put yourself in our shoes thats all.  Its logical then that we should regard you as necessary to our position.

I would argue that there are only ever two fundamental explanations for something, I have called these nature and culture.  You are right about a third option of course but even science accepts proof tentatively. 


newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
I wrote tentatively when I

I wrote tentatively when I meant provisionally.

Roisin Dubh ...Have you been through my photo album.   You're not at work now remember so you can't use that as an excuse for purile attacks.

 

American Atheist...I have never seen you write more than a few words in any of your posts.  Is english your first language?


newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Vastet I think you might

Vastet

I think you might get away with that from a dictionary definition point of view...but really!!  Are you telling me that an atheist believes in evolution of species but not abiogenesis.  This is an old complaint and dare I say a slightly pedantic one.


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
newmodeltheist

newmodeltheist wrote:

American Atheist...I have never seen you write more than a few words in any of your posts. Is english your first language?

So now you're going through my posts? Been tracking me, huh?

 

English is the only language I speak. Did you think that I spoke spanish, Italian, French, or something? Is it because of the way I look like?

*SIGH*

Oh well. But this thread reminds me of this video.

 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10138
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
newmodeltheist

newmodeltheist wrote:

Vastet

I think you might get away with that from a dictionary definition point of view...but really!!  Are you telling me that an atheist believes in evolution of species but not abiogenesis.  This is an old complaint and dare I say a slightly pedantic one.

Some atheists don't believe in evolution, let alone abiogenesis. And some theists believe in evolution. Your argument is self destructive.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Bravo...Bravo AA. No its

Bravo...Bravo AA.

No its not because of your appearance.  It was just a joke in response to your LOL!!

But I'm right aren't I, you don't normally write more than a few words.  Nothing wrong with that in itself of course its just an observation.


newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Vastet Really!!!???  I

Vastet

Really!!!???  I knew some theists believed in evolution but I have never heard of an atheist not believing in some form of evolutionary process (ultimately I mean).  How is that?  What DO they believe then?


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
newmodeltheist

newmodeltheist wrote:

Bravo...Bravo AA.

No its not because of your appearance. It was just a joke in response to your LOL!!

But I'm right aren't I, you don't normally write more than a few words. Nothing wrong with that in itself of course its just an observation.

Did my LOL! offend you? Sorry about that...

Actually, I type a lot, you should really look for my other posts on this message board and at FreeThinkingTeens. But like Sapient says: "I'm not here to impress you."

 *Shrugs*

Laughing


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
newmodeltheist

newmodeltheist wrote:

Vastet

Really!!!???  I knew some theists believed in evolution but I have never heard of an atheist not believing in some form of evolutionary process (ultimately I mean).  How is that?  What DO they believe then?


An atheist is one who disbelieves in god(s); it does not imply anything about their other beliefs.

"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought


newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
AA well said!!

AA well said!!Smile


newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Vastet  I take your point

Vastet  I take your point I do but it is not an untruth to say that there are two basic camps.  One accounts for life (both origins and differences) with reference to natural processes.  The other with reference to design.  Atheists would surely be in the first camp, not by definition sure, but by logical extension of their views. 

It does irritate me sometimes when atheists attack creationism as a mind disease on one hand because it is only a view a theist could have and creationism must imply God or whatever, and on the other say abiogenesis has got nothing to do with evolution of species.  What difference does it make. If you don't believe in design then embrace abiogenesis as part of your universal theory of life along with evolution of species.   


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10138
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
qbg wrote: newmodeltheist

qbg wrote:
newmodeltheist wrote:

Vastet

Really!!!???  I knew some theists believed in evolution but I have never heard of an atheist not believing in some form of evolutionary process (ultimately I mean).  How is that?  What DO they believe then?


An atheist is one who disbelieves in god(s); it does not imply anything about their other beliefs.

Exactly.

As for what they believe in, you'd have to ask them. The trick is that the term atheism applies only to a god or gods, and only the disbelief therein. Nothing else whatsoever. Everyone on the planet is an atheist. I can demonstrate that you are one too right now. I make the claim that my foot is god. If you believe me, then you're a theist. If you disbelieve me, you're an atheist. The difference between a theist and an atheist is nothing more than the incredulity of a foot being a god spread out to to encompass anything being a god.

newmodeltheist wrote:

Vastet I take your point I do but it is not an untruth to say that there are two basic camps. One accounts for life (both origins and differences) with reference to natural processes. The other with reference to design. Atheists would surely be in the first camp, not by definition sure, but by logical extension of their views.

It does irritate me sometimes when atheists attack creationism as a mind disease on one hand because it is only a view a theist could have and creationism must imply God or whatever, and on the other say abiogenesis has got nothing to do with evolution of species. What difference does it make. If you don't believe in design then embrace abiogenesis as part of your universal theory of life along with evolution of species.

Ah, but very few atheists as far as I'm aware have actually embraced abiogenesis. We've observed some evidence and probabilities that it could happen, but that's not the same as conclusively proving it. The vast majority of opinion that would come from an atheist would be that they have no idea. Until we see something happen we don't know. We see evolution happening, so we know it happens. We see gravity happening, so we know it happens. We do not see a god happening. We do not see a santa claus happening. Therefore we do not know that it happens. We can not believe in what we don't know.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10138
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
qbg wrote:newmodeltheist

doublepost

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
So far so good, but since

So far so good, but since so many folks don't come in through the forums (they come in through the "recent posts" link), just a reminder that this is the Kill 'Em With Kindness thread.

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
newmodeltheist wrote: My

newmodeltheist wrote:

My point is that I as a creationist can only be certain of my position when the only other alternative is ruled out.

So many errors  in one short statement.

The key error is that this is a false dichotomy... if evolution were falsified, then another natural theory would take its place.

This leads to the second error: the weakness of evolution does not point to the 'strength' of creationism.

Finally, you can't be 'certain' of your position, because you don't actually have a position to be certain of  - all you just have an assertion: "God did it"... but you can't say anything cogent concernig how this god 'did it', nor can you even provide a positive ontology for the 'god' itself.

In brief, you have an argument from ignorance, that in turn relies on an anthropomorphic fallacy....

But otherwise, leaving these minor issues aside, your position is overpowering... 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


My Name is Chelsea
Posts: 69
Joined: 2007-02-23
User is offlineOffline
NewModelAtheist: Quote: Yes

NewModelAtheist:

Quote:
Yes I was saying the second one.  And speaking as a creationist.  I know what evolutionists think of evolution but if you look at things from a creationist perspective, we need you to be as thorough as you can in trying to show how nature can account for living things to be more and more sure that the only other alternative (ie not nature, or supernatural intelligence) is a valid option.  I am asking you to put yourself in our shoes thats all.  Its logical then that we should regard you as necessary to our position.

Honestly I am not really sure what you are saying. But I will make a guess and tell me if I am wrong. You are saying that we need to offer adequate proof for evolution if we are to expect you to accept it. That is entirely reasonably. I could argue that I was a creationist (I have been in your shoes) and that evidence was sufficient for me but I don't think that will convince, wouldn't convince. I would just have to say that you should look at the evidence for yourself, carefully. If you have questions about it or something seems a bit shady or unclear please ask me and I will do my best to explain. But don’t go about learning about evolution by looking it up on creationist sites because if that is your basis for trying to understand evolution you never will.

Quote:

I would argue that there are only ever two fundamental explanations for something, I have called these nature and culture.  You are right about a third option of course but even science accepts proof tentatively.

My response would be that I get the nature and culture (god) dichotomy but I just have to throw in that nature does not have to be a single option. Evolution is what we understand about nature now, but we may have a better understanding later that is not evolution. Just like culture isn’t a single explanation (literal Genesis vs. allegorical Genesis vs. every other faith’s description).

I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.
Robert A. Heinlein


mouse
Posts: 129
Joined: 2007-02-21
User is offlineOffline
which creation myth do you

which creation myth do you subscribe to? there are many to chooe from.

 


newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Todangst et al If you were

Todangst et al

If you were walking along in the desert and came across a perfectly spherical rock (or stone as I think Americans would say), perfect that is, beyond which you had ever seen before.  Then you you would conclude that this were a phenomenon in need of explaining.  That conclusion alone would mean that you have rejected chance as a cause.  No-one ever appeals to chance as an explanation.  An appeal to chance is the same as saying that there is nothing that needs explaining.  But since this giant stone is perfectly spherical then you can reduce any possible explanation down to two possibilities:

Nature:  The stones shape came about due to inherent properties.  ie a blind mechanical process.  Much like a whirlpool or crystal formation etc.  In other words by pre-scribed laws that meant no concious input was required.

or Culture:  meaning that some intelligence of what ever discription arranged the stone in this meaningful way for what ever reason.

There are multitude of different ways within these two possibilities, but these two descriptions are fundamental .  There could feasibly be a combination of the two.

These are the only two possible explanations for anything then.  Any explanation must come under one category or the other, or possibly both categories.

 Creation concludes the possibility of an intelligence involved in the phenomenon of biological life.  Obviously the only intelligence we know about is biological so this would mean a supernatural intelligence.  This there is not positive proof of this, the only real evidence is life itself BUT ONLY if life cannot be explained by nature.  Hence the more thoroughly nature is ruled out, the stronger the case for culture.


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
noor wrote: I've always

noor wrote:
I've always wanted a creationist response to this.

That's a kick-ass site, noor.  I love natural history.  Thanks!  I'll save that for later. Eye-wink 

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
I simply make the point in

I simply make the point in my original post that we as creationists can only really be sure of our position if evolution theories cannot account for life and origin of species. And so the more thoroughly evolutionists do their job, the better the position for creationism due to the fact as you are aware and point out constantly, our position is not one that can be proven in a positive sense. Evolution can and so we rely on its failure. Please bare in mind I was only speaking as a creationist from a creationist point of view (I did make a comment to that effect) I was just pointing out an irony that’s all. From our perspective, we should be applauding your efforts. If you are not thorough, then our position (by our own admission) is weak.

As a scientist, I would argue the exact opposite of your assertion. you see, in the scientific method, when a scientific research paper is published with the results of an experiment, all the other scientists immediately play devils advocate. They look for holes, the attack it, they try to replicate it...this is how science advances. Of course, the multipe aspects of evolution were subjected to this rigorous testing BUT it has also been subjected to a huge amount of public critique from religious/creationist/skeptical public, which forces the scientifc community to provide answers...which it does. Evolution has been more savagely assaulted than any other theory (I cannot understand why a scientifc theory would be a political controversy: Do people ask each other about their stance on electromagnetism?) Yet it has survived. Creationist nonsense-spewers help us when we answer all of their questions.

Regarding the origin of life and RNA...evolution cannot answer that. The theory does not extend that far back. From the moment RNA appeared on Earth, evolution provides a god-free explanation. At the moment there are hypothesis on life's origin, including abiogenesis, panspermia...and god. All three are assertions, so none have weight. However, science operates on an occams razor principle regarding hypotheses. Panspermia would require you to assume the existence of alien life that came to earth, the probabilities of which are astronomical. God requires you to believe that there is a extramaterial out of space and time deity who infused the primordial soup with RNA. The odds again, are astronomical. Abiogenesis on the other hand...merely requires you to assume that ancient molecules obeyed chemical law. Thus it is the most widely assumed.

Also, in your first post what on earth do you mean by "the strength of the creationist position". Creationists only have any sort of power in the US and the Islamic fundamentalist nations. The rest of the world has moved on and the entire scientific community, myself included, is laughing at this backwardness. 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10138
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
newmodeltheist wrote: If

newmodeltheist wrote:
If you were walking along in the desert and came across a perfectly spherical rock (or stone as I think Americans would say), perfect that is, beyond which you had ever seen before.  Then you you would conclude that this were a phenomenon in need of explaining.  That conclusion alone would mean that you have rejected chance as a cause.  No-one ever appeals to chance as an explanation.  An appeal to chance is the same as saying that there is nothing that needs explaining.  But since this giant stone is perfectly spherical then you can reduce any possible explanation down to two possibilities: Nature:  The stones shape came about due to inherent properties.  ie a blind mechanical process.  Much like a whirlpool or crystal formation etc.  In other words by pre-scribed laws that meant no concious input was required. or Culture:  meaning that some intelligence of what ever discription arranged the stone in this meaningful way for what ever reason. There are multitude of different ways within these two possibilities, but these two descriptions are fundamental .  There could feasibly be a combination of the two.

Considering the two scenarios you lay out cover every possible scenario in existance I would agree. Though technically culture is natural.

newmodeltheist wrote:
These are the only two possible explanations for anything then.  Any explanation must come under one category or the other, or possibly both categories. Creation concludes the possibility of an intelligence involved in the phenomenon of biological life.

Yet fails to describe where that intelligence came from, and therefore is a ridiculous argument.

newmodeltheist wrote:
  Obviously the only intelligence we know about is biological so this would mean a supernatural intelligence.

False in every way. We already know that intelligence can be mechanical, thanks to our own designs. We also have never witnessed anything that could be described as supernatural, so assuming it's existance is a failure of cognitive capabilities.

newmodeltheist wrote:
  This there is not positive proof of this, the only real evidence is life itself BUT ONLY if life cannot be explained by nature.  Hence the more thoroughly nature is ruled out, the stronger the case for culture.

Hence the more thoroughly nature is proven, the stronger the case against a non-existant god.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
“Considering the two

“Considering the two scenarios you lay out cover every possible scenario in existance I would agree. Though technically culture is natural.”

No culture is culture, nature is nature. Human culture may originate from a more fundamental nature (actually people grow automatically from cells and have certain inherent mental faculties so this is true in this degree, although a persons intellectual processes, memory and knowledge are the result of learning). Nature can originate from a more fundamental culture (ie humans can build a machine that functions according to its own nature). But these two as creative agents are distinct. Each has profoundly different properties.

“Yet fails to describe where that intelligence came from, and therefore is a ridiculous argument.”

When one can identify intelligence it is not necessary to know ‘where’ or ‘when’ it came from or even what form it takes. These are superfluous questions. Intelligence is a quality that can be understood independently of its source.

“False in every way. We already know that intelligence can be mechanical, thanks to our own designs. We also have never witnessed anything that could be described as supernatural, so assuming it's existance is a failure of cognitive capabilities.”

Intelligence can be mechanical but we also know that mechanical intelligence is constructed by biological intelligence. If we identify biological life as originating through the agency of intelligence then we can infer a supernatural intelligence (what else is there if all known intelligence is biologically dependent, and intelligence can be inferred in the origin of biological life). Never witnessed it no!!(actually some people claim to have done but I take your point) But the line of reasoning logically concludes it.

Demanding that I prove the existence of something before I am able to infer it’s existence as a logical conclusion to my reasoning is in fact the real failure of cognitive capabilities. Although the fact that you made such a gross logical error in the first place means you are unlikely to be able to grasp even that.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10138
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
newmodeltheist

newmodeltheist wrote:

“Considering the two scenarios you lay out cover every possible scenario in existance I would agree. Though technically culture is natural.”

No culture is culture, nature is nature.

No, culture is nature.

newmodeltheist wrote:
Human culture may originate from a more fundamental nature (actually people grow automatically from cells and have certain inherent mental faculties so this is true in this degree, although a persons intellectual processes, memory and knowledge are the result of learning). Nature can originate from a more fundamental culture (ie humans can build a machine that functions according to its own nature). But these two as creative agents are distinct. Each has profoundly different properties.

No they don't. They both exist. Culture comes from society, formed through evolution, which is natural.

newmodeltheist wrote:

“Yet fails to describe where that intelligence came from, and therefore is a ridiculous argument.”


When one can identify intelligence it is not necessary to know ‘where’ or ‘when’ it came from or even what form it takes. These are superfluous questions. Intelligence is a quality that can be understood independently of its source.

Dodging the issue as theists do.
You said "Creation concludes the possibility of an intelligence involved in the phenomenon of biological life"
To which I responded "Yet fails to describe where that intelligence came from". To which you go off on a tangent that has nothing to do with anything.

newmodeltheist wrote:

“False in every way. We already know that intelligence can be mechanical, thanks to our own designs. We also have never witnessed anything that could be described as supernatural, so assuming it's existance is a failure of cognitive capabilities.”

Intelligence can be mechanical but we also know that mechanical intelligence is constructed by biological intelligence.

We know no such thing. We only know that the mechanical intelligence we can percieve is created by biological intelligence.

newmodeltheist wrote:
If we identify biological life as originating through the agency of intelligence then we can infer a supernatural intelligence

No we can't. And we haven't identified biological life as originating from any agency, intelligent or otherwise. So even considering it is pointless.

newmodeltheist wrote:
(what else is there if all known intelligence is biologically dependent, and intelligence can be inferred in the origin of biological life)

Just because you don't know something doesn't mean "goddidit"

newmodeltheist wrote:
But the line of reasoning logically concludes it.

How? Why?

newmodeltheist wrote:
Demanding that I prove the existence of something before I am able to infer it’s existence as a logical conclusion to my reasoning is in fact the real failure of cognitive capabilities.

There is no logical conclusion that would allow you to believe in a god, gods, or supernatural events. Therefore this paragraph self destructs.

newmodeltheist wrote:

Although the fact that you made such a gross logical error in the first place means you are unlikely to be able to grasp even that.

And so does this one.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


LFC
Posts: 8
Joined: 2007-02-27
User is offlineOffline
and there has not yet been

and there has not yet been a failure of evolutionism, so whats your point?

Are you sure about this?  Adaptation I can agree with, but I don't see how one species has ever come from another.  When did monkey ever become man?  Never been proven, and true never been disproven.  What new animal out there ever came from another completely different animal.  It has never been proven.