• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

ID/Creationism challenge

thaiboxerken

Penultimate Amazing
thaiboxerken
Joined
Sep 17, 2001
Messages
34,530
I don't know if this has been done yet, but I'd like to dedicate a thread to all of the "Intelligent Design" and "Creationism" theory out there. This is for scientific evidence to support these "theories." There are only a couple of rules I would impose.

1. Cannot reference evolution, or any evolutionary processes.
2. Cannot reference the Bible or other mythologies, unless there is a scientific link.

That's it. Now, let's see the scientific evidence to support ID and Creationism!
 
Can you define "evolutionary processes" and "evolution"?

I assume this means others cannot reference these things either?
 
randman said:
Can you define "evolutionary processes" and "evolution"?

I assume this means others cannot reference these things either?
Click to expand...

Correct. And there is no need to define evolution or it's processes. You already know what I mean. The evidence can't be simple "debunking" of evolution, evidences of evolution or the like.

You can post your evidence and if it refers to evolution or it's processes, then other posters will let you know.
 
Last edited:
thaiboxerken said:
... There are only a couple of rules I would impose.

1. Cannot reference evolution, or any evolutionary processes.
Click to expand...
That "rule" goes without saying; the theory of evolution does not seem to be refutable in it's own right.
thaiboxerken said:
2. Cannot reference the Bible or other mythologies, unless there is a scientific link...
Click to expand...
Why not? The more Biblical references they cite, the weaker their arguments get.

By imposing these rules of yours, you deprive them of any means of supporting their claims.

... you also deprive the rest of us of untold pages of thoroughly amusing and farcical "Goddidit!" anecdotes.
 
Well, if you translate the genetic code of humans into Aramaic, there's the bit of it that reads "(CC) God, Heaven, 4004 BC. Derivative of prior work by Amun-Ra (CC) 8000 BC. This code is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License."
 
Plants are green because it's easy on the eyes, sucka.

Thunder is God's way of letting dogs know who is the alpha.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Correct. And there is no need to define evolution or it's processes. You already know what I mean. The evidence can't be simple "debunking" of evolution, evidences of evolution or the like.

You can post your evidence and if it refers to evolution or it's processes, then other posters will let you know.
Click to expand...
No, I don't actually know what you mean. Sorry to drag you into demanding an answer.

I might on other sites assume it's clear, but many here have different ideas on what "evolution" means and use different definitions to foul up discussions. I think it's important for the thread to have a clear definition of the rules per se of what you are asking.

Are you just referring to a change in allelic frequency in a population, or common descent, or heritable change or what?
 
randman said:
No, I don't actually know what you mean. Sorry to drag you into demanding an answer.

I might on other sites assume it's clear, but many here have different ideas on what "evolution" means and use different definitions to foul up discussions. I think it's important for the thread to have a clear definition of the rules per se of what you are asking.

Are you just referring to a change in allelic frequency in a population, or common descent, or ???
Click to expand...

You are being disingenuous. Instead of trying to find loopholes, give the evidence that you tink is scientific.

Pretend that the Theory of Evolution was debunked, if you will.
 
Regarding Post 9:

Seems clear enough to me.

Debunking other theories would in no way support ID or creationism (ID or C), therefore support ID or C by discussing evidence for ID or C.
Referring to other theories has no bearing on ID or C therefore the meaning of evolution has no bearing whatsoever on supporting ID or C.
 
fishbob said:
Regarding Post 9:

Seems clear enough to me.

Debunking other theories would in no way support ID or creationism (ID or C), therefore support ID or C by discussing evidence for ID or C.
Referring to other theories has no bearing on ID or C therefore the meaning of evolution has no bearing whatsoever on supporting ID or C.
Click to expand...
Not really, especially as many ID theories involve alternative means of evolution from either a common ancestor or multiple common ancestors. Part of that evidence, of course, is the limitations of allelic mutation along with the nature of microevolution to produce the existence of similar repeated designs and so forth. There is positive evidence as well to explain potential mechanisms, and of course, the evidence that macroevolution seems to be no longer occuring.

When was the last time a new phyla, class, order, family, or genera has evolved? So part of one particular long-standing theory entails a process that has largely spent itself out, the evidence for no more "evolution" becomes part of the positive evidence surrounding the nature of phylogeny, the fossil record, genetics, statistics, etc,...

That doesn't mean there isn't positive evidence such as predictions of genetic complexity in the LCAs and so on, evidence of chromosomal mechanisms for evolution, and so forth.
 
Last edited:
randman said:
Not really, especially as many ID theories involve alternative means of evolution from either a common ancestor or multiple common ancestors. Part of that evidence, of course, is the limitations of allelic mutation along, the nature of microevolution contrasting with the existence of similar repeated designs and so forth. There is positive evidence as well to explain potential mechanisms, and of course, the evidence that macroevolution seems to be no longer occuring.

When was the last time a new phyla, class, order, family, or genera has evolved? So part of one particular long-standing theory entails a process that has largely spent itself out, the evidence for no more "evolution" becomes part of the positive evidence surrounding the nature of phylogeny, the fossil record, genetics, statistics, etc,...
Click to expand...

In other words, you have no scientific evidence to support ID or C. All you have are attempts to debunk Evolution.
 
thaiboxerken said:
In other words, you have no scientific evidence to support ID or C. All you have are attempts to debunk Evolution.
Click to expand...
Not at all but considering some ID theories embrace common descent, if you define common descent as "evolution", then per your request, that form of Intelligent Design cannot be discussed.

Likewise, since creationism often posits evolution within a kind, creationism cannot be addressed.

Define evolution if you want someone to take up your challenge. If you cannot, then what does that say?

Evos here cannot even define evolution?

There are also differing arguments that entail some reference to evolution. For example, creationists have presented well-preserved, large whale fossils buried in sediment that evos say were laid down over hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of years.

Creationists use the lack of decomposition, positive evidence, as evidence that the whale was buried catastrophically. Ok, but if we are to discuss whether their conclusions are valid, does that mean evos here cannot bring up the idea the sediment could have been laid down gradually?

In other words, are you allowing evolutionist rebuttals to evidence or not?

If so, how are you going to keep evolution out of the discussion?
 
randman said:
Not at all but considering some ID theories embrace common descent, if you define common descent as "evolution", then per your request, that form of Intelligent Design cannot be discussed.
Click to expand...

That's fine. Just leave out the parts that agree with the Theory of Evolution.

Let's see the positive evidence of ID/Creationism. Again, pretend that TOE is debunked.
 
Some ID theories perhaps. But I think it's clear we're talking about those that do not. How are you unable to understand the distinction and play along without championing your pet theories?
It's amazing. You've just demonstrated exactly the fault ID is being accused of.

Make a case for it while avoiding the theories dependent on falsifying evolution.

Do you lack the ability to empathize and put yourself in the shoes of other people and views or what?
 
Here's one for example. Dinosaur bones found with red blood cells and soft tissue as evidence for a young earth based on biochemistry. Also the bold prediction once found, we'd find others with the same situation.

I would also predict, though not a YECer, that other dinosaurs will large bones will be discovered buried in different soil that shows a similar lack of decomposition, though not all.

The only reason anyone thinks the fossils are old is due to evolutionist dating methods. If it were not for that, they would be assumed to be young as it was not envisioned such soft tissue and organic molecules of formerly living tissue could survive more than 10,000 yrs and certainly not 65 million years.

Take out any evo rebuttal and it's a slam dunk for creationists in terms of the age of the fossils not being millions of years old.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom