• You may find search is unavailable for a little while. Trying to fix a problem.
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories

ID/Creationism challenge

thaiboxerken

Penultimate Amazing
thaiboxerken
Joined
Sep 17, 2001
Messages
33,535
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.
 
The fossil record showing species generally appearing and certainly all within the concept of "kinds" abruptly without any evidence of the immediate ancestral kind and always staying within that "kind" (stasis).
 
randman said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's quite a claim, but that does not really support ID or Creationism. I supports a claim that the Earth is young.
 
Information science: the nature of how language systems come about, higher level ordering of information, etc,...
 
randman said:
The fossil record showing species generally appearing and certainly all within the concept of "kinds" abruptly without any evidence of the immediate ancestral kind and always staying within that "kind" (stasis).
Click to expand...

That's hardly scientific, it seems to be based on the assumption of creation. Can you show scientific evidence that these "kinds" were created?
 
randman said:
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.
Click to expand...

This still just seems to be making a case by reversing the findings of 'evo's. Play along. Can't you think of anything, just for the sake of the question?
 
randman said:
Information science: the nature of how language systems come about, higher level ordering of information, etc,...
Click to expand...

WTF does this have to do with creation or ID? Did you have any peer-reviewed science, or are you just going to shotgun a bunch of nonsense?
 
I don't think I am going to agree with where Randman is going, but I don't think that ID and Evolution are mutually exclusive.

All that aside, evolution is observable fact. Natural selection (etc.) is the theory for the mechanism, which is what should be argued for/against.

(I stipulate that reasonable minds have different interpretations of the use of the term evolution, but pedantic troll is pedantic). (And by pedantic troll, I mean myself).
 
The evidence of "kinds" is that living biota is organized in a way that there is a separation between groupings that can reproduce among themselves and those that cannot.
 
randman said:
Well, that's part of one creationist model, isn't it?
Click to expand...

That's hardly the "creation" part of it. It would be as stupid as saying "I know evolution is real because the earth is several hundred thousand of years old."
 
Mr. Purple said:
I don't think I am going to agree with where Randman is going, but I don't think that ID and Evolution are mutually exclusive.

All that aside, evolution is observable fact. Natural selection (etc.) is the theory for the mechanism, which is what should be argued for/against.

(I stipulate that reasonable minds have different interpretations of the use of the term evolution, but pedantic troll is pedantic). (And by pedantic troll, I mean myself).
Click to expand...
I agree that we should not take ID theories that embrace common descent off the table. Just showing off the top of my head some "positive evidence" of other models.
 
randman said:
The evidence of "kinds" is that living biota is organized in a way that there is a separation between groupings that can reproduce among themselves and those that cannot.
Click to expand...


Yes, that's evidence of taxonomy. How about evidence of creation or ID?
 
Halfcentaur said:
Language and order is too complicated to not be created by something that was already complicated. God did it.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HACkykFlIus
Click to expand...
No, Intelligence did it. You could argue aliens or the universe as a living thing as Spinoza did, or you could posit Hawkings theory that past histories were selected by the universe via fine-tuning. He put that forward according to wiki at least (I know wiki is dubious) but yet is an atheist.

You could also present each of those concepts as positive evidence for Intelligent Design without a creator.
 
randman said:
I agree that we should not take ID theories that embrace common descent off the table.
Click to expand...

Common descent is not important to this discussion. I'd like to see evidence that life was created by an intelligent designer. You can say that "evolution" was started by such a creator, but that hardly answers the question. Show me evidence that intelligence was behind the origin of life.
 
randman said:
Here's one for example. Dinosaur bones found with red blood cells and soft tissue as evidence for a young earth based on biochemistry.
Click to expand...

I think you misunderstand the implications (please correct me if I misunderstand you).

You are referring to the density and distribution of blood vessels in the bones of non-avian dinosaurs, correct? The big deal there is that it implies high metabolic rate, which throws out the old "cold, dumb, slow" image of dinosaurs.

This has zero to do with when they lived, but has plenty (very interestingly indeed) to do with how they lived. It also speaks to the fact that homeothermy/bradycardia/endothermy has either evolved (in terms of a major radiation) twice, or it evolved before mammals diverged from the ancestral branch.
 
randman said:
No, Intelligence did it. You could argue aliens or the universe as a living thing as Spinoza did, or you could posit Hawkings theory that past histories were selected by the universe via fine-tuning. He put that forward according to wiki at least (I know wiki is dubious) but yet is an atheist.

You could also present each of those concepts as positive evidence for Intelligent Design without a creator.
Click to expand...

This seems to explain systems on Earth alone, but not language and ordered systems everywhere, without an issue of infinite regression cropping up. But if you're only talking about the Earth, yeah, I can see that.
 
randman said:
The evidence of "kinds" is that living biota is organized in a way that there is a separation between groupings that can reproduce among themselves and those that cannot.
Click to expand...

Where do neotenic species fit into your model? Especially the environmentally plastic varieties?
 
Mr. Purple said:
I think you misunderstand the implications (please correct me if I misunderstand you).

You are referring to the density and distribution of blood vessels in the bones of non-avian dinosaurs, correct? The big deal there is that it implies high metabolic rate, which throws out the old "cold, dumb, slow" image of dinosaurs.

This has zero to do with when they lived, but has plenty (very interestingly indeed) to do with how they lived. It also speaks to the fact that homeothermy/bradycardia/endothermy has either evolved (in terms of a major radiation) twice, or it evolved before mammals diverged from the ancestral branch.
Click to expand...

No.. The claim is that when split open, dinosaur bones bled out, and had soft tissue, implying they were fr far younger than 65+ millions years old.

Of course, it isn't true, but it doesn't stop the creationists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom