• 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

BadBoy said:
Apart from all the other points already made about why this makes no sense, isn't there an issue with the premise in the first place. The premise of creationism isn’t a scientific theory in the sense that Evolution is. Evolution was "discovered". It was not a theory based on a premise that was just "announced" with the search for evidence starting after that. It is a theory based on undeniable conclusions from mounds of evidence collected and analysed. It also makes predictions that can and have been tested.

Creationism does not start from such a scientific premise. It’s backwards in that it was probably conceived to answer the question of where we came from. In fact it looks like it’s almost back to front in that the premise is "we exist" and the evidence why we exist is God (the idea of God already taken as a given). At the very best Creationism is a philosophic idea, not a scientific one.

randman is an attempt to dress mutton up as lamb. Its a obvious attempt to lend some scientific credence to a philosophical idea - after the fact. That dog dont hunt.

I think people who believe in God and especially ID/Creationism have to just live with (ignore) the inconsistencies between science and their faith in the modern world (For me that would be too much to accept.) and stop trying to justify their supernatural faith with science. Science was born from the urge for humans to discover the truth about the world, which will ultimately reject/erode ancient religious dogma.
Click to expand...

Did you read point 1 in the OP?
 
sphenisc said:
Trying to pare it down a bit:

P1 If A implies B, then (if B then B is evidence for A).
Click to expand...
Nope.

Deductively, if A implies B, not B implies not A, but B doesn't tell us anything about A.

Inductively, the existence of the thing you are trying to explain does not itself favour any explanation.

Either way, it ain't evidence.
 
PixyMisa said:
Nope.

Deductively, if A implies B, not B implies not A, but B doesn't tell us anything about A.
Click to expand...

Sure it does, it tells us A has not been falsified by B.

Inductively, the existence of the thing you are trying to explain does not itself favour any explanation.

Either way, it ain't evidence.
Click to expand...

It favours those explanations which are compatible with the observation.
 
sphenisc said:
Did you read point 1 in the OP?
Click to expand...
Point 1. in the OP was about preventing creationists attempting to pull holes in evolution in order to justify ID/Creationism which is what normally happens. Not that it stopped randman.

I was using it to compare with your assertion made earlier as an example of a real scientific theory
 
BadBoy said:
Point 1. in the OP was about preventing creationists attempting to pull holes in evolution in order to justify ID/Creationism which is what normally happens. Not that it stopped randman.

I was using it to compare with your assertion made earlier as an example of a real scientific theory
Click to expand...

I should have asked if you understood point 1. Clearly not.
 
randman said:
There is almost no exclusive evidence for Darwinism aka "evolution" as you guys put it, nada.
Click to expand...

There is a vast collection of evidence that excludes the valididty of ID / creationism.

Exclusive evidence for ID / creationism is at best half-vast.
 
sphenisc said:
I should have asked if you understood point 1. Clearly not.
Click to expand...
in what way didnt I understand it. Please elucidate. Or is that not part of the OP either. Run away if you want. My point still remains.
 
BadBoy said:
in what way didnt I understand it. Please elucidate. Or is that not part of the OP either. Run away if you want. My point still remains.
Click to expand...

There are only a couple of rules I would impose.

1. Cannot reference evolution, or any evolutionary processes.
Click to expand...

Badboy said:
Point 1. in the OP was about preventing creationists attempting to pull holes in evolution in order to justify ID/Creationism which is what normally happens. Not that it stopped randman.

I was using it to compare with your assertion made earlier as an example of a real scientific theory
Click to expand...

Point 1 does not mention creationists, it doesn't mention pulling holes in evolution, it doesn't mention what normally happens.

It clearly states "cannot reference evolution, or any evolutionary processes.". This is not a difficult instruction to understand or follow. You don't have special privileges.

Thanks for the offer. You feel free to run away if you want to as well.
 
Last edited:
If you use the available evidence to conclude that life was created by a supernatural being, then we should wonder why that being is apparently so fond of bacteria and parasites. It makes more sense to say that the world was created for them than for us humans. Our only purpose, it seems, is to provide them with a food source.
 
sphenisc said:
Point 1 does not mention creationists, it doesn't mention pulling holes in evolution, it doesn't mention what normally happens.

It clearly states "cannot reference evolution, or any evolutionary processes.". This is not a difficult instruction to understand or follow. You don't have special privileges.

Thanks for the offer. You feel free to run away if you want to as well.
Click to expand...
Well, in this case, I guess you are going to have to live with it. If you like, replace Evolution with Quantum Mechanics.
 
BadBoy said:
Well, in this case, I guess you are going to have to live with it. If you like, replace Evolution with Quantum Mechanics.
Click to expand...

Since you seem to be willing to change your argument, I'm not sure what you think I have to live with.

But thanks anyway.
 
sphenisc said:
Simply because it doesn't do what you'd like it to do doesn't make it functionally useless.


Then don't use it to classify mammals.


That's not what the OP says. You're shifting the goalposts.
Click to expand...
I was looking for scientific evidence, none has been offered.
 
randman said:
One humorous aspect to so many materialists advocating MWI is by doing that, you validate Intelligent Design.

if you accept there is a God, MWI says somewhere there is a universe looking exactly like our's that is Intelligently Designed including biota.

If you do not, there is a universe looking exactly like our's where aliens intelligently designed life on earth and intervened along the way and one where they did not, etc,....
Click to expand...

No. "Many worlds" is not equal to "infinite worlds". And, even if it were, "infinite" is not the same thing as "contains every possibility". There could be an infinite number of universes and none with life on Earth intelligently designed.
 
sphenisc said:
What was the point of quoting my post? If you want to make a simple assertion then go ahead. But there's no need to quote me in order to do so.
Click to expand...

Because I% wrote the OP, I wanted to clarify what I wanted. Pulling holes in evolution is a violation of the OP. Also, you have yet to give scientific evidence. Your logical fallacies fail to convince anyone.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Because I% wrote the OP, I wanted to clarify what I wanted. Pulling holes in evolution is a violation of the OP. Also, you have yet to give scientific evidence.
Click to expand...

A restatement is not a clarification.

This doesn't explain why you quoted my post. There have been over 400 posts on this thread, you only quoted mine. Your statement was "I was looking for scientific evidence, none has been offered.", i.e. no-one had provided any - yet you quoted my post. You have failed to explain why.

Your logical fallacies fail to convince anyone.
Click to expand...

:D How sweet! Who do you hope to convince by making another bald assertion?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom