Posted on 01/17/2008 10:27:05 AM PST by neverdem
Apparently, he has missed the point. When reading books like Dembski’s Mere Creation, creationists must realize that what they are reading IS about evolutionary theory, just a theistic one. These theorists, like Del Ratcsh, for example, do not argue the evidence for evolution, they are arguing for a mysterious designer behind it all (in the “initiating conditions,” Ratsch says, which basically is what TE’s do.
What’s the point of making God so small He is all but pushed out of His own creation? Does that serve your purpose, Alex?
So, my point stands. When arguing for ID theory, one is essentially arguing for us to believe Theistic Evolution, because the theorists who are making these argument are by and large, Theistic Evolutionists.
This is not to say that the basic premise of ID theory, that that the universe, on a basic level, exhibits characteristics of design, it does. But from the Methodological Naturalist’s point of view, that says nothing in favor of a creationist viewpoint, in fact, Dembski argues rather fervently that ID does not specify who or what the Creator may be, in fact, he argues quite strenuously that ID is not an attempt to argue for a particular creationist view.
But taken in context, the science that they are arguing is clearly methodological naturalist science. They are merely making a statement that methodological materialism is not supported by the science itself, and I would agree that this is true, but so would most reasonable scientists who are not militant atheists.
This does nothing to help the creationist viewpoint, from a traditional Biblicalstandpoint.
To quote myself:
“Yes, as the ID theorists like to point out, there are gaps in the evolutionary record such as an obvious gap between the non-living chemical and the living biological world, that leave room for theistic answers. However, and they are not shy in pointing this out, their view could as much allow for aliens seeding the earth from far away galaxies or other dimensions (Francis Crick’s panspermia), as it could allow for the Biblical account for creation. How is that leading us to a traditional view? If all we do is push back the question of origins to the infinite past we gain nothing out of the debate. Even a theological illiterate can understand that there is an impossible gap between what Moses wrote and what modern science is claiming about history. And Ockham’s Razor suggests that if the Bible’s testimony about the beginning, the Flood, Moses and Israel, and the Resurrection are wrong or poetically skewed, then it probably all just a big fat myth. Can the Gospel be served in this kind of intellectual atmosphere?”
There is a better way to argue the Biblical creation, and the theistic model.
Essentially, because ID proponents use the model incorrectly, to attack methodological naturalism, especially on the issue of public education, without providing an equally clear and productive scientific model in which to do science, the public has a wise fear of it.
If we can show the public that we in fact are not obscurantists, that we understand the issues in context, and show them that we can be responsible in the use of scientific methodology, we can demand a fairer representation in the public schools. As it stands, right now Native American and Meso-American creationism gets more equal time than we do.
Now, let me ask you this question:
“Why would you not want your children to become experts in the evolutionary theory, and be the ones on the cutting edge of this science, if for no other reason than to understand it better than their philosophical counterparts?”
That’s one of the challenges you need to answer, since apparently you are ignoring the other challenge, which is to explain why you are promoting the views of people you claim to be against, namely TE’s, because there is hardly a whisker of difference between a Behe, a Dembski, and a run of the mill Evolutionist.
Anyone who wishes to understand evolutionary theory and see clearly stated arguments responding to several forms of creationism need only go to the talkorigins website and browse.
This debate is OLD. YEC and other forms of creationist arguments with evolution were THOROUGHLY disproven in the decade of the 90’s on that forum, and others. Now, you keep wanting to label me an anti-christian or something, which is patently ludicrous. I am a SIX-DAY CREATIONIST BIBLICAL TRADITIONALIST. But because you are unaware of how one can hold that position and still state that the evidence for evolution is clear, you think it’s not possible, so you assume I am a troll or disingenuous or something.
This is understandable, but it really would be quite more enlightening for you to try to understand my position, rather than getting foamy at the mouth about it.
The scientists on that forum understood my position, and although many of course did not agree with my theistic conclusions, they respected the fact that I was hnest enough to change my views on the evidence when confronted with clear science and common sense. I didn’t change my BIBLICAL position, I changed how I EXPLAINED MY BIBLICALISM. And that is the crux of the matter, is whether you handle the evidence honestly, and correctly, or whether you lie about the evidence and mishandle it. These guys on talkorigins are not slouches. they are JPL rocket scientists, some are professors of geology and biology.
In fact, they honored me (sort of) with a position as an “Professor of Metaphysical Presuppositionalism” or something like that, at their comedic By Bayou University (http://home.houston.rr.com/bybayouu/faculty.html).
Eventually, people are not stupid, they catch on, once they realize they have been getting taken for a ride, and by whom. They will see through your machinations, and verbage, and can pick out the sticks from the hay.
I’m not going to sit here and argue for evolutionary theory, my point is to show people sides of the argument they haven’t considered before.
By first focusing on some common sense issues, we can get further down the road than merely arguing the same old, same old.
Do not think for a second that I can’t do the other, but I think people first can benefit from other things I have to say other than throwing out a bunch of scientific mumbo-jumbo.
Here’s another rock for you to much on:
The burden of proof lies with those going against the majority of science. If they can cook your food in microwaves ovens, and shoot rockets to Jupiter, they have an understanding of scientific methodology that is utilitarian, it works. Now, along you come and tell them that in several hundreds lines of independent evidence, they are wrong on the subject of origins. So, the natural question is, “where is your alternative theory?” Show us YOUR evidence to the contrary. Creationists have no evidence, not one shred. WHY?
The reason for that I explained in that abstract. That does not make me LESS a creationist. In fact, in my view, it makes me more of one.
Presuppositionalism, properly applied, is the ONLY method that makes any sense, and doesn’t mishandle the data, IMO.
The other methods are EASILY shot down.
[[Apparently, he has missed the point. When reading books like Dembski’s Mere Creation, creationists must realize that what they are reading IS about evolutionary theory, just a theistic one]]
By “He” I assume you mean me? If so I absolutely do not agree with that. I read science sites all the time and they obviously contain Macroevolutionary hypothesis yet I absolutelky do NOT subscribe to ANY of their assumptions when I look for JUST the scientific FACTS. (Note- my Caps aren’t meant as shouting, but just to stress the key words)
[[These theorists, like Del Ratcsh, for example, do not argue the evidence for evolution, they are arguing for a mysterious designer behind it all (in the “initiating conditions,” Ratsch says, which basically is what TE’s do.]]
That is fine- Ratcsh can BELIEVE anythign he wants- I am ONLY itnerested in the scientific FACTS. Obviously people like Demski and Ratcsh are going to mix in their own PERSONAL VIEWPOINTS amoung the SCIENTIFIC FACTS, that is unaviodable unfortunately, but that does NOT mean that I have to subscribe to ANY of their UNSUPPORTED BELIEFS that lie outside of the strict SCIENTIFIC FACTS that they present.
Look- these people are quite smart, and their research is invaluable, but just because they’re smart, that doesn’t prevent them from steping outside of science and believing somethign that amounts to nothign more than a scientifically impossible pipedream.
[[What’s the point of making God so small He is all but pushed out of His own creation? Does that serve your purpose, Alex?]]
Well Alice, noone is making God small- infact, it bolsters the idea that God created each species uniquely and fully by pointing out His fingerprints in Nature’s designs. Science can be used to confirm Intelligentce, and This itnelligence, in my personal opinion, is God, which I think Science will discover the more we dig biologically (Not that I think God will ever be ‘discovered’ using science, but I beleive enough evidence will emerge that will point very strongly to a highly intelligent Causation of Design..
[[So, my point stands. When arguing for ID theory, one is essentially arguing for us to believe Theistic Evolution, because the theorists who are making these argument are by and large, Theistic Evolutionists.]]
Egads- Sorry you beleive that, but quite frankly, you HAVE to ignore the points I’ve made that refute what you are saying. When I argue ID theory, I present JUST the facts- it’s only when people get defensive that the discussions veere from FACTS and start including personal OPINIONS and acusations.
There is simply no logical reason for you to assume a Christian MUST accept everythign someone beleives- it’s illogical to assume everyone MUST take an “All or Nothing” approach to issues. Look- the scientific FACTS are all that I’m itnerested in.
[[Dembski argues rather fervently that ID does not specify who or what the Creator may be, in fact, he argues quite strenuously that ID is not an attempt to argue for a particular creationist view.]]
I’m fully aware of Demski’s OPINIONS- I’m not itnerested in his OPINIONS OUTSIDE of the STRICT SCIENCE that he presents. He is an incredibly smart person, and he applies that gift to SCIENCE, and produces some astonishing material- that’s ALL I’m itnerested in, because he presents ideas that can be scientifically tested and applied. His PERSONAL VIEWS OUTSIDE of hte STRICT SCIENCE that he presents are quite frankly meaningless because he can produce NO evidence to support any idea of Naturalistic Macroevolution.
[[There is a better way to argue the Biblical creation, and the theistic model.]]
I dissagree- There is enough science to support IC and to highly suggest a strong probability that the fingerprints of a Designer can be seen.
[[Essentially, because ID proponents use the model incorrectly, to attack methodological naturalism, especially on the issue of public education, without providing an equally clear and productive scientific model in which to do science, the public has a wise fear of it.]]
Nope- I dissagree totally- It is hte SCIENCE ITSELF that refutes Macroevolution- The ID scientist simply points to the FACTS in the already established science that rip Macroeovlution to shreds. It is NOT the ID’ist who “Attacks” Science, it it science’s own fault that their hypothesis contains such impossible FACTS. ID simply exposes what Science refuses to acknowledge or make public. That isn’t “Attacking”, it is exposing what is already present so that the people have ALL the information and NOT just the seemingly favorable evidence that is presented in such a way as to APPEAR to be scientifically valid- With a little investigation, and not just blind acceptance, one can start to uncover the myriad of problems- the myriad biological impossibilities, the myriad law violating principles of Macroevolution, and one can start to see it for the smoke and mirrors that it really is.
Suppose a huge company created a drug that helped with Asthma, but they his evidence from the public that the drug causes tumors on the kidneys- Would it be a case of “Attacking” to dig into the company., to cut through all the hyped ‘positive evidneces’ and to discover and reveal the negatives of the company? Woudl a person need to come up with an alternative method of investigation in order for negative evidences to be taken seriously? No! Of Course Not!
Suppose hte company, who is heavily invested in the drug, launched a campaign against the investigators, and accused them “Attacking” the company. Is that a logical response? No! Of Course Not! - it’s an attempt to cover up KNOWN PROBLEMS and to represent the investigators as ‘vindictive and religious’ in their pursuit of hte truth-
[[If we can show the public that we in fact are not obscurantists, that we understand the issues in context, and show them that we can be responsible in the use of scientific methodology, we can demand a fairer representation in the public schools.]]
ID was presented fairly and clearly- it was an activist Judge that DENIED the FACTS and rested his case on his own personal BIAS about somethign that is more a religion than ID ever thought of being - ie: Macroevolution! Look- it’s not our fault that the dogma of Macroevolution has been so heavily invested in that the ‘company’ can’t let go of it.
[[“Why would you not want your children to become experts in the evolutionary theory, and be the ones on the cutting edge of this science, if for no other reason than to understand it better than their philosophical counterparts?”]]
Why? Because it is a LIE- plain and simple. I want my children to become experts in the problems with Macroevolution so that they can tell others about the LIE that is being foisted on us all!
Why would I want My children being indoctrinated in somethign that is biologicically impossible? Why woudl I want my children being taught ONLY what Macroevolutionists WANT them to be taught? Why woudl I want my children sheltered from being taught the PROBLEMS with Macroevolution? I want My kids to learn ALL the science- NOT just the science that is presented in it’s current form! I want my children learning that Macroevolution is IMPOSSIBLE, and that Macroevolution violates the natural law not just in a few moot instances, but at EVERY SINGLE step of the imaginary process. It is a FACT that mutations can NOT produce Macroevolution. Mutations can NOT itnroduce NEW information- and Macroevolution certainly can NOT create IC in a stepwise process.
Why woudl I want my children learnign a LIE?
[[which is to explain why you are promoting the views of people you claim to be against, namely TE’s, because there is hardly a whisker of difference between a Behe, a Dembski, and a run of the mill Evolutionist.]]
You must not be paying attention- nowhere am I promoting their VIEWS- I promote the SCIENCE that they present that support the idea of ID and IC- period-
I could just as well ask you why you promote slavery by paying people with money that has “In God We Trust” on it when those words were enacted by slave owning founding fathers? Or why you wuold quote a founding father when in defense of one of our liberties when, according to your opinion, being ‘all or nothing’, then you would thusly be ‘promoting’ their personal beleifs that slavery wasn’t wrong!
You’ve been writing for 28 years and noone has called you on this silly mistaken opinion of yours? Wow!
[[This debate is OLD. YEC and other forms of creationist arguments with evolution were THOROUGHLY disproven in the decade of the 90’s on that forum, and others.]]
What a load of crap- While you have your own PERSONAL OPINION- tryign to present it as fact is intellectually dishonest- they have NOT been ‘thoroughly disproven’- they have been refuted using ASSUMPTIONS! - don’t present ASSUMPTIONS as FACTS Sonny-
[[Anyone who wishes to understand evolutionary theory and see clearly stated arguments responding to several forms of creationism need only go to the talkorigins website and browse]]
Oh for crying out loud- TalkOrigins is NOTHING but a propoganda site that is RIFE with LIES, Half-Truths, and outright Deceitful crap! TrueOrigins.com EXPOSES a great majority of their outirght LIES Sonny! While you are certainly entitled to your biased opinion- don’t presume to present htem as factual becuase I will show you siter after site which exposes the complete lies you are being fed on sites like TalkOrigins!
[[I am a SIX-DAY CREATIONIST BIBLICAL TRADITIONALIST. But because you are unaware of how one can hold that position and still state that the evidence for evolution is clear, you think it’s not possible, so you assume I am a troll or disingenuous or something.]]
Nope- I simply think you are either a genuione Christian who has been misled, OR that you are a self-professed Christian who doesn’t know God via the forgiveness of sins through accepting Christ as Savior- just like God said to do, and someone who is deceived in their own mind. Troll? No- Misguided and misled? Absolutely- especially when you cite sites like TalkOrigins as the basis for your beliefs! IF you REALLY wanted to know the truth, you would ceede the refutatiosn and exposures of TrueOrigins as they contain TRUTH Sonny, and don’t rely on lies and half-truths to make their case- The fact that TalkOrigins contains so many Blatant LIES should be enough for you and others to recognize it for the sham that it is, but you and others apparently would much prefere believing the lies- just like hte bible says folks like you would. Just don’t expect logical thinkers and seekers of the TRUTH, and seekers of ALL the scientific evidences (and not just the spoon-fed evidences) to buy into the lies.
[[This is understandable, but it really would be quite more enlightening for you to try to understand my position, rather than getting foamy at the mouth about it.]]
Look- if you’re simply misguided about hte science, then your position and opinion are excusable. If you’re simply unaware of the coutner arguments and the scientfic refutations to sites like TalkOrigins, then again, it’s excusable- however, If you are aware of such sites, and STILL deny the science that refutes sites like TalkOrigins, then no, I’m afraid your position is innexcusable, and folks like myself will expose thel ies perpetrated in this forum. IF you truly are a Christian, then you owe it both to yourself, and to others who read your material, to look OBJECTIVELY at ALL of hte eivdence. Doing so WILL expose Macroevolution for what it is- a LIE that is unfortunately being foisted on our chiuldren. The truth is out there Sonny, but going into it with an a priori belief that an impossible hypothesis is preferable to the truth nothing will ever convince you otherwise.
You make hte acusation that Christians are supposedly ‘promoting’ the PERSONAL BELIEFS of folks like Demski when we cite hteir SCIENCE, but it appears that the only one promoting their BELIEFS here is you. It appears you’re having difficulty understanding that their BELIEFS are not written in stone, and thusly are nothign but PERSONAL OPINIONS that quite simply can NOT be backed up sciejntifically.
[[I’m not going to sit here and argue for evolutionary theory, my point is to show people sides of the argument they haven’t considered before.]]
No- Apparently your point is to convince people that the lies being peddled on TalkOrigins are truth when infact they are not- While there are SOME scientific facts by reputable people on TalkOrigins- the MAJORITY of the ‘evidences’ presented are nothign but smoke and mirror LIES that rely on nothign but PURE ASSUMPTIONS, and the Site TrueOrigins exposes this very fact tiem and time again.
[[The burden of proof lies with those going against the majority of science.]]
Actually, no it isn’t- the burden of proof is on Macroevolution because it has been mandated as our official science in our schools- And so far- Macroevolution has NOT been able to show itself as a valid scientific process. Infact, it’s much much worse., the science itself argues directly agaisnt Macroevolution at every step of the supposed imaginary process.
[[If they can cook your food in microwaves ovens, and shoot rockets to Jupiter, they have an understanding of scientific methodology that is utilitarian, it works. Now, along you come and tell them that in several hundreds lines of independent evidence, they are wrong on the subject of origins. So, the natural question is, “where is your alternative theory?”]]
Nope- wrong again- Along I coem and show the evidnece that hsows IC and that shows that Macroevolution is wrong- I don’t ‘tell them’ anything- I simply present the evidences from their own scientific endeavors.
[[Show us YOUR evidence to the contrary. Creationists have no evidence, not one shred. WHY?]]
Yes we do- IC, Radio Halos, Evidence for a young earth, evidences for a theory about the universe and the design etc etc etc- Your ASSERTION is incorrect!
[[The other methods are EASILY shot down.]]
Hmmm- Do you more easily ‘shot down’ than everythign you’ve presented here?
Do yourself a favour and spend a couple of weeks on this site- you’ll quickly come to understand the magnitude of LIES you’ve been fed over on TalkOrigins, and you’ll begin to get a better understanding of just how science is lying to you, and the extent to which they go to cover up their problems as well. But I suspect you’re just like hte rest and will deny the evidences till the end.
You can start with the complete scientific refutation of the much touted “29 evidences for Macroevolution” located here: http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp For hwich not a single one stood up under scientific examination:
[[PREDICTION 13: ANATOMICAL CONVERGENCE
A corollary of the principle of evolutionary opportunism is convergence. Convergence is the case where different structures perform the same or similar functions in different species. Two distinct species have different histories and different structures; if both species evolve the same new function, they may recruit different structures to perform this new function. Convergence also must conform to the principle of structural continuity; convergence must be explained in terms of the structures of predicted ancestors.]]
Refuted!
“The alleged prediction and fulfillment are:
If universal common ancestry is true, then some species will have structures that perform the same or a similar function performed by different structures in other species.
Some species have structures that perform the same or a similar function performed by different structures in other species.
It is not a prediction of the hypothesis of universal common ancestry or the more specific hypothesis of Neo-Darwinism that different species will have different structures that perform the same function.[31] As ReMine observes, “Evolutionary theory does not predict any adaptations, much less convergent adaptations.” (ReMine, 141.) This is but another example of taking a known pattern of life, claiming that pattern as a prediction of evolution, and then using the fact the pattern fits the prediction as evidence for the truth of evolution. “Evolutionists merely claim that extensive convergence is virtually inevitable. They do this because ‘convergence’ is abundant in nature.” (ReMine, 168.)
Moreover, “convergence” by definition involves two separate starting points (“distinct species”) that “converge” on a given structure and/or function. It says nothing about how those starting points came to be separate. So whatever else one may make of the phenomenon, convergence is not evidence for universal common ancestry, the proposition being argued by Dr. Theobald.”
http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1d.asp#pred13
Did anyone at TalkOrigins walk you through these problems with Macroevolution? No? Hmmmm- you’d think someone of their scientific calibres would be intellectually honest enough to inform you of the evidneces which contradict what they were claiming eh? But apparently they ‘forgot’ to mention these problems to you eh? Who you gonna beleive Sonny? Those who HIDE contradictory evidences from you? Or those who will give you ALL the science behind the imaginary process of Macreovolution?
Ok, you guys brought up ID, not me. Now, it seems to me that you are the one who needs to differentiate between what aspects of ID you seem to agree with, with those aspects you now say they are wrong on, their “unsupported beliefs” to quote you. HMMM...
Secondly, you mentioned “His fingerprints in Nature’s designs.” Let’s examine that for a moment.
By fingerprints, of course, you would have to specify, but let’s take a couple examples that popular creationit models use, shall we?
How about the Phasmid leaf insects? (SEE http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/64/Ctenomorpha_chronus02.jpg)
many articles in YEC literature make much of the fact that God’s design can be seen clearly in the Phasmids, because they are camoflaged and can more easily prey or hide on other species, or other predators.
They forgot that that they have a doctrine called ‘the Fall’ that precludes predation BEFORE the Fall, so that God’s design for the purposes of predation becomes a moot point, there was no predation before the Fall, hence no need for camoflage, or predatory advantages.
How about Black Holes, or galaxies colliding together? Were they part of God’s original universe, or are they warped objects, warped by the Fall and the 2nd Law? Or huge meteors hitting planets? God’s design? destructive volcanoes? hurricanes? I could go on and on.
When you begin to put critical thought to your assertions, their sense begins to well....not make much sense.
Is galaxies colliding together and black holes crushing and sucking everything in their reach.....very good?
No death before the Fall. That’s a clear biblical tradition.
Creationists of all the popular models either have to convieniently forget that huge doctrine, or they have to change it to admit death before the Fall?
Now, where do you stand on death before the Fall? And when you say ‘fingerprints’ are you saying the universe did not Fall significantly at the Fall of man, to the point where the original creation, His direct handiwork, is not tainted by the effects of sin, and if so, whcih parts are not tainted, and still show His ‘fingerprints’ and which ones aren’t?
I’m not being fecetious. This is a major point of my theory, and is a major aspect of the Hypothetical Question which asks the question, ‘What would a universe without sin actually look like?’ “Is it possible in this age to make differentiations, if not experimentally, at least in thought experiment to begin with?’
THAT question is a smart one. That question can provide a basis for a REAL methodology in creationist work.
What are your thoughts?
[[Ok, you guys brought up ID, not me. Now, it seems to me that you are the one who needs to differentiate between what aspects of ID you seem to agree with, with those aspects you now say they are wrong on, their “unsupported beliefs” to quote you. HMMM...]]
It’s nopt very difficult Sonny- I spelled out how to differentiate quite clearly in my previous posts.
[[many articles in YEC literature make much of the fact that God’s design can be seen clearly in the Phasmids, because they are camoflaged and can more easily prey or hide on other species, or other predators.]]
Stick to hte science, ok? I don’t care what people THINK- I’m only itnerested i nthe science- Camoflauge, while certainly is a design of God in my PERSONAL OPINION, is NO indicator of His fingerprint. As you know, MICROevolution accounts for such minor changes in species. MICROEvolution (Which incidently is an established, scinetifically demonstratable FACT) isn’t evidence of design, it is simply a result of design- there is a KEY difference here inthat results of design follow the Natural laws- charactewristics of a design are NOT the design itself. DEsign in nature is Irreducibly complex and does indeed show hte need for an intelligence because the structures of the design could NOT have come about via a natural stepwise process such as MACROEvolution- in other words, a Designer is needed- an intelligence- and this would be evidence for a designer- NOT the results of design parameters such as MICROEvolution produce.
[[Or huge meteors hitting planets? God’s design? destructive volcanoes? hurricanes? I could go on and on]]
Results of Evil? Now you want answers to theoretical issues? I personally BELIEVE that WE invited evil- We invited dissasters when WE sinned against God, and now we suffer the righteous soveriegn judgements for our actions. But let’s get back to the science eh?
[[When you begin to put critical thought to your assertions, their sense begins to well....not make much sense.]]
You mean their sense clashes with your a priori BELIEFS? Hmmm- they make plenty of sense- it’s just that you’re not willing to dig deep for answers and to accept the true answers you receive because they conflict with your desire to bow before the alter of Darwin.
[[Is galaxies colliding together and black holes crushing and sucking everything in their reach.....very good?]]
Mind telling me where in the bible it states that everythign has to be ‘very good’ for us? Infact, I’ll point you to the biblical passages that make it crystal clear that everythign in the beginning was indeed very good, but that WE chose to throw all that away because WE valued PRIDE more than we valued God’s love and protection in paradise. But again- enough with hte philisophical ponderings- let’s just stick with the science here.
[[Creationists of all the popular models either have to convieniently forget that huge doctrine, or they have to change it to admit death before the Fall?]]
Well I see you’re goign to indulge in Christian hate soem more, so let’s address this and dispell it quick like a bunny here- when you can point out that all the negatives existed before creation, difinitively, and not just with more of your assumption laden OPINIONS, then we’ll accomodate your apparent need to see CHristians eat crow- until then, you’ve NO evidence to difinitively state any such thing- only your OPINION about past events.
[[Now, where do you stand on death before the Fall?]]
See above remark for my answer to this.
[[And when you say ‘fingerprints’ are you saying the universe did not Fall significantly at the Fall of man, to the point where the original creation, His direct handiwork, is not tainted by the effects of sin, and if so, whcih parts are not tainted, and still show His ‘fingerprints’ and which ones aren’t?]]
When I speak of Fingerprint of God, I refere to IC- any forensic scientist can tell you that when they discover somethign like 1000 complex objects, Say something like 1000 complex (but primitive) batteries that were discovered, or some such complex items, that in a sense, they can determine a ‘fingerprint’ of the designers- an element or multiple elements (fingerprints) that indicates a designer was needed.
Now, while the world and everythign in it were indeed tainted, there are degrees of taint, and this does NOT mean that His fignerprint, defining characteristics of a designer, would have been automatically and completely erased. We can and DO still find evidnece of His characteristic designs all through creation even though everythign has been taint4d.
Which ones show the fingerprints? Easy- IC, and to a lesser extent much in biology shows designed features which despite extensive scientific testing and investigations, simply have NOT been shown to have been capable of purely naturalistic assemblies or Macroevolution. The deeper science digs, the worse it gets for Macroevolution (If there is such a thing as worse than impossible). The deeper we go in microbiology, them ore evident that massive amounts of intelligence was needed in order to structure the myriad complexities at even the ‘simplest’ stages of organisms and systems. The more we discover this, the more apparent it becomes that Macroevolution simply could not have produced what some claim it could.
[[‘What would a universe without sin actually look like?’]]
Stick around, you’ll find out when the new Heaven and the new earth are created for those of us who were too stupid to hold onto the first perfect sinless creation.
[[THAT question is a smart one. That question can provide a basis for a REAL methodology in creationist work.]]
The only hting it can provide for is more assumptions- you’re asking that we drop science and isntead focus on speculating about past unknowns? If you want my personal opinions, fine- that’s for another thread though, but I beleive there is enough evidence to support ID and ID, and that our strongest case is made through the sciences, and under a judge who will try the case WITHOUT Admitted Bias as Judge Jones admitted to and which was blatantly obvious in the trial manuscripts. Even evolution scientists acknowledged that Judge Jones ruling was moronic inthat he clealry based his descision on bias and nothign else. Judge Jones was an activist judge whos ruling will be overturned. Macroevolution is a religious hypothesis based on nothing but assumpotions about past events that can’t be tested and worse can’t be demonstrated. The judge gave more wieght to Miller’s rediculous DECONSTRUCTION of ALREADY ESTABLISHED IC. Anyone can take apart an intelligent Design, but Miller could NOT explain how the Intelligent design came to be fully functional in the first place, nor could he produce ANY evidence to show his stepwise deconstruction of the design and nor could he show that the species of ecoli could have even survived- ALL he did was to show that some non critical parts were evident in lesser species- thaT’S IT! His argument was NOTHING but pure speculation- yet hte judge allowed it as fact while dismissing hte ACTUAL FACTS presented by ID.
I need to make my following point more clear:
“Stick to hte science, ok? I don’t care what people THINK- I’m only itnerested i nthe science- Camoflauge, while certainly is a design of God in my PERSONAL OPINION, is NO indicator of His fingerprint.”
Camoflauge on it’s own is not a fignerprint of God- However, IF the camaflouge is a result of IC compnents, and could NOT have been produced any other way, then yes, it would be a fignerprint of a desinger or itnellgience. IF there are systems, both macroe and micro in a species that are IC, and if the species can’t survive without hte complete assembly of those systems, then you have a case for a fignerprint. Now let’s be clear here- Camoflauge itself isn’t the case for the fignerprint, and a species certainly doesn’t necessarily have to perish if they don’t have the camoflauge, as millions of brightly coloured insects can testify to, ... Natural Selection can and does affect aspects like Camoflauge, and MICROEvolution follows set laws, and thus isn’t a case for fignerprint. However, suppose that several IC systems are invovled i nthe camoflauge, and the species could not move if several of them ceased to function. Then you have the case for a fignerprint.
You have to be careful the evidence you tackle Sonny,- there is copious amounts of less educated OPINIONS out htere, and it isn’t fair to characterize the whole of ID based on some less educated OPINIONS. Even some more sophisticated and educated sites can make soem hairbrained OPINION oriented statements- BUT that in no way discounts what sound science they might conduct or present. That’s why I keep stating that I am NOT itnerested in opinions when making my case. That is not to say that I won’t concider and think about someone’s opinions, but this would be outside of the science that is being discussed, and would be a personal opinion of my own, which as you know, opinions are allowed, but they should not take precedence when discussing issues like we’re discussing. AIG has some very good science, BUT they also have soem very opinionated articles, some of which I even dissagree with, but it wouldn’t be fair to label them as ignorant or telling of lies simply because they indulge in opinions fro mtime to time- it is their science that should be evaluated, objectively, and without bias. If it is sound, it will stand, if not, it will fall- but some that fall do not negate the science that stands on it’s own truth.
[[However, suppose that several IC systems are invovled i nthe camoflauge, and the species could not move if several of them ceased to function. Then you have the case for a fignerprint]]
EgaDS I’m getting tired, I meant ot say suppose if the IC systems broke down and the species perished because it could not move, then you have a case for a fignerprint. IC is the determining factor for fingerpint, not simpel camoflauge systems that don’t rely on IC and can and do get manipulated by MICROevolution as we know it can. Camoflauge in and of itself isn’t critical to survival- many species survive just fine without it, but IC IS critical to survival, and species can not exist without IC systems and their critical compopnents being fully inplace and functioning. While some lesser species may have aspects of lesser critical components in an IC system, this is NOT a valid argument against IC.
Take a blender for example. Now suppose that a naturalist is arguing that the blender Macroevolved from a single element. The c’reationists’ is arguing that it is too complex to have evolved stepwise naturally.
The ‘Creationist’ points to the motor (just as the IC propnents point to the motor of ecoli) and says, the blender can NOT function without a completed and fully assembled and working motor inplace. The naturalist however artgues that a natural piece of metal found on an island somerhwere and which looks like a mixing spoon and has features ‘similar’ to the paddles on the mixer, and therefore, it is entirely possible that them ixer could have Macroevolved.
I know it sounds rediculous, and your right, this annalogy is rediculous,. BUT it is precisely what folks like Miller aregued in their case against ID. He argued that lesser species had ‘similar’ features (but neglected to inform the judge that they were NOT critical components of the higher ecoli species beign discussed), and therefore it was entirely probable that the higher Ecoli Evolved from the lesser species. Miller FAILED to tell the court that the Ecoli in question would have NOT been able to survive IF any of the CRITICAL IC components were removed from the locomotion device in the ecoli.
As I said- arguing that lesser critical components can be removed from IC systems is NOT a valid argument against IC no more so than arguing that you can remove the window wipers from a 747 and it will still fly. Remove the intake fans from the engines however, and you have critical breakdown- the plane isn’t going anywhere. The fins of hte intake fan, and the myraid other critical components of an engine are absolutely necessary for the function of the plane, and these design signatures are infact signatures, or fingerprints of IC and a designer, and could not have Macroevololved.
God made man to die. Some sooner than others. Some get their through different means but they still get there.
I could say more, but why bother, I’m can see I’m going to get flamed on this site no matter what I say, because Christians are largely stupid, and haven’t got the sense to actually comprehend what someone is trying to say before the try to contradict it. i’m seeing this same thing on other threads, not speaking of you personally.
I went through my whole life believing Pluto was a planet. I learned it in school.
One day I read somewhere it wasn’t a planet anymore.
People, “scientists” even decided, based apparently on size alone, that it just didn’t cut the mustard anymore. People decided it wasn’t big enough anymore.
So I thought I might at least go do a little research on my own. What I learned was that some group of astronomers I suppose decided Pluto was no longer a planet, BUT other astronomers didn’t believe this to be the case.
Odd.
Much like some scientists belive in man made global warming or climate change or whatever the latest “science” is on that subject, while others don’t.
You could say I’m a scientist of sorts, being a hospice nurse, I utilize a few scientific methods, studied various science courses and so on.
What I also find a bit strange is learning that wine is good in moderation, even has “antioxidant” properties, and then I learn it’s not so good, a few months later it’s good...then bad all over again, all in moderation. I guess scientists just keep studying and I’m told EVENTUALLY evolution will be proven true too and they’re still working the wine thing out. One day we’ll know for sure it’s either good or bad for us in moderation.
So much of science seems to be nothing more than opinion.
Too bad it’s not that simple though!
Concensus or even majority opinion often determines just what science is, let alone the conclusions it reaches on these matters.
I suspect also that if the Gallo Brothers provide a large grant to study pluto, wine might well be good for people that particular week! And if they provide the beverages for the next astronomy conference on Plutoin Hawaii or somewher real cool, I KNOW wine will be all antioxidenatalicious and such!
Meanwhile being a Christian, I have the gift of God to utilize my experiences and God given intelligence to be able to determine that the way to heaven thankfully is NOT by snipping my nuts off and killing myself to catch a spaceship in the tail of a comet.
Meanwhile science is nothing more than finding some people to agree with you and being whatever it is that you wish it to be!
But oh well...I guess I’M stupid for not understanding “science”!
Is that about right?
Exactly- Further, when we objectively evaluate a system, any system, we’ve got to ask oursoeves when to draw the line- how many problems and impossible leaps does it take to render a system non functional? When the best that Macroeovlutionists can give is riddled with scientific impossibilities, and is completely lacking in experimental support, you have to seriously question just how viable the system really is.
The Macroevolution story, right from the very foundations itself, abiogenisis, is an impossible genetic scenario that needs to be propped up with hypothetical scenarios that simply do not exist in nature. Not only is it impossible for amino acids to Macroevolve into protiens, but hte very process of ‘creating’ amino acids takes a tremendous amount of energy, destructive energy that makes it impossible for amino acids to survive. While it is true that miller was able to create amino acids in the lab, it was under such stringent controlled experimentation that it showed quite conclusively that nature simply is incapable of such environmental controls. Miller had to isolate hte destructive nature of the energy from the Amino Acids in order to ‘artifically create’ some amino acids which incidently had to be further artifically isolated from the wrong amino acids, as mixing left hand and right hand amino acids destroys the acids altogether. Miller, (and indeed nature) simply can not create just the right amino acids, protect them long enough, for the process to even get beyond the most infant of stages, yet we’re told in our science books that these amino acids must have survived many millions of years o ntheir own while nature produced astonishing miracles of Macroevolution and evolved them into the next stage of life- protiens? Which again, must be pointed out, is an impossible leap.
While Macroevolutionists are busy trying to hypothesize a scenario where Amino acids could have survived the destructive forces of nature and energy, the process still faces yet another major impossibility- that of informaiton. Where did hte information come from? If everythign has a natural explanation, then surely the Macroevolutionist can explain the natural ‘creation’ of information and instructions, right? Nope- they can’t. These instructions are so vast in magnitude at even the ‘simplest’ life stages, that it woudl take encyclopedic volumes to fill, but we’re never told how these complex instructions ever got their start in a supposedly natural world devoid of intelligence.
Have scientific experiments ever ‘naturally caused’ information to arise from nothing? Nope- not even close- all they can manage is to show experimental manipulations of informaiton that is already present. They can’t even create new information with a set of information already at hteir beckon-call. One thing I want you to note here is that these experiments amount ot what? Yup, intelligent design. They are taking information that has already been provided them, and have attempted to intellgiently design experiments to manipulate instrucitons in order to prop up their hypothesis, yet they have failed to produce any NEW information.
In order to prop up the hypothesis of Macroevolution, the process needs LOTS of intelligent help to make even the mootest of progress that still can’t overcome much more serious problems down the road. The naturalist, in his attempt to throw out intelligent design, has only managed to show just how much intelligent design is really needed, and yet our feeble experiments can only manage the most basic and useless arrangements needed in order to attempt to overcome impossible scenarios.
There comes a time when the objective observer must conclude that “Time + mutations” simply is not a realistic scenario to overcome these biological impossibilities. and, if you’re thinking that Macroevolution is still a possbility after God ‘started the process’ by creating some basic building blocks first, and hten ‘letting nature run it’s course’, then I assure you that the further down the road you get from even the m ost impossible naturally induced simple building blocks, the m ore problems and impossiblties you wil l run into.
Don’t be wowed by claims by scientists that they have ‘produced’ some process of ‘Macroevolution’ in a lab test tube- examine the claims indepth and you will QUICKLY realize that there is a mountain of information they are NOT tellign you that directly refute their claims to fame, and hsow just how necessary Intelligent Design really is in nature. Examine carefully just how slight of hand their claims really are, and you will see that they have left out critical details that prove conclusively that their claims rely on assumptions that simply do NOT exist in nature, and could NEVER ever hope to arise through a process of RM+NS. The next time you reas that life has ‘been created’ in the lab, don’t just take it at face value- look into the claim carefully, read rebuttles from people who know what they are talking about, and who aren’t afraid of upsetting the apple cart by exposing the TRUTH behind the claims that directly refute what the shysters are claiming. It will quickly become quite evident that even at hte ‘simplest’ levels, the amount of intelligence needed to coordinate the system to create cooperation between infomations ALREADY present, is far m ore complex and irreducible than the claimers will reveal to you. It becomes quite evident to the true objective observer, (someone who isn’t already committed to a hypothesis that needs intellgient propping up in orde4r to even be slightly plausible) that even at hte ‘simplest’ stage of life, that intelligence and guidance with a predetermined purpose is an absolute must.
If even the simplest stages of the mythical process of Macroevlution runs into a show stopping roadblock, what makes us think that higher and higher complexities inherrent in higher life forms which require higher and higher instructional guidances could ever have a chance in hell of occuring? Time+RM+NS quite simply can not erase the impossible roadblocks on the course of the ill-fated Macroevolutionary process- regardless of the starting point- whether at abiogensis, or later after special creation. Those who claim Macroevolution is consistent with Belief in God simply either do not understand how serious the problems are with Macroevolution. These problems are not incidental- they are absolutely critical and self-defeating to the idea of Macroevolution.
Sonny- there is no “New way of looking” at this problem as you claim in your thesis. The only way you can claim that is by assigning miraculous characteristics to Nature, thus transfering that characteristic from God to a natural ‘entity’ that has absolutely NO hope of accomplishing the miracles of life that you have mistakenly thought it could. The only way one can concider a “New way of looking” at this issue is to deny the biolgical evidences that refute Macroevolution and insist that nature is somehow capable of the impossible, and capable of violating hte very fundamentals that Nature itself observes without fail.
I need to further elaborate a part of my last post- I said “Don’t be wowed by claims of “Macroevolution creation’ in the lab by scientists- their claims of Macroevolution, when examined in detail, are NOTHING more than MICROEvolutionary changes- Every last claim of Macroevolution by scientists has proven to be NOTHING more than MICROEvolution manipulation. MACROEvolution has NEVER been produced in a lab, and any scientist attempting to pass off MICROEvolution as MACROEvolution is being intellectually and scientifically DISHONEST with readers. The fact is that MACROEvolution has never been produced or witnessed, and is nothign but a hypothesis that lacks ANY evidence to support.
IF MACROEvolution could have EVER been shown, then the whole controversy over the issue would have long been dead, yet, the fact is that the impossibility of MACROEvolution has proven to be too incredible to overcome, and despite 150+ years of intense investigation and experimentation, science has completely failed to produce anythign close to MACROEvolution through intelligent manipulation of VAST amounts of information already provided to them. The greatest minds in hostory have tackled this problem, and none have managed to even come close to overcomming the fact that MACROEvolution is an impossibility. Those who claim there is ‘overwhelming evidence’ to support MACROEvolution are quite frankly lying to you. There is however mountains of evidence to support- pay close attention here, because htis is the concrete TRUTH of the matter- to support MICROEvolution- nothing more! Many top scientists have concluded that there simply is no evidence or hope for MACROEvolution, (Many top scientists concluded in a symposium to discuss the viability of MACROEvolution in the Chicago meeting not long ago, that MACROEvolution was simply biologically impossible) but sadly, we’re still being indoctrinated in our schools by Activist scientists and educators and judges, who have a clear agenda to spread a lie, a religious belief in a process that can’t be demonstrated in even the basic of cases, and information about a process that is simply not supported by the evidence. The simple FACT is that there are no ‘mountains of evidnece’ for MACROEvolution, there isn’t infact, a shred of evidnece for it, and hwen pressed by inquiring minds, this admission is quietly ceeded, but pushed under the rug so that it won’t be exposed, and so that people won’t get beyond mere acceptance of claims and investigate the issue in more depth and find out that the hypothesis is so riddled with impossibilities that it quite simply could never have happened.
When asked to produce MACROEvolution proof or evidence, EVERY SINGLE TIME, what is presented is NOT MACROEvolution, but is NOTHING MORE than MICROEVolution passed off as MACROEvolution. It’s a deceitful, intellectually dishonest trick that unfortunately has duped many unsuspecting people- folks who haven’t the time or experience to investigate the matter further, and anyone presentign matertial under such false pretenses with the express intent of decieving others should quite frankly be ashamed of themselves, but as I’ve learned over many years, apparently shame isn’t a word some scientific advocates understand or even care about if they do understand it.
Now Sonny, You came on htis forum accusing Christians of ignorance, and of being ‘uninformed’ and you made the claim that there is “Irrefutable Evidence” to back up MACROEvolution. I asked you for all this “Irrefutable evidence” and you have given us absolutely NOTHING to back up your claim. Having a differenceo f opinion is one hting, but coming here and accusing Christians of ignorance and of ‘being uninformed’ is a scurilous accusation, and you’ve been called on it to back up your claims of the mythical ‘Irrefutable evidneces’ to support MACROEvolution. You come here claiming that we ‘need a new way’ to think about evolution, yet you give absolutely NO evidence to suggest that we should drop all reasoanble investigations and conclusions and adopt a process that is completely lackign in scientific evidence to support it. You are askign htat we suspend intellect, and simply take at face value the claims that a biolgically impossible process happened, and not question the claims. Now, if your definition of stupid Christians includes the meaning that Christians are stupid for having hte intellect to question the claims of Macroevolutionists, then by golly, yup- we’re stupid. If intelligence to you is dropping critical investigations into claims, and simply unquestionably accepting a process that is biologically impossible, and a process with absolutely ZERO evidence to support, then again, I guess we’re all just ignant CHristians- but I tell you the truth, I’d rather be deemed stupid for investigating claims, and discoverign hteir claism to be WRONG, than to be thought of as intelligent, but never questioning a hypothesis so impossible that it boggles hte mind to htink anyone could insist it is true despite hte overwhelming evidences AGANST it.
yopu asked what I’ll do IF it is discovered nature ‘could have’ created life? I tell you honestly, I am simply NOT afraid of that EVER happening becausde the biolgical evidence is so overwhelming against it. I also recognize that all our efforts to produce MACROEvolution have led to failure, and have led to a very reasonable conclusion that intelligence is indeed NEEDED. The intelligence needed is FAR far superior and complex to anythign nature could EVER hope to accomplish. And again, I don’t fear any outcome that might condradict the idea of intelligence, because quite frankly, the biolgical evidence is solidly behind the idea of an imensely complex intelligence at every single system in species- from the MICROSystem al lthe way up the MACROSystem. Macroevolution is a dead hypothesis- it’;s just that it’;s advocates aren’;t willing to ceede that fact (Which is understandable concidering hte amount of energy and time that they’ve heavily invested in the dead end hypothesis-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
