Challenge to Creationists (page 12)

Landy

If evidence emerged to support creation would you change your mind?

Has it?

Or are you admitting that there currently isn't any?

Anders Andersen

@SBF,

I would. Being a former JW creationist I already once changed my core beliefs and overthrew my whole life based on evidence for JW not being the true religion, and evolution.

I'm not hesitant to change my beliefs based on evidence. It's just that claims re. creation are completely without evidence.

@Landy,

Spot on! I like your way of thinking :-)

Saved_JW

A disclaimer before I present my evidence for Creation

I have found that Atheists are very selective about what they consider to be evidence that would support any other worldview then the ones they presuppose. Evidence does not speak for itself, we all have bias and we all interpret evidence through the filters of our assumptions. So that what is "Reasonable" to one individual, may be unreasonable to another.

I have many presuppositional approaches that I can demonstrate showing the rationality of an intelligence behind creation. I can also demonstrate how any worldview outside of a special creation point of view is not consistent with Science or Ethics. But I will make this post very simple and stay as close as I can to Empirical evidence as requested.

EVIDENCE for INTELLIGENCE/CREATION:

1- Information begets Information: In order for us to make use of Science as a tool, we must assume that nature can be predictable. The examined world around us works in a generally mechanical, intelligent and predictable way. This is what scientists ASSUME when they approach the scientific modem of observation and tests. In fact, this assumption of general predictability of nature is EXACTLY what you would expect in a creation model. Why? Because if we observe intelligence in nature, we can assume an intelligent designer. [Information begetting information] At the very least, this assumption is consistent with observable evidence.

Science cannot assume arbitrary starting points for nature [non-intelligence] since this would automatically assume that nothing in nature can truly be predicted, since there would be ultimately no objective laws to govern nature.

What we CAN know is that there is absolutely no existing scientific model that will demonstrate that we can get INFORMATION from NON-INFORMAITON. If we did, Atheists would be holding this up as the holy grail of its dogma. But there isn't. The only model science can use [ironically enough] is a model that assumes intelligence and universal laws.

When DNA is examined, this can be examined in terms of intelligence, since information is passed from one generation to another. Predictable models of information are taken away from the DNA to generate characteristics from one generation to another. Dog breeders do this all the time.

DNA is a code of information passed down from parent to child. Its predictable and generally stable. This is exactly what we would expect to observe if we assume INTELLIGENCE behind creation. Again, the evidence of nature always shows us that Information begets information, consistent with the assumptions of creationism.

This means the burden of proof/evidence falls on the one who claims there is no intelligence behind creation. Show me a model that shows this is true?

Landy

&saved_jw

That looks and sounds suspiciously like the 'It's complex and I don't understand it therefore creation' argument. Or are you coming at it from the specified complexity point of view.

Either way it's not evidence.

Anders Andersen

@Saved_JW,

Could you please clarify your position on which type if creation is the true story?

Young Earth, Old Earth, Gap, Day-Age, Progressive, Neo?

ID?

Theistic evolution?

Rattigan350

The fact that some animals have pointed teeth and others don't indicates creation. The need to eat meat does not evolve flat teeth to pointed. Needs and desired can't change DNA. They were created with pointed teeth to eat meet. Changes can only come from mutations.

Anders Andersen

@Rattigan,

Those are bold claims. Do you have any research and evidence to support them?

Anyway, have a look at this page for some contemporary examples of evolution in action: http://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/

Pay close attention to number 5. If a change in diet can change jaw size and biting force over some generations, why can't the same happen to the shape of teeth?

I suggest you research evolution from sources other that creationist websites. You'llama be surprised how much sense it actually makes; I know I was.

Remember, almost all of us here used to be die hard creationists. Ever wonder why some of us changed our minds?

cofty

Researchers do not have access to primordial "prehistoric" bacteria for them to demonstrate the suggested processes, so they use existing bacteria and plants instead. Bad examples... - Vidqun

It's hard to imagine a clearer example of the dishonesty of creationism.

First you propose that eukaryotic cells are evidence against evolution. This is just another facile argument from complexity.

It was explained to you that complex cells came about by the merger of simpler prokaryotic cells in a process of endosymbiosis.

You objected that, "this is contrary to nature... We cannot demonstrate the process in a lab"

I informed you that endosymbiosis has happened in the lab. It was observed by Kwang Jeon in 1966.

So your objection was answered in full. Endosymbiosis was observed to happen in the real world. It clearly was not "contrary to nature."

But now you shift the goalposts again. Rather than Kwang Jeon's work being proof that endosymbiosis can account for complex cells you assert that it doesn't count because it didn't involve "prehistoric bacteria".

This is "playing tennis without a net".

If you had bothered to read the paper about Kwang Jeon's work that I linked for you twice you would have seen that nobody "used existing bacteria". Kwang Jeon did not do anything other than observe and describe something that happened naturally and without interference.

You are a microbiologist. Why am I having to explain a 50 year old groundbreaking piece of science in your own field?

WhatshallIcallmyself

"DNA is a code of information passed down from parent to child. Its predictable and generally stable. This is exactly what we would expect to observe if we assume INTELLIGENCE behind creation. Again, the evidence of nature always shows us that Information begets information, consistent with the assumptions of creationism" - Saved_JW

Can you define information in this context please?

With regards the bold section of quote: Explain why you would expect this. Have you spoken to the intelligent designer and found this to be true? I am guessing not which begs the question as to how you would know what a designer would want to do.

"Evidence does not speak for itself, we all have bias and we all interpret evidence through the filters of our assumptions." - Saved_JW

This is a common creationist uttering and is designed to suggest that scientists simply interpret evidence one way of many possible ways, therefore creationist views are as valid as any other. However the reality is that scientists consider evidence in context, that context being how that evidence ties in with all the other evidence science as a whole as discovered so far. Creationists like to pick and choose what "evidence" to use to support their conclusions whereas in science a conclusion has to account for ALL current knowledge... Just look at all the creationist postings over the recent threads concerning evolution and you will see that all creation assertions or anti-evolution assertions have been from cherry picked data that was easily refuted by pointing out that very fact and supplying that person with all the information (or as much as was needed to point out the errors; see the post above for a classic example of how to deal with creationist reasoning...).

Quarterback

So this is a challenge to Creationists, eh?

Great. I just got my Hot Tub Time Machine working. Le'st go for a trip through..... What's this? You are not a Time Machine Believer?

Then how can we have a fair challenge if we can't go back through time?

Challenge to Creationists

Share this