Posts by hooberus

3) And the biggest reason of all: creation does not reveal a moral, loving Creator behind it all. Good Grief! If a scientist made an alligator with ten foot legs, we'd say he was an evil nutcase but that's what "God" did with dinosaurs! And there's mosquitos and liver flukes and guinea worms and cancer and other horrors wonderfully made (!) to adapt to their surroundings! I guess you could say I believe in some sort of ID but not with a personal Creator.

Your reasoning assumes that things like cancer were a part of the original created world, and not due to the consequences of the fall. see for example "Did God make Pathogenic Viruses? etc. http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3772/

How can non-creationists say for sure that cancer, parasites, suffering, and death, are bad when such things (acccording to most of them) were part of the processes that brought man into existence? Furthermore, how can they make judgements on what is moral when (according to them) their sense of morality is the product of an evolutionary process which selects soley on short-term survival value and not on moral value.

13

Is Evolution "Scientific" ?

by hooberus in

.

is evolution scientific ?.

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6155.

hooberus

Of course it's scientific. The theory of evolution makes predictions. It is falsifiable.

The book "The Biotic Message" demonstrates from evolutionists themselves the unfalsifiable state that evolution now exists in. "The book later argues that evolution is not science — using the evolutionist's own criterion of testability. Some evolutionary leaders are quoted essentially admitting that. The book argues that the new creation theory is testable science, and evolution is not. This role reversal is noteworthy since it engages the debate on the evolutionists' terms using their own criterion of science." http://saintpaulscience.com/contents.htm

It is observable. Don't you remember the news article from this past summer where bacteria were observed gaining a new trait? Not merely adapting, but gaining the ability to metabolize citrate? Look it up. Further proof of evolution in the lab.

First of all, most of the "examples" of evolution in the lab (even "beneficial mutations") given have been shown to be actually de-evolutionary: see for example: "Is Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics an Appropriate Example of Evolutionary Change?" http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_4/bact_resist.htm Instances of even claimed adaptation by information gain are a small subset of the rare"beneficial mutation" category. (Which is itself a very small subset of all mutations). Darwinism and the Deteroation of the Genome http://www.trueorigin.org/mutations01.asp As to the claim of bacteria "gaining the ability to metabolize citrate" as an example of "proof of evolution in the lab" http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5827

13

Is Evolution "Scientific" ?

by hooberus in

.

is evolution scientific ?.

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6155.

hooberus

So, evolution as "change in inherited traits over time" is scientfic,
evolution as an overarching ideology isn't?

"Change in inherited traits over time" is scientfic, however defining such change as "evolution" in the context of the evolution discussion/debate, and using this a proof of the "fact" of evolution, is frankly a trivial semantics only "victory".

In reality "change in inherited traits over time" is better defined as "what population genetics studies".

13

Is Evolution "Scientific" ?

by hooberus in

.

is evolution scientific ?.

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6155.

hooberus

‘ … the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’ 4
Any biologist will agree that this is a problematic defintion to start from. "Evolution" is not a theory, darwinism, otoh, is, common descent is, etc. Evolution is an observed fact, defined by wikipedia as "change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next". So, I'd like to see the context of this quote and the reason why the author uses this particular textbook (and not a dictionary, encyclopedia, general introductionary textbook) to build his critique on.
I think that many biologists would consider the definition "… the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form." as an accurate summary definition of what is meant by "evolution" in the context of creation-evolution discussions. It certainly parallels the overall version of history presented in textbooks and dedicated "evolution" books.
Furthermore, prominent evolutionists know full well that creation scientists accept the fact that "change in the inheritedtraits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next" occurrs, yet they still accuse these scientists of "rejecting evolution" since they don't accept the overall evolutionary version of history. Thus even evolutionists acknowledge that evolution is "really" it is much more than mere "change in the inheritedtraits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next".

13

Is Evolution "Scientific" ?

by hooberus in

.

is evolution scientific ?.

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6155.

hooberus

No observational data?
it is wrong to assume that evolutionary mechanisms cannot be empirically observed.

Next time read the article more carefully. (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6155) It is not saying that no type of "adaptation" has been observed but rather how such types of observed change really offer little support for the evolutionary version of history. Also see the article on fish adaptation in response to fishing here: http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1267/

13

Is Evolution "Scientific" ?

by hooberus in

.

is evolution scientific ?.

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6155.

hooberus

Is evolution scientific ?

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6155

98

Another fossil link found

by Caedes in

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7736786.stm.

the earliest turtles known to live in water have been discovered on a scottish island.. the 164 million-year-old reptile fossils were found on a beach in southern skye, off the uk's west coast.

the new species forms a missing link between ancient terrestrial turtles and their modern, aquatic descendants.

hooberus

funkyderek said:

Creationists at least have a certain naive honesty where they simply deny the overwhelming scientific evidence for the history of our universe and declare their holy book to be true. The ostensibly more rational theists or deists have a more insidious approach, where they simply find a gap in our current knowledge and assert that the only thing that can fill that gap is a god, an intelligent complex entity whom they further declare - to avoid the infinite regress - to be an exception to the very rule that supposedly requires his existence.

And what "rule" would that be?

64

"NO EVIDENCE" for God, and creation? Maybe there is . .

by hooberus in

atheists (however one defines the term) frequently use the term "no evidence" in relation to the existence of god, any type of creation, (especially genesis creation and flood), or most any other theistic claim.

they almost always however claim that their beliefs are "backed by evidence" ; "overwhelming evidence" etc, etc, etc, etc, repeat, etc, repeat, etc.. (their beliefs generally tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the world without needing god).

is there really "no evidence" for god, and creation?

hooberus

Here is how atheists like Dawkins construct their "reasoning" against legitimate probability arguments (fine tuning; origin of life, etc.).

First they claim that any designer of any complex thing must be more "complex" than their creation.
Then they claim that threfeore the odds of the more complex creator coming into existence must "be vastly more improbable" than than the odds against the complex thing (fine tuned universe; origin of life, etc.) arrising without a designer.
Finally they conclude that (given such a vast improbability) therefore "God almost certainly does not exist".

Therre are several variations of this type of argument (which are not always as explicit). The arguments are full of fallacies:

First they claim that any designer of any complex thing must be more "complex" than their creation. -This argument relies upon the equivocation of the definition of complexity. However, even if is assumed vaild the following reasoning chain is still invalid.
Then they claim that therefore the odds of the more complex creator coming into existence must "be vastly more improbable" than than the odds against the complex thing arising without a designer. -The central problem with argument is that it is only valid against hypothetical designers that had to themself "come into existence"; "pop into existence" etc. It says nothing whatsoever ever against the probability of a God that has always existed. For atheists to attempt to use this as an argument against the existence of an eternal God is dishonest argumentation.
Finally they conclude that (given such as vast improbability) therefore "God almost certianly does not exist". -Having assumed that any God must have an equivalent type of complexity, and having assumed that such a God could not be eternal, and must have come into existence they then proclaim God's non-existence by the same or greater mathematical odds used against fine tuning, origin of life, etc. Such reasoning equates improbability of coming into existence by chance with improbability of existence -even for beings not believd to have come about by chance!)

They never do present a real probability argument against an eternal God, (let alone against an eternal God not composed of "part" componets). Instead, they (Dawkins and his parrots) use the above reasoning and claim to have shown the improbability of the existence existence of any creator God.

If they do discuss the issue of possiblity of an eternal creator (or ones not composed of componet parts), they will generally dismiss such a creator God without any legitimate probability argumentation, and then shift to a discussion of "why can't they propose an eternal universe?". (which of course is not the subject directly under debate).

Anyway, the concept of an eternal fine tuned universe, or life without an origin, has been suggested and rejected by even most atheistic scientists for many reasons (such as thermodynamic evidence for a beginning to this universe). Instead (to try to escape the testable design inference), they invoke the multi-verse "explanation" -which is argued by many to be a retreat into untestability.

http://saintpaulscience.com/contents.htm

2. Naturalism vs. Science

- Covers issues in the philosophy of science.
- Explains the difference between scientific and non-scientific theories, particularly the key role of testability.
- Documents that evolutionists themselves have thoroughly endorsed testability as the criterion of science in all the key creation/evolution court cases.
  The book later argues that evolution is not science — using the evolutionist's own criterion of testability. Some evolutionary leaders are quoted essentially admitting that. The book argues that the new creation theory is testable science, and evolution is not. This role reversal is noteworthy since it engages the debate on the evolutionists' terms using their own criterion of science. It is also a departure from previous creationist positions.
- Debunks the evolutionists' attempts to define creation out of science:
  - Identifies cases where evolutionists use a double standard — one standard for creation theory, and a lesser one for evolution.
  - Shows that theories involving an intelligent designer are already accepted by evolutionists as testable science. Therefore, evolutionists cannot claim such theories are inherently unscientific.
  - Debunks the evolutionist's assault on the argument from design. Shows that the argument from design can be thoroughly convincing. For example, we often show that someone's death was not accidental, that it was designed — and we show it so compellingly that we execute the 'designer'.
  - Shows that some statements about the supernatural can be testable science. The key is that science must remain self-consistent, it cannot be allowed to contradict itself, and this sometimes forces us to accept some element of the supernatural. Gödel's Theorem (from the logic of mathematics) is discussed as a precedent setting example. This is a contribution to the wider philosophy of science as well as the origins debate.
  - Shows the anthropic principle is not testable, and so not science by evolutionists' own criterion. It reveals an illusion involving a three-shell game ruse, much like is later revealed for natural selection.

64

"NO EVIDENCE" for God, and creation? Maybe there is . .

by hooberus in

atheists (however one defines the term) frequently use the term "no evidence" in relation to the existence of god, any type of creation, (especially genesis creation and flood), or most any other theistic claim.

they almost always however claim that their beliefs are "backed by evidence" ; "overwhelming evidence" etc, etc, etc, etc, repeat, etc, repeat, etc.. (their beliefs generally tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the world without needing god).

is there really "no evidence" for god, and creation?

hooberus

inkling, before moving on to other points what about my first question to you?

Probability of the Origin of Life design argument:
Fine-Tuning Design Argument:
These arguments (if even valid) get you at BEST to a very weak form of deism.
A "watchmaker" god.
This of course, though possible, doesn't get us ANYWHERE, because no matter
how vastly improbable amino acids and fine tuned forces are, a intelligent
Watchmaker God must be far more so.
And even if this "god" exists, it is not anything remotely like the god of
the bible.
So yeah, I think "no evidence" is the only fair and open minded conclusion.
[inkling

And why would a creator God necessarily be "far more so" improbable than say the vastly improbable origin of life from non-life, or the origin of fine-tuning by chance?