Creationism/Intelligent Design: PROVE IT!

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


First of all let me clarify what you consider as a "Personal Character Attack" because it is hard to read the persons actual discussion point via IM,EM or discussions forum's, I am not bashing your character. I am bringing forth good argument that your "Darwinism" ideologies have been shattered by the simple fact that Darwin didn't have the correct faculties to include such thing's as DNA, etc. etc.etc.
This theory has also been pummeled by the critical inception and gained knowledge of the "Single Cell" possibilities
I am not trying to offend or be malicious to your acceptance of the "Evolution" ideas and criteria s that come with it. You just haven't brought any of the thing's that actually put massive holes in the "Theory". So, if you feel my posts are some kind of personal attacks towards you, "I am sorry, and it is not intended." I will be more self aware of the sensitivity of your idea's and arguments for the "Evolution" discussion.
But here are some examples that should be put forth as "Credible" and "Dismissive" argument to the "Evolution" theory.

1. If Darwin Had Known About DNA. 2. Confession of the
Evolutionists. 3. The Error of the Evolution of Species. 4.
The Collapse of the Theory of Evolution. 5. New
Research Demolishes Evolution.
These books give sufficient proof that there are very
serious problems with Darwin’s Theory scientifically as
such the theory is not tenable.
The basic unit of all life forms is a cell. All life forms,
unicellular or multicellular, originate from a single cell.
Biologists know almost everything physical viz. different
types of cells of plants and animals, and what function
different constituents of cells perform; of which Darwin at
his time had no information. According to Darwin’s
Theory, the cells have life as a natural phenomenon and
there should be life in every cell with food supply of the
cell intact. The very existence of dead cells with food
supply intact and constituents of cells intact defies the
Darwin’s Theory on simple and fundamental principles.
The existence of such dead cells cannot be explained by
any scientific method.
It is believed that DNA molecule in the nucleus of the
cell contains all the information pertaining to the cell,
organ or organism and to know about the cell and the
DNA I will again refer to two books written by Adnan Oktar under the pen-name Harun Yahya, which are
available on the already quoted website and are:
1.The Miracle in the Cell and 2. The Secrets in the DNA.
With this in view, matching of the DNA’s of human
being and chimpanzee to the extent of 95% (R.J. Baitten,
2002) defies the Darwin’s Theory; because 5% variation
of DNA cannot account for huge difference of physical
and instinctive characteristics; which as such proves
loudly and clearly that DNA is not containing all the
information regarding the cell, organ or organism and the
inheritance & modification over time due to environmental
factors is not based on facts.

indjst.org...

I do not know if the page I have given is click directed, but if it isn't, just cut and paste it to the address bar for further reading of the thesis behind the argument of "Evolution" by Darwins standards.
I hope you accept my apology, I did not want to get any one P-Oed at me for trying to make a point, it is just that you have all this knowledge of "Evolution" to [present with strong argument, but nothing have you posted that shows the possibilities of there being other explanations.

reply to post by Astyanax

Is that a reason to give up doing science?

Of course not. But experimentation is rarely unbiased. We hear that a study was conducted and it shows that wine is good for you. Great, but who funded the study? Then a study comes out that shows wine is bad for you.

Scientists are human, they want to validate their belief system. Scientists are also influenced by politics, nationalism, grant money, fame, etc

The scientific method by it's nature, attempts to validate a belief system. But is it unbiased?

Some on ATS want to pretend that they are purely logical, analyzing the data and coming up with their own conclusions.

The theory of abiogenesis and evolution are one thing.

These debates on ATS are philosophical.

Shall we apply those criteria to creationism and ID, then? Are they testable? Do they pass the test of falsifiability as well, and as repeatedly, as the theory of evolution does?

I feel like you have been ignoring my points or they are going over your head.

However, the laws of logic themselves (the rules of inference and logical axioms) are not subject to falsifiability per se.

Falsifiability

Originally posted by Allred5923
First of all let me clarify what you consider as a "Personal Character Attack" because it is hard to read the persons actual discussion point via IM,EM or discussions forum's, I am not bashing your character. I am bringing forth good argument that your "Darwinism" ideologies have been shattered by the simple fact that Darwin didn't have the correct faculties to include such thing's as DNA, etc. etc.etc.

Um...nobody is claiming that Darwin is the be all and end all to evolutionary science. In fact, we see regularly published works on evolutionary science, some of which actually contradict some of Darwin's initial claims. Obviously he didn't know about DNA or other knowledge that we have now and yet the general concept of common descent works within the framework of modern knowledge.

This theory has also been pummeled by the critical inception and gained knowledge of the "Single Cell" possibilities

Um...what are the "Single Cell" possibilities? And how has it been pummeled by them?

And what does any of this have to do with proving creationism, the topic of this thread?

I am not trying to offend or be malicious to your acceptance of the "Evolution" ideas and criteria s that come with it. You just haven't brought any of the thing's that actually put massive holes in the "Theory".

Like what?

So, if you feel my posts are some kind of personal attacks towards you, "I am sorry, and it is not intended." I will be more self aware of the sensitivity of your idea's and arguments for the "Evolution" discussion.

It's not my ideas, it's calling me dogmatic that I have a problem with.

But here are some examples that should be put forth as "Credible" and "Dismissive" argument to the "Evolution" theory.

Alright...I'll reformat that for you as I don't know where you're getting it from.

1. If Darwin Had Known About DNA.

Doesn't mean anything...
If he had known about DNA...it would have been so much easier for him to prove his theory?

Oh great, this is just a list of subject headings from a creationist website. None of them actually mean anything or make any conclusive point.

Oh, and I also pointed out that this is not a thread to discredit evolution, it's a thread to prove creationism

2. Confession of the Evolutionists.

What confessions? By which 'evolutionists'?

3. The Error of the Evolution of Species.

What error? I thought that these were all supposed to be points against evolution.

4.The Collapse of the Theory of Evolution.

What collapse?

5. New Research Demolishes Evolution.

What new research?

These books give sufficient proof that there are very
serious problems with Darwin’s Theory scientifically as
such the theory is not tenable.

Um...so now there's a blurb promoting a book...

The basic unit of all life forms is a cell.

...DNA...

All life forms,
unicellular or multicellular, originate from a single cell.

Well, it's now thought that we had several common ancestors that had a lot of horizontal gene transfer...

Biologists know almost everything physical viz. different
types of cells of plants and animals, and what function
different constituents of cells perform; of which Darwin at
his time had no information.

Sooooooo he didn't have information and we accounted for that in later literature that expounded upon the theory.

Again, Darwin isn't the be all and end all to evolutionary science.

According to Darwin’s
Theory, the cells have life as a natural phenomenon and
there should be life in every cell with food supply of the
cell intact. The very existence of dead cells with food
supply intact and constituents of cells intact defies the
Darwin’s Theory on simple and fundamental principles.

Um....ok, and where is the evidence that modern evolutionary biologists accept this notion?

Again, if Darwin made a mistake, it's already accounted for and dismissed as a mistake by modern biologists.

Oh, and where's the evidence for that claim and where's the evidence that Darwin made that claim?

And what does any of this have to do with proving creationism?

The existence of such dead cells cannot be explained by
any scientific method.

I don't even know what this is talking about, I'd like further evidence supporting and explaining the claim.

It is believed that DNA molecule in the nucleus of the cell contains all the information pertaining to the cell, organ or organism and to know about the cell and the DNA I will again refer to two books written by Adnan Oktar under the pen-name Harun Yahya, which are available on the already quoted website and are:

Ah, the bully-boy of Turkish Islamism.

1.The Miracle in the Cell and 2. The Secrets in the DNA.

Neither of which is or contains any scientific works.

With this in view, matching of the DNA’s of human being and chimpanzee to the extent of 95% (R.J. Baitten,
2002) defies the Darwin’s Theory; because 5% variation of DNA cannot account for huge difference of physical
and instinctive characteristics;

Um...yes it can. We're not too morphologically different from chimps. We have similar bone structures and musculatures, the same organs, the same basic setup of teeth, same nervous system, etc. The primary difference are our skull size and brain size, less body hair, larger size, smaller jaw, limb length, and the method of locomotion.

which as such proves loudly and clearly that DNA is not containing all the information regarding the cell, organ or organism and the inheritance & modification over time due to environmental factors is not based on facts.

Ah, the same guy also doesn't seem to understand that genetics is established science

I do not know if the page I have given is click directed, but if it isn't, just cut and paste it to the address bar for further reading of the thesis behind the argument of "Evolution" by Darwins standards.

It's a very badly written piece and doesn't actually contain...science...at all.

I hope you accept my apology, I did not want to get any one P-Oed at me for trying to make a point, it is just that you have all this knowledge of "Evolution" to[present with strong argument, but nothing have you posted that shows the possibilities of there being other explanations.

It's because there are clearly no other explanations. Just like there's no other explanation other than germ theory.

reply to post by Allred5923

Allred, a cut'n pasted wall of text from a book advertisement masquerading as pseudoscience, written by an unknown with no educational credentials, purporting to attack evolution but not showing a single logical argument, is not constructive debate.

I have yet to be convinced you understand a word of what you presented here, because, surely, if you understood this you'd see what nonsense it is.

Just for starters, take Khan's statement:

The very existence of dead cells with food supply intact and constituents of cells intact defies the Darwin’s Theory on simple and fundamental principles. The existence of such dead cells cannot be explained by any scientific method.

He has yet to prove the existance of dead cells in perfect working order with a food supply intact.
Without proof of these they hardly constitute an argument.
Even if he did find such cells, he has not proven they defy Darwin's theory.
Even if they did defy Darwin's Theory, Darwin's theory is not evolution. "Darwin's Theory" is the beginning of evolutionary theory, (or close to it,) and has already been improved on as we have gained more knowledge.


Khan goes on to claim, in good Creationist fashion, that science can't explain life as it exists, so it must contain a special "energy," - which is his pseudoscientific way of saying, "God did it".


The next quote not only has no science to back it up, but is directly contradicted by science.

. . . cells have to originate for different species separately and independently and secondly the place of origin of the cells have to be water and thirdly the cells have to originate at different places on the planet as different species, plants and animals, survive in different climatic zones.

Realizing the Khan was a devout Muslim, I looked for his way of explaining the Muslim belief in the inferiority of women, and, sure enough :

In respect of human being we could accept that the whole humanity originated from the couple of cells; one cell of the male and another cell of the female. In that case one has to understand that the combination of cell and ‘energy’ especially the ‘energy’ in respect of initial two cells, one male & one female to be slightly different, to allow for the fending in the initial stages of the first human male and female like some of the animal species who survive in absence of the parents.

Sure, women and men are not even related to each other. They each evolved independantly from two separate cells. Do you understand, Allred, how ridiculous this is?


Khan concludes his argument with:

The innate knowledge of existence of the perfect universal creator with human being is another clear indirect proof of this theistic theory of origin & phenomenon of life.

IOW God must have created us, otherwise we wouldn't believe in him.
- With no understanding that there could have been a benefit, survival wise, for early groups of humans who shared a common belief.


Khan has also written a paper on astronomy.
To quote an exerpt:

In order that galaxies are stable, stars within the galaxies started revolving and in order that all astronomical systems are stable the whole universal matter in the form of galaxies are rotating.

Here he makes the same mistake he made in his creationist argument, ascribing intention where there is no indication of any, and then saying intention can only be caused by God.
( - Or as he puts it in this paper: "Special energy with special properties of which perfect universal creator is made up of.")


Allred, how about you present an argument you understand, in your own words?
Hopefully hitching your wagon to someone else's buffalo might take you to a place you didn't want to go.

Originally posted by trika3000
So, in the end does this battle (for lack of a better word) between Evolution vs Creation - Atheist vs Religious serves any pupose?

This is not an atheist versus religious debate.

I have a firm belief in god because of personal experiences, but I can see the evidence for evolution, and I see none for creationism or intelligent design. A born-again brother tells me god planted bones in the rocks to mislead us, to see who would stay true to him by disregarding the evidence and believing the literal reading of Genesis, and promises god will barbeque me for eternity for my disbelief. Another tells me the devil planted bones to confuse us, and another says the flood did it. But at least they all agree on my future fate.

In Australia most people have a Christian heritage, but very few are creationists. There was an outcry here when there was talk of teaching I.D. in biology class.

We don't need an official separation of church and state, not a bunch of irreverantly pagan-hearted descendants of convicts like us.

reply to post by Kailassa


Yeah, but you talk with a really annoying accent

Just to point this out real fast..
Evolution has nothing really to do with the origin of life. Creationism/ID is more origin of life.
Now proponents claim that we are as we are because we are and evolution is false and this and that.. But really they are not competing ideas.

Additionally they don't even contradict each other.

Otherwise given this topic has been addressed in countless threads-do we really need another one to get people squealing before posting an anti-evolution thread that will undoubtedly say something stupid like: evolution violates thermodynamics or whatever.

This is just a topic that will never be proven in this medium, in face it will probably be addressed by educating the ideas out or in-which is why fundies are going after school board positions all over....

Blah

reply to post by lordtyp0


Well, most creationists/IDists actually go beyond the simple 'origin of life' to the fact that all life forms are designed from the bottom up. Some say that all life was created in its present form from the beginning. Some extend creationism all the way back to the origin of the universe, then our galaxy cluster, our galaxy, our star cluster, our solar system, and then our planet.

It's a very extraordinary claim that all of the above, as well as the origin of biological life and the origin of the diversity of life, can have a single explanation. Unfortunately, it lacks the extraordinary evidence required to support such a claim.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Kailassa

 

Yeah, but you talk with a really annoying accent

Silly
Real Australians don't talk like that. You're thinking of the mangy long-legged tree burners.
Or the mangy, long-legged albino tree-choppers; they're even worse.

Real Australians sound like this:


While I'm here, I want an explanation from the creationists, (I know they're right, because Darwinists say I'm related to wombats, and everyone knows koalas are infinitely superior to those brainless ground-huggers,) why did this all loving Creator invent chlamydia?

Come to think of it, why did he invent those long-legged mangy critters? Life was great here before they arrived.
Ahh, there were giants in the trees in those days . . .

I haven´t read all 30 pages, but i presume we are still arguing what came first, the egg or the chicken. I mean after all the whole science is incapable to prove Creation. Since to prove Creation, we have first to prove God in terms of science which is impossible. At the moment all we can say a created world is a world which might not have existed at all. Perhaps this is the best definition of Creation.

There is a nice quote from Etienne Gilson: "God added nothing to Himself by the creation of the world, nor would anything be taken away from Him by its annihilation — events which would be of capital importance for the created beings concerned, but null for Being Who would be in no wise concerned qua being."
Thus meaning, the contingency is double; on the part of the Created, and on the part of the Creator Himself. Neither should be overlooked or underestimated. The true reality of the Universe is secured, in a startling way, precisely by its being unnecessary to God's own being. Otherwise it would have been but a shadow. The existence of the world is the miracle of the Divine Freedom.

reply to post by Seed76


I have a question for you and maybe others. How do you view God? Do you view God as a human, infinite, invisible, how do you view God?
God in Judaism
Do you agree with the Jews?

reply to post by Seed76


Except you encounter a problem, we don't need to necessarily prove the creator exists first off. We would see evidence of a creative event in any instance of a divine force creating the universe. Unless you think this divine force created the universe in such a way that it could be adequately explained by an entirely unrelated set of natural explanations that would be false aka "God set up the domino set to look like the big bang knocked it down"

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


I am simply saying that, we must be aware that it is indispensable that in all existing things there must be an active cause, and a passive subject. And that the active cause is the "intellect" of the universe, thoroughly unadulterated and thoroughly unmixed, superior to virtue and superior to science, superior even to abstract good or abstract beauty.
While the passive subject is something inanimate and incapable of motion by any intrinsic power of its own, but having been set in motion, and fashioned, and endowed with life by the "intellect", became transformed into that most perfect work, this world.

For an example, when any city is founded the Architect first of he lays all sketches out in his own mind nearly all the parts of the city which is about to be completed, the markets, the harbor, the docks, the streets, the arrangement of the walls, the houses, and of the public and other buildings.He creates an image of a city, perceptible as yet only by the intellect, keeping his eyes fixed on his model, he begins to raise the city of stones and wood, making the corporeal substances to resemble each of the incorporeal ideas.

Now if we form a somewhat similar opinion of God, who, having determined to found a mighty state, first of all conceived its form in his mind, according to which form he made a world perceptible only by the intellect, and then completed one visible to the external senses, using the first one as a model.

reply to post by Seed76


Ugh, not this one again. I've addressed it already. It's a false analogy. The universe is thoroughly capable of arising naturally. Life is thoroughly capable of arising naturally as well.

Originally posted by Seed76
We must be aware that it is indispensable that in all existing things there must be an active cause, and a passive subject.

Why is this indispensable? Why can something not come into being of itself?

Is this merely a conclusion based on empirical observation? If so, how do we account for the First Cause?

If time and the universe are infinite (which I do not believe for a moment they are), why baulk at infinite regression?

The active cause is the "intellect" of the universe, thoroughly unadulterated and thoroughly unmixed, superior to virtue and superior to science, superior even to abstract good or abstract beauty.

Fine words. What do they mean? Can you substantiate them?

You're just making things up because you think they're pretty, aren't you?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


That´s fine with me. I simply have a different opinion.

reply to post by Astyanax


Right.

And by denying that assumption which i have made, makes it sound logical??

Fine words. What do they mean? Can you substantiate them?

You're just making things up because you think they're pretty, aren't you?

Oh Please.......Do not insult my Intelligence. If you can not accept my opinion which i stated previously, then that´s fine with me. But do not insult me.

reply to post by Seed76


Um...well, this isn't a matter of opinion. We have plenty of evidence to show that the universe arose naturally, we have plenty of evidence to show that our sun arose naturally, we even have evidence to show that our planet arose naturally, as did the life on it. We further have an overwhelming amount of evidence to show that the life on this Earth diversified via evolution.

This is a matter of fact, not something that's an opinion. You cannot 'agree to disagree' in science unless the sentence goes more like this 'let's agree to disagree until there is proof for one of us to back up our claims'.

Unfortunately, your claim is baseless.

reply to post by Seed76

And by denying that assumption which i have made, makes it sound logical??

Which assumption would that be?

Oh Please.......Do not insult my Intelligence. If you can not accept my opinion which i stated previously, then that´s fine with me. But do not insult me.

It takes intelligence to make things up, so no insult to your intelligence was given, or intended.

Were those opinions you were stating? There were presented, rather, as fact. If these are opinions, substantiate them. A good place to begin would be to answer the questions I asked earlier.

reply to post by Astyanax

Which assumption would that be?

How about common sense? There must be a cause. I am not arguing with the question "If the Big Bang Happened?", because it happened. Its a well known fact. But rather "What caused the creation of this universe?".
My common sense tells me that something can't come from nothing. Science proclaims that the quantity of Mass-Energy is conserved or always the same and unchanging. My common sense says that the story of the Universe has to have a beginning. Science says that the Universe started with the Big Bang. Once again Science and common sense agree.

It seems to me that with all the proof that exists, we can sum it up as if the Universe had a beginning then before the beginning the Universe wasn't here; the Universe can't come from nothing and yet the Universe is here.

It just doesn't hang together. Either we have to believe the Universe has been here forever or some kind of magic took place in the beginning.

That´s why at my first post here i stated

At the moment all we can say a created world is a world which might not have existed at all.

But since beside science i also believe in God, i have explained it as follows:

I am simply saying that, we must be aware that it is indispensable that in all existing things there must be an active cause, and a passive subject. And that the active cause is the "intellect" of the universe, thoroughly unadulterated and thoroughly unmixed, superior to virtue and superior to science, superior even to abstract good or abstract beauty.
While the passive subject is something inanimate and incapable of motion by any intrinsic power of its own, but having been set in motion, and fashioned, and endowed with life by the "intellect", became transformed into that most perfect work, this world.

Hope i have made myself clear.