Creationists, You (Hypothetically) Win!!!

[Neatras]

Within this thread, I'm willing to concede each and every sundry point made by Creationists in an attempt to debunk evolution. In here at least, you win! Not only discrediting evolution, but even going as far as to establish Creationism as the only plausible theory. Congratulations!

So, what's next? Why, the next step for any scientific theory. Testing out the wazoo, predictions, studies, and efforts made to improve our understanding of the magnificent reality before us. And despite its... *ahem* notable age, Creationism "Theory" currently doesn't seem to have much of reality mapped out in a way that suits our very skeptical needs. No firmaments to be found, after all.

But what matters isn't how you got here, it's what you do now. What will Creationism bring to the table? In what manner can Creationism explain reality in a way that benefits humanity, especially in ways that evolution just wasn't able to? I want details. After all, to discard a scientific theory, you have to replace it with a theory of equal or greater merit, one with explanatory power to match or exceed the predecessor.

So, Creationists... Let's get started.

By Creationist logic, what kind of fossils should we expect to see in different rock layers?
By Creationist logic, what explains the precision of endogenous retroviral relics in our genome that maps to near perfect similarity to other species'?
By Creationist logic, what methods for interpreting radioactive decay can we use for the purpose of improving industry?
By Creationist logic, what is the best method for preventing and countering viral mutation and ensuring the general health is secured? Any pharmaceutical nuggets of wisdom you can enlighten us with?
By Creationist logic, what mechanism causes/prevents novel traits from appearing in species over successive generations?

By Creationist logic, what can you possibly offer to science to make up for supposedly destroying evolution? When evolutionary theory has not only made successful predictions, withstood 150 years of debate, and even intertwined with geology, paleontology, biology, chemistry, and physics in such a fitting way that it makes itself out to be the only logical explanation for the diversity of life as we see it?

Creationists, I'm tired of beating around the bush. For far too long, I've heard people make the claims that all the evidence backs Creationism. But if it has even an iota of evidence to it, if it has any explanatory power to make predictions about reality as we see it, in ways that evolutionary theory simply can't match, then show it.

Otherwise, quit trying to call Creationism a scientific theory.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 87 by brunumb]

Please enlighten us. You have yet to provide the criteria and how they are applied in order to determine if something is designed or not.

we covered this in some depth. if you go back to post 59 and look at the two pics, we can all tell which was designed - so you can ask yourself what criteria you are using

Obviously 'intuition' But what informs that? it boils down specified v Shannon info

No. No depth and no criteria. Particular examples are not criteria. Saying intuition is no better than saying guesswork.

So, I ask again. Please enlighten us. Provide the criteria and how they are applied in order to determine if something is designed or not.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 90 by brunumb]

No. No depth and no criteria. Particular examples are not criteria. Saying intuition is no better than saying guesswork.

So, I ask again. Please enlighten us. Provide the criteria and how they are applied in order to determine if something is designed or not.

Once again, Information: specified v Shannon

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 90 by brunumb]

No. No depth and no criteria. Particular examples are not criteria. Saying intuition is no better than saying guesswork.

So, I ask again. Please enlighten us. Provide the criteria and how they are applied in order to determine if something is designed or not.

Once again, Information: specified v Shannon

OK, so still no criteria. In that case if something is not known to be designed based on its provenance, then there is no way to definitively established that it has been designed.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 90 by brunumb]

No. No depth and no criteria. Particular examples are not criteria. Saying intuition is no better than saying guesswork.

So, I ask again. Please enlighten us. Provide the criteria and how they are applied in order to determine if something is designed or not.

Once again, Information: specified v Shannon

OK, so still no criteria. In that case if something is not known to be designed based on its provenance, then there is no way to definitively established that it has been designed.

Once again- those are the criteria,

Specified info (points to ID)
Shannon info (points to chaos)


Try it yourself- you are looking at two collections of rocks on a deserted island beach

one spells 'HELP' & the others are scattered in no discernible pattern.

which arrangement do you conclude is the result of intelligent design, and why?

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 93 by Guy Threepwood]

Try it yourself- you are looking at two collections of rocks on a deserted island beach one spells 'HELP' & the others are scattered in no discernible pattern.

How did you discern that the others were scattered in no discernible pattern? You have not applied any criteria to determine that. You have merely started with two specific examples that you have predetermined as designed and not designed and retrofitted a conclusion.

Try this. You land on Mars and find an object that bears no resemblance to anything you have seen before. What criteria will you apply and how will you use the outcomes to determine if the object is designed or not?

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 93 by Guy Threepwood]

Try it yourself- you are looking at two collections of rocks on a deserted island beach one spells 'HELP' & the others are scattered in no discernible pattern.

How did you discern that the others were scattered in no discernible pattern? You have not applied any criteria to determine that. You have merely started with two specific examples that you have predetermined as designed and not designed and retrofitted a conclusion.

You were the one in the analogy, I wasn't there! - so ask yourself; if you see 'HELP' and a random looking pile o' rocks, what criteria do you use to conclude 'HELP' is not an accident? same for me

Try this. You land on Mars and find an object that bears no resemblance to anything you have seen before. What criteria will you apply and how will you use the outcomes to determine if the object is designed or not?

Same criteria, same application, no matter the setting, that's what makes it objective

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 95 by Guy Threepwood]

You were the one in the analogy, I wasn't there! Smile- so ask yourself; if you see 'HELP' and a random looking pile o' rocks, what criteria do you use to conclude 'HELP' is not an accident? same for me

I did not introduce the rock analogy.

I have to wonder why you cannot list the criteria to apply in order to determine if something is designed. All you do is dodge the question and refer to a specific example where you have not applied any criteria to demonstrate how they would work in any circumstance. Do you actually understand what is meant by criteria? Or, are you just obfuscating because you are unable to meet the challenge?

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 95 by Guy Threepwood]

Actually try this. You land on Mars and find an object that bears no resemblance to anything you have seen before. List the criteria you will apply and how will you use the outcomes to determine if the object is designed or not.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 96 by brunumb]


again, the specific criterion here is still specified information, yes even on Mars

Imagine you work for the coast guard, and you are looking for a wrecked survivor, and among a random pattern of rocks on a beach, you see a large X.

If you can understand why this would get your attention, then you understand the proof of principle at least.

But I do empathize, exactly why your intuition knows this, is a slightly deeper question that is not always so obvious. But the objective test boils down to specified information, i.e. the lines of rocks specify something , where the random patterns of stones do not.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 98 by Guy Threepwood]

again, the specific criterion here is still specified information, yes even on Mars

And you are still not supplying any criteria for establishing if the object is designed or not.