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.

[Guy Threepwood]

[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.

the observation of specified information IS the criterion, Brunumb...

[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.

the observation of specified information IS the criterion, Brunumb...

No, it is not. What specified information would you have observed with the object on Mars that allowed you to determine whether it was designed or not? Criteria must be applicable in all situations and not simply based on a comparison with things known to be of human design. The appearance of design is not definitive evidence of design.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 101 by brunumb]

Same rules on Mars yes, or in radio signals picked up by SETI from across the galaxy- they know what they are looking for, it's specified information, & certainly not human!

It doesn't matter where you find it or what the implications are, that's the point. if you found the Rosetta stone on Mars, you are looking at the same evidence for ID, no matter how profound the implications may be or if they conflict with your world view.

It's the same principle archaeologists use to distinguish a pestle from a vaguely round rock

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 102 by Guy Threepwood]

It doesn't matter where you find it or what the implications are, that's the point. if you found the Rosetta stone on Mars, you are looking at the same evidence for ID, no matter how profound the implications may be or if they conflict with your world view.

The choice of Mars was to isolate the object from any preconceptions based on what is known to be designed by intelligence on Earth. You still have not demonstrated that you could establish that a completely unknown object found on Mars must be designed or not. I'm guessing that you can't and that's why we have all this beating around the bush.

It's the same principle archaeologists use to distinguish a pestle from a vaguely round rock

That principle is based on knowing what a pestle is, what it looks like, how it was made and using that to identify an object as a pestle. That is not the same as finding an unfamiliar object which is composed of rock and trying to establish if it is a designed object or not.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 103 by brunumb]

The choice of Mars was to isolate the object from any preconceptions based on what is known to be designed by intelligence on Earth

of course, that's where specified information comes in, to distinguish between merely familiar objects and objectively designed ones regardless of their familiarity . doesn't matter where you find it or if we even understand it, ask SETI-

. You still have not demonstrated that you could establish that a completely unknown object found on Mars must be designed or not. I'm guessing that you can't and that's why we have all this beating around the bush.

to the degree that the object displayed specified information, you could ascertain a likelihood of ID yes.

That principle is based on knowing what a pestle is, what it looks like, how it was made and using that to identify an object as a pestle. That is not the same as finding an unfamiliar object which is composed of rock and trying to establish if it is a designed object or not.

No, that just happens to be the case in that example, yes of course we know where, when and why a Ford F150 was made, if we dumped it in front of ET, he may not, but he could still recognize the specified information and hence intelligent design involved regardless- that's why it's an objective criterion

Likewise we didn't know who made the Rosetta stone or what it said or why, just that it displayed lots of specified info- so was most probably a result of ID, that's the practical application of the criterion, it's quite reliable

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 104 by Guy Threepwood]

No, that just happens to be the case in that example, yes of course we know where, when and why a Ford F150 was made, if we dumped it in front of ET, he may not, but he could still recognize the specified information and hence intelligent design involved regardless- that's why it's an objective criterion

Likewise we didn't know who made the Rosetta stone or what it said or why, just that it displayed lots of specified info- so was most probably a result of ID, that's the practical application of the criterion, it's quite reliable

What exactly does specified information mean in the context you have used it?

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 104 by Guy Threepwood]

No, that just happens to be the case in that example, yes of course we know where, when and why a Ford F150 was made, if we dumped it in front of ET, he may not, but he could still recognize the specified information and hence intelligent design involved regardless- that's why it's an objective criterion

Likewise we didn't know who made the Rosetta stone or what it said or why, just that it displayed lots of specified info- so was most probably a result of ID, that's the practical application of the criterion, it's quite reliable

What exactly does specified information mean in the context you have used it?

information which specifies something else

a random pattern of bricks (dumped from a loader) contains lots of information, describing the placement and orientation of each brick- but it does not specify anything beyond that

A neat brick wall arguably contains less information (as a pattern) needed to describe it, but that information specifies something else- a wall

In the case of the Rosetta stone you might not know what it is specifying, just that it is specifying something.

In the case of SETI's 'wow' signal- it was obviously inconclusive, but was still identified as a potential non-human intelligent signal by the same criterion; it showed signs of specifying something other than noise.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

Snippin' to get at it...

So, what's next? Why, the next step for any scientific theory. Testing out the wazoo

I'm gon' need you to define 'wazoo'.

By Creationist logic, what kind of fossils should we expect to see in different rock layers? 

Different'ns.

By Creationist logic, what explains the precision of endogenous retroviral relics in our genome that maps to near perfect similarity to other species'?

God.

By Creationist logic, what methods for interpreting radioactive decay can we use for the purpose of improving industry?

Jesus.

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?

Prayer.

By Creationist logic, what mechanism causes/prevents novel traits from appearing in species over successive generations?

Sin.

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? 

Satan.

Science is easy when you don't hafta do you any of it!

[EarthScienceguy]

Ok, then, "let's get after it"

By Creationist logic, what kind of fossils should we expect to see in different rock layers?

We would predict the same ordering. Bottom marine dwelling animals first and land animals with more locomotion on top. We would expect to see mammals with dinosaurs. And we would expect some of the "fossil" having soft tissue like we see.

In fact let me make a prediction for you. The more dinosaur fossils we that we examine for soft tissue the more soft tissue we will find.

I think your theory of long ages has a little bit of trouble with that observation. And it would definitely have trouble predicting that seeing how DNA has a half life of 500,000 years. In fact Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh I believe gives the prediction for those that believe in billions of years with the following statement. "Fossils that are traces of prehistoric life have no original organic parts preserved.�

By Creationist logic, what explains the precision of endogenous retroviral relics in our genome that maps to near perfect similarity to other species'?

You could ask the same question your beloved evolutionary hypothesis. Seeing how the origin of viruses are not even known.

The evolutionary history of viruses represents a fascinating, albeit murky, topic for virologists and cell biologists. Because of the great diversity among viruses, biologists have struggled with how to classify these entities and how to relate them to the conventional tree of life. They may represent genetic elements that gained the ability to move between cells. They may represent previously free-living organisms that became parasites. They may be the precursors of life as we know it.
https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpa ... s-14398218

So without knowing the origin of viruses how can you possibly understand their significance in a living creature.

Currently there are 3 possible theories of where viruses come from.

There is much debate among virologists about this question. Three main hypotheses have been articulated: 1. The progressive, or escape, hypothesis states that viruses arose from genetic elements that gained the ability to move between cells; 2. the regressive, or reduction, hypothesis asserts that viruses are remnants of cellular organisms; and 3. the virus-first hypothesis states that viruses predate or coevolved with their current cellular hosts.

Not one of these theories was put forward by creationist and yet one of the theories matches what a creationist would believe. A creationist would say that viruses arose from genetic material in the genome. They began the ability to drift or "jump" after the fall.

If ERV's have been in our genome for millions of years. Why have they not been deleted millions of years ago from lack of use. If ERV's are useless, adaptation should have long ago selected some other path, away from this worthless DNA strand.

Creationism would explain why this is the case. ERV's are nothing more than pieces of the genome that have broken way and has been able to propagate themselves inside cells. (and that is an explanation that your evolutionary theory cannot give you for sure.)

By Creationist logic, what methods for interpreting radioactive decay can we use for the purpose of improving industry?

We can make rocket engines and fly to the stars.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20120002875

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?

This is not even part of the debate we believe the same thing on this. Heredity.

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?

It has only made failing predictions

1. Remember vestile organs that are not so useless after all.
2. Remember junk DNA that is not so much Junk any longer.
3. Remember how evolution's main mechanism for change is the duplication and mutation of and we have yet to see that happen in the lab.

And there are countless more that I am sure you have heard of. And yet creationist predicted that vestile organs junk DNA was not worthless but had a function.

Creationist have also predicted that duplication and mutation as a mechanism for change cannot happen. And we are correct on that also.

We could also talk about abiogenesis that cannot happen and still has not happen. In fact it has come to a point now where those that believe in the hypothesis called evolution will not even discuss certain issues like abiogenesis.



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.

I have yet to see one iota of any correct prediction that this make believe story of evolution has made that creationist would also not make. And when there is a difference in predictions I have yet to see a time when creationist have been wrong and creation deniers have been correct.

I deal in facts not some made up fiction story that Darwin called evolution.

[Donray]

EarthScienceguy belive in a Sky god that does things by magic and therefore needs to disprove evolution. He cannot logically debate his idea of how adaptation replaces evolution. Like a lot of Christians, he cannot have his faith challenged and will use lies and deception to make sure his beliefs are not destroyed. Unable to justify his beliefs he just tries to use Soto science to disprove what 99% of very educated people belive, that evolution is a fact.

The science guy has no explanation for other humans living in the past like Neanderthals. He says that any observable changes are due to heredity but cannot explin the difference between evolution and how his thinking that all the changes are due to heredity and adaptation are different from evolution.

Number one thing to remember when debating a religious person is that their sky god can do anything and therefore it is hard to say otherwise. Their god through its magic can do anything. Like superman it travels faster than the speed of light and lift the universe if needed. God is a judge and executioner, and no one can say its killings are murder because murder does apply to their god. This supernatural sky god cerates and controls all. This sky god even makes false fossils to confuse people.