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.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 49 by Guy Threepwood]

No, natural selection is a selection mechanism, not a creative one, it can only select from changes, not create them, it is not a creative engine- no way around this.

Natural selection doesn't have to create anything itself to be creative. By favoring beneficial mutations, it allows those benefits to ultimately do the "creating." You're talking as if, for example, all the components (or the DNA to create them) to make a modern eye from a primitive eye patch would have to already exist in the organism, and natural selection then selects those and somehow assembles them into an eye. That is not how it works. It is the benefits of the mutations, accumulating in very small steps, that do the creating.

The only question is how superior designs arise in the first place- and ToE falls to pure blind chance alone - random copying errors for this, and that is not holding up as adequate in the 21st C information age.

The mutations are random chance, natural selection is not. You don't seem to appreciate what natural selection actually is and how it works.

because again there is a fundamental difference in the genetic structures that you would have to alter

No ... the mechanism for small evolutionary change is identical to that for more significant changes (micro vs. macro if you like those terms). The only difference is in the number of steps required.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 49 by Guy Threepwood]

No, natural selection is a selection mechanism, not a creative one, it can only select from changes, not create them, it is not a creative engine- no way around this.

Your use of the word creative here is a loaded one. There is no reason to assume that anything was created in the first place. A trickle of water across a terrain builds over time until it becomes a river. Was the river created?

And again it goes utterly without saying- any superior designed product, all else being even, will survive to be reproduced in greater numbers- it's a wash and a moot point.

What determines that a particular organism has a superior design? In fact, what criteria do you use to determine that something has been designed? Say you landed on a new planet and found some object lying on the ground. How would you establish that it was designed? The survival of organisms is dependent on their environment. Change that environment and you apply survival pressure to the population. Those with traits that give them an advantage to survive and reproduce in the new environment will become predominant in the population. No design can predict the sorts of changes that occur in the environment over time.

The only question is how superior designs arise in the first place- and ToE falls to pure blind chance alone - random copying errors for this, and that is not holding up as adequate in the 21st C information age.

Having sequenced the genome of many organisms we are coming to a better understanding of how mutations lead to changes in organisms. One has to wonder at how intelligent or superior a design is involved in the formation of human beings when so many genetic faults are prevalent. What intelligent or superior design allows Harlequin ichthyosis to occur for example.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 51 by brunumb]

rivers, diseases- are both 'creating' something only in the sense that they are destroying something else.

We are not debating how extinctions, plagues, chaos, decay, destruction entropy occurs..

we know how dinosaurs were destroyed allowing mammals to thrive, by dropping a huge rock them... the more interesting question is how each were created

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 52 by Guy Threepwood]

we know how dinosaurs were destroyed allowing mammals to thrive, by dropping a huge rock them... the more interesting question is how each were created

It wasn't the huge rock dropping on them that killed them ... it was the resulting atmospheric disturbances and climate changes, and havoc on the food chain over the ensuing 30,000 or so years that did them in. But as for how they were "created", that we do know. They evolved from earlier life forms just as every other plant and animal on this planet. If you want to call this being "created" I suppose that makes sense ... as long as the "creator" is natural selection acting on random mutations.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 53 by DrNoGods]

"atmospheric disturbances and climate changes, and havoc on the food chain over the ensuing 30,000 or so years.. "

resulting from the huge rock dropped on them..

we agree, chaos, entropy, destruction, this is what we can actually observe, measure repeat, not merely speculate about

But as for how they were "created", that we do know. They evolved from earlier life forms just as every other plant and animal on this planet. If you want to call this being "created" I suppose that makes sense

okay, I think we agree so far then- and how this happened is the more interesting question, yes? we all agree chaos is great at destruction, but for creation... things get a little more complicated, it's not so obvious how chaos would achieve this, to say the least!

... as long as the "creator" is natural selection acting on random mutations.

why apply restrictions, why not follow the evidence wherever it leads?

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 52 by Guy Threepwood]

What determines that a particular organism has a superior design? In fact, what criteria do you use to determine that something has been designed? Say you landed on a new planet and found some object lying on the ground. How would you establish that it was designed?

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 55 by brunumb]

What determines that a particular organism has a superior design?

which would you trade places with?

In fact, what criteria do you use to determine that something has been designed? Say you landed on a new planet and found some object lying on the ground. How would you establish that it was designed?

what criteria would SETI use? what criteria would you use if you uncovered the Rosetta stone?

Specifically: information and information systems, we only have one known source for such things . Not to say chance is technically impossible, but it lacks the same level of scientific verification

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 55 by brunumb]

What determines that a particular organism has a superior design?

which would you trade places with?

In fact, what criteria do you use to determine that something has been designed? Say you landed on a new planet and found some object lying on the ground. How would you establish that it was designed?

what criteria would SETI use? what criteria would you use if you uncovered the Rosetta stone?

Specifically: information and information systems, we only have one known source for such things . Not to say chance is technically impossible, but it lacks the same level of scientific verification

Your post is essentially non responsive. You do not appear to be able to answer my questions. You referred to superior design but you have not been able to elaborate on what that means. Saying "which would you trade places with" says nothing about design at all and the answer may be based on countless other factors anyway.

More telling is your failure to supply any criteria you would use to identify an object as being designed. You simply passed the buck and avoided answering yourself. It is fairly easy to compare things that we already know are designed by humans, but when it comes to totally unfamiliar things it is a completely different matter. So, what criteria would you use and how would you apply them?

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 57 by brunumb]

Your post is essentially non responsive. You do not appear to be able to answer my questions. You referred to superior design but you have not been able to elaborate on what that means. Saying "which would you trade places with" says nothing about design at all and the answer may be based on countless other factors anyway.

More telling is your failure to supply any criteria you would use to identify an object as being designed. You simply passed the buck and avoided answering yourself. It is fairly easy to compare things that we already know are designed by humans, but when it comes to totally unfamiliar things it is a completely different matter. So, what criteria would you use and how would you apply them?

?

not at all, but I'm happy to explain further if needed

I'm saying that humans are the culmination of evolution, or take a simple test- let me know which animal you would like to trade places with. We are made in God's image and so unique in our ability to appreciate and know creation.

If you prefer a Darwinian definition, it is being 'fitter' , able to out compete more competitors and in more environments. - either way



And again, in a word

information

specified information. SETI is NOT looking for human intelligence, it's looking for any intelligence and uses the same criteria as intelligent design

Because creative intelligence is a real phenomena with it's own particular fingerprints, and information systems are one of the most telling.

This is why 'WOW!' was written beside the simplest of mathematical sequences. - it is suggestive of intelligence but inconclusive only because it was short and not repeatable . The more information you have, the less likely it is to be fluke.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 58 by Guy Threepwood]

specified information. SETI is NOT looking for human intelligence, it's looking for any intelligence and uses the same criteria as intelligent design

No they don't.
Under Intelligent Design (ID), everything is designed. Every rock, every plant, every particle, every radio wave, everything in the universe was and is designed.
If SETI scientists were to operate under that mode of thought, they'd be unable to scan the universe and look for radio signals indicative of intelligent life, since every radio signal, even if from a pulsar, would be from an intelligent designer.
They'd have to no way to sift the non-designed for the designed.

Operating under ID, tell me which of these two pictures is indicative of intelligent design and which is not, plus how you are able to tell the difference.