View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Mon Sep 22, 2014 7:12 am




Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
 The Creationist Challenge 
Author Message

Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 8:48 am
Posts: 2538
Post The Creationist Challenge
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2011/09/the_creationist_challenge.php


Fri Sep 02, 2011 9:57 am
Profile

Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 10:30 pm
Posts: 1568
Location: Sebring, Florida
Post Re: The Creationist Challenge


I see this believer has left out one part of his transitional line. The beginning,

http://www.earthage.org/intro/odds_of_e ... chance.htm


Sun Sep 04, 2011 8:42 am
Profile

Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 8:48 am
Posts: 2538
Post Re: The Creationist Challenge
Quote:
I see this believer has left out one part of his transitional line. The beginning,


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html


Sun Sep 04, 2011 1:22 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 10:30 pm
Posts: 1568
Location: Sebring, Florida
Post Re: The Creationist Challenge
Quote:
So the challenge is this: what possible non-evolutionary explanation is there for the successional order of appearance noted here?



The most reasonable explanation for this transitional
order which is said to exist, is that it only exist on paper.


Sun Sep 04, 2011 7:48 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 8:28 pm
Posts: 865
Location: Lincoln NE
Post Re: The Creationist Challenge
http://www.earthage.org/intro/odds_of_evolution_by_chance.htm

Still addicted to apologetics and immune to science.


Mon Sep 05, 2011 12:27 pm
Profile WWW

Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 10:30 pm
Posts: 1568
Location: Sebring, Florida
Post Re: The Creationist Challenge
Les Lane wrote:
http://www.earthage.org/intro/odds_of_evolution_by_chance.htm

Still addicted to apologetics and immune to science.


I know this writer's proposed line of descent from a single living source is considered scientific by those who believe. But the single imaginary unidentified source of life theory provides more questions than answers. As has been pointed out over the years by evolutionist including Darwin himself. The finely graduated changes of descent necessary to justify the theory unquestionable, don't exist.

Of course there are variations within species and a few creatures which have been considered transitional, but nothing compared to the mountains of transitional remains necessary to cut the theory in stone.

Take a look and remove the dotted and connecting lines from any phylogenetic tree. And what you're left with is fully formed, fully functional creatures which are alive today or have existed in the past. The proposed transitions are just little missing dots.

With the absence of abundant physical evidence for common ancestry and the fact that organisms are not only found complete they each have purpose in their own existence for themselves. Deductive reasoning would suggest the similarities would be the product of a common builder not a common ancestor.

The challenge here in not for creationist, but rather for evolutionist. The ongoing pep rally of fantasy and the indoctrination of imaginary rhetoric is a must to keep the common ancestry dream alive.


Tue Sep 06, 2011 9:06 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 2:16 pm
Posts: 1547
Post Re: The Creationist Challenge
All creatures are "fully formed, fully functional creatures." All creatures are also transitional - they have a string of ancestors stretching back into time, and, at least in theory, as stretching forward in time. ABO suffers under the misconception that "transitional" means incomplete or partially formed.

_________________
"I would rather live with uncertainty than believe things that are not true." (paraphrased from Feynman)


Tue Sep 06, 2011 9:26 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 10:30 pm
Posts: 1568
Location: Sebring, Florida
Post Re: The Creationist Challenge
Jack Krebs wrote:
All creatures are "fully formed, fully functional creatures." All creatures are also transitional - they have a string of ancestors stretching back into time, and, at least in theory, as stretching forward in time. ABO suffers under the misconception that "transitional" means incomplete or partially formed.



No suffering here, the question has been ask by many believers like yourself. Your suggestion is that the first organism was complete with the capacity to mutate or be mutated by natural selection into all living things.

"Natural selection is the nonrandom process by which biologic traits become more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution." Wikipedia

Not considering the impossible odds that a so called simple organism would appear from nowhere for no reason. How can natural selection play a roll in the nonrandom developmental process of the original organism which had no population? Or are we to assume the there was no single organism and that the belief begins with a population?


Tue Sep 06, 2011 10:50 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 2:16 pm
Posts: 1547
Post Re: The Creationist Challenge
You have shifted the topic from what I replied to - you were talking about transitional forms, not the beginning of life. Don't Gish Gallop away from the topic at hand, please. Transitional forms, such as homo erectus or Ambulocetus natans or any one of thousands of extinct creatures were also fully formed, fully functional creatures at the time they lived. That's the point I made.

_________________
"I would rather live with uncertainty than believe things that are not true." (paraphrased from Feynman)


Wed Sep 07, 2011 6:54 am
Profile

Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 8:48 am
Posts: 2538
Post Re: The Creationist Challenge
Quote:
Not considering the impossible odds that a so called simple organism would appear from nowhere for no reason. How can natural selection play a roll in the nonrandom developmental process of the original organism which had no population? Or are we to assume the there was no single organism and that the belief begins with a population?


If a bootstrap population cannot be explained, how does that invalidate evolution by natural selection? Making such a claim is akin to claiming that the Bible is invalid because the origin of God cannot be explained.

Furthermore, suppose, in some hypothetical future, marine biologists were to discover a hydrothermal vent at the bottom of the ocean that through complex chemical interactions of raw materials in the surrounding water actually generated a single primitive cell every other Tuesday. I have no doubt that in such a hypothetical scenario you will simply move the goalposts by stating the origin of the hydrothermal vent cannot be explained.


Wed Sep 07, 2011 9:03 am
Profile

Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 8:55 am
Posts: 438
Location: Washington, DC
Post Re: The Creationist Challenge
ABO wrote:
Not considering the impossible odds that a so called simple organism would appear from nowhere for no reason.


Thats the biblical explanation. And another Old Maid card that ABO is trying to stick others with.

_________________
"Your comments here aren't based on anything other than secular reasoning and they have no merit at all." ~ ABO


Wed Sep 07, 2011 10:28 am
Profile

Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 12:31 pm
Posts: 1015
Post Re: The Creationist Challenge
Once you accept the idea that existence is explained by mindless processess, you have taken an Unfalsifiable Position.

And, as such, an unscientific postion.

Because there is then no aspect of existence that cannot be explained by a "Just So" story.


Wed Sep 07, 2011 4:29 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 8:48 am
Posts: 2538
Post Re: The Creationist Challenge
Quote:
Once you accept the idea that existence is explained by mindless processess, you have taken an Unfalsifiable Position.

And, as such, an unscientific postion.

Because there is then no aspect of existence that cannot be explained by a "Just So" story.


This is an interesting response. Can you provide examples of "mindless processes" and things that are "falsifiable"?


Wed Sep 07, 2011 4:54 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 12:31 pm
Posts: 1015
Post Re: The Creationist Challenge
Mindless processess? The Big Bang. Spontaneous Generation. Mutations.

Lets start with those.


Wed Sep 07, 2011 4:55 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 8:48 am
Posts: 2538
Post Re: The Creationist Challenge
Quote:
Mindless processess? The Big Bang. Spontaneous Generation. Mutations.

Lets start with those.


I actually meant, what processes do you believe are "mindless"? Can you provide some examples of things that are "falsifiable"?

On a side note, "spontaneous generation", like alchemy and astrology, is not science. Though, Augustine tried to adopt it into Christianity.


Wed Sep 07, 2011 5:01 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 16 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.