Creation vs. Evolution

[offthewall1]

All of it.

Now to part two of my post? That was the more important part of my post. Please provide some creationist models that have results that are testable and reproducible?

You might argue that intelligent design is in fact a scientific method although to date only widely recognized as theoretical or might i say logical.

If humans can create things, I would argue that creationism exists. We have created many things although none of it from absolutely nothing. Watchmakers create watches, computer makers create computers etc... Does this make us all Gods? Likely not, because we did not create that from which all other things are made.

If we accept the premise that in order for things to be - they must be created (at least in some manner) either by God or mechanism, and if we argue scientifically for mechanism, then it must have taken someone or something to move the mechanism... much like a watchmaker winds the watch hand.

The absence of any other scientific explanation for the big bang theory and the following evolution (if that is what you believe,) is clearly covered under this theory as having been created by God. In scientific reasoning, absent any other proof, this is the reigning theory. For what else is there? Someone had to smash the atoms to get things going.

Although there are variations, the basic argument can be stated as follows:

X is too complex, orderly, adaptive, apparently purposeful, or beautiful to have occurred randomly or accidentally.
Therefore, X must have been created by a sentient, intelligent, wise, or purposeful being.
God is that sentient, intelligent, wise, or purposeful being.
Therefore, God exists.
X usually stands for the universe, the evolutionary process, humankind, a given animal species, or a particular organ like the eye or capability like language in humans. X may also stand for the fundamental constants of the universe, like physical constants and physical laws. Sometimes this argument is also based on the anthropic principle that these constants seem tuned specifically to allow intelligent life "as we know it" to evolve.

While most of the classic forms of this argument are linked to monotheism, some versions of the argument may substitute for God a lesser demiurge, multiple gods and/or goddesses, or perhaps extraterrestrials as cause for natural phenomena, although reapplication of the argument might still imply an ultimate cause. One can also leave the question of the attributes of a hypothesized "designer" completely open, yielding the following simple formulation:

Complexity implies a designer.
The universe is highly complex.
Therefore, the universe has a Designer.
A concise and whimsical teleological argument was offered by G. K. Chesterton in 1908: "So one elephant having a trunk was odd; but all elephants having trunks looked like a plot."

 

[Soggy]

You might argue that intelligent design is in fact a scientific method although to date only widely recognized as theoretical or might i say logical.

If humans can create things, I would argue that creationism exists. We have created many things although none of it from absolutely nothing. Watchmakers create watches, computer makers create computers etc... Does this make us all Gods? Likely not, because we did not create that from which all other things are made.

If we accept the premise that in order for things to be - they must be created (at least in some manner) either by God or mechanism, and if we argue scientifically for mechanism, then it must have taken someone or something to move the mechanism... much like a watchmaker winds the watch hand.

The absence of any other scientific explanation for the big bang theory and the following evolution (if that is what you believe,) is clearly covered under this theory as having been created by God. In scientific reasoning, absent any other proof, this is the reigning theory. For what else is there? Someone had to smash the atoms to get things going.

Although there are variations, the basic argument can be stated as follows:

X is too complex, orderly, adaptive, apparently purposeful, or beautiful to have occurred randomly or accidentally.
Therefore, X must have been created by a sentient, intelligent, wise, or purposeful being.
God is that sentient, intelligent, wise, or purposeful being.
Therefore, God exists.
X usually stands for the universe, the evolutionary process, humankind, a given animal species, or a particular organ like the eye or capability like language in humans. X may also stand for the fundamental constants of the universe, like physical constants and physical laws. Sometimes this argument is also based on the anthropic principle that these constants seem tuned specifically to allow intelligent life "as we know it" to evolve.

While most of the classic forms of this argument are linked to monotheism, some versions of the argument may substitute for God a lesser demiurge, multiple gods and/or goddesses, or perhaps extraterrestrials as cause for natural phenomena, although reapplication of the argument might still imply an ultimate cause. One can also leave the question of the attributes of a hypothesized "designer" completely open, yielding the following simple formulation:

Complexity implies a designer.
The universe is highly complex.
Therefore, the universe has a Designer.
A concise and whimsical teleological argument was offered by G. K. Chesterton in 1908: "So one elephant having a trunk was odd; but all elephants having trunks looked like a plot."

Hey look, you are so lazy that you can't even credit the work you just plagiarized.

It's on this page, by the way:
Teleological argument - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Apparently you didn't read far enough down to see the counterarguments. Come back when you have something interesting to provide. You're just regurgitating the same creationist crap that's been shot down dozens of times so far. Pick up a book on evolution (How about, "The Blind Watchmaker" by Dawkins) and talk to us when you've given yourself a clue.

 

[offthewall1]

I don't believe cutting and pasting is plagiarizing. It is in the public domain... and you all do the same thing. The arguments have never been shot down because there is no way to shoot them down. I'd say absent a clue you are quite dangerous to yourself... so try to find one.

 

[H2Andy]

You might argue that intelligent design is in fact a scientific method

and we keep telling you that if a theory is not disprovable it is not a scientific theory. every single scientific theory out there can be disproven. not so intelligent design. no one can "prove" that God didn't create the universe

and you keep missing that very simple point

please, give me a single test or experiment or observation that would conclusively show God didn't create the universe?

i sure can't

 

[offthewall1]

One also might add that science has been created by close minded individuals - as it is only those with closed minds who are argumentative against ethics, morals, values and truths. Science is nothing more than a closed minded persons argument against all that is right in the world and is difintively the downfall of American culture.

It is why Americans become more hated everyday. We live in a world of great beliefs (religions who honor God/s) - for which science has none. Science is all created by close-minded humans... tunnelvisionists with their eyes buried in test tubes and such... which makes it nothing more than close minded human theory.

As a typical closed minded - tunnelvisionist you wish to attack those of us who know more than yourself and who accept that there are things greater than ourselves. This is to be expected. As a debater who went 100 and 0 against your type, I know your arguments better than you do. Who can't comprehend simpleton science? Your mind needs to expand beyond that which is in front of you.

The mind is more powerful than science - which is why with all of our great science, no one has figured out the complexity of the human mind. What makes us individuals. Genetics? That is spew. Genetics in combination with environment? That is spew. The reality is that science still can't predict the direction of my next step... only logic and deductive reasoning has a chance at doing so.... and because that is also human... it has a 50/50 chance at best.

Logic and deductive reasoning will beat science in any given circumstance. It is why humanity reigns supreme... for if not, science would tell us that we would be overrun by the Lions and Tigers and Bears...as humans alone are certainly not by design the highest animal on the food chain.

 

[H2Andy]

Complexity implies a designer.

complex inanimate objects (say buildings, or watches) do not have DNA and are not capable of reproducing themselves

your argument is flawed because it combines things which need to be made (buildings, watches) and things that reproduce themselves (viruses, bacteria, chimps)

you are applying a conclusion that is true of inanimate objects to a totally different field (living things)

does a complex watch imply a designer? of course, since we know watches can't make themselves

does a complex organism imply a designer? not necessarily, since we know there are mechanisms in place that allow simple organisms to evolve into more complex ones, and we have a ton of evidence that all complex organisms on earth evolved from very simple ones

thus, your statement "complexity implies a designer" could be false when it comes to living entities, and it is not a valid major premise (only absolutely true statements can be major premises)

and since your major premise is not valid, your whole argument collapses

so much for logic and reason

 

[offthewall1]

and we keep telling you that if a theory is not disprovable it is not a scientific theory. every single scientific theory out there can be disproven. not so intelligent design. no one can "prove" that God didn't create the universe

and you keep missing that very simple point

please, give me a single test or experiment or observation that would conclusively show God didn't create the universe?

i sure can't

I'm with you... I can't give you that... which in and of itself is proof of something greater than our comprehension... which is another argument for the existence of God... Look up St. Anselm.

 

[offthewall1]

complex inanimate objects (say buildings, or watches) do not have DNA and are not capable of reproducing themselves

your argument is flawed because it combines things which need to be made (buildings, watches) and things that reproduce themselves (viruses, bacteria, chimps)

you are applying a conclusion that is true of inanimate objects to a totally different field (living things)

does a complex watch imply a designer? of course, since we know watches can't make themselves

does a complex organism imply a designer? not necessarily, since we know there are mechanisms in place that allow simple organisms to evolve into more complex ones

thus, your statement "complexity implies a designer" could be false, and it is not a valid major premise (only absolutely true statements can be major premises)

and since your major premise is not valid, your whole argument collapses

so much for logic and reason

Actually Andy... thanks for reviving my argument...

Humans have now successfully cloned animals. We have heard even the president of the United States talk about whether it is right or wrong for humans to play "God."
Now while I do not believe cloning is the same thing as the original creation... since it would imply humans created all matter - which they did not... it goes to show that if humans can create a living thing... then certainly there can be a God who did it initially.

 

[H2Andy]

I'm with you... I can't give you that... which in and of itself is proof of something greater than our comprehension... which is another argument for the existence of God... Look up St. Anselm.

I am very familiar with Anselm. his argument basically was that belief in God comes first, and then understanding:

"Nor do I seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe that I may understand. For this, too, I believe, that, unless I first believe, I shall not understand."

basically, he accepts a theory untested by fact (God exists) and then uses that theory to explain observable reality

rather than, as a scientist would, use observable reality to come up with a theory that fits that reality

 

[offthewall1]

But who are we to say which is right? Especially when science is continually proven wrong - given enough time.