Proofs For Creationism - As Requested

[redtide]

So you defend the belief in Creationism by saying Science has not and can not disprove God so Creationism is an acceptable belief. This is not the case because there is a lot of evidence backing an alternate theory called Evolution, hence, in the absence of evidence for Creationism one is compelled to accept Evolution. To disregard the evidence and instead will yourself to believe in the Creator is possible but it is not a defendable position.

So far we seem agreed that we cannot disprove god / a creator so both random evolution and creationism can be left on the table as theories of how it all happened (at least as far as life on earth goes).

Here's the part I have never understood. How does the theory of a random god/creator in ANY WAY answer the question for you? If you assume that a creator created things, then you have the EXACT same question sitting on your plate - who created the creator? How is it somehow possible to accept that everything must have been started by god, yet at the same time not question how that god came to be? It's a never-ending circular problem isn't it? And when faced with an option of scientifically proven evidence all pointing to a perfectly logical explanation, versus an argument that in no way proves anything - how can you justify going with the argument that has no basis?

[Guilty_Biscuit]

If you assume that a creator created things, then you have the EXACT same question sitting on your plate - who created the creator? How is it somehow possible to accept that everything must have been started by god, yet at the same time not question how that god came to be? It's a never-ending circular problem isn't it?

Unfortunately theists can decide for themselves what their God is capable of and there are no limitatations on what they can say God is or is capable of. They usually refute the argument about who created God by saying something along the lines of: God IS and HAS ALWAYS BEEN, God is both omnipotent and omniscient and exists outside of time and space. The beginning and the end have no meaning for God for God transcends our notion of time. God is everywhere at every time and has always been.

[Backglass]

Unfortunately theists can decide for themselves what their God is capable of and there are no limitatations on what they can say God is or is capable of. They usually refute the argument about who created God by saying something along the lines of: God IS and HAS ALWAYS BEEN, God is both omnipotent and omniscient and exists outside of time and space. The beginning and the end have no meaning for God for God transcends our notion of time. God is everywhere at every time and has always been.

I say the exact same thing about the Universe...it is eternal, has always been here and has no creator, but when I do, Theists shake there head.

It's a funny double standard.

[dnucci]

If you assume that a creator created things, then you have the EXACT same question sitting on your plate - who created the creator? How is it somehow possible to accept that everything must have been started by god, yet at the same time not question how that god came to be? It's a never-ending circular problem isn't it?

Unfortunately theists can decide for themselves what their God is capable of and there are no limitatations on what they can say God is or is capable of. They usually refute the argument about who created God by saying something along the lines of: God IS and HAS ALWAYS BEEN, God is both omnipotent and omniscient and exists outside of time and space. The beginning and the end have no meaning for God for God transcends our notion of time. God is everywhere at every time and has always been.

Well, I am a Theist, and I do not say this. What I say is that what looks like God to us is just a greater being, and there is no logical reason why that greater being cannot have beings greater than it. I know this sounds contrary to an infinite god, but you have to think dimensionally.

For example, you can say the Universe is infinite in every direction, but how many directions is that . . . 3? What about the 4th dimension. Would not a 4th dimensional being, if it appeared to us, be interpreted as God? Could it not also be infinite, but outside of an infinite 3 dimensions? So, I actually think of God as a stack of infinite dimensions outside our experience of the Universe. (no beard . . . no long robe.)

[Guilty_Biscuit]

dnucci God or Gods? - reading your post I had visions (based on Hofstatders Genie) of the God, meta-God, meta-meta-God, meta-meta-meta-God, meta-meta-meta-meta-God, meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-God, meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-God

[Guiscard]

dnucci God or Gods? - reading your post I had visions (based on Hofstatders Genie) of the God, meta-God, meta-meta-God, meta-meta-meta-God, meta-meta-meta-meta-God, meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-God, meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-God

Just looked up Hofstatders Genie and it seems like the most bizzare book... Have you read it? Any good?

[Guilty_Biscuit]

Just looked up Hofstatders Genie and it seems like the most bizzare book... Have you read it? Any good?

It is an excellent book (I'm sure dnucci will back me up on that) but you have to have an interest (however small) in mathematics or logic or artificial intelligence or... well basically it touches on a lot of subjects but it is a lot of fun and makes you think. Hofstadter explains everything well enough (ie you don't need a degree in mathematics) and if you have no background in any of the areas he covers you will find yourself looking up and getting interested in areas as diverse as the people the book is named after: J S Bach, M C Escher and K Godel.

In conclusion, if you enjoy the fiction of Alice in Wonderland you will find it's counterpart in the non-fiction of GEB.

[ClessAlvein]

Yes, that is one of the more memorable passages of GEB. Hofstadter goes over this concept quite cleverly, by insisiting that GOD is an acronym for "GOD Over Djinn." The "GOD" in "GOD Over Djinn" is, of course, another acronym, which stands for "GOD Over Djinn." This recursive acronym accurately explores the concept of infinite meta-realities, and he also delves a bit into convergence of infinite series.

[Guilty_Biscuit]

We have to stop this talk of GEB - I've just picked it up to read again and am only up to Figure and Ground (just past the p q system, happy horse apple and all that) all this talk of Genies is spoiling it for me! Next you'll be talking of Holism and Reductionism and I won't bother re-reading the book at all!

[dnucci]

dnucci God or Gods? - reading your post I had visions (based on Hofstatders Genie) of the God, meta-God, meta-meta-God, meta-meta-meta-God, meta-meta-meta-meta-God, meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-God, meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-God

What's the difference? The difference between God and Gods is only a difference of the mind with no true reality. The real point is the belief in the Other Than.

[Guilty_Biscuit]

What's the difference? The difference between God and Gods is only a difference of the mind with no true reality. The real point is the belief in the Other Than.

I won't argue against individual spirituality, my beef is with organised religion

[dnucci]

We have to stop this talk of GEB - I've just picked it up to read again and am only up to Figure and Ground (just past the p q system, happy horse apple and all that) all this talk of Genies is spoiling it for me! Next you'll be talking of Holism and Reductionism and I won't bother re-reading the book at all!

But this is the very crux of the faith v. science debate. Faith is the study of greater and greater things and a contemplation of the whole, and yet you end up with the same questions from science, which is the reduction to smaller and smaller parts. On the grand scale, you end up with "what is the nature of the Universe and how, then, shall we live?" and as we slice and dice and get down to the very essence of physics, chemistry, and biology, you end up with "what is the nature of the Universe and how, then, shall we live?"

[Guilty_Biscuit]

Faith is the study of greater and greater things and a contemplation of the whole.

I would dispute that the results from faith as a study are of value.

[nunz]

(Re: Colossus' arrogance)

There are entire biochemical and evolution biology courses devoted to explaining, among other things, why a concept you have firmly in your mind as an "egg" is, in fact, continuous. Colossus may not have used the best of tones in explaining why you are wrong, but he is correct about your misunderstanding of evolutionary biology - there is an entire world of knowledge in this area. Simply your statement that an egg is an "all-or-none" event shows that you have really no background in this;

There are also courses devoted to explaining why the egg cannot exist, and they are run by well qualified and educated people who have come in from the evolutionary camp to a non-evolutionary way of thinking.

I know the egg is not an all or nothing, I acknowledged that fact in my original post by pointing out that the chicken and egg is only an analogy to help us dialogue about the potentiality of the original egg laying beast (what ever that was).

I also acknowledged that things such as the hard shell of an egg was later in the evolutionary chain (if you look at it in those terms) than a fish type egg with a soft shell. However I also pointed out that for every piece of complexity in the final chickens egg you remove as not having evolved (ie no hard shell in favour of a soft shell for a fish egg) there were a raft more complexities which need to be dealt with.

As for several years worth of explanation - how about a two minute explanation explaining that there are observable and recorded signs of chromosomal / dna changes and mutations evident in current populations.

Some of those changes have no effect on the immediate morphology or physiology of the beast the mutant cell is contained within. These neutral - non affective changes are passed on to the offspring. However, theoretically if enough of these dormant / neutral changes build up then there is the potential for one more change or 'adaptation' to trigger them all into action within a single generation.

That is just one theory to explain how the egg can happen in a very quick piece of time or a single generation using simple terms and utilising the latest in modern research on DNA and hereditary.

But you see here is the problem. In my experience evolutionists seem to think all Christians are as thick as two short planks, totally ignorant and have some how mixed up their anus with their mouths when it comes to discussing ideas. They also tend to categorize us as 6 day creationists who blindly believe all sorts of weird faeces without utilizing a single atom of the brain power the non-existent God has blessed us with.

Now unless colossus and the rest want to some how pull apart my own negation of my own theory (which I also have negation for as well) then it would seem patently obvious I am the better intellect as I am able to succinctly and simply explain the basic concepts behind a modern theory in a way which colossus purportedly cannot do.

Maybe I am sounding a bit arrogant but it is only in the hope I might be able to provoke some kind of meaningful dialogue with outthe diatribe and crap normally evident in these discussions.

I hope to learn more than I teach, have my own ideas challenged and hopefully challenge some other's ideas. The best way to learn something is to teach someone else. In the teaching we are forced to face our own assumptions and it soon becomes painfully obvious where our areas of lack are, forcing us to grow some more in response.

So ClessAlvein, Colossus, others. You going to play or sit there throwing tomatoes from the cheap seats?

Currently I seem to winning both sides of the argument
PS still wading through that URL you pointed me too. So far not very impressed as it seems to be mostly assumption and propoganda rather than fact or discussion. In the first three to five paragraphs the author seems more interested in pissing on creationists than actually saying anything useful. Their line of thinking is not evident yet and they are completely off topic in the first part of this paper. Critical thinking and logical dialogue seems to be missing in so many of these discussions.

[captainvegetable]

(Re: Colossus' arrogance)

There are entire biochemical and evolution biology courses devoted to explaining, among other things, why a concept you have firmly in your mind as an "egg" is, in fact, continuous. Colossus may not have used the best of tones in explaining why you are wrong, but he is correct about your misunderstanding of evolutionary biology - there is an entire world of knowledge in this area. Simply your statement that an egg is an "all-or-none" event shows that you have really no background in this;

There are also courses devoted to explaining why the egg cannot exist, and they are run by well qualified and educated people who have come in from the evolutionary camp to a non-evolutionary way of thinking.

I know the egg is not an all or nothing, I acknowledged that fact in my original post by pointing out that the chicken and egg is only an analogy to help us dialogue about the potentiality of the original egg laying beast (what ever that was).

I also acknowledged that things such as the hard shell of an egg was later in the evolutionary chain (if you look at it in those terms) than a fish type egg with a soft shell. However I also pointed out that for every piece of complexity in the final chickens egg you remove as not having evolved (ie no hard shell in favour of a soft shell for a fish egg) there were a raft more complexities which need to be dealt with.

As for several years worth of explanation - how about a two minute explanation explaining that there are observable and recorded signs of chromosomal / dna changes and mutations evident in current populations.

Some of those changes have no effect on the immediate morphology or physiology of the beast the mutant cell is contained within. These neutral - non affective changes are passed on to the offspring. However, theoretically if enough of these dormant / neutral changes build up then there is the potential for one more change or 'adaptation' to trigger them all into action within a single generation.

That is just one theory to explain how the egg can happen in a very quick piece of time or a single generation using simple terms and utilising the latest in modern research on DNA and hereditary.

But you see here is the problem. In my experience evolutionists seem to think all Christians are as thick as two short planks, totally ignorant and have some how mixed up their anus with their mouths when it comes to discussing ideas. They also tend to categorize us as 6 day creationists who blindly believe all sorts of weird faeces without utilizing a single atom of the brain power the non-existent God has blessed us with.

Now unless colossus and the rest want to some how pull apart my own negation of my own theory (which I also have negation for as well) then it would seem patently obvious I am the better intellect as I am able to succinctly and simply explain the basic concepts behind a modern theory in a way which colossus purportedly cannot do.

Maybe I am sounding a bit arrogant but it is only in the hope I might be able to provoke some kind of meaningful dialogue with outthe diatribe and crap normally evident in these discussions.

I hope to learn more than I teach, have my own ideas challenged and hopefully challenge some other's ideas. The best way to learn something is to teach someone else. In the teaching we are forced to face our own assumptions and it soon becomes painfully obvious where our areas of lack are, forcing us to grow some more in response.

So ClessAlvein, Colossus, others. You going to play or sit there throwing tomatoes from the cheap seats?

Currently I seem to winning both sides of the argument
PS still wading through that URL you pointed me too. So far not very impressed as it seems to be mostly assumption and propoganda rather than fact or discussion. In the first three to five paragraphs the author seems more interested in pissing on creationists than actually saying anything useful. Their line of thinking is not evident yet and they are completely off topic in the first part of this paper. Critical thinking and logical dialogue seems to be missing in so many of these discussions.

Please summarize this in one concise paragraph.

[Colossus]

nunz, I am curious as to your background and/or formal training in the area of scientific investigation. I've laid my background out there, both in terms of my spiritual stance as well as my scientific qualifications, so everyone knows where I am coming from. I know nothing about you, and I'm curious.

[unriggable]

I will formally declare you the winner, nunz, if you can successfully explain to me why some humans DO NOT HAVE APPENDICES yet still manage to live, and in fact are more likely to do so because they will not get appendicitis.

[nunz]

The theme of this post - lets be consistent in how we apply the ideas of proof and scientific enquiry as there seems to be double standards.

(irreducible complexity)

I will explain the fundamental flaw in your "scientific" argument here as clearly as I can - first of all, an abstract concept like origin of the universe (or life, if you like) cannot be tested, thus making it absolutely not a scientific question.

Yep ... and nope. Both.
1 - Can we scientifically find the beginnings of the universe?
Without a time machine I very much doubt it but we can find evidences pointing towards how it might have happened. The Hubble telescope is an excellent example of this. It was set up to try to probe the furthest reaches of the universe in an attempt to give us some answers about the origin of the universe.
While the Hubble is a high profile attempt there are also many other attempts and lines of inquiry attempting to do the same, ranging from paleontology, geology, physics .... When any of them make a discovery it is touted as a move forward in explaining how it all happened in the beginning. The big bang theory, the expanding universe (either elliptical or circular expansion theories) these are all science arguments based on observations. These respected scientists would all argue with the assumption that we cannot find out about the early universe via scientific inquiry.
Either they are right or else you guys are going to have to write off their evidence about our beginnings as non-scientific in the same way as your paragraph above seems to suggest.
I am not having a direct crack at evolution here in this topic (in fact was asked to stop disputing evolution and provide 'evidences for creationist theory), rather pointing towards proofs given for looking at creation as a viable theory.
[/quote]

Second, you have only presented two hypotheses to a very broad and vague question. Just what amounts to the "beginning"? Thirdly, you have attempted to reject your null hypothesis of "scientific explanation" by saying that it cannot possibly explain something - well, for one, that is a subjective statement based on your own chain of reasoning and a thought experiment and cannot be considered as evidence by any account, and second, saying that a null hypothesis cannot explain something is never sufficient ground to reject it. You must have physical evidence that directly contradicts the null hypothesis, and not just any old imagined scenario, no matter how many whimsical links it may have to the aforementioned theories.

I know that so far there are only two hypothesis given. As I keep saying, I am a busy man and am cranking out my lines of reasoning and ideas as fast as I can. Rather than just fob off some tired warn out old crack I am trying to provoke reasonable discussion. The chicken and egg was my opening gambit in the discussion. As of your posts (that I am responding too) no one has even attempted to logically or critically refute it. All there has been is dismissal and contempt. That is not logical discussion and neither is it proof. If this was a judged debate the evolutionary tribe would be losing badly. They might have points for entertainment but none for logic or rebuttal.

The first hypothesis's of not being able to disprove God was only to make sure we didn't waste time saying there is no god and going round in ever decreasing circles. It was set put up explicitly as a presupposition or fact to give us a common platform to work from. All decent discussion lays out its parameters, pre-suppositions, any special words or ideas which need defining before a meaningful dialogue can be enjoined. That is why I removed 'God' from the discussion in favour of a neutral term creator.

That way we don't have to discuss Christianity, the bible, 6 day creationism, theology or comparative religions. Having removed these bug bears, established that we all agree there is no imperical proof of gods non-existence then we had a platform for common discussion. This process is called critical thinking. Unfortunately it is little practiced and hardly ever taught in our learning institutions now days (in my experience).

Science, maths and philosophy are not that far apart any more in some areas. Combining what we know in all these areas allows us to look at our origins. A philosophical discussion, such as the chicken and egg, combined with scientific inquiry and mathmatical logic can combine to give us some reasonable clues (until new evidence comes along).

The science theorys of adaptation / evolution / mutation / genetics point to how a proto-chicken could have possibly become an egg laying fowl. However, the philosophical (mind / logic thoughts) point out problems in the theories and cause us to look at and for evidence to help resolve the possible issues in the theories. Maths also comes along to provide evidence of how probable or possible these theories all are.

Why only two hypthoesis until now?
Why would I even bother to write more on a new line of thought or extend this line of thought if there is no meaningful engagement by the evolutionst camp?

Science experiments are about proving or disproving a theory.

If you believe this, then I'm afraid you don't quite understand the fundamental concept of science. Scientific experiments are always conducted with the objective of disproving a null hypothesis or supporting an original hypothesis, never in an attempt to prove the original hypothesis.

Umm ... what is the difference between supporting an original hypothesis and proving a hypthesis? Are we using a special meaning for the word 'prove' here?

As a highschool student (16 years old) we were shown proof that light travels in stright lines by lining up cards with small holes and shining through a light. We then proved that light also travels in waves by using mis-aligned cards with slots etc to show that non-straight lines allow light (so therefore it might travel in waves). We also used a 50 hearts tapper to put lines on paper attached to falling weights to measure gravitational acceleration and many other such experiments to prove or disprove theories. These experiments were considered proof or supporting evidence.

As a teacher I told my kids that food gets from their mouths to their stomachs because little people with wheel barrows carried it down to their stomach. I then challenged them to disprove my theory and to offer their own theories and develop tests to prove their theories.
We turned kids upside down, hung their tongues out, drank through straws, and did all sorts of crazy things to prove or disprove their theories of gravity, tongue pushing, peristalsis etc. These to them constituted proof of their theories. Until disproof came along their theories stood as valid.

How are these things not proof?

Such an attempt would be futile. If you observe a million white swans, then you may say with some certainty that it's likely that all swans are white, but you may never say that you have proven that all swans are white, because one black swan will disprove your theory.

And therein lies the rub in the evolution versus creation debate. In general evolutionists tend to cite they have proof and creationists don't. They offer all sorts of proof without realising that evolution is just a theory (same as creation is just a theory). If evolutionists are allowed to offer proofs, then why the fuss when creationists do the same? The chicken and egg lays out reasons for the possibilty of a black swan.

In fact, simply by naming this thread "Proofs for Creationism" and then touting the scientific method as your method of getting these proofs in the first post, you have created an irreconcilable conflict - science will never "prove" anything, so you will never "prove" creationism.

Wikipaedia describes proofs as follows.
A rigorous, compelling argument, including:

* Mathematical proof
* Proof theory, a branch of mathematical logic that represents proofs as formal mathematical objects
* Logical argument
* Evidence (law), tested evidence or a legal proof

Scientific proofs can be compelling evidence, logical argument using scientific facts or evidential witness statements around the scientific facts in evidence.

Again wikipaedia ...
Models of scientific inquiry

Main article: Models of scientific inquiry

[edit] Classical model

The classical model of scientific inquiry derives from Aristotle, who distinguished the forms of approximate and exact reasoning, set out the threefold scheme of abductive, deductive, and inductive inference, and also treated the compound forms such as reasoning by analogy.

[edit] Pragmatic model

Main article: Pragmatic theory of truth

Charles Peirce considered scientific inquiry to be a species of the genus inquiry, which he defined as any means of fixing belief, that is, any means of arriving at a settled opinion on a matter in question. He observed that inquiry in general begins with a state of uncertainty and moves toward a state of certainty, sufficient at least to terminate the inquiry for the time being. ....

Further wiki says reasoning is
....In terms of logic and argument, reasoning is "the act of using reason to derive a conclusion from certain premises, using a given methodology."[citation needed] The two most commonly used explicit methods of reasoning are deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning; abductive reasoning and analogy are also forms of reasoning used in this context.

Scientific proofs are allowed to be arrived at using deductive, abductive or inductive reasoning to arrive at a conclusion. Evidence is allowed to be entered into the proof where it is reasonable and relevant. These processes allow us to create, support or challenge theories as long as there is no emperical evidence or logcal reasoning rebutting the theory.

Therefore - whether I am using the pragmatic or classical methods of scientific proof, I am creating or challenging or supporting proofs of creation. Any other conclusion is sheer semantics.

Evidence or proofs may also be gathered using universal truths and facts where they impact a theory to argue with or support a theory.

[nunz]

One point creationists make is that someone must have started it all. There must have been a beginning. But why?
Can you imagine the universe? Inifnite, as in there is no end, no start no end, just endless space. If you could imagine that why can't you imagine infinite time. No start no end? I'm not saying there was no end but I'm just saying that creationists sometimes do not think flexible enough. Logic and reasoning tells us everything must have a start and a beginning. Yet Einstein's Theory of relativity defies logic and reason. Creationists do not think flexible enough compared to scientists.

Creationists can be flexible in this respect. You have made a gross over simplification of all creationists there. As a Christian I believe God created time. Genesis says that There was God and His Spirit hovered over the void. After creating light and dark God then made the sun and moon, night and day. We take that as evidence that God created time.
We believe that creation started before time, when God created light and dark. Creation isn't the only reality. The realm of God is over and above creation.

By the way - Einstein was a theist and believed in creation. so I guess that considering he was the greatest scientist of our age that you would have to say theist - creationists are of greater inmtyelliegence than evolutionists
Cite http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/einstein.php
Cite: http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/6072/1einstein.html
Einstein himself stated quite clearly that he did not believe in a personal God:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."

So, the quick answer to the question is that Einstein did not believe in a personal God. It is however, interesting how he arrived at that conclusion. In developing the theory of relativity, Einstein realized that the equations led to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. He didn't like the idea of a beginning, because he thought one would have to conclude that the universe was created by God. So, he added a cosmological constant to the equation to attempt to get rid of the beginning. He said this was one of the worst mistakes of his life. Of course, the results of Edwin Hubble confirmed that the universe was expanding and had a beginning at some point in the past. So, Einstein became a deist - a believer in an impersonal creator God:

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

[nunz]

Yah I have read GEB. I used to be a math teacher and used to teach my kids about Penrose tiling. Penrose tiling is a system of tesselation that produces an infinite, yet aperdiodic tiling. very cool. I haven't read the book you cite Heavycola, but it sounds good. The idea that consciousness is non-algorithmic I think is a theme in GEB as well. GEB spends a lot of time talking about whether or not artificial intelligence is possible. I think Hofstadter is pretty solid on his take on why it is not and it is because consciousness is non-algorithmic.

In fact, one of the themes of GEB is that meaning cannot be held within a system but must come from outside a system. If you start with the premise that the best system would have the most breadth and the most depth (in other words the widest coverage to the deepest detail) then the ultimate system would be an exact replica of the Universe. yet, if that system is to have meaning, then it must come from outside the Universe. So, my take on that is . . . if you believe that there is a cosmic meaning to the Universe, then it must come from outside the Universe, and that which is outside the Universe, we would call God.

Logical thought in a random universe is impossible therefore there needs to be something outside the universe impacting on the universe. This is one of the proofs of creationism.
What are you doing beating me to stating my number four proof

[nunz]

Nunz, your post on the previous page came out as more arrogant and closed-minded than any post yet in this thread. Colossus HAS posted a rebuttal, or a link to one, for every argument you've made. They have been posted in an intelligent and readable way without resorting to science-babble, which I'm sure would have been easier as he is a biochemist.

The reason he declares that his efforts are useless is precisely because you have not posted a single rebuttal of the proofs he has been given other than, in essence, to shout 'irreducible complexity' and 'your examples are wrong because it doesn't exist!'
....
He has every right to feel insulted by your constant flouting of 'scientific evidence' when, in reality, all you have presented is the theory of irreducible complexity to which several successful rebuttals have been posted.

Lets see more arrogant .. hmmm. After being called an insult to to science, ignorant (as are my ilk), not worth posting a reply too as I am not able to appreciate it, absurd as to be laughable, asked if I had ever studied evolution, told I cannot argue a view point (inferring he obviously knows more than me and I don't know enough to make this argument, being lumped into an 'ilk' that mindlessly believes .... , told I should undertake some basic study, told I am not well informed, that I have mindlessly cribbed off behe ..... my post calling him an arrogant bastard who should get off his high horse and stop making assumptions is more close minded than anything you have seen?


Sheeit. Get a grip. If I had treated Colossuss with that kind of contempt then maybe you would grounds for making that claim.

As for me saying he hasn't refuted the chicken and egg .. the main argument of irreducible complexity is that it is all at once or nothing. None of his (one addressing that topic) posts have addressed that. The only cite came after the fact of the post which peeved me off. It lead to a page I am still reading but which in the first paragraphs is nothing but anti creationist invective with no logical argument or presentation of fact.

He has gone on about multiple chromosomes without making any attempt to link it to the main topic of irreducable complexity in his statements. As some one who might have an inkling of what he might be thinking I can make assumptions about what he might have tried to say but as it stands it is only a piece on organisms having multiple chromosomes. Sandwhiched as it is amongst the assertation I should at least do some basic study, and without any segue or logical link to the irreduible complexity argument, it can only be read as big-wigging about stuff he knows .. unless of course I also make some assumptions about what he does or doesn't know.

The over all tone of his single post (at the point of the resposnse you are protesting) was abusive, condescending and dismissive.

Now as to your ascertation he has replied to every argument I have made ... the only argument I have made is the chicken and egg so far and the only post at the point of my response was the abusive dismissive one I replied to calling him an arrogant bastard.

Some of your argument here (especially the edit at the bottom of your post) assumes I was in possession of information (at the time of my reply) which I could only have been in possession of after the fact of my post (ie the things you are taking me to task about in my response where published after colossusses first and only response to the chicken and egg at the point I responded to it.

The chicken and egg has had no cohesive argument put against it (at the point of reading this response from you) linking fact (or even reasonable theory) to the dismissal of irreducible complexity, in a logical and orderly manner. I have had abuse, dismissal and contempt but no reasonable , logical scientific or logical reasoning to show why irreducible complexity is a flawed theory or how evolution can account for it. If you can prove me wrong in this statement then please do. But make sure you cite or quote rather than just telling me I have been rebutted logically.

The closest colossuss in his one post in respsonse to it (at this point in the time line of the posts) has done is to talk about multi chromosomed species (octoploids etc).Yet there is no logic to show how it relates to the chicken and egg argument according to colossuss. I can think of at least two ways it might relate but unlike others am not going to presume on anyone elses knowledge.

[nunz]

Okay, first of all nunz, I apologize if my tone is one of arrogance.

S'all right ... I was hot under the collar when I replied. Was trying to get my annoyance across in a serious manner without completely alienating you. My apologies to your parents

The whoo hoo is coz we finally have a dialogue starting. Exciting stuff. You might find a later post where i use a similar argument (redundent DNA) as an explanation to rebut my own argument. I wrote it before I saw this as an olive branch to hopefully restart our dialogue.

Crazy long .. yep ... but hey ... I am young (well I was until I finished reading it hehehehe).

The irreducible complexity argument with respect to the egg as you stated it makes the assumption that the first organism to lay an egg was a chicken. The problem with this assumption is that it is wrong....

Yep .. agreed. I mentioned that in part of my chicken egg post but also stated for every complexity you remove (such as the hard shell) you introduce or replace it with a new complexity such as not having you eggs float away.

I'm going to read your massive missive and quietly chew threw it then come back with some reposnses.

BTW Thanks for the back up on the god thing. I thought it important to state it explicitly as a precursor to discussion. I don't see it as a proof of creation. Just a 'scientific removal of an impediment to a theory' My style is logical debate and critical thinking. I like to clear the decks or possible impediments or presumptions then drop out a bait (like the chicken and egg) and see where we go.

Ciao

[ClessAlvein]

Edit: Nevermind, you hadn't read Colossus' post yet.

[nunz]

So you defend the belief in Creationism by saying Science has not and can not disprove God so Creationism is an acceptable belief. This is not the case because there is a lot of evidence backing an alternate theory called Evolution, hence, in the absence of evidence for Creationism one is compelled to accept Evolution. To disregard the evidence and instead will yourself to believe in the Creator is possible but it is not a defendable position.

So far we seem agreed that we cannot disprove god / a creator so both random evolution and creationism can be left on the table as theories of how it all happened (at least as far as life on earth goes).

Here's the part I have never understood. How does the theory of a random god/creator in ANY WAY answer the question for you? If you assume that a creator created things, then you have the EXACT same question sitting on your plate - who created the creator? How is it somehow possible to accept that everything must have been started by god, yet at the same time not question how that god came to be? It's a never-ending circular problem isn't it? And when faced with an option of scientifically proven evidence all pointing to a perfectly logical explanation, versus an argument that in no way proves anything - how can you justify going with the argument that has no basis?

Guys ... listen up. The cannot disprove god was a precursor to discussion , a clearing of possible arguments against creationism by having us at least all agree we cannot disprove god. The reason fr doing that is not to ffer god as proof of creation but to remove the argument that there categorically is no god so there cannot be a chance of creation.

In critical thinking it is important to remove impediments to discussion and lay out some basic suppositions to base discussions on.

Re-read the post. it explicitly states it is a presupposition, it never cites that argument as a proof or evidence for creation.

Also re who created god ... that is a theoretical discussion on the nature of eternity.
Warning - Limited anology about to appear.
Think of time as a wheel with eternity as the hub. God is in the hub and can touch time at any and all points at once (like the spokes of a bicycle). it is a simple explanation for how God can see the past and future, how the present touches eternity at every given point of time.
God is in all time but also exists independently of time. The first two chapters of the Chritian / Jewish / Islamic scriptures (commonly called genesis 1 and 2) state God created light and dark out of nothing (the void) and then created sun and moon, time and seasons. That could be interpreted to say God created time. If God created time he can also destroy it.

Without time any argument about where god came from or started is pointless as it is as limited an argument as two dimensional beings living on a piece of paper claiming their friend disappeared when a three dimensional being picked him / her / it up off the paper into a dimension they cannot comprehend.

Now end the anology there otherwise we come up with dumb questions about time being circular or something like that ....

[captainvegetable]

So you defend the belief in Creationism by saying Science has not and can not disprove God so Creationism is an acceptable belief. This is not the case because there is a lot of evidence backing an alternate theory called Evolution, hence, in the absence of evidence for Creationism one is compelled to accept Evolution. To disregard the evidence and instead will yourself to believe in the Creator is possible but it is not a defendable position.

So far we seem agreed that we cannot disprove god / a creator so both random evolution and creationism can be left on the table as theories of how it all happened (at least as far as life on earth goes).

Here's the part I have never understood. How does the theory of a random god/creator in ANY WAY answer the question for you? If you assume that a creator created things, then you have the EXACT same question sitting on your plate - who created the creator? How is it somehow possible to accept that everything must have been started by god, yet at the same time not question how that god came to be? It's a never-ending circular problem isn't it? And when faced with an option of scientifically proven evidence all pointing to a perfectly logical explanation, versus an argument that in no way proves anything - how can you justify going with the argument that has no basis?

Guys ... listen up. The cannot disprove god was a precursor to discussion , a clearing of possible arguments against creationism by having us at least all agree we cannot disprove god. The reason fr doing that is not to ffer god as proof of creation but to remove the argument that there categorically is no god so there cannot be a chance of creation.

In critical thinking it is important to remove impediments to discussion and lay out some basic suppositions to base discussions on.

Re-read the post. it explicitly states it is a presupposition, it never cites that argument as a proof or evidence for creation.

Also re who created god ... that is a theoretical discussion on the nature of eternity.
Warning - Limited anology about to appear.
Think of time as a wheel with eternity as the hub. God is in the hub and can touch time at any and all points at once (like the spokes of a bicycle). it is a simple explanation for how God can see the past and future, how the present touches eternity at every given point of time.
God is in all time but also exists independently of time. The first two chapters of the Chritian / Jewish / Islamic scriptures (commonly called genesis 1 and 2) state God created light and dark out of nothing (the void) and then created sun and moon, time and seasons. That could be interpreted to say God created time. If God created time he can also destroy it.

Without time any argument about where god came from or started is pointless as it is as limited an argument as two dimensional beings living on a piece of paper claiming their friend disappeared when a three dimensional being picked him / her / it up off the paper into a dimension they cannot comprehend.

Now end the anology there otherwise we come up with dumb questions about time being circular or something like that ....

I like your analogy.