Evidence for creationism, Part 2.

[Gustave5436]

this where i disagree with you. even people like dawkins believe the genome has information.
http://www.skeptics.com.au/publications/articles/the-information-challenge/
he uses Shannon information shannaon information

Everyone knows that DNA holds information; in fact, that's essentially it's purpose, holding the information needed to instruct the body to construct various proteins. The problem isn't acknowledging that it holds information, it's in applying general laws of thermodynamics to evolution. Arguing that evolution is a logical progression from simple to complex organisms (which it isn't), and that this is impossible because the laws of thermodynamics state that entropy can never decrease (inaccurate, as the DNA molecule in a cell is not a closed system) indicates a clear lack of understanding. It's an extremely misleading and confusing line of thinking which has no correspondence to actual biological science.

 

[sanabas]

i read every post you have written. the basic argument you present is random mutations + natural slection + deep time = every evidence for creation is invalid.

As opposed to all mutations are bad + all selection is random + no such thing as deep time = things can only devolve? Or the other favourite, I can't see a way for that to evolve, therefore it's irreducibly complex, therefore goddidit?

The first one actually makes some predictions. It can be tested. Humanity is only ~200-300 generations removed from Adam & Eve, not enough time for serious decay. But if we observed a population for thousands & thousands of generations in the same environment, we should see the random mutations build up, we should see the population devolve, become less able to survive in their environment. Correct?

if you disagree plz provide one example in where a function was gained and the organism as a whole did not become less fit. also it must be able to be passed on to the offspring.if not, your argument is a hypothetical situation.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lenski_results_challenge_creationism is a great example of both a function being gained, and thousands of generations passing without individuals decaying. It's already been posted once in this thread.

 

[Arakhor]

Plotinus answers the thread. Maybe religion will prevail where science has not.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

what evidence would you accept for creation? what would prove a designer?
[...]
of course keep your suggestion within reason.

Scientific evidence. The kind that is predictive and testable. And evidence that doesn't say: The Theory of Evolution is incorrect, thus Creationism. Because that is intellectual dishonesty. It could merely prove that our understanding of Evolution is incorrect. The model is wrong.

I'll post what I posted in page 2 and repeated somewhere else again:

Could someone who is going to provide evidence for Creationism do this please without referring to Evolution?

I'd like to see the following format:
- Data on which a model was based
- Model/hypothesis which explains the process of Creation
- Test case which has yielded a successful conclusion

If you don't have any of these, and you're just in it to go: It's true, I just know it. Don't bother. You're actually diminishing the case for Creation. Don't say: "Life's too complicated" or "I don't think we evolved from apes" or "but I believe God did it" because dear boys and girls, we're looking for the kind of evidence we can verify. Like it's done in the real world before it is accepted.

I'm pretty sure a 1.000 post thread with gutfeeling non-evidence already exists.

By now, two of them do.

And yes, I wouldn't be able to figure out how you could do this. And that's the whole point of the thread. Creationism does not rely on science but on faith, not on knowledge but ignorance. And when people acknowledge this and no longer wish this Religious side effect to be taught alongside of Evolution in classrooms, no longer regard it as a scientific alternate equal view to Evolution, but a religious mindset, there is no debate anymore and as far as I'm concerned you can believe whatever the hell seems logical to you and your gutfeeling.

Until then, we're going to need something a little more scientific than was presented in two unproductive threads.

(More if you count Perfection's)

 

[El_Machinae]

Moderator Action: I am closing this thread for size. Because YECs are rare on the forum, and because there's a trend towards rude dogpiling, I am going to suggest that a YEC open the next thread if they are willing. The next thread should be a discussion, and not a flamewar