Evidence for creationism, Part 2.

[Seon]

how does this complex universe come by chance? how do accidents make life in all its comlexity? how did earth get in the exact right pace to sustain life?

How did a trillion other planet out there not fall in this ideal location of life?

 

[Arakhor]

This point seems to be similar to what I was told when I tried to explain how dog breeding could show how the mechanics of evolution, the idea that for some reason if man is involved then it doesn't count.

Some people will say anything rather than be proved wrong. A physical process still happens, whether I cause it to do so in a laboratory or if it occurs in nature.

 

[Ajidica]

how does this complex universe come by chance? how do accidents make life in all its comlexity? how did earth get in the exact right pace to sustain life?

Origens of ______ questions don't really have to deal with evolution. Evolution describes how life went from single cells to the great diversity we see here today.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

the universe is to complex to happen by chance, there is my evidence

 

[Brian Shanahan]

the universe is to complex to happen by chance, there is my evidence

I hate to break it to you but that is not evidence, it is simply the blind assertion of somebody who doesn't know the actual reason. Please try again, and remember even if you could prove the universe wasn't blind chance, it still gives absolutely no alternative to evolution.

 

[Arakhor]

No, CelticEmpire, that's not how evidence works. It is how exceptionalism works though, which is not what we're after, strangely enough.

 

[Seon]

Indeed, evolution isn't driven by chance anyways. Natural selection is.

 

[Chukchi Husky]

I remember one thing about saying that life is too complex is that it's compared to a watch. When I began to think about it recently, the design of a watch didn't come from nowhere, it would have been built from ideas and technologies that took hundreds of years to come about, beginning from when man began to attempt to measure time in some form. The problem with that is that it's a man made design, but it does show how something complex can come from simpler things that worked before.

 

[Arakhor]

Exactly. Interestingly enough, there is a YouTube video about how cogs and gears could evolve into a pocketwatch, assuming that they were living creatures.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Yeah, I linked it in the first thread. But it had Coldplay music so I don't want to link to it again.

I think the search term is "evolution is a blind watchmaker".

 

[Arakhor]

Then allow me.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

Chukchi (and I've just realised I've spelled your name wrong all this time, sorry), what you're thinking of is the Rev. William Paley's watchmaker analogy, of over 200 years ago. One of the first things Darwin did in On the Origin of Species was to refute this arguement, as he knew it and others almost identical would be used to try and knock down ToE. This was despite the fact that when Darwin first set foot on H.M.S. Beagle he pretty much accepted Paley's ideas.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

If Evolution was true, no-one would use Coldplay music as a backdrop to their video.

 

[useless]

A watch is not alive, the whole argument is a strawman.

 

[sanabas]

This point seems to be similar to what I was told when I tried to explain how dog breeding could show how the mechanics of evolution, the idea that for some reason if man is involved then it doesn't count.

Yep. And that point is wrong in this specific case, as the article points out. It's also wrong in the general case, as dog breeding is still a great example of cumulative selection, even though the cumulative selection is towards a particular goal. The selection being artificial doesn't stop it being a great example of just what cumulative selection can do. Even if this experiment was designed to see just what e. coli could end up doing if you deliberately selected which groups got to breed, it would still be an example of what cumulative selection has the power to do. That's not how the experiment was designed though, and so it's an example of much more than that.


If you are genuinely interested in learning some stuff, I suggest heading for the library and getting hold of The Blind Watchmaker, bu Richard Dawkins. It assumes no prior knowledge of any sort of biology, it covers a lot of the points that you've mentioned in this thread, and if you have questions arise from reading it, no doubt there's people here who'll be happy to answer.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

If Evolution was true, no-one would use Coldplay music as a backdrop to their video.

That's probably the best arguement against evolution we'll ever get you know. And it still blows.

 

[Samson]

From the duplicate thread:

Question to Evolutionists: How does evolution work when compared with the Second Law of Thermodynamics? If it does not apply, why not? That seems to me to be proof of Creationism in some form.

I think of the relationship between evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics as life producing low entropy structures (bodies and children) at the expence of entropy, in the form of food or light. One could see intelegent life as a greater extension of this producing low entropy structures (like society) at the expence of entropy, in the form of industrial fuel.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

I think my points have gone unanswered yet again by Magicfan, and Trev has yet to respond.


I'm issuing another open challenge, to any YEC person, to see if they can even have a conversation with me without running away. I'll accept that as a start.

Rules:

1. You cannot ignore my points
2. I'll limit my points to 10 per post at most
3. I will refrain from responding until you've responded.
4. Same rules apply to you and me.


Topic:

Evidence for Creationism and Biblical Literalness.

 

[Berzerker]

When on high the heaven had not been named,
Firm ground below had not been called by name,
When primordial Apsu, their begetter,
And Mummu-Tiamat, she who bore them all,
Their waters mingled as a single body,
No reed hut had sprung forth, no marshland had appeared,
None of the gods had been brought into being,
And none bore a name, and no destinies determined--
Then it was that the gods were formed in the midst of heaven.
Lahmu and Lahamu were brought forth, by name they were called. (10)

Before they had grown in age and stature,
Anshar and Kishar were formed, surpassing the others.
Long were the days, then there came forth.....
Anu was their heir, of his fathers the rival;
Yes, Anshar's first-born, Anu, was his equal.
Anu begot in his image Nudimmud.
This Nudimmud was of his fathers the master;
Of broad wisdom, understanding, mighty in strength,
Mightier by far than his grandfather, Anshar.
He had no rival among the gods, his brothers. (20)

Thus were established and were... the great gods.

http://www.crivoice.org/enumaelish.html

Apsu = Sun
Mummu = Mercury
Lahamu = Venus
Lahmu - Mars
Tiamat (Tehom in Gen 1:2) = proto Earth
Kishar = Jupiter
Anshar = Saturn
Anu = Uranus
Nudimmud = Neptune

The story goes on to describe a celestial "battle" resulting in Heaven and Earth being separated... A dark, water covered world at what is now the asteroid belt collides with the satellites ("winds") of another planet (followed by another collision with Marduk) about 4 billion years ago and as a result, the proto Earth is pushed to a new, closer orbit with plate tectonics building continents and life.

let the flaming begin
Moderator Action: No need to be provocative. Explain your post as needed; nothing more is required.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Arakhor]

What's this charming poetry supposed to mean? I know you're looking for conflict, Berzerker, but we're not going to argue with ancient literature, just any spin you put on it.