The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread!

[Perfection]

as I have

I believe I have destroyed all of your criticisms, if you can find something I've missed or a flaw in my logic you're welcome to share.

 

[Dominus Romae]

Come on, if I write a book now saying I am the new God, would you trust me? That's why we have science.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

I believe I have destroyed all of your criticisms, if you can find something I've missed or a flaw in my logic you're welcome to share.

Disprove God. When you can do that, you can disprove the concept that God created everything around you exactly as it appears to be.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Disprove God. When you can do that, you can disprove the concept that God created everything around you exactly as it appears to be.

When did you convert to Last Thursdayism?

 

[Perfection]

Disprove God. When you can do that, you can disprove the concept that God created everything around you exactly as it appears to be.

I don't claim to be able to disprove god, please read the frist post onto what my assertations are.

 

[ybbor]

I believe I have destroyed all of your criticisms, if you can find something I've missed or a flaw in my logic you're welcome to share.

as much as I don't have the time to get back into this again I'll bite.

any Darwinists claim that if an intelligent designer really existed he would make x process more efficient. I think these types of inefficiencies were intended by that designer to provide balance. you could make a cheetah run faster, but then there wold be less food for the other animals to eat. You could make photosynthesis more efficient, but then you'd have plants covering every inch of everything. You could make hermit crabs not be so vulnerable out of their shells, but then you'd have some very hungry sea creatures. But Darwinism says that there is no need for balance within the world as a whole, only for the strength of a particular species. photosynthesis shouldn't have remained as constant as it has and at some point, some plant should have developed a more efficient system and over grown everything.

(although I'll admit, a lot of these aren't the best examples, but you get the point, say something could be more efficient and i can bet there's a balancing effect connected to it)

 

[Smidlee]

Come on, if I write a book now saying I am the new God, would you trust me? That's why we have science.

Not everyone is a believer in scientific creationism either. There is no hard scienctific evidence that nature is capable of creating itself. It is as it always been the battle of the gods. One side you got the God of the Hebrews- the Holy God vs the nature gods of Egypt which lead to immorality.
While worshipping idols has become something of the past the principals behind the idols are still in place. The idea that nature can performed miracles to creat itself is what Darwinism is all about.
Darwin was very clever to make sure his theory couldn't easily be falsified by making those who oppose his theory to prove he was wrong. So Darwinism has become a dogma which requires any doubter to prove is totally impossible for something to evolved instead Darwinism having to prove their theory is true.
One thing ID has shown is Darwinists doesn't want to disengaged their naturalism religion from science.

 

[nonconformist]

But Darwinism says that there is no need for balance within the world as a whole, only for the strength of a particular species. photosynthesis shouldn't have remained as constant as it has and at some point, some plant should have developed a more efficient system and over grown everything.

That's because Darwinism allows for extinction, as we have seen in many species.

 

[Perfection]

as much as I don't have the time to get back into this again I'll bite.

any Darwinists claim that if an intelligent designer really existed he would make x process more efficient. I think these types of inefficiencies were intended by that designer to provide balance. you could make a cheetah run faster, but then there wold be less food for the other animals to eat. You could make hermit crabs not be so vulnerable out of their shells, but then you'd have some very hungry sea creatures. But Darwinism says that there is no need for balance within the world as a whole, only for the strength of a particular species. photosynthesis shouldn't have remained as constant as it has and at some point, some plant should have developed a more efficient system and over grown everything.

What sort of evidence do you have that this "balance" wasn't caused by evolution? Throughout geological history there shows numerous instances where balance has shifted. Dramatic climatic change, shifts from mosses to larger vascular plants, adaptive radiation of new animal types, mass extinctions, how do you explain those?

photosynthesis shouldn't have remained as constant as it has and at some point, some plant should have developed a more efficient system and over grown everything.

Plants have undergone extensive evolutionary modification. Some that have allowed a type to grow all over everything. It however, does seem that systems more efficient then the current are hard to evolve.

The big thing Ybbor, though is testibility. How can we test to see if something fits god's plan? Can we falsify that god did not create something? We have to be able to test something or else it isn't scientific.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Not everyone is a believer in scientific creationism either.

No one is, because creationism isn't scientific.

There is no scienctific evidence that nature is capable of creating itself.

Huh? Define "nature" and "creating" in this context.

It also been the battle of the gods. One side you got the God of the Hebrews- the Holy God vs the nature gods of Egypt which lead to immorality.

What has this got to do with the subject?

While worshipping idols has become something of the past the principals behind the idols are still in place. The idea that nature can performed miracles to creat itself is what Darwinism is all about.

Wrong. Darwinism is about how species change over time.

Darwin was very clever to make sure his theory couldn't easily be falsified by making those who oppose his theory to prove he was wrong.

Translation: "Darwin changed his theory when he found mistakes in it."
Yes, the burden of proof is on you now that the theory has so much support and evidence.
The same goes for the Theory of Gravity. Your job to disprove.

So Darwinism has become a dogma which requires any doubter to prove is totally impossible for something to evolved instead Darwinism having to prove their theory is true.

We've provided plenty of evidence for evolution. So yes, it's now up to you to disprove Darwinism.

If you're wondering where this evidence is, some of it was at the start of the thread.

1. Biogeography, animals are in close proximity to structurally similar animals. Now, creationists may argue that it is because of the similar climate but they are mistaken. Take the famous example of the Galapagos Islands. The birds there are structurally close to the ones off the South American coast even though the climates are competly different. Therefore the location must be the factor in taxonomic relatedness. Additionally islands with much more similar environments have birds that are more related to the birds of thier coast than to the birds of the Galapagos. Surely if there was an intelligent designer the birds from similar islands would have similar structures to face similar challanges, however this is simply not the case. Geography is the measure of structural similarity not climatology!

2. Paleogeography, continental drift theory shows that around the time of the early mammals (as per the fossil record) Australia breaks free from all other continents. Today, Australian mammels are massively different from all other mammels. How can creationism account for the fact that there is such a massive difference?

3. A clear line of homologous structures. In the fossil record and among modern animals they follow a nested branching line of similarities in structure. For example all vertabrates have spines and all mammals have fur. Why is it that no animals besides vertabrates have fur? With creationism there is no answer, with evolution, the answer is because the predecessor to all furry creatures was a vertabrate. Now, many creationists will argue, "well what about structures like the eye?" But when one looks at the nature of a squid eye vs. a bug eye vs. a fish eye we see that just because they have the same purpose they are very different in terms of structure. The method in which squid eyes and fish eyes focus is very different, and bug eyes look completly unlike the eyes of other animals. The structure in eyes is very different as is the way it works, however mammal fur and structure is basically the same for all mammals!

 

[Perfection]

Not everyone is a believer in scientific creationism either. There is no hard scienctific evidence that nature is capable of creating itself. It is as it always been the battle of the gods. One side you got the God of the Hebrews- the Holy God vs the nature gods of Egypt which lead to immorality.
While worshipping idols has become something of the past the principals behind the idols are still in place. The idea that nature can performed miracles to creat itself is what Darwinism is all about.
Darwin was very clever to make sure his theory couldn't easily be falsified by making those who oppose his theory to prove he was wrong. So Darwinism has become a dogma which requires any doubter to prove is totally impossible for something to evolved instead Darwinism having to prove their theory is true.

All philosophical blathering aside there is much evidence. So much so, that it considered integral to scientific thought. Scientists give it preferred status over other theories because it consistantly provides answers and evidence. When it becomes such a well-accepted integral and well-evidenced, the burden of proof lies on the opposition. This is because scientists can't spend all thier time convincing other people that basic scientific theory is correct. The reason ID is rejected is because it patently disregards such evidence and focuses on narrow difficulty in evolution, and claims that since that difficulty isn't currently accounted for it must wrong.

One thing ID has shown is Darwinists doesn't want to disengaged their naturalism religion from science.

The assumption of naturalism is not a religion.

 

[Blasphemous]

One side you got the God of the Hebrews- the Holy God vs the nature gods of Egypt which lead to immorality.

I'll bite, although this is off topic.
What the hell kind of morality did your own god's religions lead to back when the Egpytian version of Polytheism was around?
If I weren't rather tired I'd do a better job of translating the part of your bible where your god tells a father of his first religion "take your beloved son, and kill him. Because I said so, that's why." The reason I would do a better job of translating it than that is that, unlike most people who hold the Old Testament to be holy scripture, I can actually, *gasp*, read Hebrew and understand it rather well. But I think I captured the essence. Now, please demonstrate how in a comparable period of human history, your god's religion was any more moral than that of Amon-Ra and Horus. Was it the blind obedience? Is that your idea of morality? Or are you gonna just spring ye olde God Works in Mysterious Ways or ye older It Was a Test Faith?
Your god's religions are many things. Many great things. In the period comparable to the religion of such characters as Osiris and Anubis, moral was not one of them. Later on in history, the western world as a whole become more enlightened and moral. Don't try to compare your current religious world-view with that of ignorant serfs and power-hungry pharaos five thousand years ago.
(Pardon the aggressive tones. )

 

[Smidlee]

All philosophical blathering aside there is much evidence. So much so, that it considered integral to scientific thought. Scientists give it preferred status over other theories because it consistantly provides answers and evidence.

Most of the so call evidence is deterrmined by one's own interpretion,beilefs and views. The evidence that can be tested by the scientific method hasn't shown to produced the supernatual miracles Darwinism love to claim.

The assumption of naturalism is not a religion.

Of course since I was talking about Darwinism I was referring to the metaphysical naturalism not methodiological naturalism. If evolution was just about methodological naturalism then there would be no debate.
It's the naturalism creation stories that being debated especially since there's more scientific evidence points to design.

 

[Blasphemous]

Smidlee, please, stop generalising and mention a few of these supposed metaphysical naturalist creation stories so we can each explain in our own way either how we don't believe in them, or they're not creation stories, or they have nothing to do with evolution.

 

[Perfection]

Most of the so call evidence is deterrmined by one's own interpretion,beilefs and views. The evidence that can be tested by the scientific method hasn't shown to produced the supernatual miracles Darwinism love to claim.

Well, I've stated some here, you're welcome to argue that. Otherwise I will assert falsity.

Of course since I was talking about Darwinism I was referring to the metaphysical naturalism not methodiological naturalism. If evolution was just about methodological naturalism then there would be no debate.

It is about methodological naturalism. How is it not?

It's the naturalism creation stories that being debated especially since there's more scientific evidence points to design.

And that evidence is?

 

[CurtSibling]

Come on, if I write a book now saying I am the new God, would you trust me? That's why we have science.

Come back in 2000 years and see how many humans have been indoctrinated
to believe that you are in fact a god...If people cannot actually see or surmise
something, they assume it is 'magic.' That is why creationism exists now.

Without data or solid fact to determine the facts, people begin to weave fables...

Some make theories, some make divine fan-fics, but no-one knows for sure.

......

 

[Dominus Romae]

Come back in 2000 years and see how many humans have been indoctrinated
to believe that you are in fact a god...If people cannot actually see or surmise
something, they assume it is 'magic.' That is why creationism exists now.

Without data or solid fact to determine the facts, people begin to weave fables...

Some make theories, some make divine fan-fics, but no-one knows for sure.

This is the highest demonstration of ignorance.

Ignorant people are just more susceptible to manipulation.

 

[Fox Mccloud]

Ok, Since I don't feel like going through the 857 posts to see it, when did he KO Creationism?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Ok, Since I don't feel like going through the 857 posts to see it, when did he KO Creationism?

Page 1. The creationists just haven't realized it yet.

 

[Blasphemous]

Page 1. The creationists just haven't realized it yet.

(Also worth mentioning that the KO has been reproduced, continued, expanded, repeated, reiterated, etc, on virtually every page since then [depending on the number of posts per page I guess].)