The design argument

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am simply trying to point out that the known facts fit the creation account given in Genesis better than any evolution theory. The evolution theory has no reasonable explanation as to how the functional program information got into DNA in the beginning. The Creation theory does.

So, do you then dispute the omnipotence of God? Only by restricting what he might have created or not can we possibly provide any empirical evidence. If God might have created anything, then nothing is evidence of God's creation.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Evolution does not describe or explain the origin of DNA (or whatever happens to be the replicating agent). Hence, it is irrelevant to the theory.

Oh, you are not referring to the general theory of evolution, but only to what some people call microevolution that is also known as variation in species. Certainly, that says nothing to who did the programming and, as you point out, could care less. 😏

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
So, do you then dispute the omnipotence of God? Only by restricting what he might have created or not can we possibly provide any empirical evidence. If God might have created anything, then nothing is evidence of God's creation.

Ominpotence means all powerful. I said nothing that disputes that aspect of God. God designed the world to operate automatically from the beginning. God has the all powerful ability to intervene, but He generally chooses not to do so. Each of us are still evidence of His original creation of Adam and Eve, because it was a result of them obeying God to reproduce that we are here.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Ominpotence means all powerful. I said nothing that disputes that aspect of God. God designed the world to operate automatically from the beginning. God has the all powerful ability to intervene, but He generally chooses not to do so. Each of us are still evidence of His original creation of Adam and Eve, because it was a result of them obeying God to reproduce that we are here.

Great, so you retract your earlier statement that we can find evidence of creation.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Great, so you retract your earlier statement that we can find evidence of creation.

How did I do that? I just stated that even we are all indirect evidence of His orignal creation of Adam and Eve. You apparently did not look at those videos.

Originally posted by RJHinds
How did I do that? I just stated that even we are all indirect evidence of His orignal creation of Adam and Eve. You apparently did not look at those videos.

You implied it when you said that God is omnipotent. Suppose there is an omnipotent God. How would you set up an experiment that could disprove that something is the result of the actions of omnipotent God? It can't be done, because an omnipotent God can do anything he wants.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
You implied it when you said that God is omnipotent. Suppose there is an omnipotent God. How would you set up an experiment that could disprove that something is the result of the actions of omnipotent God? It can't be done, because an omnipotent God can do anything he wants.

Recognizing design in creation is not dependent on the existence of an omnipotent (all-Powerful) God. There is no need to set up an experiment to prove or disprove that something is the result of the actions of an omnipotent God.

All we need to do is use logic and reasoning to recognize something that is designed. Once we recognize that something is intelligently designed and not a product of random chance, then we can speculate on the intelligence that designed it.

It is obvious to me that automobiles and computers are intelligently designed by man. However, living systems that reproduce varieties of themselves are far more complex than anything man has designed and made. Therefore, living systems must have been designed and made by a super intellect long ago.

Richard Dawkins speculates that it could be superior intellectual alien beings from another world in the universe. I speculate that it was more likely the God described in the Holy Bible.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
'Cause it can't. If, for example, we would find no evidence that DNA can reproduce, that would be bad for the theory of evolution, and it would suggest that something else might be at play. No "theoretical patch" is available since reproduction is an essential aspect of evolution.

Cause it can't what? What is it, and what are you suggesting it can't [do]? On the surface it appears you are saying evolution is not falsifiable, but that can't be it... can it?

I was obviously referring to the Cambrian period, and used punctuated equilibrium as an example of a theoretical patch... but you would have already known this if you had simply taken your own advice and learned a bit more about evolution before trying to discuss it here.

No one expects to find that DNA has nothing to do with reproduction seeing as how it has already been discovered that DNA is the information center containing instructions for reproduction. It's not a theory, it's an established fact that hasn't been disproven, so of course there is no theoretical patch for something that 1. isn't a theory and 2. doesn't need a patch.

The emergence of new life during the Cambrian period on the other hand presents a huge problem for evolutionists. PE has proven to be a weak theoretical patch and unable to adequately explain this, so this patch has been relegated to explaining less dramatic changes. The patch works as an all purpose fix it tool for laymen who know little to nothing about evolution (or science in general) but that's pretty much its only redeeming value.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Cause it can't what? What is [b]it, and what are you suggesting it can't [do]? On the surface it appears you are saying evolution is not falsifiable, but that can't be it... can it?

I was obviously referring to the Cambrian period, and used punctuated equilibrium as an example of a theoretical patch... but you would have already known this if you h ...[text shortened]... about evolution (or science in general) but that's pretty much it's only redeeming value.[/b]

I don't know what an "evolutionist" is, but evolutionary biologists and most research scientists in general, love problems that offer a chance for them to make progress in their field. In fact it is a standard element of scientific papers, after discussing results and conclusions, to discuss areas that need further study.

I suspect that "evolutionist" refers to a anticreationist fan of evolution who might have no direct knowledge of evolutionary science.

Originally posted by JS357
I don't know what an "evolutionist" is, but evolutionary biologists and most research scientists in general, love problems that offer a chance for them to make progress in their field. In fact it is a standard element of scientific papers, after discussing results and conclusions, to discuss areas that need further study.

I suspect that "evolutionist" refer ...[text shortened]... o a anticreationist fan of evolution who might have no direct knowledge of evolutionary science.

I suspect that "evolutionist" refers to a anticreationist fan of evolution who might have no direct knowledge of evolutionary science.

It makes me cringe to see science minded people (whether they are scientists or not) attempt to prove evolution by disproving creationism, because this is precisely the charge that has been made against creationists. For example, whenever I've tried to discuss intelligent design (minus what it may or may not imply) it's usually perceived as an attack on evolution, and so the response is usually an attack on creationism.

Back when evolution was becoming established evolutionists poo pooed the charge made that this was an attempt by atheists to remove God from the equation, and they would say things like "This has nothing to do with God, it's just science and we are duty bound to go where the evidence points."

But now the roles have been reversed, and evolutionists are now claiming creationists are trying to put God back into the equation. So the equivalent response might be, "This has nothing to do with God, it's just science. But if the evidence we have today points in the direction of disproving evolution, and the only other possible explanation for life is that it must have been created by an intelligent force or agency, then we have no choice and are duty bound to go where the evidence points."

Originally posted by lemon lime
[b]I suspect that "evolutionist" refers to a anticreationist fan of evolution who might have no direct knowledge of evolutionary science.

It makes me cringe to see science minded people (whether they are scientists or not) attempt to prove evolution by disproving creationism, because this is precisely the charge that has been made against creationi ...[text shortened]... ent force or agency, then we have no choice and are duty bound to go where the evidence points."[/b]

Here is the crux: The two, creationism and evolution CANNOT BOTH BE RIGHT.

So if you disprove creationism, you may not prove evolution but you eliminate a contender.

Originally posted by JS357
I don't know what an "evolutionist" is, but evolutionary biologists and most research scientists in general, love problems that offer a chance for them to make progress in their field. In fact it is a standard element of scientific papers, after discussing results and conclusions, to discuss areas that need further study.

I suspect that "evolutionist" refer ...[text shortened]... o a anticreationist fan of evolution who might have no direct knowledge of evolutionary science.

I suspect that "evolutionist" refers to a anticreationist fan of evolution who might have no direct knowledge of evolutionary science.

Most people who call themselves "evolutionists" are simply fans of evolution. You can usually spot who the evolutionary scientists are because of their ability to mask anything they say with uber-technical details, but if you manage to dig beneath the surface you will invariably find yet another fan of evolution. And the fact that so many Bible believing Christians will choose evolution over creation is evidence of how well established evolution has become. I began studying evolution 50 years ago but only learned about creationism 15 years ago... and it took a long time during that 15 year stretch (7 or 8 years) for me to begin taking it seriously. So there's definitely a psychological component at work here, because it shouldn't have taken me that long to overcome a very strong feeling of disbelief.

Originally posted by lemon lime
[b]I suspect that "evolutionist" refers to a anticreationist fan of evolution who might have no direct knowledge of evolutionary science.

It makes me cringe to see science minded people (whether they are scientists or not) attempt to prove evolution by disproving creationism, because this is precisely the charge that has been made against creationi ...[text shortened]... ent force or agency, then we have no choice and are duty bound to go where the evidence points."[/b]

"It makes me cringe to see science minded people (whether they are scientists or not) attempt to prove evolution by disproving creationism, because this is precisely the charge that has been made against creationists. For example, whenever I've tried to discuss intelligent design (minus what it may or may not imply) it's usually perceived as an attack on evolution, and so the response is usually an attack on creationism. "

I suppose the question you should be asked is whether you believe that evolutionary processes of variation and selection could not have been at least part of the intelligent design, and why or why not. What would your answer be?

Originally posted by lemon lime
[b]I suspect that "evolutionist" refers to a anticreationist fan of evolution who might have no direct knowledge of evolutionary science.

Most people who call themselves "evolutionists" are simply fans of evolution. You can usually spot who the evolutionary scientists are because of their ability to mask anything they say with uber-technical detail ...[text shortened]... re, because it shouldn't have taken me that long to overcome a very strong feeling of disbelief.[/b]

What were the critical moments, if you can say?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Here is the crux: The two, creationism and evolution CANNOT BOTH BE RIGHT.

So if you disprove creationism, you may not prove evolution but you eliminate a contender.

And therein lies the rub... it would be difficult for anyone whose primary motivation is to confirm his own privately held beliefs.

It would be easier for someone who doesn't care one way or the other, but I suspect anyone who claims to be entirely impartial and unswayed by his own personal beliefs is at least lying to himself. Einstein is an example of someone who was able to ignore his own personal feelings and beliefs until arriving at a conclusion, but even he would stand back and think "No, that can't be right!" LOL His method for arriving at a truth was admirable, and at the same time his reaction to uncovering a truth could be comical.