Subject:

Comments:
: : : ...: If you think that creationism has a scientific theory, could you point out an observation in the real world that would cause you to abandon the theory?..... : : : If the following were to occur, creationism would have to be abandoned: : : : 1. The discovery of independent biota on other : : : worlds. The postulates of independent design : : : basically center around probability arguments. : : : If independent biota are discovered elsewhere : : : this would suggest a flaw and support : : : Darwinism claim of the commonality of natural : : : processes. : : Does this mean that you think creationism is a scientific theory? : : And how many creationists do you think will abandon creationism if life is ever found off the earth? : : : 2. Laboratory experiments which are shown to : : : naturalistically evolve irreducibly complex : : : biological processes. Claims have been made : : : in this direction recently by Darwinists, but : : : on furthur ysis they have been shown to be : : : extremely weak at best, and approaching bald : : : faced lies at worst. : : How does one objectively detect irreduceable complexity? : : : 3. A realistic scenario, based on laboratory or : : : other physical evidence, of the process by : : : which life evolved from nonlife, under the : : : actual conditions existing on the early earth : : : prior to 3.85 billion years ago, when the first : : : evidence for life is currently known to exist. : : Well, this is a biogenesis, a whole different game, so doesn't apply. : : : There are more, but these three discoveries would throw out Design. : : Who is the Designer in this case, and why couldn't this Designer have designed life on other planets? : : : Similarly, the following discoveries would be : : : devastating for Darwinism: : : : 1. The nonexistance of ANY LIFE on a statistically : : : significant number of solar systems (>100,000). : : : This would go a long way toward confirming the : : : design theorist's probability scenarios, and : : : be a devastating refutation of Darwinian : : : scenarios. We will actually know this by the : : : end of the new century, and probably a lot : : : earlier. : : Please tell me how it is possible to determine that something does not exist. : : : 2. Genetic reconciliation of DNA from different : : : phyla which refutes Darwinian scenarios. This : : : would be either of biological processes not : : : following evolutionary scenarios (for instance : : : more cases of hemoglobin appearing in beans, : : : but not in nonvertebrate chordates, but : : : appearing in vertebrate), or supposedly : : : connected species which are shown not to be : : : genetically, as well as supposedly not : : : connected species which are shown to be (a la : : : hippos and whales). : : Yes, I think that would provide some problems. So far, nothing of this sort. : : : 3. Fossil evidence that Darwinian transitions, : : : especially at higher levels, do not exist. : : Again, how do we determine that something does not exist? : : : This would include evidence confirming : : : Protoavis for birds, and earlier fossils : : : from the mammal cl, as well as similar : : : discoveries for early reptiles and amphibians. : : : In addition, the aculating evidence of the : : : almost total nature of the Permian/Triic : : : catastrophe would need to be furthur supported. : : : If this is the case, and it is confirmed by : : : other refutations of other cl transitions, : : : Darwinism would be disproved. : : : : : : ...: I think evolution as a scientific theory would be untenable if human fossils were found from Juric strata of the geological column..... : : : Actually, this is not really neccessary. Your thinking is rigidly Darwinist/Creationist. Actually if you were to think more broadly in terms of naturalism/Design, your statement if superflous. For Design to be true, all that really needs to be shown is the impossibility of life's formation from nonlife by natural processes. : : How do you objectively determine that something is impossible? : : In addition, irreducibly complex processes point to what is currently indicated by the fossil record. Fossil transitions up to the cl level are possible naturalistically, but not beyond. : : Why? : : For creationism to be true, all fossil transtions from at least the family level on up would have to be disproved. In the special case of man, ANY evolutionary transition would have to be disproved. They have a considerably higher mountain to climb than design theorists. : : : Thus, man's evolution is irrelevant to design theory, although it's nonoccurence is very important for creationists. : : Man was not designed? : : : ...I also think that creationism/catastrophism a la Genesis was made untenable as a scientific theory by scores of scientific observations from dozens of scientific disciplines...... : : : Again this is evidence that you are thinking strictly in terms of Darwinism/Creationism as opposed to naturalism/Design. : : Design Theory is just creationism dressed up in scientifically-sounding terms, and wihout mentioning Genesis. It's not new, and was debunked as a scientific theory about 150 years ago. : : : : Your point may be true, or it may not, but in any case it is actually irrelevant toward confirming your own theory. : : I agree. I don't need to debunk creationism to support evolution, there is a mountain of evidence for evolution from a dozen scientific disciplines. All the creationists do is try to attack this evidence, never presenting any positive evidence of their own. Or they say:"Hey, I can't figure out how this could have evolved, therefore it must be irreducibly complex" (ID), or "Hey, look how marvellous this is, it must have been designed." : : It is the creationists who indulge in the "Your theory is not perfect in my opinion, so mine wins by default" tactic. : : : : : : : Creationists disagree. So what would it take? : We have gone over many of these points in other postings, but in looking back at this original piece of yours, I notice a trend which you would continue to display. : You never actually provide any evidence to support your point of view. You simply state that there is overwelming evidence to support your point of view and leave it at that. : You seem to have an unfortunate attitude that everything there is know about your theory is known. This is extremely doubtful, and certainly discouraging to research. : You will note that data gathered supporting Ptolemy, did not have to be thrown out just because Copernicus derived an improved interpretation. Similarly, the data gathered to support Copernicus was useful to Kepler's improved theory. A similar process occurred with Newton vis a via Kepler, Einstein vis a via Newton, and quantum mechanics vis a via Einstein. : Despite your protests to the contrary this is indeed how science advances. I await your response to my Part 3 posting.

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: