One doesn't test for creationism, that's the point.  Creationism is only successful upon the faliure of evolutionism.

That sounds silly, if not A therefore B.

You know there is more than Evolution and creationism. I think it's rude to just say "They were wrong, so you're wrong to." 

At least you admit creationism isn't scientific.

My point is that I as a creationist can only be certain of my position when the only other alternative is ruled out.  The more comprehensive the attempt to proove evolution, the more comprehensive the case for creation.

Creationism is not scientific at all.  But it is true.

I've always wanted a creationist response to this.

So...by that logic I could say that the more comprehensive we get in proving the theory of gravity, the more comprehensive the case for my computer randomly floating off into space...?

What makes you so sure evolution will be eventually ruled out?

Me too. 

Hang on...I wrote common ancestor...I just meant ancestor!!!   In other words The descendant evolved into something different from its ancestor.

Thanks qbg.

I would still maintain there are just two possible explanations for the genetic code.  Nature (represented by various schools of evolutionary thought).  And Culture (religious creation myths would be symbolic representations, but philosophically represented by the ID theorists who advocate the design inference).

 Pure chance is of course not an option and theistic evolution is a very unsatisfactory god-of-the-gaps fudge.  As of yet unknown explanations falling outside of these need not be considered until we become aware of them.

Theology alert….Theology alert…You brought it up….Theology alert….

“DNA has a remarkable copying fidelity... yet mutations -- errors -- are far from rare. If the Good Lord wanted all his creations to be separate, immutable kinds, all he had to do was make the copying mechanism flawless. Meiotic recombination and outcrossing (sex) would still make different individuals. Hey presto -- no evolution. But the system is flawed... so the designer must... want evolution?”

Mutations are the result of a degenerating universe. Without the Supreme Personality the material universe is subject to decay.

“Lift up your eyes up to the heavens and look upon the earth beneath: For the heavens will vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax like an old garment, and they that dwell therein will die in like manner” Isaiah 51:6.

The checking mechanism is as good as it needs to be to allow biological life to survive until the Supreme Personality of Godhead returns. Evolution is not necessarily through genetic mutation. Consider the dog. Bred from Wolf stock artificially of course but the various varieties might as well have come about from natural selection. (this provides an illustration at least). The genes for the dogs present in the wolf at the start.

Bizarre indeed.

How do you do that?  How do you change your posts once there submitted.  Its like the Ministry of Truth sometimes.

LOL!

I wrote tentatively when I meant provisionally.

Roisin Dubh ...Have you been through my photo album.   You're not at work now remember so you can't use that as an excuse for purile attacks.

 

American Atheist...I have never seen you write more than a few words in any of your posts.  Is english your first language?

So now you're going through my posts? Been tracking me, huh?

 

English is the only language I speak. Did you think that I spoke spanish, Italian, French, or something? Is it because of the way I look like?

*SIGH*

Oh well. But this thread reminds me of this video.

 

 

Bravo...Bravo AA.

No its not because of your appearance.  It was just a joke in response to your LOL!!

But I'm right aren't I, you don't normally write more than a few words.  Nothing wrong with that in itself of course its just an observation.

Did my LOL! offend you? Sorry about that...

Actually, I type a lot, you should really look for my other posts on this message board and at FreeThinkingTeens. But like Sapient says: "I'm not here to impress you."

 *Shrugs*

AA well said!!

Exactly.

As for what they believe in, you'd have to ask them. The trick is that the term atheism applies only to a god or gods, and only the disbelief therein. Nothing else whatsoever. Everyone on the planet is an atheist. I can demonstrate that you are one too right now. I make the claim that my foot is god. If you believe me, then you're a theist. If you disbelieve me, you're an atheist. The difference between a theist and an atheist is nothing more than the incredulity of a foot being a god spread out to to encompass anything being a god.

Ah, but very few atheists as far as I'm aware have actually embraced abiogenesis. We've observed some evidence and probabilities that it could happen, but that's not the same as conclusively proving it. The vast majority of opinion that would come from an atheist would be that they have no idea. Until we see something happen we don't know. We see evolution happening, so we know it happens. We see gravity happening, so we know it happens. We do not see a god happening. We do not see a santa claus happening. Therefore we do not know that it happens. We can not believe in what we don't know.

So far so good, but since so many folks don't come in through the forums (they come in through the "recent posts" link), just a reminder that this is the Kill 'Em With Kindness thread.

 

NewModelAtheist:

Honestly I am not really sure what you are saying. But I will make a guess and tell me if I am wrong. You are saying that we need to offer adequate proof for evolution if we are to expect you to accept it. That is entirely reasonably. I could argue that I was a creationist (I have been in your shoes) and that evidence was sufficient for me but I don't think that will convince, wouldn't convince. I would just have to say that you should look at the evidence for yourself, carefully. If you have questions about it or something seems a bit shady or unclear please ask me and I will do my best to explain. But don’t go about learning about evolution by looking it up on creationist sites because if that is your basis for trying to understand evolution you never will.


My response would be that I get the nature and culture (god) dichotomy but I just have to throw in that nature does not have to be a single option. Evolution is what we understand about nature now, but we may have a better understanding later that is not evolution. Just like culture isn’t a single explanation (literal Genesis vs. allegorical Genesis vs. every other faith’s description).

Todangst et al

If you were walking along in the desert and came across a perfectly spherical rock (or stone as I think Americans would say), perfect that is, beyond which you had ever seen before.  Then you you would conclude that this were a phenomenon in need of explaining.  That conclusion alone would mean that you have rejected chance as a cause.  No-one ever appeals to chance as an explanation.  An appeal to chance is the same as saying that there is nothing that needs explaining.  But since this giant stone is perfectly spherical then you can reduce any possible explanation down to two possibilities:

Nature:  The stones shape came about due to inherent properties.  ie a blind mechanical process.  Much like a whirlpool or crystal formation etc.  In other words by pre-scribed laws that meant no concious input was required.

or Culture:  meaning that some intelligence of what ever discription arranged the stone in this meaningful way for what ever reason.

There are multitude of different ways within these two possibilities, but these two descriptions are fundamental .  There could feasibly be a combination of the two.

These are the only two possible explanations for anything then.  Any explanation must come under one category or the other, or possibly both categories.

 Creation concludes the possibility of an intelligence involved in the phenomenon of biological life.  Obviously the only intelligence we know about is biological so this would mean a supernatural intelligence.  This there is not positive proof of this, the only real evidence is life itself BUT ONLY if life cannot be explained by nature.  Hence the more thoroughly nature is ruled out, the stronger the case for culture.

I simply make the point in my original post that we as creationists can only really be sure of our position if evolution theories cannot account for life and origin of species. And so the more thoroughly evolutionists do their job, the better the position for creationism due to the fact as you are aware and point out constantly, our position is not one that can be proven in a positive sense. Evolution can and so we rely on its failure. Please bare in mind I was only speaking as a creationist from a creationist point of view (I did make a comment to that effect) I was just pointing out an irony that’s all. From our perspective, we should be applauding your efforts. If you are not thorough, then our position (by our own admission) is weak.

As a scientist, I would argue the exact opposite of your assertion. you see, in the scientific method, when a scientific research paper is published with the results of an experiment, all the other scientists immediately play devils advocate. They look for holes, the attack it, they try to replicate it...this is how science advances. Of course, the multipe aspects of evolution were subjected to this rigorous testing BUT it has also been subjected to a huge amount of public critique from religious/creationist/skeptical public, which forces the scientifc community to provide answers...which it does. Evolution has been more savagely assaulted than any other theory (I cannot understand why a scientifc theory would be a political controversy: Do people ask each other about their stance on electromagnetism?) Yet it has survived. Creationist nonsense-spewers help us when we answer all of their questions.

Regarding the origin of life and RNA...evolution cannot answer that. The theory does not extend that far back. From the moment RNA appeared on Earth, evolution provides a god-free explanation. At the moment there are hypothesis on life's origin, including abiogenesis, panspermia...and god. All three are assertions, so none have weight. However, science operates on an occams razor principle regarding hypotheses. Panspermia would require you to assume the existence of alien life that came to earth, the probabilities of which are astronomical. God requires you to believe that there is a extramaterial out of space and time deity who infused the primordial soup with RNA. The odds again, are astronomical. Abiogenesis on the other hand...merely requires you to assume that ancient molecules obeyed chemical law. Thus it is the most widely assumed.

Also, in your first post what on earth do you mean by "the strength of the creationist position". Creationists only have any sort of power in the US and the Islamic fundamentalist nations. The rest of the world has moved on and the entire scientific community, myself included, is laughing at this backwardness. 

“Considering the two scenarios you lay out cover every possible scenario in existance I would agree. Though technically culture is natural.”

No culture is culture, nature is nature. Human culture may originate from a more fundamental nature (actually people grow automatically from cells and have certain inherent mental faculties so this is true in this degree, although a persons intellectual processes, memory and knowledge are the result of learning). Nature can originate from a more fundamental culture (ie humans can build a machine that functions according to its own nature). But these two as creative agents are distinct. Each has profoundly different properties.

“Yet fails to describe where that intelligence came from, and therefore is a ridiculous argument.”

When one can identify intelligence it is not necessary to know ‘where’ or ‘when’ it came from or even what form it takes. These are superfluous questions. Intelligence is a quality that can be understood independently of its source.

“False in every way. We already know that intelligence can be mechanical, thanks to our own designs. We also have never witnessed anything that could be described as supernatural, so assuming it's existance is a failure of cognitive capabilities.”

Intelligence can be mechanical but we also know that mechanical intelligence is constructed by biological intelligence. If we identify biological life as originating through the agency of intelligence then we can infer a supernatural intelligence (what else is there if all known intelligence is biologically dependent, and intelligence can be inferred in the origin of biological life). Never witnessed it no!!(actually some people claim to have done but I take your point) But the line of reasoning logically concludes it.

Demanding that I prove the existence of something before I am able to infer it’s existence as a logical conclusion to my reasoning is in fact the real failure of cognitive capabilities. Although the fact that you made such a gross logical error in the first place means you are unlikely to be able to grasp even that.

and there has not yet been a failure of evolutionism, so whats your point?

Are you sure about this?  Adaptation I can agree with, but I don't see how one species has ever come from another.  When did monkey ever become man?  Never been proven, and true never been disproven.  What new animal out there ever came from another completely different animal.  It has never been proven.