Can You PROVE Creationism?

[ralphinal]

I think I know why I started the thread far more than you, sir/ma’am.

God being real and Zeus not being real is possible, but not fair. You have every reason to believe in Zeus that you have to believe in God.

Forget the ground rules if you want. Say anything. The ground rules were intended to get more intelligent responses, but that seems at this point to be failing.

I’m done trying to disprove God, I don’t want to be disrespectful. I was pointing something out, that’s all. Keep an open mind please. More importantly try to stay calm.

Going backwards, I have an open mind and I am calm. If we want to see me less calm, look on the thread about health care. Again, I have no issue with evolution. My issue is the concept that evolution disproves God, which it does not.

Intelligent as defined in what manner? I would say that Augustine was at the least as intelligent as Einstein. Just because the topic discussed is different does not make the theologin an idiot and the scientist smart.

The creation story for Greek mythology is not logical and does not fit any scientific concepts. The figurative creation story is and does

 

[Dokimas]

I find it very interesting that all DNA for all living things are made of the same 4 bases. That’s pecular if evolution is true. One would conclude that DNA would mutate so there would be organisms with different bases.​

A Creator would have them the same as well as the 23 amino acids for all living things in light of how the amino acid, protein, DNA ‘thing’ works so perfectly. A cow eats grass which has amino acids; they make proteins using the same amino acids in different order; we eat cows and make our own proteins. The common factors are the 4 bases of DNA and the same amino acids. WOW, what a design. I wonder if that would also fall into the catagory of ‘irreducable complexity’ sort of. (It’s quite complex – the DNA thing-- and it’s irreducable.
)

 

[PantheistsRule]

Are you saying mutating DNA accounts for differences in people?

Not necessarily constantly mutating, but mutationing over lifetimes and generations. Did you watch the video?

 

[PantheistsRule]

Going backwards, I have an open mind and I am calm. If we want to see me less calm, look on the thread about health care. Again, I have no issue with evolution. My issue is the concept that evolution disproves God, which it does not.

Intelligent as defined in what manner? I would say that Augustine was at the least as intelligent as Einstein. Just because the topic discussed is different does not make the theologin an idiot and the scientist smart.

The creation story for Greek mythology is not logical and does not fit any scientific concepts. The figurative creation story is and does

You are right about evolution not disproving God. I was attempting to undermine Creationism, which was rather unfair or me considering the topic of the thread.

Intelligent meaning beyond trying to disprove Evolution The people talking about irreducible complexity are close, but irreducible complexity has been all but disproven by the scientific community.

And by the creation story thing, you refer to writings in the Bible appearing to correspond with scientific theory, correct?

EDIT: Actually, re-reading the post you were responding to, I never said anything about the Greek creation myth, only that the existence of Zeus was as likely as the existence of God. It was a different topic that what you brought up, but that’s okay. In fact, it’s better we get back on that, and off the existence of God thing.

 

[PantheistsRule]

I find it very interesting that all DNA for all living things are made of the same 4 bases. That’s pecular if evolution is true. One would conclude that DNA would mutate so there would be organisms with different bases.​

A Creator would have them the same as well as the 23 amino acids for all living things in light of how the amino acid, protein, DNA ‘thing’ works so perfectly. A cow eats grass which has amino acids; they make proteins using the same amino acids in different order; we eat cows and make our own proteins. The common factors are the 4 bases of DNA and the same amino acids. WOW, what a design. I wonder if that would also fall into the catagory of ‘irreducable complexity’ sort of. (It’s quite complex – the DNA thing-- and it’s irreducable.
)

So what you are saying is that if DNA mutates, there should be different bases in different organism’s DNA? Just making sure before I respond.

 

[robsully]

Hello PantheistsRule.
Prove Creationism while not bashing evolution… Good one… Great post

I’m enjoying the show… Thank you

 

[Dokimas]

So what you are saying is that if DNA mutates, there should be different bases in different organism’s DNA? Just making sure before I respond.

Not exactly. I’m saying if macro evolution is correct, it seems far more logical that the 4 baces of DNA [which are foundtwo be exactly alike in all living cells that have DNA (not including viruses and the like because, if memory serves me well here, they only have RNA)] would have changed over the millions yrs life is supposed to have existed. That fact they are alike in all living things points away from evolution and toward an Intelligent Creator (I tried to explain what I meant in a post.)

 

[Dokimas]

Not necessarily constantly mutating, but mutationing over lifetimes and generations. Did you watch the video?

I did listen to the video. All but a few minutes here or there. I believe I listened to everything Dr Miller said.​

The speaker, Dr Miller, had some fun making fun of ID’ers. I would have liked to ask him several questions. I didn’t have time to take notes so I’ve forgotten most of the things that he said that seemed good on the surface but, in my small mind, must be answered and I’m not sure they can be.​

If science is totally ‘secular’ and ‘natural’ then life itsef is a big problem for that kind of science.​

He ‘proved’ the idea of irreducable complexity false by telling us about blood clotting in humans vs whales and puffin fish (I think that’s the fish he mentioned). He said if we take the components that allow human blood to clot and remove some to see what happens and see if any other organisms match up, we could disprove irreducible complexity. He said they did so. Take away one factor and blood clots in whales. Take away 3 and blood clot in the puffin fish. He said, ‘see blood clotting is not irreducably complex’. However, take one away from human blood and it doesn’t clot. What about adding it to whales? Would their blood still clot? Take the 3 away from humans and it doesn’t clot. Add them to puffin fish blood, will their blood clot?​

The point not mentioned was that in humans it is irreducable. What about in whales; in puffin fish? As a person who believes in a Creator I would expect that our blood would be created for the environment we live in and the same for whales and puffin fish. Dr Miller’s examples did not compare ‘apples with apples’.​

Another point he brought up that it was expremely important to defeat ID or Creation Science. He said, in so many words, that if it was let into science education, it would devastate science. Let’s examine this … what did science for the last 3 or 4 hundred years? Before Mr Darwin, most of the major advances in science done for a couple of hundred yrs was done by people who thought their science was a result of ‘thinking God’s thoughts after Him.’ In fact, most of our science came into being on the backs of those who believed in a Creator and that because of His design, logical conclusions can be made.​

I did appreciate how he destroyed (nicely) the question by the man who wanted to equated the ‘religious right’ with fascism. He said, in so many words, that’s foolishness. I agreed with that.​

If there is a God, and Dr Miller believes in God, and He created life, the natural laws, etc. science based on ‘natural’ happening will never have all the answers.​

**** I don’t have a good ability to communicate in writing. Couple that with how quickly I put this together, my hope is that I’m understandable.

 

[PantheistsRule]

I did listen to the video. All but a few minutes here or there. I believe I listened to everything Dr Miller said.​

The speaker, Dr Miller, had some fun making fun of ID’ers. I would have liked to ask him several questions. I didn’t have time to take notes so I’ve forgotten most of the things that he said that seemed good on the surface but, in my small mind, must be answered and I’m not sure they can be.​

If science is totally ‘secular’ and ‘natural’ then life itsef is a big problem for that kind of science.​

He ‘proved’ the idea of irreducable complexity false by telling us about blood clotting in humans vs whales and puffin fish (I think that’s the fish he mentioned). He said if we take the components that allow human blood to clot and remove some to see what happens and see if any other organisms match up, we could disprove irreducible complexity. He said they did so. Take away one factor and blood clots in whales. Take away 3 and blood clot in the puffin fish. He said, ‘see blood clotting is not irreducably complex’. However, take one away from human blood and it doesn’t clot. What about adding it to whales? Would their blood still clot? Take the 3 away from humans and it doesn’t clot. Add them to puffin fish blood, will their blood clot?​

The point not mentioned was that in humans it is irreducable. What about in whales; in puffin fish? As a person who believes in a Creator I would expect that our blood would be created for the environment we live in and the same for whales and puffin fish. Dr Miller’s examples did not compare ‘apples with apples’.​

Another point he brought up that it was expremely important to defeat ID or Creation Science. He said, in so many words, that if it was let into science education, it would devastate science. Let’s examine this … what did science for the last 3 or 4 hundred years? Before Mr Darwin, most of the major advances in science done for a couple of hundred yrs was done by people who thought their science was a result of ‘thinking God’s thoughts after Him.’ In fact, most of our science came into being on the backs of those who believed in a Creator and that because of His design, logical conclusions can be made.​

I did appreciate how he destroyed (nicely) the question by the man who wanted to equated the ‘religious right’ with fascism. He said, in so many words, that’s foolishness. I agreed with that.​

If there is a God, and Dr Miller believes in God, and He created life, the natural laws, etc. science based on ‘natural’ happening will never have all the answers.​

**** I don’t have a good ability to communicate in writing. Couple that with how quickly I put this together, my hope is that I’m understandable.

Well, he was sorta more debunking ID arguments then anything else, leaving the only believable theory left by default the scientifically all-but-proven evolution.

And about what you said about science, everything in science builds on previous scientific discoveries. Sure, you could go back to the old creationism, but that would really hinder the advance of, well, everything. Biology would not exist as it does if not for evolution (meaning the sciences are dependent on one another). So you can’t go backwards very much. I mean, sometimes an old theory turns out to be right, but that usually is proven the case not too long after its main competitor is hypothesized. There is simply too much science built on evolution, and too much being currently built, for us to step back like that. If a brick is laid, and another on top, and then another being laid, you would not take down the first two when all the bricks seem to stand perfectly well to lay a new first brick.

But either way, good video, eh?
Peace,
PantheistsRule

 

[Dokimas]

Well, he was sorta more debunking ID arguments then anything else, leaving the only believable theory left by default the scientifically all-but-proven evolution.

And about what you said about science, everything in science builds on previous scientific discoveries. Sure, you could go back to the old creationism, but that would really hinder the advance of, well, everything. Biology would not exist as it does if not for evolution (meaning the sciences are dependent on one another). So you can’t go backwards very much. I mean, sometimes an old theory turns out to be right, but that usually is proven the case not too long after its main competitor is hypothesized. There is simply too much science built on evolution, and too much being currently built, for us to step back like that. If a brick is laid, and another on top, and then another being laid, you would not take down the first two when all the bricks seem to stand perfectly well to lay a new first brick.

But either way, good video, eh?
Peace,
PantheistsRule

Think about it: it’s kind of oxymoronic to believe in God and not in some form of ID.​

The only ‘science’ that is built by evolution is evolution. There’s no way you can prove that biology would be stiffled by creation science. If anything, all the money spent to ‘prove’ evolution takes good money away from other possible science discoveries.