Creationists, You (Hypothetically) Win!!!

[Neatras]

Within this thread, I'm willing to concede each and every sundry point made by Creationists in an attempt to debunk evolution. In here at least, you win! Not only discrediting evolution, but even going as far as to establish Creationism as the only plausible theory. Congratulations!

So, what's next? Why, the next step for any scientific theory. Testing out the wazoo, predictions, studies, and efforts made to improve our understanding of the magnificent reality before us. And despite its... *ahem* notable age, Creationism "Theory" currently doesn't seem to have much of reality mapped out in a way that suits our very skeptical needs. No firmaments to be found, after all.

But what matters isn't how you got here, it's what you do now. What will Creationism bring to the table? In what manner can Creationism explain reality in a way that benefits humanity, especially in ways that evolution just wasn't able to? I want details. After all, to discard a scientific theory, you have to replace it with a theory of equal or greater merit, one with explanatory power to match or exceed the predecessor.

So, Creationists... Let's get started.

By Creationist logic, what kind of fossils should we expect to see in different rock layers?
By Creationist logic, what explains the precision of endogenous retroviral relics in our genome that maps to near perfect similarity to other species'?
By Creationist logic, what methods for interpreting radioactive decay can we use for the purpose of improving industry?
By Creationist logic, what is the best method for preventing and countering viral mutation and ensuring the general health is secured? Any pharmaceutical nuggets of wisdom you can enlighten us with?
By Creationist logic, what mechanism causes/prevents novel traits from appearing in species over successive generations?

By Creationist logic, what can you possibly offer to science to make up for supposedly destroying evolution? When evolutionary theory has not only made successful predictions, withstood 150 years of debate, and even intertwined with geology, paleontology, biology, chemistry, and physics in such a fitting way that it makes itself out to be the only logical explanation for the diversity of life as we see it?

Creationists, I'm tired of beating around the bush. For far too long, I've heard people make the claims that all the evidence backs Creationism. But if it has even an iota of evidence to it, if it has any explanatory power to make predictions about reality as we see it, in ways that evolutionary theory simply can't match, then show it.

Otherwise, quit trying to call Creationism a scientific theory.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 79 by Guy Threepwood]

The problem is and always has been- the arrival of the fittest, not the survival.

Perhaps you should have a read of this excellent book:

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 77 by rikuoamero]

How do you know that the pile of rocks is random? As I explained to you before, I got that photo from an online store. As in, from a store selling those rocks. Meaning that very likely, they had a photographer arrange those rocks as they are in the photo. Even if all he did was empty a bag of rocks onto the ground, that photo is still the product of an intelligent designer.

Then you make the case that even if a pattern appears random, we cannot rule out intelligent design being at least partially involved for a reason that is NOT so obvious..

IF he just dumped the bag, then no, the pattern of rocks is not intelligently designed- only the existence of them in that spot is, right?

& If I dump a bag of scrabble letters in a pile, there is no design to the pattern, if I arrange a sentence there is-

Same for Earth, trees grow here by design, but their pattern may be randomly scattered, or organized into a design in a park.

The larger point is that when a pattern is designed, the park, the scrabble letters, DNA, the rock wall, there are objective tell-tail fingerprints of design we can observe.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 81 by Guy Threepwood]

The larger point is that when a pattern is designed, the park, the scrabble letters, DNA, the rock wall, there are objective tell-tail fingerprints of design we can observe.

You are observing complex things that you know have been designed and inferring that therefore, when you see another complex object that it also has been designed. This act of comparing two objects and drawing similar conclusions based on similarities (while ignoring important differences) is a prime example of a false analogy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleologi ... nce_of_God

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 82 by brunumb]

You are observing complex things that you know have been designed and inferring that therefore, when you see another complex object that it also has been designed.

No, that is not how we recognize ID.

Random noise in a radio signal is far more complex than the short simple sequence in SETI's 'wow' signal.

from which did they infer a fingerprint of ID?

and why?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 83 by Guy Threepwood]

from which did they infer a fingerprint of ID?

and why?

The noise? Since the "wow" signal was a one-time, not reproducible, not seen by anything else operating at the time (eg. VLA), event, the consensus seems to be that it was some unexplained anomaly that the community has written off as nothing to take seriously. And there is certainly no reason to attribute it to "aliens", ID, or anything of that sort just because it doesn't have a ready explanation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wow!_signal

(link should continue after the ! sign but appears to cutoff there in preview mode). Could this be just another example of people latching onto an unexplained event and defaulting to an ID-related explanation for it even though there is no support for that explanation from the data itself and the measurement conditions?

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 84 by DrNoGods]

[quote]
The noise? Since the "wow" signal was a one-time, not reproducible, not seen by anything else operating at the time (eg. VLA), event, the consensus seems to be that it was some unexplained anomaly that the community has written off as nothing to take seriously. And there is certainly no reason to attribute it to "aliens", ID, or anything of that sort just because it doesn't have a ready explanation:
[/quote

We agree, I don't believe in ET. I believe we are alone as the primary beneficiaries of creation

Point is: why did they write WOW next to that, and keep scanning the same spot for more- why was such a simple sequence more interesting than more 'complex' noise?

If they had kept listening and found vast arrays of information that literally described digital information systems, coherent designs, shapes, colors... even skeptics like myself would be forced to concede that some sort of ID was the most likely cause- even if it went against my belief

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 85 by Guy Threepwood]

We agree, I don't believe in ET.

I don't "not believe" in intelligent extraterrestrial life ... I just think it is far more likely to be in simpler forms as that is the case on this planet.

Point is: why did they write WOW next to that, and keep scanning the same spot for more- why was such a simple sequence more interesting than more 'complex' noise?

I think they wrote that simply because of the strength of the signal, and the fact that it was unusual. But writing "wow" next to something in real time in a lab notebook doesn't really mean anything other than that the person was impressed at that instant. I'm a spectroscopist (near-IR and mid-IR mostly) and would certainly pay more attention to an unusual, strong signal that appeared than I would to mundane and routine noise. And I've written all kinds of off-the-cuff stuff in my lab notebooks over the years. But I would also try to search for a repeat in the signal to confirm it as these people did, repeatedly, and they found nothing. I would attribute the significance of writing "wow" next to it in a lab notebook at exactly zero.

If they had kept listening and found vast arrays of information that literally described digital information systems, coherent designs, shapes, colors... even skeptics like myself would be forced to concede that some sort of ID was the most likely cause- even if it went against my belief

Sure ... that would be convincing and reproducible evidence to support the hypothesis. In the case of the "wow" signal, none of that happened so the most reasonable explanation is that it was some "blip" or artifact and not something to take seriously (which is, of course, what has happened).

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 83 by Guy Threepwood]

No, that is not how we recognize ID.

Please enlighten us. You have yet to provide the criteria and how they are applied in order to determine if something is designed or not.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 87 by brunumb]

Please enlighten us. You have yet to provide the criteria and how they are applied in order to determine if something is designed or not.

we covered this in some depth. if you go back to post 59 and look at the two pics, we can all tell which was designed - so you can ask yourself what criteria you are using

Obviously 'intuition' But what informs that? it boils down specified v Shannon info

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 86 by DrNoGods]

Sure ... that would be convincing and reproducible evidence to support the hypothesis. In the case of the "wow" signal, none of that happened so the most reasonable explanation is that it was some "blip" or artifact and not something to take seriously (which is, of course, what has happened).

We agree entirely on all this, the point was that complexity is not the measure of ID, in this case it was simplicity against a background of complexity

They wrote 'wow' against such a small inconclusive example because there was so much noise , (and the job so boring) the tiniest sign was exciting, right?

In stark contrast: we are born into a world where this structure, form, information, language, is all around us in physics, chemistry, biology- and so can appear intuitive and 'natural' or 'not very exciting' to us. And in a form you yourself would consider " convincing and reproducible evidence to support the hypothesis" [of ID] if it were found by SETI

i.e. the 'WOW" signal in DNA is vastly more emphatic, and being 'commonplace' does nothing to reduce the objective mathematical odds against it being an accidental 'blip' in random noise