Re: Creationist Theory


"Ray Martinez" <pyramidial@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1124159671.811727.51610@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> RICHARD CLAYTON:
>
> Then what is the theory of Creationism? Be specific. It must be
> testable, potentially falsifiable, and it must make predictions
> distinct from those of evolution.
>
> RAY:
>
> With the OP reply already in place I would like to take the next step:
>
> The predictions Creationist Theory (CT) makes distinct from ToE is that
> scientifc data and experimentation will reflect and corroborate the
> facts of the Bible/ID/sudden creation/complexity.
>
So CT predicts that the evidence will turn out to confirm its predictions,
if we ever find out what those are?
>
> The smarter and brighter a human being - the larger the capacity and
> capability to understand and produce complex things.
>
Actually, human beings seem to possess several different faculties that
could be called different sorts of "intelligence." It doesn't always follow
that, just because you have a high IQ, that you have a good grasp of complex
systems or are much good at inventing stuff.
>
> The ultimate intelligence - God, if He exists, and if He created as the
> Bible declares Him to have, should then be observed in the study of
> cosmology and nature.
>
> Prediction:
>
> We should find evidence of the Divine via the discovery of
> complexities that only a Deity could have produced.
>
Why? In classic Christian theology, God creates absolutely freely, under no
compulsion or necessity whatsover. Therefore, He is not *required* to
create things so complex that natural processes could not produce them. Of
course, in classic Christian theology, God created the natural processes
themselves, so if He *were* compelled (or simply freely chose) to create
something of great complexity and capability, He could have chosen to create
natural processes that could create life and its present diversity and
complexity (evolution: proof of creation!).

This is a separate issue from how we decide whether anything possesses
"complexities that only a Deity could have produced." Given that we don't
know all the laws of nature, or all the ways the laws of nature could work
together, we don't know for sure what they can and cannot produce.
Therefore, we cannot say what "only a Deity could have produced."
Therefore, we cannot say (until we know everything there is to know about
how the universe works) whether the "evidence of the Divine" you describe
actually exists or not. Therefore, you do not yet have a testable theory of
creation.
>
> Science has done just that.
>
> IC systems are infinetly complex and the end of their complexities is
> no where in sight according to Michael Behe.
>
Michael Behe has nowhere said that IC systems are "infinitely" complex, only
that they are "irreducibly complex." Indeed, since "irreducible complexity"
implies that you cannot take any component out of a system and still have it
work, to diagnose a system as IC implies that you have found the end of its
complexity: you know all the parts of the system, and how they all work
together, so you can say for sure that all of them are needed for the system
to work.

Now, on a less nit-picking note, IC systems can evolve. Behe's argument
depends on the assumption that mutations can only add components (so that,
before the last component is added, an IC system would not have done
anything useful), not modify components or remove them. Indeed, a paper (by
a "Darwinist") back in the 1930's argued that mutation and natural selection
would tend to remove redundant components from systems, thereby turning
reducibly complex systems into irreducibly complex systems: IC is a
*prediction*, not a refutation, of "Darwinism."
>
> We know Darwinists predicted in the 19th century that human cells would
> be proven to be very simple things. This prediction has been proven
> utterly false:
>
How do you know this? I don't recall any such statement by any 19th century
"Darwinist."
>
> We know the human cell contains more information than the most advanced
> computer chip while being astronomically smaller.
>
How do you measure "information" in this context, so that we can compare the
information on a computer chip to that in a cell?
>
> We know nature is extremely complex as is seen in the inability of
> Darwinists to produce one universal defintion of Natural Selection.
>
> IC systems, cells, nature = proven to be extremely complex to a Divine
> degree = prediction of Divine involvement sustained.
>
> Only the philosophy of atheism denies these facts for obvious reasons.
>
"Atheism" here means "the assumption that Gene Scott and Ray Martinez are
not infallible."

The obvious reasons are that half of Ray's "facts"are false, and the other
half are word salad.
>
> Ray Martinez
>
-- Steven J.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: TomS didnt read the article very closely and Dr Rana argues from ignorance of ID theory
    ... >>"Creation Scientist Challenges Intelligent Design ... > of the origin of life which they call a "Creation Model." ... have noted that Dr. Rana is the "director for science apologetics" (how many ... Some theories, however, sometimes make predictions ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: There are both empirical implications of the creationist assumptionsand evidence of them
    ... >>>evidence of this divine influence. ... > This is not an implication of evolutionary theory. ... problem is that it's not in conflict with creation, per se, unless you ... You can assemble a creation model with empirical predictions. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: OT: From Dr Michio Kaku
    ... Made specific, testable predictions ... claim to have an alternate science". ... Literal Creation mythology is already falsified ... that of falsifiability. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: What is BaT, exactly?
    ... Henri Wilson wrote: "It is also pure coincidence that a half metre vertical steel rod extends by the ... You know very well that GR's predictions for the behaviour of clocks in GPS orbit are proven correct within small margins. ... " It is indeed an idiotic idea that Einstein - or any other physicist - could formulate postulates of how nature behaves without first observing how nature ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Religious scientists
    ... that which has* a nature. ... Measurability implies that things are ... We want the predictions, ... I disagree as a universal claim about science. ...
    (talk.origins)