The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Morbert

Soulwinner, you're changing your stance again. We cannot engage in any debate until you stop doing this.

Read it again. I said "If God truly doesn't exist" then that should be shown conslusively not if He does exist.

If God truly does not exist then it should be able to be shown conclusively by the scientific method. Really it should, think about it for a minute.

You say that, if God does not exist, then it should be able to be shown conclusively with the scientific method. i.e. There is some set of observations or experiments that can support or falsifly the 'theory' of God's non-existence. This implies that God's existence can be tested; if the 'no God' theory is falsified then that obviously means the idea that God exists will be accepted by the scientific community. So the above quotes contradict eachother.

In your most recent post to me, you have abandoned (or at least ignored) the idea that God's existence can be scientifically tested, and have tendered some really bad philosophical arguments instead.

So which is it? Do you believe that God's existence can be tested scientifically or not? We can't go any further until you address this.

Soul Winner

Morbert wrote: »

Soulwinner, you're changing your stance again. We cannot engage in any debate until you stop doing this.





You say that, if God does not exist, then it should be able to be shown conclusively with the scientific method. i.e. There is some set of observations or experiments that can support or falsifly the 'theory' of God's non-existence. This implies that God's existence can be tested; if the 'no God' theory is falsified then that obviously means the idea that God exists will be accepted by the scientific community. So the above quotes contradict eachother.

In your most recent post to me, you have abandoned (or at least ignored) the idea that God's existence can be scientifically tested, and have tendered some really bad philosophical arguments instead.

So which is it? Do you believe that God's existence can be tested scientifically or not? We can't go any further until you address this.

No I don't believe that God's existence can be tested by the scientific method at this present time. Maybe this might change in the future but with our present technology no. But I do believe that God could reveal Himself to exist to us with or without us needing to use the scientific method to verify it. Actually I believe He has done this many times throughout history as the scripture declares, and personally to millions everyday on an individual and personal level. To repeat what I meant in my two posts that you quoted is; if God really doesn’t exist, and all there is nature, then we wouldn’t be having this debate. That is just my view; I’m not trying to convert you to it. You have your view and I have mine.

J C

Pahu wrote: »

When I shared that, I also wondered about the dinosaurs, birds, reptiles, since I had not heard that before. As you point out, others have claimed they aren't found in the Cambrian Explosion. So there is a difference of opinion about that and it may be true.

....Pahu, the answer to this conundrum is that the so-called 'Cambrian Explosion' is NOT an 'explosion' of new living species millions of years ago .... it is ACTUALLY an 'implosion' of dead (fossilised) creatures in the Flood!!!!

...it is the Evolutionist interpretation ... that fossils represent an ordered sequence of the supposed evolution of life over millions of years ... that is wrong!!!

....the so-called Cambrian Explosion is an obvious record of billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the Earth ... i.e. a record of a worldwide mass-extinction event AKA Noah's Flood....and it has nothing to do with the order of Creation OR Evolution!!!!
:)

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

You can be a scientist. It's not difficult at all. It's not about knowledge or training, it's about your philosophical approach to the evidence.

...so you are saying that ANY believer in Evolution will be regarded as an Evolutionist Scientist ... even if they have never gone past Primary Grade School!!!:eek::eek::eek:

....so all you need to do is to BELIEVE (with all your heart and mind) that 'nothing blew up' to produce the Universe ... and 'muck spontaneously evolved into Man' ... and voila ...you will be regarded as a scientist by your fellow Evolutionists!!!!

....on the other hand, Creationists require that Creation Scientists MUST be conventionally qualified scientists from conventional Universities!!!!:D:)

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

...so you are saying that ANY believer in Evolution will be regarded as an Evolutionist Scientist ... even if they have never gone past Primary School!!!:eek::eek::eek:

....so all you need to do is to BELIEVE (with all your heart and mind) that nothing blew up to produce the Universe ... and muck spontaneously evolved into Man ... and voila ...you will be regarded as a scientist by your fellow Evolutionists!!!!

....on the other hand, Creation Scientists MUST all be conventionally qualified scientists from conventional Universities!!!!:D:)

As usual, your interpretation of the evidence (in this case, what AH said) is completely contrary to the facts.

And you still have to demonstrate that there's any such thing as a creation scientist. Please again note that this is not the same thing as a creationist who is a scientist.

J C

Soul Winner wrote: »

Show me scientific evidence that Quarks exist. I want to see one.

...I'll settle for ANY evidence that 'Muck to Man Evolution' exists??!!!:D

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by AtomicHorror
b]You can be a scientist. It's not difficult at all. [/It's not about knowledge or training, it's about your 'philosophical' approach to the evidence.[/b]

Soul Winner
I just thought that that was a very strange thing to say. “it’s about your Philosophical approach to evidence” especially coming from somebody who appears to pride himself on things testable and falsifiable by the scientific method.

... what AH means is that the Evolutionist version of science DEMANDS that you accept Materialistic Evolution and deny Creation as your 'Philosphical Approach'!!!!

...anybody who doesn't have this 'Philosophical Approach' isn't regarded as a scientist even if they have multiple Doctorates from conventional Universities ...

....and anybody who has this 'Philosophical Approach' will apparently be regarded as an Evolutionist Scientist ... even if they have only completed Primary Grade Schoool !!!!

....within Evolution Science apparently, it all comes down to what you BELIEVE....AKA your 'Philosophical Approach' !!!!:eek::D:pac::)

Creationists, on the other hand demand that Creation Scientists MUST be conventionally qualified scientists from conventional Universities....
....and so within Creation Science, it all comes down to what you KNOW and are CONVENTIONALLY QUALIFIED to adjudicate upon!!!!:D

Flamed Diving

J C wrote: »

...I'll settle for ANY evidence that 'Muck to Man Evolution' exists??!!!:D

I preferred 'goo to YOU'

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

....on the other hand, Creationists require that Creation Scientists MUST be conventionally qualified scientists from conventional Universities!!!!:D:)

Maybe that's why you can't find one! :pac:

Mickeroo

J C wrote: »

...I'll settle for ANY evidence that 'Muck to Man Evolution' exists??!!!:D

is this guy for real??? who the hell told you it was spontaineous??

J C

....and now for some bed-time mind expanding quotes for Mickeroo and his buddies:-

Roger Lewin PhD Biochemistry News Editor of Science Magazine
"The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear NO." Science November 21 1980 p. 883

"How is it that trained men, the greatest experts of their day, could look at a set of modern human bones the cranial fragments and "see" a clear simian signature in them; and see in an apes jaw the unmistakable signs of humanity. The answers, inevitably, have to do with the scientists' expectations and their effects on the interpretation of the data." Bones of Contention (1987) p.61

"It is, in fact, a common fantasy, promulgated mostly by the scientific profession itself, that in the search for objective truth, data dictate conclusions. If this were the case, then each scientist faced with the same data would necessarily reach the same conclusion. But as we've seen earlier and will see again and again, frequently this does not happen. Data are just as often molded to fit preferred conclusions. " Bones of Contention (1987) p.68


C.S. Lewis (1898 – 1963) Professor of Medieval and Renaissance Literature at Cambridge University
"More disquieting still is Professor D. M. S. Watson's defense. "Evolution itself," he wrote, "is accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or... can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." Has it come to that? Does the whole vast structure of modern naturalism depend not on positive evidence but simply on an a priori metaphysical prejudice. Was it devised not to get in facts but to keep out God?" The Oxford Socratic Club (1944)

Flamed Diving

J C wrote: »

....and now for some bed-time mind expanding quotes for Mickeroo and his buddies:-

Roger Lewin PhD Biochemistry News Editor of Science Magazine
"The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear NO." Science November 21 1980 p. 883

"How is it that trained men, the greatest experts of their day, could look at a set of modern human bones the cranial fragments and "see" a clear simian signature in them; and see in an apes jaw the unmistakable signs of humanity. The answers, inevitably, have to do with the scientists' expectations and their effects on the interpretation of the data." Bones of Contention (1987) p.61

"It is, in fact, a common fantasy, promulgated mostly by the scientific profession itself, that in the search for objective truth, data dictate conclusions. If this were the case, then each scientist faced with the same data would necessarily reach the same conclusion. But as we've seen earlier and will see again and again, frequently this does not happen. Data are just as often molded to fit preferred conclusions. " Bones of Contention (1987) p.68


C.S. Lewis (1898 – 1963) Professor of Medieval and Renaissance Literature at Cambridge University
"More disquieting still is Professor D. M. S. Watson's defense. "Evolution itself," he wrote, "is accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or... can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." Has it come to that? Does the whole vast structure of modern naturalism depend not on positive evidence but simply on an a priori metaphysical prejudice. Was it devised not to get in facts but to keep out God?" The Oxford Socratic Club (1944)

Any quotes from the past twenty years, at least?

Mickeroo

J C wrote: »

....and now for some bed-time mind expanding quotes for Mickeroo and his buddies:-

Roger Lewin PhD Biochemistry News Editor of Science Magazine
"The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear NO." Science November 21 1980 p. 883

"How is it that trained men, the greatest experts of their day, could look at a set of modern human bones the cranial fragments and "see" a clear simian signature in them; and see in an apes jaw the unmistakable signs of humanity. The answers, inevitably, have to do with the scientists' expectations and their effects on the interpretation of the data." Bones of Contention (1987) p.61

"It is, in fact, a common fantasy, promulgated mostly by the scientific profession itself, that in the search for objective truth, data dictate conclusions. If this were the case, then each scientist faced with the same data would necessarily reach the same conclusion. But as we've seen earlier and will see again and again, frequently this does not happen. Data are just as often molded to fit preferred conclusions. " Bones of Contention (1987) p.68


C.S. Lewis (1898 – 1963) Professor of Medieval and Renaissance Literature at Cambridge University
"More disquieting still is Professor D. M. S. Watson's defense. "Evolution itself," he wrote, "is accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or... can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." Has it come to that? Does the whole vast structure of modern naturalism depend not on positive evidence but simply on an a priori metaphysical prejudice. Was it devised not to get in facts but to keep out God?" The Oxford Socratic Club (1944)

Don't you have any quotes from say the last 20 years to enlighten me?? Like since DNA was discovered??? Chimpanze DNA is almost 99% identical to human DNA, fact. Maybe you think DNA and genetics are made up though.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
...I'll settle for ANY evidence that 'Muck to Man Evolution' exists??!!!

Mickeroo
is this guy for real??? who the hell told you it was spontaineous??

...if it wasn't spontaneous ... are you saying that all this genetic information was provided by Aliens ... or was it Divinely Created, Mick???:):eek::D

..BTW what is a 'Mickeroo'... is it a 'Small Mick' ... or is it a 'Jumping Mickey'???:eek::D

Flamed Diving

J C wrote: »

...if it wasn't spontaneous ... are you saying that all this genetic information it was provided by Aliens ... or Divinely Created, Mick???:):eek::D

The word you are searching for is incremental.

Mickeroo

J C wrote: »

...if it wasn't spontaneous ... are you saying that all this genetic information was provided by Aliens ... or was it Divinely Created, Mick???:):eek::D

..BTW what is a 'Mickeroo'... is it a 'Small Mick' ... or is it a 'Jumping Mickey'???:D :eek:

Do you consider thousands of millions of years to be spontaineous? Oh wait,you think the earth is 6000 years old right?

As for my screen name......don't be childish.

J C

Mickeroo wrote: »

Don't you have any quotes from say the last 20 years to enlighten me?? Like since DNA was discovered??? Chimpanze DNA is almost 99% identical to human DNA, fact. Maybe you think DNA and genetics are made up though.

...the great CS Lewis is always worth quoting
as indeed is Roger Lewin!!!

..anyway here is some quotes that are bang up to date for your delectation:-

Stephen Meyer PhD History and Philosophy of Science
"When I was in Cambridge one of my supervisors often advised us to 'beware the sound of one hand clapping' which is a way of saying if there is an argument on one side, there is bound to be an argument on the other. And what I've found in studying the structure of the argument in the Origin of Species is that for every evidence based argument for one of Darwin's two key propositions there is an evidence based counter argument. " Expelled April 18 2008 26.35

"You've got two competing explanations of the evidence. One says 'design'. One says 'undirected processes'. Both of them have larger philosophical or religious or anti religious implications. So you can't say that one of those two theories is scientific and the other is unscientific simply because they both have implications. Both have implications. " Expelled April 18 2008 57.04


PZ Myers (b. 1957) Associate Professor of Biology from the University of Minnesota
"I get to vote on tenure decisions at my university, and I can assure you that if someone comes up who claims that ID 'theory' is science, I will vote against them." Beckwith's tenure decision April 8, 2006

"Atheist scientists are consistent, and don't need to announce whether they are speaking as a scientist or an atheist—those two voices are the same. Religious scientists are the ones who have to be careful, because they are the ones who are living with two very different worldviews." What should a scientist think about religion? June 29, 2006

J C

Flamed Diving wrote: »

The word you are searching for is incremental.

....the only problem is that there are no incremental 'paths' between different functional biomolecules!!!!

....so any non-intelligently directed production of new functional biomolecules would have to be spontaneous!!!:D:eek::eek:

Mickeroo

J C wrote: »

...the great CS Lewis is always worth quoting
as indeed is Roger Lewin!!!

..anyway here is some quotes that are bang up to date for your delectation:-

Stephen Meyer PhD History and Philosophy of Science
"When I was in Cambridge one of my supervisors often advised us to 'beware the sound of one hand clapping' which is a way of saying if there is an argument on one side, there is bound to be an argument on the other. And what I've found in studying the structure of the argument in the Origin of Species is that for every evidence based argument for one of Darwin's two key propositions there is an evidence based counter argument. " Expelled April 18 2008 26.35

"You've got two competing explanations of the evidence. One says 'design'. One says 'undirected processes'. Both of them have larger philosophical or religious or anti religious implications. So you can't say that one of those two theories is scientific and the other is unscientific simply because they both have implications. Both have implications. " Expelled April 18 2008 57.04


PZ Myers (b. 1957) Associate Professor of Biology from the University of Minnesota
"I get to vote on tenure decisions at my university, and I can assure you that if someone comes up who claims that ID 'theory' is science, I will vote against them." Beckwith's tenure decision April 8, 2006

"Atheist scientists are consistent, and don't need to announce whether they are speaking as a scientist or an atheist—those two voices are the same. Religious scientists are the ones who have to be careful, because they are the ones who are living with two very different worldviews." What should a scientist think about religion? June 29, 2006

hang on a sec,those last two quotes clearly argue in my favour and there's no evidence to support ID theory,it's not technically a theory for a start, but if there was evidence to support it then you wouldn't need faith,you'd just know you're right

If there was conclusive evidence to support creationism as a theory in the same way there is to support evolution then i would stand up and say i was wrong,this is the key difference between atheists and religious people.

J C

Mickeroo wrote: »

Do you consider thousands of millions of years to be spontaineous? Oh wait,you think the earth is 6000 years old right?

...thousands of millions of years seems to be a very long time ... but spontaneity ISN'T a time determined concept.

Mickeroo wrote: »

As for my screen name......don't be childish.

...just wondering what adding the suffix '-eroo' to a name actually means????:eek::D

J C

Mickeroo wrote: »

hang on a sec,those last two quotes clearly argue in my favour and there's no evidence to support ID theory,it's not technically a theory for a start, but if there was evidence to support it then you wouldn't need faith,you'd just know you're right

If there was conclusive evidence to support creationism as a theory in the same way there is to support evolution then i would stand up and say i was wrong,this is the key difference between atheists and religious people.

....OK ... so prepare to stand up and say you were wrong then!!!:eek::D

Stephen Meyer PhD History and Philosophy of Science
"To form a protein, amino acids must link together to form a chain. Yet amino acids form functioning proteins only when they adopt very specific sequential arrangements, rather like properly sequenced letters in an English sentence. Thus, amino acids alone do not make proteins, any more than letters alone make words, sentences, or poetry. In both cases, the sequencing of the constituent parts determines the function (or lack of function) of the whole. Explaining the origin of the specific sequencing of proteins (and DNA) lies at the heart of the current crisis in materialistic evolutionary thinking." DNA and Other Designs First Things April 1 2000

"If one also factors in the probability of attaining proper bonding and optical isomers, the probability of constructing a rather short, functional protein at random becomes so small (1 chance in 10^125) as to approach the point at which appeals to chance become absurd even given the "probabilistic resources" of our multi-billion-year-old universe. Consider further that equally severe probabilistic difficulties attend the random assembly of functional DNA. Moreover, a minimally complex cell requires not one, but roughly one hundred complex proteins (and many other biomolecular components such as DNA and RNA) all functioning in close coordination. For this reason, quantitative assessments of cellular complexity have simply reinforced an opinion that has prevailed since the mid-1960s within origin-of-life biology: chance is not an adequate explanation for the origin of biological complexity and specificity. " DNA and Other Designs

"Bonding affinities, to the extent they exist, mitigate against the maximization of information. They cannot, therefore, be used to explain the origin of information. Affinities create mantras, not messages." DNA and Other Designs

"Self-organizational theorists explain well what doesn’t need explaining. What needs explaining is not the origin of order (whether in the form of crystals, swirling tornadoes, or the "eyes" of hurricanes), but the origin of information--the highly improbable, aperiodic, and yet specified sequences that make biological function possible.

To see the distinction between order and information, compare the sequence "ABABABABAB ABAB" to the sequence "Time and tide wait for no man." The first sequence is repetitive and ordered, but not complex or informative. Systems that are characterized by both specificity and complexity (what information theorists call "specified complexity") have "information content." Since such systems have the qualitative feature of aperiodicity or complexity, they are qualitatively distinguishable from systems characterized by simple periodic order. Thus, attempts to explain the origin of order have no relevance to discussions of the origin of information content. Significantly, the nucleotide sequences in the coding regions of DNA have, by all accounts, a high information content--that is, they are both highly specified and complex, just like meaningful English sentences or functional lines of code in computer software.
Yet the information contained in an English sentence or computer software does not derive from the chemistry of the ink or the physics of magnetism, but from a source extrinsic to physics and chemistry altogether. Indeed, in both cases, the message transcends the properties of the medium. The information in DNA also transcends the properties of its material medium. Because chemical bonds do not determine the arrangement of nucleotide bases, the nucleotides can assume a vast array of possible sequences and thereby express many different biochemical messages." DNA and Other Designs

Mickeroo

J C wrote: »

....OK ... so prepare to stand up and say you were wrong then!!!:eek::D

Stephen Meyer PhD History and Philosophy of Science
"To form a protein, amino acids must link together to form a chain. Yet amino acids form functioning proteins only when they adopt very specific sequential arrangements, rather like properly sequenced letters in an English sentence. Thus, amino acids alone do not make proteins, any more than letters alone make words, sentences, or poetry. In both cases, the sequencing of the constituent parts determines the function (or lack of function) of the whole. Explaining the origin of the specific sequencing of proteins (and DNA) lies at the heart of the current crisis in materialistic evolutionary thinking." DNA and Other Designs First Things April 1 2000

"If one also factors in the probability of attaining proper bonding and optical isomers, the probability of constructing a rather short, functional protein at random becomes so small (1 chance in 10^125) as to approach the point at which appeals to chance become absurd even given the "probabilistic resources" of our multi-billion-year-old universe. Consider further that equally severe probabilistic difficulties attend the random assembly of functional DNA. Moreover, a minimally complex cell requires not one, but roughly one hundred complex proteins (and many other biomolecular components such as DNA and RNA) all functioning in close coordination. For this reason, quantitative assessments of cellular complexity have simply reinforced an opinion that has prevailed since the mid-1960s within origin-of-life biology: chance is not an adequate explanation for the origin of biological complexity and specificity. " DNA and Other Designs

"Bonding affinities, to the extent they exist, mitigate against the maximization of information. They cannot, therefore, be used to explain the origin of information. Affinities create mantras, not messages." DNA and Other Designs

"Self-organizational theorists explain well what doesn’t need explaining. What needs explaining is not the origin of order (whether in the form of crystals, swirling tornadoes, or the "eyes" of hurricanes), but the origin of information--the highly improbable, aperiodic, and yet specified sequences that make biological function possible.

To see the distinction between order and information, compare the sequence "ABABABABAB ABAB" to the sequence "Time and tide wait for no man." The first sequence is repetitive and ordered, but not complex or informative. Systems that are characterized by both specificity and complexity (what information theorists call "specified complexity") have "information content." Since such systems have the qualitative feature of aperiodicity or complexity, they are qualitatively distinguishable from systems characterized by simple periodic order. Thus, attempts to explain the origin of order have no relevance to discussions of the origin of information content. Significantly, the nucleotide sequences in the coding regions of DNA have, by all accounts, a high information content--that is, they are both highly specified and complex, just like meaningful English sentences or functional lines of code in computer software.
Yet the information contained in an English sentence or computer software does not derive from the chemistry of the ink or the physics of magnetism, but from a source extrinsic to physics and chemistry altogether. Indeed, in both cases, the message transcends the properties of the medium. The information in DNA also transcends the properties of its material medium. Because chemical bonds do not determine the arrangement of nucleotide bases, the nucleotides can assume a vast array of possible sequences and thereby express many different biochemical messages." DNA and Other Designs

Ah the old, "because we don't fully understand something it must be god's work" defense :rolleyes:

I'm still sitting down

J C

Mickeroo wrote: »

Ah the old, "because we don't fully understand something it must be god's work" defense :rolleyes:

...not at all ... the point IS that we now DO know how information is stored in DNA and just how SPECIFIC and VAST this genetic information actually is ... and THAT is why we can definitively and scientifically conclude that life WAS Intelligently Designed by an Agent or Agents unknown with powers of a God-like status.
We cannot scientifically determine that the Agent was the God of the Bible ... but we can and we have determined that all life on Earth had an Intelligent Origin.

Mickeroo wrote: »

I'm still sitting down

....must be the shock of it all!!!!:):eek:

Mickeroo

J C wrote: »

...the point is that we now DO know how information is stored in DNA and just how SPECIFIC and VAST this genetic information actually is ... and THAT is why we can definitively and scientifically conclude that life WAS Intelligently Designed by an Agent or Agents unknown with powers of a God-like status. We cannot scientifically determine that the Agent was the God of the Bible ... we can and we have determined that all life on Earth had an Intelligent Origin.

"We" being a delusional minority? Just because DNA is so complex does not mean it was designed. You are using the " we dont understand it must be god" defence like i said.
The complexity of DNA actually greatly reduces the odds of it being designed because for something that complex to be intelligently designed it would need to have been designed by something even more complex, and that designer in turn would have to have been designed by something more and more complex and it would just go on and on and on, making the odds very slim indeed.

Fanny Cradock

Mickeroo wrote: »

The complexity of DNA actually greatly reduces the odds of it being designed because for something that complex to be intelligently designed it would need to have been designed by something even more complex, and that designer in turn would have to have been designed by something more and more complex and it would just go on and on and on, making the odds very slim indeed.

That's a nonsense argument.

Mickeroo

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

That's a nonsense argument.

That the best you can do? What i said was perfectly logical and you know it.

wolfsbane

Mickeroo wrote: »

"We" being a delusional minority? Just because DNA is so complex does not mean it was designed. You are using the " we dont understand it must be god" defence like i said.
The complexity of DNA actually greatly reduces the odds of it being designed because for something that complex to be intelligently designed it would need to have been designed by something even more complex, and that designer in turn would have to have been designed by something more and more complex and it would just go on and on and on, making the odds very slim indeed.

Hmm. So it is foolish to appeal to an infinitely Intelligent Designer as the source of the vast complexity, but it is sensible to appeal to the 'Naturalism of the Gaps'?

'We don't know what could have possibily caused this, but we know it was not an Intelligent Designer'?

I appeal to your honesty - at least admit that an ID is at least as credible an explanation as the black-box of naturalism.

Your final point about about infinitely more complex causes only stands if naturalism is a given. But if the ID is God, the self-existent and infinitely intelligent origin of all, no such progression is needed.

wolfsbane

2Scoops said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by J C
....on the other hand, Creationists require that Creation Scientists MUST be conventionally qualified scientists from conventional Universities!!!!

Maybe that's why you can't find one!

Sigh...:(

A few at random:

John R. Baumgardner, Ph.D. Geophysics/Space Physicshttp://www.globalflood.org/biography.html

Dr. Leonard R. Brand
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_R._Brand

Dr. Danny Faulkner, Professor of Astronomy/Physics, USC Lancaster http://usclancaster.sc.edu/faculty/faulkner/

A list from one of the creationist sites:
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4983

wolfsbane

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Other religions suffered the same fate, such as Jews. Are they all lying?

I'm not aware of any religion whose founding members laid down their lives rather than deny a lie they made up. I do know many religions whose later members died rather than deny the doctrines they had handed to them and believed to be true.

Perhaps you are confusing these two catagories?

robindch

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

mick wrote:

The complexity of DNA actually greatly reduces the odds of it being designed because for something that complex to be intelligently designed it would need to have been designed by something even more complex, and that designer in turn would have to have been designed by something more and more complex and it would just go on and on and on, making the odds very slim indeed.

That's a nonsense argument.

ID states that "complexity" cannot arise from "simplicity", and therefore, that "complexity" needs a designer. ID avoids the question of how the designer arose, since the designer must possess similar "complexity" to be able to design the "complexity" you're trying to explain. Hence invoking ID to explain something is useless.

Mickeroo's post may not have been the clearest, but nonetheless, he's basically correct.