Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: November 4, 2024, 5:20 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)
RE: Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)
(December 28, 2010 at 9:31 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: The point is that nature cannot. We have never observed information rising by natural means. So to say nature could have created the information held by DNA is not based on observation and therefore is only a matter of blind faith. You are free to believe nature can and did do such a thing but this would just be your faith based system, not a scientific belief.
Isn't the fact that DNA is information that rose by natural means, enough proof that information can rise by natural means?Big Grin

Quote:When I look at the artwork done by Leonardo da Vinci I don’t say, “Hmm, I could not have done this, therefore nature must have done it.” Rather I would conclude, “Given my artistic ability I could not have done something this beautiful, therefore someone with greater artistic ability must have done it.” The same goes for DNA, if we has humans cannot create it, then something with far greater creative ability would have to be the source. Nature has zero ability to create specified complexity, so this is not an option.
Art would be "This is artificial so a intelligent being must have done it" while DNA is "This is Natural so nature must've built it", and art is subjective while dna is objective, also the argument of complexity has been rebuked quite perfectly by the Stonemaker Argument 1

[Image: 1d.jpg]


Quote:Yes it would destroy both of them because both of them use our knowledge of information and how it is created to make inferences about human causation. If we believed that specified complexity could arise by natural means we would never say that we believe the pyramids were built by humans or pictographs were done by humans because they could have just been results of natural processes. However, because we know that both contain specified complexity we can infer that humans or some intelligent source was responsible for both.
So archaeology and anthropology would be destroyed by the existence of another sapient lifeforms, there's a clear distinction between the artificial and the natural, Nature never gave us the Why's it always gave us the How's

Quote:How do you know they are 20,000 years old?
Don't remember it was a documentary that gone a long time ago
Reply



Messages In This Thread
RE: Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd) - by Ashendant - December 28, 2010 at 10:07 pm

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Young more likely to pray than over-55s - survey zebo-the-fat 16 2103 September 28, 2021 at 5:44 am
Last Post: Pat Mustard
  Creationism Silver 203 15975 August 23, 2020 at 2:25 am
Last Post: GrandizerII
  A theory about Creationism leaders Lucanus 24 7949 October 17, 2017 at 8:51 pm
Last Post: brewer
  Prediction of an Alien Invasion of Earth hopey 21 5221 July 1, 2017 at 3:36 am
Last Post: ignoramus
  Science Vs. The Forces of Creationism ScienceAf 15 3492 August 30, 2016 at 12:04 am
Last Post: Arkilogue
  Debunking the Flat Earth Society. bussta33 24 5674 February 9, 2016 at 3:38 am
Last Post: Wyrd of Gawd
  Earth Glare_ 174 24763 March 25, 2015 at 10:53 pm
Last Post: Spooky
  Defending Young-Earth Creationism Scientifically JonDarbyXIII 42 11836 January 14, 2015 at 4:07 am
Last Post: Jacob(smooth)
  creationism belief makes you a sicko.. profanity alert for you sensitive girly men heathendegenerate 4 2157 May 7, 2014 at 12:00 am
Last Post: heathendegenerate
  Religion 'Cause Of Evil Not Force For Good' More Young People Believe downbeatplumb 3 2523 June 25, 2013 at 1:43 pm
Last Post: Brian37



Users browsing this thread: 14 Guest(s)