RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

    
  Topic: Challenge to Creationists< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,11:21   

I have a very simple challenge to creationists.    

I challenge creationists to show me ONE god ever documented in the history of science that has created a new, beneficial, selectable morphological addition to an existing body part.    .    .    .    (a god that alters physical, outward appearance in a beneficial way. ) For example, the eye was said to have evolved by way of numerous gods, each god adding on to what previous gods (plus selection) had added before.  

Please keep in mind that there are gods that duplicate existing structures, gods that reduce existing structures, gods that deform organisms, and gods that cause disease and death.    .    .    .    Unfortunately for Creationists, however, gods can add nothing beneficial to the observable phenotype, which is the cornerstone of “goddidit”.    

This is my claim. . this is my challenge. . . and this challenge has not yet been answered by anyone.    

Knowing this, it is my opinion that the theory “goddidit” is little more than a wacky metaphysical belief, much like astrology or palm reading.    

The floor is open!

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,11:36   

As you can plainly tell by googling my name and the name of several of my friends (Crandaddy, Tribune, AFDave, etc), I often my name search for details to how good the perception of me is by evilutionarys, so the evidence is plain out there for you to find.

It is a waste of any time that i have to discuss things that in other venues UD have been trounced by creation science.

Try again oldDude!

ps, I think you mean "Creationists" in your opening line.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,11:38   

I see you fixed that one line.  Everyone can get lukky once in a while.  I meant obviously that you need to do the replace of the word in the second sentence.

I so smart!

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,11:49   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 18 2007,11:21)
I have a very simple challenge to creationists.    

I challenge evolutionists to show me ONE god ever documented in the history of science that has created a new, beneficial, selectable morphological addition to an existing body part.    .    .    .    (a god that alters physical, outward appearance in a beneficial way. ) For example, the eye was said to have evolved by way of numerous gods, each god adding on to what previous gods (plus selection) had added before.  

Please keep in mind that there are gods that duplicate existing structures, gods that reduce existing structures, gods that deform organisms, and gods that cause disease and death.    .    .    .    Unfortunately for Creationists, however, gods can add nothing beneficial to the observable phenotype, which is the cornerstone of “goddidit”.    

This is my claim. . this is my challenge. . . and this challenge has not yet been answered by anyone.    

Knowing this, it is my opinion that the theory “goddidit” is little more than a wacky metaphysical belief, much like astrology or palm reading.    

The floor is open!

If Slimey Sal wasn't 100% right now trying to get some more book-learnn' crammed into him ( OUCH!), he would like soooo be all over your astrology challenge!  It's a Young Cosmos you know!

And if only Dr. Dr. Dembski could find his pants after ERV pantsed him last night, he would easily show you the Nixplanatory Filter where is says that ID predicted palm-reading would give you all the answers you ever need.

And if DaveScot wasn't using his palm for other things right now, he'd show you how they do it in the Marines.

HTH :)

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,11:59   

Nicely written, J-Dog.  Can I recommend you to JoeG as a writing instructor if I am unavailable?

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,12:06   

Quote (blipey @ Sep. 18 2007,11:38)
I see you fixed that one line.  Everyone can get lukky once in a while.  I meant obviously that you need to do the replace of the word in the second sentence.

I so smart!

fixed :)

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,12:10   

DAMN!!!  All of my arguments have no been demolished!

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,13:25   

Quote (blipey @ Sep. 18 2007,11:59)
Nicely written, J-Dog.  Can I recommend you to JoeG as a writing instructor if I am unavailable?

Why thank you kind sir (blushes)...

Just PLEASE don't ask me to do a rewite of Densey O'Leary! There are some things that are IRC - Irreducibly Recondite Crap

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1191
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,13:02   

Quote (J-Dog @ Sep. 18 2007,13:25)
Quote (blipey @ Sep. 18 2007,11:59)
Nicely written, J-Dog.  Can I recommend you to JoeG as a writing instructor if I am unavailable?

Why thank you kind sir (blushes)...

Just PLEASE don't ask me to do a rewite of Densey O'Leary! There are some things that are IRC - Irreducibly Recondrite Crap

That's recondite.  :D

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,13:06   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Sep. 19 2007,13:02)
Quote (J-Dog @ Sep. 18 2007,13:25)
Quote (blipey @ Sep. 18 2007,11:59)
Nicely written, J-Dog.  Can I recommend you to JoeG as a writing instructor if I am unavailable?

Why thank you kind sir (blushes)...

Just PLEASE don't ask me to do a rewite of Densey O'Leary! There are some things that are IRC - Irreducibly Recondrite Crap

That's recondite.  :D

ooops!  Thanks, I knew that -  I will edit.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
supersport



Posts: 158
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,21:08   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 18 2007,11:21)
I have a very simple challenge to creationists.    

I challenge creationists to show me ONE god ever documented in the history of science that has created a new, beneficial, selectable morphological addition to an existing body part.    .    .    .    (a god that alters physical, outward appearance in a beneficial way. ) For example, the eye was said to have evolved by way of numerous gods, each god adding on to what previous gods (plus selection) had added before.  

Please keep in mind that there are gods that duplicate existing structures, gods that reduce existing structures, gods that deform organisms, and gods that cause disease and death.    .    .    .    Unfortunately for Creationists, however, gods can add nothing beneficial to the observable phenotype, which is the cornerstone of “goddidit”.    

This is my claim. . this is my challenge. . . and this challenge has not yet been answered by anyone.    

Knowing this, it is my opinion that the theory “goddidit” is little more than a wacky metaphysical belief, much like astrology or palm reading.    

The floor is open!

God created us to be adaptive....God does not do the adapting.  You've set up a strawman.

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,22:28   

ditto the other thread

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,10:21   

I thought parody and strawman were two different things...

  
  12 replies since Sep. 18 2007,11:21 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

    


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]