Brian Miller: Co-option and Irreducible Complexity

Design

(Greg) #381

You mean timothy horton is a Christian? Isnt he the one who called Christian old earth creationist Bill Cole who insisted that God’s fingerprints on creation are apparent by such harsh expletives that i would be embarased to even write the words in this reply? The sentiment behind those words are the biggest concern and cause me bewilderment in your suggestion here.

So you see why this universalist experiement you lead is confusing at best for us. Having one foot in with supernatural God and the other with godless naturalism is just going to cause for ones legs to split until it hurts. After that, a hip out of joint.


(George) #382

@Rumraket,

Just to avoid confusion later… the quote you put next to my name is a quote by Greg:


(George) #383

@Greg,

Actually, I’m not sure what Timothy’s specific beliefs are … I had Joshua in mind when I talked about these pages being a Christian-centered blog.

And now you are going to blame the confusion on ME?

I’ve been trying to put a stop to all this Atheism talk here for months… and everybody thinks I’m some kind of Satan for trying to stop it.

@Greg, you are a pip…


(Mikkel R.) #384

@gbrooks9
Ahh yes I quoted Greg’s words but in a reply to your post. I will correct mine accordingly.


#385

The potential problem with this argument is that it makes God into a trickster. If Dr. Wise is saying that rocks date old because they were created with the appearance of age, then you have to also conclude that the fossils found under those rocks were also created with the Earth. At least in my eyes, making fake fossils doesn’t sound like something an honest deity would do.

You trust science on a daily, or even hourly, basis. Our whole culture depends on science working. If you get sick, do you see a doctor and seek out science based medicines? I’m betting you do. You are free to reject scientific findings when it comes to some questions, but you still trust science an awful lot in other arenas.


#386

Reminds me of an old quote:

God could have made the Universe 5 minutes ago, complete with a false history and false memories. Does that mean we should believe that the universe is 5 minutes old?


#387

For this to be true you would have to accept all of the evidence for a 13.8 billion year old universe.


#388

I don’t see a problem.


#389

You don’t see a problem with God planting billions of fake fossils in the ground?


#390

They would be real fossils.


#391

No, they wouldn’t. They wouldn’t have come from life. It would be God creating rocks in the shape of animals and plants for no other reason than to make it look like the remains of life that never existed.


(Timothy Horton) #392

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


(George) #393

@Mung,

Frankly, I had no comprehension of just how elastic your sense of perspective is. The more you write, the less confidence I have in most of any of your most adamant judgments.

Do you really think you advance your cause with positions like the above:

To paraphrase, “I don’t see a problem with God creating billions of fossils into the ground for plants and animals that never actually lived?”


(Mikkel R.) #394

Just dropping in to let you know Mung loves to beat around senseless wordgames like this. No doubt he will now proceed to point out that it’s conceivable that God created an actual living organism just at the right time for it to be immediately killed and buried in sediment with his omniscient knowledge of it’s guaranteed fossilization at that exact moment. So the fossil would be “real” and come from a “real organism”.

Just know that you’re dealing with a person who has no issue quibbling along moronically about points such as this.


(Greg) #395

I would not be so quick. Studies have been done about what percentage of existing mammels are found in fossiles today and secular research says 80 and upwards of high 90% That is exactly what young earth creationists expect and is exactly opposite of what evolutionist expect. Evolutionists estimate that only 2% of all animals that have existed are represented in fossils. That 90% stat is not favorong this view. Additionally, wise points out that the existence of polonium radioactive halos in rocks that show old age via radiometric dating are evidence that these also have evidence of much younger.age. So rocks have signs of old age and young age. See wise below on an explanation.
Of course i have seen refutations on this fr mainstream that this is not evidence for special creation. I dont believe that this is evidence of special creation but sure throws a monkey wrench into the cogs of the mainstream old earth views. Here is wise on these things.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XdcXxtC9_nc


(Timothy Horton) #396

Sorry but you’re going to have to provide a scientific reference for that claim. That sounds like some numbers AIG or ICR pulled right out of their nether regions.


(Greg) #397

I bet you can google it. The research i read was from i believe two different secular sources where they gave 2 percentages. One i think in 80s and the other in the 90s. If i can buy some time, i will search later this pm.


(Timothy Horton) #398

Then Google it and provide the scientific references. It’s your claim, you support it. I’m calling shenanigans.


(Greg) #399

You wont like this but an article by wise on aig website. Read close to bottom of article about mammal fossils. The one study was about european mammals-99 percent found in fossil record somewhere in the world. The other was about marine mollusks in CA- 80 % found in fossil record. Both of these studies by non-creationist orientation.


(Timothy Horton) #400

You’re right. That AIG claim is pure BS. The only reference they give is a 1968 book by B. Kurtén, Pleistocene Mammals of Europe. That has nothing to do with the roughly 5500 species of extant mammals today in 156 families and 29 orders. There are almost no extant species of mammals found in the fossil record because most extant species evolved in less than the last hundred thousand years. You can certainly find the distant ancestors the extant mammals evolved from in the fossil record - long extinct species of early horses, early rhinos, even early primates. That is not the same as finding the extant species themselves as fossils.

Looks like you were snookered again.