A Question for Creationists

[DavidFirth]

Not unless you can show that cars reproduce themselves.



There's a lot we know that people uninterested in science don't know.



Here's a good example of the above.

Where?

 

[leibowde84]

Yes, the fact that when followed, the "system" (design) renders a specific outcome, and not any random outcome. Thus, the "system" has been "designed" so that when implemented it produces a specific result. Which certainly implies that intent, even if the "designer" is not known, nor the designer's motives (if there are any), beyond the specific result achieved by the design.

What do you mean specifically by "renders a specific outcome"? Do you believe that simply because the world is the way it is it is the only way it could have turned out?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's very scientific.

It is. Too bad that it is beyond your understanding. You don't seem to know how to use smilies either.

 

[leibowde84]

Well, apes arent human and they don't even compare to human intelligence. And life has never arisen from non-life.

Humans are apes. We are part of the classification "Great Apes". We share a common ancestor with modern day apes.

Our being more intelligence in no way contradicts this. Why would you think it would? Are you under the incorrect impression that evolution would dictate that we evolve to have the same intelligence?

 

[leibowde84]

That's very scientific.

Actually, he's right. Humans are apes.

 

[leibowde84]

Well, apes arent human and they don't even compare to human intelligence. And life has never arisen from non-life.

No one knows whether life has arisen from non-life. There is no way of knowing that yet. We haven't been able to duplicate it in a lab as of yet, but they are getting closer and closer all the time. There have actually been some very recent major advancements. I would highly suggest looking into it. It is very interesting stuff.

 

[DavidFirth]

That's a religious belief, not a scientific one. Scientists are busy now trying to determine exactly how that happened a few billion years ago.

That's a fact, not just a scientific denial.

Scientists are busy now trying to determine exactly how that happened a few billion years ago.

Scientists need to get busy on feeding everybody, curing cancer, AIDS and researching things that really matter.

 

[DavidFirth]

Actually, he's right. Humans are apes.

Actually, you're both wrong. Im no ape.

 

[DavidFirth]

No one knows whether life has arisen from non-life. There is no way of knowing that yet. We haven't been able to duplicate it in a lab as of yet, but they are getting closer and closer all the time. There have actually been some very recent major advancements. I would highly suggest looking into it. It is very interesting stuff.

I have looked into it. Abiogenesis is just about as stupid a theory as spontaneous generation was. Even if scientists managed to create some resemblance of a life form in a lab it would not prove abiogenesis. But why prove it when they can get intelligent people to believe it, anyway?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have looked into it. Abiogenesis is just about as stupid a theory as spontaneous generation was. Even if scientists managed to create some resemblance of a life form in a lab it would not prove abiogenesis. But why prove it when they can get intelligent people to believe it, anyway?

Your ignorance of what scientists are doing does not make it stupid.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually, you're both wrong. Im no ape.

Then you are claiming that you are not a human being

 

[PureX]

How things work.

Things work the way they have been "designed" to work by the limitations that have been built into the expressions of energy that generate them. It is those limiting parameter that design the way existence works that scientists are trying to understand. But I realize that to most of you modern atheists, the term "design" cannot be allowed to have any relationship with nature. Even though nature expresses design everywhere we look.

 

[PureX]

What do you mean specifically by "renders a specific outcome"? Do you believe that simply because the world is the way it is it is the only way it could have turned out?

The universe (all existence as we know it) is the only way it could be given the limitations (possibility parameters) that have been imposed on the explosion of energy that has created it. Yes.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

There is a lot you think you know that you dont.

So you don't agree with me that animals reproduce sexually but cars don't? Gotcha.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Things work the way they have been "designed" to work by the limitations that have been built into the expressions of energy that generate them. It is those limiting parameter that design the way existence works that scientists are trying to understand. But I realize that to most of you modern atheists, the term "design" cannot be allowed to have any relationship with nature. Even though nature expresses design everywhere we look.

At best there is only the appearance of design. Further investigation tends to show that a designer was not needed. Do you have anything besides hand waving that supports your claims?

 

[PureX]

At best there is only the appearance of design. Further investigation tends to show that a designer was not needed.

Because the specific design (of life, for example) was itself the result of another design. But when we finally get down to the original design, we have no clue of it's origin. And yet it's still there. Built into the ways that energy can and cannot express itself. From which the nature of all that exists, finds it form and expression.

 

[Jose Fly]

Things work the way they have been "designed" to work by the limitations that have been built into the expressions of energy that generate them. It is those limiting parameter that design the way existence works that scientists are trying to understand. But I realize that to most of you modern atheists, the term "design" cannot be allowed to have any relationship with nature. Even though nature expresses design everywhere we look.

You do realize that creationists attempted to use the term "design" as a cover for sneaking their religious beliefs into public education, don't you? If so, then you can hardly blame scientists for their wariness.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because the specific design (of life, for example) was itself the result of another design. But when we finally get down to the original design, we have no clue of it's origin. And yet it's still there. Built into the ways that energy can and cannot express itself. From which the nature of all that exists, finds it form and expression.

So you have nothing. And you are dishonest as well. You edited out the request that you avoid hand waving in your response. There was no reason to edit such a short response. By doing so you only expose your inability to properly answer the question.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Even if scientists managed to create some resemblance of a life form in a lab it would not prove abiogenesis.

Correct.

But that doesn't matter. Proof is not the currency of belief. Evidence is to a reason and evidence based thinker, and faith is to a faith based thinker. Neither of us relies on proof.

We will likely have to be content to demonstrate that each step in chemical evolution leading to a replicator is thermodynamically feasible and could therefore have occurred spontaneously in the prebiotic earth over deep time.

I've never gotten a direct answer to this question: What would you as a creationist have the scientists researching abiogenesis do? Would you have them quit researching because some people believe in a divine creator?

====

Regarding the following:

DavidFirth: There is a lot you think you know that you dont.
IANS: There's a lot we know that people uninterested in science don't know.
DavidFirth: Show me an ape that's human.
IANS: Here's a good example of the above.
DavidFirth: Where?​

You provided a timely example of the difference between what somebody educated in the sciences knows and what people that have never had much interest in it knows, and why the objections of the latter regarding matters scientific falls on deaf ears. Why would an uninformed opinion be given equal status with an informed one?

Humans are classified as apes just like lemons are classified as citrus fruit. That's because we meet all of the requirements that the other apes meet to be called apes, as well as our genetic affinity with the other apes.

This is a settled matter in the scientific community. Nobody except creationists deny that man and the other extant apes descended from a common ancestral ape, and that makes man an ape in exactly the same way that all descendants of the first primates are all primates, and the descendants of the first mammals are all still mammals, etc..

I realize that you will never accept that, but that's fine. It isn't necessary that you do. It won't change your life unless it causes you to leave Christianity, and I think we both know the likelihood of that.

 

[PureX]

You do realize that creationists attempted to use the term "design" as a cover for sneaking their religious beliefs into public education, don't you? If so, then you can hardly blame scientists for their wariness.

Yes, but that is not the term's fault. And the term applies to a great many instances, still, nevertheless.