A Question for Creationists

[leibowde84]

There's no rule that says one has to personify and anthropomorphize - both of those things are aesthetic/literary tools for telling stories about the gods. It helps make them more engaging and relatable, and it builds a symbolic vocabulary that you can use to create beautiful rituals. Also, it's fun... so most of us use it. Even I use it, and I'm not a big fan of the practice.

But, if celestial objects can be considered gods doesn't that deem the term meaningless? Why call the sun a god at all?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So first the non-serious reply: You are assuming no time constraints. But in most creationist models, there's a very strict time constraint in how quickly the organisms were designed, is there not?? The guy started from nothing with 24 hours to launch!! That's one hell of a time constraint there.

And how long does God need to design something?

And the then serious reply: Even without constraints there's absolutely no reason for repeating oneself unnecessarily. And granted there isn't much of a reason to not repeat oneself in the design given no constraints, but there's no reason one would have to do that anyway. Where's the motive??

To make it as good as possible. It's the difference between an off-the-rack suit that fits you and a tailored suit.

It's the difference between using a standard bolt that's 5% thicker and heavier than you need versus a custom bolt that exactly meets your requirements.

 

[PureX]

But, the results here (mice, humans, chimps, etc.) were not planned.

We don't know if they were planned or not. Nor how specifically they might have been planned. Certainly they were planned by the parameters of the process that created them, because that process involved a set of limitations that disallowed all but the results that were achieved.

They were a product of certain natural parameters, sure, but they weren't intended or expected.

How do you know this? Especially when the result of the process was built into the design of the process that achieved it.

 

[leibowde84]

We don't know if they were planned or not. Nor how specifically they might have been planned. Certainly they were planned by the parameters of the process that created them, because that process involved a set of limitations that disallowed all but the results that were achieved.

But, parameters cannot plan. You are confusing planning with the laws of nature. Matter behaves in a certain way do to outside forces. There is no need to design or put those laws into place. Determinism doesn't require any planning.

How do you know this? Especially when the result of the process was built into the design of the process that achieved it.

The result was not known by anyone (or at least there is no evidence suggesting that they were) or anything. Parameters cannot know anything. You have not presented any evidence of design here. You are just reiterating that certain parameters cause matter to behave in a certain way, but there is no reason to think those parameters must be planned or put into place.

 

[Quintessence]

I pasted a link in my earlier response. It was buried by my poor typing skills so you had to hit "expand" to see it. I have fixed the posts since then. In England it is the color that loons tend to use when responding to newspapers. Your use of it indicates several possibilities. You may be a loon too and do not realize it. You may be merely being sarcastic in your posts here and using that as the equivalent of a smiley to tell everyone that it is so. I am sure that there are other possibilities too.

I find it remarkable that the most obvious possibility - my favorite color is green - doesn't make your list. Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised now that it's been made transparent that you were making a veiled personal attack. Don't do that, by the way. Forum rules are a thing.

And you always could try to explain your beliefs here.

I could, but when someone starts insinuating another person is a lunatic when they know next to nothing about them, that's not a good sign. I'm taking another turn along the road for the moment.

 

[leibowde84]

I pasted a link in my earlier response. It was buried by my poor typing skills so you had to hit "expand" to see it. I have fixed the posts since then. In England it is the color that loons tend to use when responding to newspapers. Your use of it indicates several possibilities. You may be a loon too and do not realize it. You may be merely being sarcastic in your posts here and using that as the equivalent of a smiley to tell everyone that it is so. I am sure that there are other possibilities too.

And you always could try to explain your beliefs here. Though as I said, woo is hardly worthy of being taken seriously. At times I will advocate for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I am an ordained minister of their church. I did it while it was still free and have no certificate, but I assure you that all I would have to do is to pay for the certificate and I could officiate at several "church" functions including marrying two people to each other. That does not mean that I take that belief seriously.

In the U.S. green colored text doesn't mean anything whatsoever. I don't think it's reasonable to assume it has any meaning at all on this forum.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I find it remarkable that the most obvious possibility - my favorite color is green - doesn't make your list. Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised now that it's been made transparent that you were making a veiled personal attack. Don't do that, by the way. Forum rules are a thing.

I said that there are other possibilities. I did not want to make a false dichotomy and say that you were either crazy or being sarcastic. And how would that be a veiled personal attack? I found it rather ironic that you used green and I gave you the reason for it.

I could, but when someone starts insinuating another person is a lunatic when they know next to nothing about them, that's not a good sign. I'm taking another turn along the road for the moment.

Then you may be the one that has made veiled personal attacks. You won't explain your beliefs and give others the chance to shown whether they are reasonable or not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In the U.S. green colored text doesn't mean anything whatsoever. I don't think it's reasonable to assume it has any meaning at all on this forum.

I made no assumptions. It is an amazing coincidence and I asked about it. And he is far from being a typical forum user of "green ink". In a forum instead of using green ink one will see some true loons, and I do not think that Quintessence is one, have posts with constantly changing fonts, sizes, colors, bolding and normal etc. They use every bell and whistle available. Quintessence only uses a single color, That is why I asked and gave two possibilities that I could think of but pointed out that there were definitely more.

 

[leibowde84]

I made no assumptions. It is an amazing coincidence and I asked about it. And he is far from being a typical forum user of "green ink". In a forum instead of using green ink one will see some true loons, and I do not think that Quintessence is one, have posts with constantly changing fonts, sizes, colors, bolding and normal etc. They use every bell and whistle available. Quintessence only uses a single color, That is why I asked and gave two possibilities that I could think of but pointed out that there were definitely more.

I am just pointing out that another possibility is that green text doesn't mean anything ... I would assume he just likes the color green.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am just pointing out that another possibility is that green text doesn't mean anything ... I would assume he just likes the color green.

And he said that was the case and I took his word for it. Like I said he is not the typical forum user of "green ink" where the color green is not even used most of the time.

 

[PureX]

But, parameters cannot plan.

Parameters ARE "plan". Or more accurately, they ARE process design.

You are confusing planning with the laws of nature.

No, you are assuming that the laws of nature aren't intending to produce the results that they, in actually, produce. This is not logical, as those results were 'built into' the laws, themselves. This "laws" are the design parameters.

Matter behaves in a certain way do to outside forces. There is no need to design or put those laws into place. Determinism doesn't require any planning.

The behavior of matter is being dictated by the parameters (laws) built into the design process that creates it. Matter is and does what it was designed to be and do.

The result was not known by anyone (or at least there is no evidence suggesting that they were) or anything.

The results were "known" by the design that achieved them. And therefor, one must presume, by whomever/whatever is responsible for establishing those design parameters (laws).

Parameters cannot know anything.

Why not? DNA is design information, chemically coded. It "knows" how to create a human being, and does so when that information is processed. Why aren't these various coded design parameters a form of knowledge?

 

[Quintessence]

I said that there are other possibilities. I did not want to make a false dichotomy and say that you were either crazy or being sarcastic. And how would that be a veiled personal attack? I found it rather ironic that you used green and I gave you the reason for it.

Fair enough, but the way it was expressed comes across as a snub whether it was intended as such or not.

You won't explain your beliefs and give others the chance to shown whether they are reasonable or not.

To be clear on the reasons I use forums like this, I have no interest in articulating my thoughts for others to pass judgement. I don't care if others think my way of life is reasonable or not. I enjoy my life, it works for me, and I change it as needed. I don't need nor want your judgements. I also don't care if someone agrees with me (or any cultural tradition, really) - my aim is to learn about different traditions and let them their stories. I'm a typical human that wants to express themselves and be understood. Pretty simple when you get right down to it.

Given most folks know very little about the religious traditions I affiliate with, I'm more than happy to share bits of these traditions with others... but not when the other person is asking just to pass judgement on me. As a religious minority, I have to deal with that crap enough as it is, and I'm tired of it. It's made me crotchety.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Fair enough, but the way it was expressed comes across as a snub whether it was intended as such or not.



To be clear on the reasons I use forums like this, I have no interest in articulating my thoughts for others to pass judgement. I don't care if others think my way of life is reasonable or not. I enjoy my life, it works for me, and I change it as needed. I don't need nor want your judgements. I also don't care if someone agrees with me (or any cultural tradition, really) - my aim is to learn about different traditions and let them their stories. I'm a typical human that wants to express themselves and be understood. Pretty simple when you get right down to it.

Given most folks know very little about the religious traditions I affiliate with, I'm more than happy to share bits of these traditions with others... but not when the other person is asking just to pass judgement on me. As a religious minority, I have to deal with that crap enough as it is, and I'm tired of it. It's made me crotchety.

I understand, I am in a minority too in that regard. I am willing to correct what others think of my beliefs and explain why. But if you run into opposition I can understand.


And as I said you are not the typical "green ink" user. Your use is extremely mild compared to the wild use of bells and whistles that one will run into for some "true believers". One does not even need outre beliefs to be an abuser of bells and whistles. The worst I ever saw was a Catholic that was if anything a "fundamentalist Catholic". His church was without fault, not matter what, and all other Christian religions were heresies according to him. He would use at least four different special effects in even the shortest of his posts.

 

[Quintessence]

And as I said you are not the typical "green ink" user.

Please stop it - I'm not a "green ink" user. I post in green font because I like the color green.

 

[Thief]

You mean, through Evolution?

yeah....

 

[Quintessence]

But, if celestial objects can be considered gods doesn't that deem the term meaningless? Why call the sun a god at all?

Sorry, I missed your post earlier.

As I think I mentioned earlier (or at least I have multiple times on the forums here and there) we can deify that which we value. Deifying something is saying "I value this, this is sacred to me, and I find it worthy of worship." It's akin to an honorific title, and far from meaningless. It establishes the nature of the relationship between you and the thing deified. In my case, since I think everything is fascinating and awesome, I find everything worthy of reverence. In practice, I actively worship only a few things on any regular basis. Limited time and all.

At any rate, with respect to the idea of creationism, creationism looks very different in a tradition like mine than it does for the typical frame of reference (which is Biblical literalism). Biological evolution is in of itself something to be honored and revered. I can't say I worship the Spirit of Evolution directly though - I honor Change/Transformation more broadly. When I read stuff like what the opening post sets forth, it just doesn't make sense to me with this kind of perspective. It just reads like a silly rhetorical question. Reality is what it is, and the patterns are there. The patterns are part of the "intelligent design" if one wants to use such terms. Those aren't the words I'd put to it, though. The phrase "intelligent design" makes me cringe inside. It comes out of Christian mythos, which tends to clash badly with my own.

 

[DavidFirth]

When we compare human DNA with the DNA of chimps and bonobos, we see 98-99% similarity. When we compare with other apes, such as gorillas, slightly less, and slightly less still for orangutans and other monkeys (if my memory is correct). The similarities decrease when we look at other mammals to around 80-something percent for dogs and maybe around 70-ish for mice (these are rough figures from my memory, but the general idea is correct). As we move toward other taxonomic groups of animals other than other mammals, we see increasingly less similarity. In other words, DNA analysis is confirming previous assumptions about genetic relationships based upon morphology (appearance). How can you reconcile this data with intelligent design? Genetic similarities clearly indicate common ancestry, with closer genetic relationships (higher percentage of DNA in common) indicating more recent common ancestry, and lower percentages of DNA in common indicating more distant common ancestry. All of this makes perfect sense under evolutionary theory, but no sense at all if species were intelligently designed.

God created in a way that pleased Him. The fact of similar DNA means very little when you take all the differences into account. I could use that same logic to show cars evolved from each other.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please stop it - I'm not a "green ink" user. I post in green font because I like the color green.

I agree, you are not a "green ink" user in the sense that I linked. But you do use green ink to technically . . .

 

[leibowde84]

Parameters ARE "plan". Or more accurately, they ARE process design.
No, you are assuming that the laws of nature aren't intending to produce the results that they, in actually, produce. This is not logical, as those results were 'built into' the laws, themselves. This "laws" are the design parameters.
The behavior of matter is being dictated by the parameters (laws) built into the design process that creates it. Matter is and does what it was designed to be and do.
The results were "known" by the design that achieved them. And therefor, one must presume, by whomever/whatever is responsible for establishing those design parameters (laws).
Why not? DNA is design information, chemically coded. It "knows" how to create a human being, and does so when that information is processed. Why aren't these various coded design parameters a form of knowledge?

Alright, I'll respond to all of this together. A "parameter" can be an aspect of a plan, but that is not necessarily the case. They can simply be a set that defines a system or sets the conditions of its operation. But, parameters are in no way able to plan or know anything. Likewise, DNA cannot "know" anything. DNA is information itself. Information cannot know anything, rather information is the stuff that is known.

pa·ram·e·ter
pəˈramədər/
noun
technical

1. a numerical or other measurable factor forming one of a set that defines a system or sets the conditions of its operation.

Next, you jump to the conclusion that there is a design, yet you haven't provided any evidence to support that. Your entire argument rests on that assumption. Do you have any evidence to support your claim that it is, in fact, a design?

 

[leibowde84]

Sorry, I missed your post earlier.

As I think I mentioned earlier (or at least I have multiple times on the forums here and there) we can deify that which we value. Deifying something is saying "I value this, this is sacred to me, and I find it worthy of worship." It's akin to an honorific title, and far from meaningless. It establishes the nature of the relationship between you and the thing deified. In my case, since I think everything is fascinating and awesome, I find everything worthy of reverence. In practice, I actively worship only a few things on any regular basis. Limited time and all.

At any rate, with respect to the idea of creationism, creationism looks very different in a tradition like mine than it does for the typical frame of reference (which is Biblical literalism). Biological evolution is in of itself something to be honored and revered. I can't say I worship the Spirit of Evolution directly though - I honor Change/Transformation more broadly. When I read stuff like what the opening post sets forth, it just doesn't make sense to me with this kind of perspective. It just reads like a silly rhetorical question. Reality is what it is, and the patterns are there. The patterns are part of the "intelligent design" if one wants to use such terms. Those aren't the words I'd put to it, though. The phrase "intelligent design" makes me cringe inside. It comes out of Christian mythos, which tends to clash badly with my own.

OK, so you use your own, far more generalized definition for the terms deity and god?