Creationists, please provide evidence

[Subby]

Another assertion. The original process of abiogenesis may well have been unguided. There are working models that show how it can happen.

Every time they put the word spontaneous in that video, I see it as designed to do that naturally.

Okay, so how do we get from "above genetics" to "intelligent designer"?

Because it wasn't just above genetics, I said that the way it expresses itself is like design, the whole genetic inheritance and natural selection of traits, does not just happen, but was designed to happen, and those are the mechanisms that were designed to do it.

However there is nothing within nature that can be definitively pointed to as intelligently designed.

And I still don't see how scientists creating life from non-life means that it can't happen in nature.

Nobody ever said it can't happen in nature, I am saying it doesn't spontaneously happen in nature. In fact it doesn't even account for the nature being there in the first place.

 

[The Wizard]

I find it simply amazing that blind, mechanical matter and energy combinations could in anyway create an impetence for Life and then futher- even us counscious human beings. I am not certain, but bet there would be a universal law not yet discovered pertaining to this- the "why" of the Universe creating Life is a good question to me. Not likely a meaningless, random accident in my opinion.

Also, sometimes I am quite comfortable with the thought that "existence simply exists" and always has and will eternally- as the Universe explodes and crunches upon itself for an eternity, likewise. Everything coming from nothing makes no sence to me. But, then I come to another question. If this be so then where did everyone else go? Or, were they simply swallowed up from the big crunch of the Universe or lack of energy. I do not see an advanced civilization allowing itself to vanish once it has understood the Universe for millions or even billions of years. Just my curious thoughts for the moment... IMO.

:yoda: So much mystery- we still have I ponder.

 

[Subby]

I find it simply amazing that blind, mechanical matter and energy combinations could in anyway create an impetence for Life and then futher- even us counscious human beings. I am not certain, but bet there would be a universal law not yet discovered pertaining to this- the "why" of the Universe creating Life is a good question to me. Not likely a meaningless, random accident in my opinion.

Also, sometimes I am quite comfortable with the thought that "existence simply exists" and always has and will eternally- as the Universe explodes and crunches upon itself for an eternity, likewise. Everything coming from nothing makes no sence to me. But, then I come to another question. If this be so then where did everyone else go? Or, were they simply swallowed up from the big crunch of the Universe or lack of energy. I do not see an advanced civilization allowing itself to vanish once it has understood the Universe for millions or even billions of years. Just my curious thoughts for the moment... IMO.

:yoda: So much mystery- we still have I ponder.

Its just earth and humanity in the universe. IMO

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Every time they put the word spontaneous in that video, I see it as designed to do that naturally.

Why?

Because it wasn't just above genetics, I said that the way it expresses itself is like design, the whole genetic inheritance and natural selection of traits, does not just happen, but was designed to happen, and those are the mechanisms that were designed to do it.

You've yet to show that a designer is necessary. We understand how these things work and, thus far, no designers have been required.

Nobody ever said it can't happen in nature, I am saying it doesn't spontaneously happen in nature.

Okay, but there's a difference between asserting it and demonstrating it. We have models that show how it can happen spontaneously without a designer. What you have to do is show why a designer is necessary.

In fact it doesn't even account for the nature being there in the first place.

So what? Gravity doesn't account for nature being there either. Is gravity suddenly inadequate for explaining why an object falls to the ground?

 

[Subby]

Why?

Because we can point to anything at all in the world as designed. Buildings, cars, etc, etc.. Our experience with reality is that things come from pre-existing life, they do not spontaneously happen. That is why there is a scientific law called biogenesis.

You've yet to show that a designer is necessary. We understand how these things work and, thus far, no designers have been required.

That is because there is a philosophical bias within modern science that disallows any other philosophical interpretation. Instead science should just present raw data free of philosophical conclusion.

Okay, but there's a difference between asserting it and demonstrating it. We have models that show how it can happen spontaneously without a designer. What you have to do is show why a designer is necessary.

Your conclusion that it happened spontaneously is mere assertion. Meanwhile we deal with things ID'd constantly.

So what? Gravity doesn't account for nature being there either. Is gravity suddenly inadequate for explaining why an object falls to the ground?

No, gravity is a natural law put into place by design, not just because it spontaneously happened.

 

[The Wizard]

Its just earth and humanity in the universe. IMO

Earth is relatively a space baby and we are already off in space finding water and more possibility for Life on other planets. What makes you so sure?

 

[Subby]

Earth is relatively a space baby and we are already off in space finding water and more possibility for Life on other planets. What makes you so sure?

Philosophy... it can't be the science because we haven't observed anything that resembles us at all. If we do, it is not outside of possibility, but right now our observations have led us to realize we are alone.

 

[The Wizard]

Philosophy... it can't be the science because we haven't observed anything that resembles us at all. If we do, it is not outside of possibility, but right now our observations have led us to realize we are alone.

I see... this would be a rigorious scientific standpoint. Changing it would mess up the entire process of the science body. I understand now... thanks.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Because we can point to anything at all in the world as designed. Buildings, cars, etc, etc.. Our experience with reality is that things come from pre-existing life, they do not spontaneously happen. That is why there is a scientific law called biogenesis.

Alright, if we're going to go that route then let me ask this: Where did the designer come from?

That is because there is a philosophical bias within modern science that disallows any other philosophical interpretation. Instead science should just present raw data free of philosophical conclusion.

The only philosophical bias in science that I have encountered is basically thus: "If you cannot back up an idea with evidence then it isn't scientific."

Is this the bias to which you are referring or is there another?

Your conclusion that it happened spontaneously is mere assertion.

Where did I assert that it happened spontaneously? I said that we have models that show that it can. I never said that it actually did.

Meanwhile we deal with things ID'd constantly.

Such as....?

No, gravity is a natural law put into place by design, not just because it spontaneously happened.

But gravity, like abiogenesis, doesn't explain how nature got there in the first place. Why is this a check against abiogenesis and not all of the other scientific theories that have nothing to do with the origin of nature, like gravity?

 

[Subby]

I see... this would be a rigorious scientific standpoint. Changing it would mess up the entire process of the science body. I understand now... thanks.

Sure man...

 

[Subby]

Alright, if we're going to go that route then let me ask this: Where did the designer come from?

That is philosophy/theology.

The only philosophical bias in science that I have encountered is basically thus: "If you cannot back up an idea with evidence then it isn't scientific."

Is this the bias to which you are referring or is there another?

You just said EXACTLY how science should be practiced!! And I agree with that wholeheartedly. The evidence would be raw observation. HOWEVER, modern science uses materialism/naturalism (not scientific naturalism which is basically what you defined) to conclude that only nature spontaneously formed what we see, that it was unguided. We cannot point to nature and see spontaneous generation like we can point to nature and see ID.

Where did I assert that it happened spontaneously? I said that we have models that show that it can. I never said that it actually did.

Models that rely on spontaneous things happening. Our dealings with reality does not indicate that, what would be likely in fact is based upon well established laws like biogenesis that are in place against such a spontaneous generation notion.

Such as....?

The same stuff you responded against with a question about where the designer came from.

But gravity, like abiogenesis, doesn't explain how nature got there in the first place. Why is this a check against abiogenesis and not all of the other scientific theories that have nothing to do with the origin of nature, like gravity?

because we were dealing with origin of life, not nature, i suppose. abiogenesis is origin of life not nature.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

That is philosophy/theology.

Believe it or not, it's valid to this discussion. Where did the designer come from?

You just said EXACTLY how science should be practiced!! And I agree with that wholeheartedly. The evidence would be raw observation. HOWEVER, modern science uses materialism/naturalism (not scientific naturalism which is basically what you defined) to conclude that only nature spontaneously formed what we see, that it was unguided.

Materialism/naturalism is the only thing, at this point, that is warranted. There is no reason to bring in a supernatural entity to explain something that can be explained just as well without it. In fact, history will show that whenever we have used the supernatural to explain anything we have always only ever been proven wrong.

We cannot point to nature and see spontaneous generation like we can point to nature and see ID.

But you've yet to point out anything in nature that can only be explained via ID.

Models that rely on spontaneous things happening. Our dealings with reality does not indicate that, what would be likely in fact is based upon well established laws like biogenesis that are in place against such a spontaneous generation notion.

If you're going to apply biogenesis as an absolute then you need to explain where your designer came from, hence my earlier statement.

because we were dealing with origin of life, not nature, i suppose. abiogenesis is origin of life not nature.

Then what was the point of your earlier remark about abiogenesis, "In fact it doesn't even account for the nature being there in the first place."?

 

[Subby]

Believe it or not, it's valid to this discussion. Where did the designer come from?

He is eternal, He is ever-existing life before all. But that is not ID it is the philosophy/theology of creationism we are talking about now.

Materialism/naturalism is the only thing, at this point, that is warranted. There is no reason to bring in a supernatural entity to explain something that can be explained just as well without it. In fact, history will show that whenever we have used the supernatural to explain anything we have always only ever been proven wrong.

Supernatural entity would be philosophy, not science, I agree. ID is founded in nature, so it remains science.

But you've yet to point out anything in nature that can only be explained via ID.

If you're going to apply biogenesis as an absolute then you need to explain where your designer came from, hence my earlier statement.

I have pointed out several things.

Then what was the point of your earlier remark about abiogenesis, "In fact it doesn't even account for the nature being there in the first place."?

That your mechanism, spontaneous, is no more scientific then mine, namely ID.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

He is eternal. But that is not ID it is the philosophy/theology of creationism we are talking about now.

There is no difference. ID, as someone once put it, is nothing more than creationism in a cheap tuxedo.

Supernatural entity would be philosophy, not science, I agree. ID is founded in nature, so it remains science, nething else is philosophy/theology.

ID isn't science, we've been over this. ID is the assertion that there is a supernatural force behind nature, an "intelligent designer". It's philosophy until someone can demonstrate that a designer is necessary.

I have pointed out several things.

And I've explained that they can be accounted for via natural means. You've yet to show that a designer is necessary at all.

That your mechanism, spontaneous, is no more scientific then mine, namely ID.

Well, at least we can agree that ID is unscientific.

 

[Subby]

There is no difference. ID, as someone once put it, is nothing more than creationism in a cheap tuxedo.

ID isn't science, we've been over this. ID is the assertion that there is a supernatural force behind nature, an "intelligent designer". It's philosophy until someone can demonstrate that a designer is necessary.

Wrong, that is philosophy/theology. Theology is defining aspects of God, ID is deduced from what man produces, and what we deal with in nature. Cars, houses, nething is ID'd.

And I've explained that they can be accounted for via natural means, no designer necessary.

Well, at least we can agree that ID is unscientific.

Natural means is not the same as spontaneous. Those natural means can just as easily be seen as designed.

It means they are equally scientific. I am willing to give your side credibility in that area yet you aren't. Again philosophical bias not scientific.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Wrong, that is philosophy/theology. Theology is defining aspects of God, ID is deduced from what man produces, and what we deal with in reality. Cars, houses, nething is ID'd.

So, man can design things, therefore nature must be designed? Is that seriously what you're after?

Natural means is not the same as spontaneous. Those natural means can just as easily be seen as designed.

Right, but until you can demonstrate that a designer is necessary there is no reason to assume that those natural means were designed. As I said, there is no reason to bring in a supernatural being to explain something that can be explained just as well without it.

I hate to keep repeating myself but you seem to have trouble with this point.

 

[Subby]

So, man can design things, therefore nature must be designed? Is that seriously what your after?

Where are things seen so commonly that are spontaneously generating?

Right, but until you can demonstrate that a designer is necessary there is no reason to assume that those natural means were designed. As I said, there is no reason to bring in a supernatural being to explain something that can be explained just as well without it.

Good both work well, again not supernatural that is philosophy. That is honest of you. Spontaneous and ID are equal, let us let scientists into the mainstream establishment with that view now instead of being bias.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Where are things seen so commonly that are spontaneously generating?

So because man can design things, that means nature is designed, yes?

Good both work well. That is honest of you.

Both work well. However, one is completely unnecessary. There is no reason to bring in a designer, plain and simple. Just like there is no reason to say that invisible unicorns keep everything firmly planted on the Earth when gravity does the job so well without the unicorns help.

 

[Subby]

So because man can design things, that means nature is designed, yes?

I just asked you a question. Answer it.

Both work well. However, one is completely unnecessary. There is no reason to bring in a designer, plain and simple. Just like there is no reason to say that invisible unicorns keep everything firmly planted on the Earth when gravity does the job so well without the unicorns help.

You just think things happen, thats fine.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

I just asked you a question. Answer it.

I'm not advocating spontaneous generation, nor am I advocating design.

You just think things happen, thats fine.

I think that there are natural explanations for things. I don't think a designer is required for any of it.