The creator did it.

[He has Risen!]

His books were thoroughly refuted. They were based upon poor arguments. His irreducible complexity was merely an argument from ignorance and when the various problems he cited were solved he had less than nothing.

Watch this video for entertainment, if no other reason, because we seem to be at an impasse.

 

[Firemorphic]

You are no more in a position to judge who and who is not an atheist than I am in a position to judge who is and who is not a Muslim.

Every. Single. Word. I said just flew over your head, try again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's all you are doing and you are simply trolling and falsely accusing me of fallacies without proving them. You're a joke.

You really need to watch the form rules. Abusing the rating system is a violation of the terms of service here. So is name calling.

 

[Firemorphic]

No, you are only rudely describing yourself. Your make believe version of god is very nebulous and you think that makes it superior to the make believe version of god that others believe in. Meanwhile you openly lie about the beliefs of atheists. That is not only wrong it is rude. I have been more than polite with you, merely pointing out your errors and offering discussion. Honestly is hard to come by in theists defending their beliefs. Perhaps you could surprise me.

Projection overload here. You're just making **** up now.

My "argument" was:

The problem is the connotation with the word "create" (which I do not use myself) and "creator" (which I also do not use myself) taken in the sense that someone may create a table by assembling bits of wood and nails.

See if you can work out what I'm saying there, I dare you!

 

[Firemorphic]

A trail of breadcrumbs shouldn't be required for such a basic principle

 

[Subduction Zone]

Watch this video for entertainment, if no other reason, because we seem to be at an impasse.

There is no point. Once again his argument about the rotator flagellum was refuted more than ten years ago. This video illustrates its evolution:

This paper goes into much more detail:

Evolution of the bacterial flagellum

The over two hundred references are at the end of the article. Behe can't get his idea through peer review. A rather low hurdle. It is too laden with errors to be taken seriously. All he has are videos and his work for creationists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Projection overload here. You're just making **** up now.

My "argument" was:



See if you can work out what I'm saying there, I dare you!

Yes, strawmanning the works of others because you do not like the words that they use. I understand your technique quite well.

And ease off on the false claims of projection.

You are afraid to even define what your version of god is. And you think that makes you better than those that believe have an oversimplified version. Meanwhile you try to make false claims about atheists assuming that they are only dealing with the oversimplified version.

This would not need to be explained to a person that was "thinking".

 

[Firemorphic]

Yes, strawmanning the works of others because you do not like the words that they use. I understand your technique quite well.

r/wooosh

 

[Subduction Zone]

r/wooosh

Now we have massive projection on your part.

Perhaps you would care to try again.

 

[Firemorphic]

The problem is the connotation with the word "create" (which I do not use myself) and "creator" (which I also do not use myself) taken in the sense that someone may create a table by assembling bits of wood and nails. That way of thinking about these words are both exactly not what they mean in the theistic sense

Just for onlookers here, the essence of my statement is not an argument, nor a strawman, it's pretty basic principle.

Symbols are symbols, not the essence of their meanings.​

The exception to this principle is when they are specified to not be symbols and are instead intended to understood in the literal meaning/application of the word used (like in the case of literally creating a table)

 

[Rapture Era]

OK I was teasing a bit, I must admit. But really, something seems to have gone "FUNG!" in your brain. You have suddenly flipped into trying to give me a hellfire sermon, instead of continuing the argument. You seem rather angry too, I notice.

I presume that's because you've realised your point of view cannot be defended scientifically. Which is really what I have been trying to point out all along. The creationist is entitled to his or her beliefs, of course. What is objectionable is when he or she tries to pretend that they have any basis in science. That's what ID tries, dishonestly, to do, which is why scientifically literate people object to it so strongly.

Haaahaaa! I appreciate your humor! No, nothing has gone “FUNG” in my brain at all. I presume you have heard the “Hell Fire” sermon may times before and maybe even the “Love sermon.” That was not my intention, however, it does slip out now and then. I believe if you care about someone, you would want to warn them about a perilous situation, and I don’t apologize for that. Also, I assure you, I am not angry at all, I have no reason to be.
Okay, that aside. My original question was where did the information come from? Yes, supernatural creation cannot be defended, nor does it need to be scientifically because science only studies the natural world. By default, however, science is studying supernatural creation after the fact. Scientifically literate people should not object to this truth. After all, it is science that revealed what was already there. If you have a one celled Amoeba or "ameba", it has the genetic code of a one celled ameba. Through science, we know you cannot “stack” information for that one celled ameba to become anything more than a one celled ameba. In order for that cell to accomplish more than it is programmed to do, more information must be added. Living things whether insect, fish, birds, monkeys or any host of animals including human beings, all have a genetic code within their DNA to produce only that species. There is variation of course. Humans are a great example. There are people around the globe with different skin color, eye shapes, body sizes, hair, and here’s a big one, LANGUAGE, but they are still humans. These genetic codes do not cross over to produce another species. The immense genetic information for living organisms to accomplish reproduction is staggering! So, if you are going to say that Darwinian evolution is the answer to all life on the planet, you have a mind-boggling mission to show how the trillions of bits of information in cells can divide, materialize and organize to achieve reproduction. Darwinian evolution is absolutely irrational because a mindless, purposeless, aimless process of chance like evolution is naturally impossible, scientifically or otherwise. What we see in nature is the marvelous mind and power of God. When he created all these forms of life he said “Be fruitful and multiple.” This statement by God denotes their ability to reproduce. It is clearly obvious that all life, plants and trees only produce that specific life form. Creation as a part of God's general revelation, affirms certain facts about God. Nature testifies to God's existence and science bows it’s knees to the scriptures. Paul the Apostle wrote to the church at Rome.

“What may be known of God is manifest in them (them-speaking of mankind) for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse” (Romans 1:19,20). This scripture verse describes what I have been saying above.

Even as a scientific literate person, does the ordered fine-tuned universe, this planet and all life on this planet with all of their ecosystems not make reasonable sense to you that its not a haphazard malfunction junction by chance process? I mean, really, what other alternative is there to Gods creative work that is more logical, rational and reasonable to contemplate?

 

[Rapture Era]

Show me the evidence that god created cells and do not give me the Its just because I believe it. First evolutions and abiogenesis are two different theories. The theory of elements to that created DNA and the proteins along with lipids is abiogenesis and there is journals full of information about this. As for the first cell It was likely a single-cell organism. It had a few hundred genes. It already had complete blueprints for DNA replication, protein synthesis, and RNA transcription. It had all the basic components - such as lipids - that modern organisms have.

Thank you for taking the time to comment. Commenting on your first sentence, I wouldn't tell you "Its just because I believe it." What I do believe is that we should follow the facts no matter where they lead, I would think that you would also. The staggering evidence of all various types of life on this planet and the scientific evidence to support super natural creation is so obvious, I have to tell you, there is no other logical, reasonable and rational answer. You say you know the bible. As I mentioned in the above post and I'll mention it again here,
“What may be known of God is manifest in them (them-speaking of mankind) for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse”
We are told through Genesis our origins. Is there any other belief system on the planet that matches the explanation of our origins, our purpose and our destiny?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just for onlookers here, the essence of my statement is not an argument, nor a strawman, it's pretty basic principle.

Symbols are symbols, not the essence of their meanings.​

The exception to this principle is when they are specified to not be symbols and are instead intended to understood in the literal meaning/application of the word used (like in the case of literally creating a table)

So you still do not understand that strawman that you constantly rely on.

 

[Firemorphic]

So you still do not understand that strawman that you constantly rely on.

Thank you Subduction Zone, very cool

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thank you Subduction Zone, very cool

I am always ready to help the ignorant. An intro to philosophy class does not make one a philosopher.

 

[Rapture Era]

Hey Rature man,
I am "He has Risen!"...a new Christian member. I like your YEC view, they seem to line up with mine as well. I am not on the internet much but will participate when I can.

Hello HhR, welcome to the site. I too have limited time for these forums because believe it or not, I have a life aside from here. I was drawn in by the title "The creator did it" and my initial question remains unanswered. One person made this statement, "Sadly, you have no choices. Like many others who post here, your religious views are so deeply instilled that all logic and reason has been left in the dustbin." First of all, creation by a supernatural being has nothing to do with religion. Secondly, turn the mirror back on yourself, and you'll see yourself with the same charge. The difference is, one is true and one is false. They both cant be true at the same time. So, the dialog (hopefully civil) continues to discuss what makes the most sense scientifically and in reality. My post addressed to "exchemist" pretty much sums up my stance.

 

[Firemorphic]

I am always ready to help the ignorant. An intro to philosophy class does not make one a philosopher.

Try again

 

[Subduction Zone]

Try again

Are you ready to be helped? I do not think that you are. Your post indicates that. I do sincerely hope that you did not take more than an intro to philosophy course. That would say terrible things about educational institutions.

 

[Firemorphic]

Are you ready to be helped? I do not think that you are. Your post indicates that. I do sincerely hope that you did not take more than an intro to philosophy course. That would say terrible things about educational institutions.

When you're ready to mature up and have a discussion instead of sealioning, I'll be here. But until then.....

 

[Subduction Zone]

When you're ready to mature up and have a discussion instead of sealioning, I'll be here. But until then.....

More projection. You keep making an obvious error in regards to others. You use a strawman argument about their beliefs. Now you want to hide behind a freshman philosophy discussion. Running and hiding is not a wise debate tactic. If you own up to your error and choose another tactic then we can have a discussion.