I have now met a real life creationist.

[wilson]

I'm sorry, Mr Bilby, but that has nothing to do with complexity.

Complexity is a mathematical term.

Not exclusively:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/complexity

It means that there are feedback loops in the equation where the values of the input variables change depending on the result. So the result keeps changing each time you calculate it.
A good example is the weather. The physical processes involved area very simple and straightforward. But it is complex which means that it's almost impossible to calculate.
Something being complex is not hard to design.

That design would have to come from an intelligent mind.

Especially not if you're using an evolutionary approach. The fact that the universe is complex is a clue that it came about by natural forces using an evolutionary mechanic. That's as true for orbits of planets as it is for life on Earth.

But this is very basic science. If you paid attention in school you should already know this?

This response is also diversionary. I will have to repeat my objection:
"Then I await your explanation of how the sun became complex on its own. You would have to show what went into the complexity, including all the relevant components. Remember - there is no such thing as more complexity from less.
I call it an arrangement because it does not and cannot operate on its own. It cannot keep itself in orbit and it certainly did not create the gravity that holds it in place."

 

[wilson]

It's remarkable how this, turtles all the way down, argument keeps popping up. The discussions always have the same predictable trajectory

"There's no way complexity can form by itself. There's always a more complex being creating the less complex being"

"No way? So there's no way that first being was created?"

Are you asking me who created God? Why don't you say it out loud?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Are you asking me who created God? Why don't you say it out loud?

Do you have a reading disability?
He's not asking you that.
He's saying that your postings tend to echo similar attempts made by others, who all follow a similar, ineffective playbook.

He's predicting that if he did ask you that question, you'd have nothing substantial to offer, most likely nothing new, either.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Complexity is a mathematical term.

Not exclusively:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/complexity

It means that there are feedback loops in the equation where the values of the input variables change depending on the result. So the result keeps changing each time you calculate it.
A good example is the weather. The physical processes involved area very simple and straightforward. But it is complex which means that it's almost impossible to calculate.
Something being complex is not hard to design.

That design would have to come from an intelligent mind.

Especially not if you're using an evolutionary approach. The fact that the universe is complex is a clue that it came about by natural forces using an evolutionary mechanic. That's as true for orbits of planets as it is for life on Earth.

But this is very basic science. If you paid attention in school you should already know this?

This response is also diversionary. I will have to repeat my objection:
"Then I await your explanation of how the sun became complex on its own. You would have to show what went into the complexity, including all the relevant components. Remember - there is no such thing as more complexity from less.
I call it an arrangement because it does not and cannot operate on its own. It cannot keep itself in orbit and it certainly did not create the gravity that holds it in place."

Why? You seem pretty sure of yourself. I'm pretty sure you can explain it.

And to quote Einstein, if you can't explain something simply then you don't know it well enough.

 

[sdelsolray]

...Remember - there is no such thing as more complexity from less.
...

This one doesn't even understand the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

...Remember - there is no such thing as more complexity from less.
...

This one doesn't even understand the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

As has already been pointed out, wilson's argument is classic special pleading. That's really anyone's magic spaceman really is, special pleading, maybe even special pleading from the comfort of a mental wheelchair. The real issue is that the wilson doesn't know the mental wheelchair isn't needed anymore, hasn't a clue, doesn't know what walking is let alone how to do it. Very tough position to hold in a scientific world. Classic example of what Sagan called 'clinging to cherished illusions.'

 

[blastula]

The bad results from earthquakes is the fault of humans. People build cities where they shouldn't. No bad results when earthquakes happen in uninhabited areas.

Humans aren't omniscient so they can't always tell what area an earthquake will occur, especially in pre-science times. And even if not earthquakes, there is no place on earth without a natural danger.

If humans are designed, that design also cause bad things to happen, like thinning hair.

Nothing wrong with the design. Bad diet and imperfection cause such things.

I doubt it, but again, even if you discount thinning hair, there are lots of other design problems with humans. For example, The Most Unfortunate Design Flaws in the Human Body - gizmodo

Define "design" in a testable way.

Look at the list.

Your list could apply to unguided design.

There is no such thing as unguided design.

Evolution is natural unguided design. The solar system is unguided design. Your definition is useless because you are calling everything designed. What would be an example of an undesigned universe or feature? And explain why. Answer that if you want to be taken seriously.

You want to prove there was design by your god person designer.

I have not tried to prove it and I don't need to. The excellence of the design speaks for itself.

This is circular.

You need to show what about the universe requires a god person to design any part of it.

Complexity.
For it to be necessary, planned, useful, modeled, functional, economical, intentional, practical, superior, arranged, draftable, orderly, having a designated objective, having a designated purpose, having functions capable of imitation, and worthy of imitation, it must be highly complex.

These are all vague, meaningless and subjective factors. They need to be more specific and testable.

Since you are claiming forces are designed, you need to show how there could not be physical forces if there were no god.

If I said that, I would prove it; but I didn't, so I don't.

Yes, you did by implication. You keep bringing up the sun and how its evidence of design. But we know the forces involved in producing the sun's "arrangement" as you like to call it. The sun wasn't poofed into existence, it's a result of unguided physical laws. If you are saying the sun is designed, then you are saying the designer is the physical forces. Or is it that you don't know there are physical forces involved? Do you think the sun does what it does mysteriously and by magic?

 

[blastula]

Yes, the universe has orderly patterns. And?

Yeah Keith&Co
Tell em.

Oh... It's OK
I already explained the ontological issue this poses.
See post #151

No, you didn't explain, you just asserted. Explain why order can't occur in a godless world. Also when was there ever a state of complete chaos without order? Note: the Bible is not a science text.

 

[bilby]

Complexity does not equal design.

You cannot successfully deny that the sun is a sophisticated arrangement.

The sun - as are all stars - is certainly complex, but calling it an "arrangement" implies that it was designed, an implication which you've provided no evidence to back up.

Complexity is discernible and sometimes understandable but it does not create itself. Perhaps you could provide examples of how any complex object got that way without assistance.

In order to support your argument for design, you have to show that the sun (and the rather large number of other stars in the universe) could not possibly have formed on their own without assistance from a designer.

I think you got that backwards. YOU are alleging that it formed itself. Since there is no such thing as more complexity from less and since you admit that the sun is complex, you would have to show how it became that way first.

Provide your evidence for a designer, and "wow this thing is really complicated and I don't understand how it works" doesn't count.

Then I await your explanation of how the sun became complex on its own. You would have to show what went into the complexity, including all the relevant components. Remember - there is no such thing as more complexity from less.
I call it an arrangement because it does not and cannot operate on its own. It cannot keep itself in orbit and it certainly did not create the gravity that holds it in place.

You keep talking about the Sun's orbit - Which I find very odd. The Sun has only completed about 20 orbits, and each takes around 226,000,000 years, so it's not something that usually comes up in discussions. Most people talk about the dynamics of the universe from the reference frame of a stationary sun, which is a good enough approximation for anyone who isn't interested in galactic scale phenomena.

I am beginning to suspect that you think that the Sun orbits the Earth. Please tell me that you don't.

I'm sorry, Mr Bilby, but that has nothing to do with complexity.

I never suggested that it did.

Do you think that the Sun orbits the Earth?

 

[bilby]

Are you saying that science cannot prove that life comes only from life?

Only if you live prior to 1828. Friedrich Wöhler demolished Vitalism by synthesizing organic compounds from inorganic precursors. your 'science' is at least 189 years out of date.

How do you know that? How can you tell if earth was in existence 4 byo? And in what way is that position any better than "GODDIDIT?"

It's explained here.

Where's the proof that the bible is wrong?

The Bible is proof that the Bible is wrong. Self contradictory documents are incapable of being anything else.

Is there a reason for your rudeness? I don't allow anyone to talk to me that way and still continue talking with him.

Calling someone who doesn't know their stuff 'ignorant' isn't rudeness, it's honesty.

Now - I know about the research. It is the results of that research that should concern you.
They have come up with a blank!!!

I wonder who told you that, and why you believed them without checking. YOU may have come up with a blank, but as my link above shows, other, less ignorant, people have come up with a lot.

This is all wrong for the simple reason that there is no such thing as more complexity from less.

Of course there is. The second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems, as any non-ignoramus would know.

Where did the material they are using come from? Were they made by the scientists? Have you, or they, been able to demonstrate that all of these components are self-generated?

All of the chemistry is well understood; Of course these components can be self-generated.

Ignoramus? Fool? There you go again! It must be desperation that evokes such remarks. One more time and I will be discussing this with someone else.

It's not desparation or rudeness; It's OBSERVATION. You ARE ignorant and foolish. If you don't like that fact, then your only recourse is to start learning.

The bible never contradicts true science. It goes against certain theories but never against science.

Nonsense. It goes against ITSELF, and it goes against reality. Science is a description of reality.

Are you sure that is true, or are you just spreading a false rumor?

Yes, I am sure that it is true.

Can you tell the difference?

Yes, I can. Apparently that's not a skill you share.

Or are you parroting the falsehood of critics?

LOL. Perhaps you need to also read up on 'projection'. Add it to your (very long) list of topics you are ignorant of.

Commentary:
"These two creation accounts in the book of Genesis, though differing slightly in the treatment of the material, are in perfect agreement with each other on all points, including the fact that Eve was created after Adam. So not until after this event did the sixth creative day come to an end. Exactly how soon after Adam’s creation is not disclosed. “After that [Adam and Eve’s creation] God saw everything he had made and, look! it was very good. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a sixth day.” (Gen. 1:31) After the sixth creative day ends, the seventh one begins." (WT 68 8/15 pp. 499-500)

Are you sure that is true, or are you just spreading a false rumor? Can you tell the difference? Or are you parroting the falsehood of apologists?

What is that - fortune-telling or some other form of mysticism? You know nothing about me nor the system under which I was raised.

Seriously, dude. You are a creationist from Alabama. I am PAINFULLY aware of the system that produces ignorant fools like you.

When someone like Joe'sdad says: "The bible is a very unscientific piece of writing....", what do you expect its defenders to quote from?

I expect people who want to demonstrate that something is scientific to show that it originated via the scientific method - that's what 'scientific' means. Who peer reviewed the Bible? What experiments does it describe, and what are the results when those experiments are repeated? What steps were taken to eliminate bias in the experimental methodology?

Clearly you don't even know what science IS. It's not a body of information; it's an epistemology.

Correct - but that cell was not created by any human scientist. He is only just discovering its enormous complexity. There is no such thing as more complexity from less.

Again, if you don't understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics, then you should learn about it FIRST, and talk about it SECOND, lest people recognize your ignorance and think you a fool.

And even though brief, it is the most enduring of all written historical texts, in spite of extraordinary efforts to curtail its production and distribution.

Sure. Extraordinary efforts to promote its production and distribution have nothing to do with it; It's popular because it's true, and it's true because it's popular.

Your faith in a human construct is totally dependent on public funding.

Wha?? No it's fucking NOT. Where the fuck did that bit of stupidity come from??

What happens when such funding is withdrawn or refused? Does your "real" world collapse then? Poor people and nations mean absolutely nothing to the "progressive" ones. Your "reality" includes the absence of peace, your proclivity for armed conflict, the need for neighbor love and so many other things that make life truly worthwhile.

You appear to have gone insane at this point, as your rantings have lost touch with reality altogether.

 

[Learner]

Thinking outside the box is only possible if you know the box well. You need to know the box before you start venturing beyond it's confines or you don't know what you're doing. Any human skill is the same. Music, gotta know the basics before you start going crazy. Painting, gotta know figurative art before your abstract pieces will start to work. And so on and so forth. Science is no different.

Knowing your box well is generally true. For example there are amazing musicians and artists who we call "naturally talented". These individuals are self taught - just having the knack, an inner understanding of their respected passions. This also goes for those becoming great scientists. Or those discoveries originating from someones garden shed or garage.

Some school taught musicians can read music and play wonderfully but not all can neccessarily improvise like those that play by ear. This applies to all the above in the context of the "box".

Having the knack.

 

[Learner]

Humans aren't omniscient so they can't always tell what area an earthquake will occur, especially in pre-science times. And even if not earthquakes, there is no place on earth without a natural danger.

As with Wilsons reply ; Once it happens why keep building up a city in the same place that has a history of these events ?

I doubt it, but again, even if you discount thinning hair, there are lots of other design problems with humans. For example, The Most Unfortunate Design Flaws in the Human Body - gizmodo

It only seems flawed if you are comparing this to the idea of superman. Eyes being inadequate because we don,t see as eagles do - sort of thing.

Look at the list.

Your list could apply to unguided design.

There is no such thing as unguided design.

Evolution is natural unguided design. The solar system is unguided design. Your definition is useless because you are calling everything designed. What would be an example of an undesigned universe or feature? And explain why. Answer that if you want to be taken seriously.

Wilson must be serious .. there is a better term 'natural guided design' without intention definition. And the invisible mysterious just like magic laws of nature/physics guides the universe , and in it the solar sytem.

The question from this is; is the laws of nature itself also the design? We simply propose it is out of the two choices.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Thinking outside the box is only possible if you know the box well. You need to know the box before you start venturing beyond it's confines or you don't know what you're doing. Any human skill is the same. Music, gotta know the basics before you start going crazy. Painting, gotta know figurative art before your abstract pieces will start to work. And so on and so forth. Science is no different.

Knowing your box well is generally true. For example there are amazing musicians and artists who we call "naturally talented". These individuals are self taught - just having the knack, an inner understanding of their respected passions. This also goes for those becoming great scientists. Or those discoveries originating from someones garden shed or garage.

Some school taught musicians can read music and play wonderfully but not all can neccessarily improvise like those that play by ear. This applies to all the above in the context of the "box".

Having the knack.

Yeah, but a natural musician can't tell you why a certain piece works or doesn't. Which is what we're discussing. That's why naturally talented mathematicians are useless teachers of maths. Only people who have struggled and put the hours in can explain it in any depth. Famous authors are almost always wrong about why their book works. Editors, who are experts at analysing books, know this and tell them.

I have the privilege of coming from a family with four scientists in it. Not all at once though. And if we take my extended family it gets ridiculous. I have a pretty good handle on what makes a good scientist and why anybody would try to become one.

My brother was/is not a natural talent for anything much. He's not especially smart. He made up for it with enthusiasm. And boy is he enthusiastic about learning things. He sort of bounced to work each day. Remarkable joy over... well... collating data. My father became a physicist because in his generation that's how you pulled chicks. He was all about the ladies. That boat has sailed for later generations. My sister was a genius and didn't want to get a real job. She was pretty lazy and struggled with depression. So not reliable to herself or anyone. If you're a genius and need to work your own hours, flake out month at a time, but still produce amazing results in the periods you're able, then science is for you. I did it because a doctorate is good for my career and salary development. I did the least possible effort. I was only in it for the money. I also didn't complete my doctorate.

As you see, it's pretty hard to generalise about scientists. It's a diverse bunch. But what they do have in common is to strive toward the truth. Why? Because otherwise they'll get cut to shreds in peer review. Which is what happens to the "work" by creation scientists. It's invariably shoddy work made by people who don't know how to do it. But it's not made to impress scientists (who have extremely high standards). It made to impress non-scientists who haven't a clue what they're reading and who get impressed by the long words.

I should also add, that you can quite easily fool scientists in thinking your work is genuine even when it isn't. Alan Sokal proved that. It can takes years to be revealed. If you write it properly. Which just emphasizes the extreme degree of shit these creation scientists produce. But sooner or later all the crappy studies get revealed. It's just a matter of time.

 

[Malintent]

Um.... what holes in ToE? There's no holes.

If there are no holes in evolutionary theory, then there is no reason to put any more research into it.
There are holes. There are things we don't fully understand.

Yet.

But they're just details being worked out, not gapes in the supporting structure. They aren't as significant as the critics of evolution would like to believe.
And the questions posed or admitted to by researchers are fodder for quote mining and claims that it's something that'll never be answered, therefore Goddidit.

I understand what you are saying, but I take exception to the use of the word "holes". It is too easily misinterpreted and distorted to mean "missing important pieces that render the theory unsupported".

Here's a story... Jack went up the hill. Jack got some water. Jack tripped over a rock. Jack fell down the hill.

does this answer the question of "what happened to Jack, that day"? It should sufficiently answer the question.
However, this story is full of holes...
Where was Jill?
What was Jack wearing?
Where was this hill, and how high was it?
What was Jack thinking about when he tripped over the rock?
What kind of rock was it?

full of holes!... can't possibly make claims about what happened to Jack.

 

[DrZoidberg]

If there are no holes in evolutionary theory, then there is no reason to put any more research into it.
There are holes. There are things we don't fully understand.

Yet.

But they're just details being worked out, not gapes in the supporting structure. They aren't as significant as the critics of evolution would like to believe.
And the questions posed or admitted to by researchers are fodder for quote mining and claims that it's something that'll never be answered, therefore Goddidit.

I understand what you are saying, but I take exception to the use of the word "holes". It is too easily misinterpreted and distorted to mean "missing important pieces that render the theory unsupported".

Here's a story... Jack went up the hill. Jack got some water. Jack tripped over a rock. Jack fell down the hill.

does this answer the question of "what happened to Jack, that day"? It should sufficiently answer the question.
However, this story is full of holes...
Where was Jill?
What was Jack wearing?
Where was this hill, and how high was it?
What was Jack thinking about when he tripped over the rock?
What kind of rock was it?

full of holes!... can't possibly make claims about what happened to Jack.

Good point, and what I was trying to get at.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I understand what you are saying, but I take exception to the use of the word "holes". It is too easily misinterpreted and distorted to mean "missing important pieces that render the theory unsupported".

There are those who will pounce on any accurate wording and claim completely unsupported connotations.
There a re even people who will try to read doubt and uncertainty into the word 'theory,' as demonstrated above.

Now, one can watch their every word and filter everything published, posted or said out of a fear of what a creationist, or an ID proponent, or Wilson may try to shoehorn into that statement, or just carry on as if talking to adults who will, if there is a misunderstanding, be able to come to an understanding in further discussion.

 

[ideologyhunter]

The conservative take on man-made derangement of the climate is a good analogy.

 

[barbos]

Until this point in my life they've been like mythical beasts. I've lived my entire life in Scandinavia, and religious people are in short supply, not to mention the cooky one's. I'm positive we have more albino moose than creationists.

Last week I went to Borderlands, the Scandinavian version of Burning Man. There I met a Christian girl who I got to know. We hung out and did psychadelics for a few days. That really acts to bond people. Awesome. At some point she said she didn't believe in ToE and... well... I'm not proud of myself. It kind of slipped out. I said, "Are you completely retarded". After which it turned into an argument of sorts. Well, mostly she being angry and me apologizing for hurting her feelings having said that hurtful thing.

And that was essentially the gist of her argument. No real arguments. She just wanted her beliefs respected regardless if they were true or not. The fact that they were wrong didn't seem to enter into it. What really got her going was when I asked her if she thought the entire scientific schooling system is set up around teaching children lies. And why it would do that. I think that was the argument that really made her realize she was wrong, so therefore... naturally... this lead her to argue her case even more fervently.

She sent me links to various American creationist sites with all the familiar "information" we're used to seeing here. When she noticed that I had a thorough grasp of evolutionary biology and could argue against every single of her arguments, without having to look shit up, she wasn't impressed by a massive brains a bit. Oh, no. She just said "you're just too proud to admit you are wrong".

And that was that. I have now learned, based on statistical analysis of all the creationists I have met (ie 1) that they are very sexy, have big bouncy boobs and look great in hot pants and don't sleep with people who don't validate all their silly beliefs. BTW, she believed all manner of nonsense... it was Burning Man. That is to be expected by that crowd.

The story didn't end there. Yesterday she called me up. She told me that she is writing a book. It's a fantasy book, where the stand ins for Mordor are atheists. And asked me to tell her what I believe so she could have the evil people also believe that. So I held a two hour long lecture on... well... how "I believe" biology works. She also got basic cosmology, big bang and quantum mechanics. I am 100% sure she will misunderstand every single thing I said. Probably replace ever scientific fact with "plot the spreading of lies evilly".

So how was your weekend?

At the risk of appearing sexist I would say it's pretty typical female version of creationism and really anything. Women are less concerned with facts and more concerned with feelings. Male version is usually crazier, they truly believe they figured creationism thing out out but they are much more rare than females.

 

[barbos]

This thread should be titled "Sometimes you should just shut up and take it, especially when IT has tig ol' bitties."

That's a singular greatest piece of wisdom ever.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Knowing your box well is generally true. For example there are amazing musicians and artists who we call "naturally talented". These individuals are self taught - just having the knack, an inner understanding of their respected passions. This also goes for those becoming great scientists. Or those discoveries originating from someones garden shed or garage.

Some school taught musicians can read music and play wonderfully but not all can neccessarily improvise like those that play by ear. This applies to all the above in the context of the "box".

Having the knack.

Yeah, but a natural musician can't tell you why a certain piece works or doesn't. Which is what we're discussing. That's why naturally talented mathematicians are useless teachers of maths. Only people who have struggled and put the hours in can explain it in any depth. Famous authors are almost always wrong about why their book works. Editors, who are experts at analysing books, know this and tell them.

I have the privilege of coming from a family with four scientists in it. Not all at once though. And if we take my extended family it gets ridiculous. I have a pretty good handle on what makes a good scientist and why anybody would try to become one.

My brother was/is not a natural talent for anything much. He's not especially smart. He made up for it with enthusiasm. And boy is he enthusiastic about learning things. He sort of bounced to work each day. Remarkable joy over... well... collating data. My father became a physicist because in his generation that's how you pulled chicks. He was all about the ladies. That boat has sailed for later generations. My sister was a genius and didn't want to get a real job. She was pretty lazy and struggled with depression. So not reliable to herself or anyone. If you're a genius and need to work your own hours, flake out month at a time, but still produce amazing results in the periods you're able, then science is for you. I did it because a doctorate is good for my career and salary development. I did the least possible effort. I was only in it for the money. I also didn't complete my doctorate.

As you see, it's pretty hard to generalise about scientists. It's a diverse bunch. But what they do have in common is to strive toward the truth. Why? Because otherwise they'll get cut to shreds in peer review. Which is what happens to the "work" by creation scientists. It's invariably shoddy work made by people who don't know how to do it. But it's not made to impress scientists (who have extremely high standards). It made to impress non-scientists who haven't a clue what they're reading and who get impressed by the long words.

I should also add, that you can quite easily fool scientists in thinking your work is genuine even when it isn't. Alan Sokal proved that. It can takes years to be revealed. If you write it properly. Which just emphasizes the extreme degree of shit these creation scientists produce. But sooner or later all the crappy studies get revealed. It's just a matter of time.

You've just described the difference imho of being clever and being intelligent. I think creationism and religion generally are very clever inventions, much more clever than science can ever hope for, and even more so because religious answers require zero understanding of natural phenomenon.

A scientist can employ stealth and cleverness in his or her pursuits also but such efforts are ultimately vane. All that matters in the end is whether it works as predicted and whether continuing observations validate present theory. Religion can't do that, only offer more babble that can never be tested, angels, succubi, spirits, souls, visions, revelations, just more and more soap opera and theater. Just keep adding new books and chapters without substance and void of new knowledge.

The only new knowledge religion has ever offered has been to cleverly attempt to incorporate old scientific knowledge, such as when we see religion using scientific knowledge to attempt to disprove other scientific knowledge. It happens so often I'm sure someone could do a legitimate doctoral thesis on the phenomenon.