I have now met a real life creationist.

[Tom Sawyer]

And isn't that claim somewhat self-defeating, anyway?

I mean, if there were hypothetical atheist labs publishing results alongside Christain labs and Hindu labs and Shinto labs working on the Speed of Light, we couldn't reject the Christain results based on their source, because all the other labs would (hypothetically) be getting the same results

But to reject the evidence for the Design argument based on the source, that would have to mean that the facts for the Design argument are only coming from labs where they already believe in the Design argument. If they were objective facts, they'd show up in everyone's labs.

I am not a "creationist" whatever that is. I do not believe that the universe was created in 6 twenty-four-hour days, nor do I believe that the earth or universe is only 6 thousand years old. That should take care of the "creationist" label.
I do not accept the Intelligent Design movement because they try to take a scientific approach to the idea of design and it is purely materialistic. They also get involved in social issues that antagonize many. The results of any court trial is only because of the social issues and the militancy they pursue. That should take care of the "ID" label.
Please do not refer to me as "creationist" nor "ID proponent." I am neither. There is a great difference between "creationism" and believing in creation. There is a great difference between accepting design and the ID movement.
The search for the origin of life is futile if it is concentrated on chemical and other physical properties.
Life itself is spiritual. It cannot be quantified nor explained in any physical terms.
So far, all I see here is the prejudice and it is suffocating.

OK, so when you say that you "accept design", what is it that you mean? You said that there is much to the design argument which we haven't seen and facts which we should not summarily dismiss. What are some of these?

 

[funinspace]

OK, Mr. Keith & Co,
Goodbye.
I will present my ideas to someone else and I will not respond to anything you have to say.
How about that?

For someone who states they want to have a amicable discussion, you sure seem to be avoiding a earlier response (see below), while playing with Keith & Co...in fact maybe Keith got more and more testy as he noticed nothing of substance really being said. It is a common human trait in response to a person avoiding the obvious.

There is much to the design argument that you may not have seen.
Some facts are summarily dismissed simply because of their origin.
Can you deal with the facts of an argument on its own merits without prejudice?
I mean, if an article is about facts of creation but found in a Hindu publication?

Ok, I'm listening. Keep going.

Again, what you respond to is fully in control. You can choose to play with me now, or you can respond to DrZoidberg much earlier response...

 

[DrZoidberg]

There is much to the design argument that you may not have seen.
Some facts are summarily dismissed simply because of their origin.
Can you deal with the facts of an argument on its own merits without prejudice?
I mean, if an article is about facts of creation but found in a Hindu publication?

Ok, I'm listening. Keep going.

Again, what you respond to is fully in control. You can choose to play with me now, or you can respond to DrZoidberg much earlier response...

The reason for my reply us that evolution is a scientific question. Any religious fact is a "fact" until it has been tested. If it can't be tested then it goes in the "don't know" box. If it can be tested and is successful then it's not religion. Then it's just the truth.

Francis Collins is a famous geneticist and evolutionary biologist. And also Catholic. When he puts forward a theory he doesn't lead with his catholicism since it's irrelevant. Nor does he published his work in genetics in Catholic publications.

We have a huge problem in the modern world with that religious people to often think their opinion is valuable and should be taken seriously just because they are religious. Ehe... no. Religious people have the same demands on them to make sense as everybody else. Truth is truth regardless of who says it or why.

Nobody serious would publish a scientific article in a religious publication. It just won't happen. If your theory is robust you publish in Nature. Francis Collins did.

So the name of the religion is not relevant. Just the fact that it's a religious publication tells us all we need to know.

 

[Lion IRC]

OK, Mr. Keith & Co,
Goodbye.
I will present my ideas to someone else and I will not respond to anything you have to say.
How about that?

It's amazing to me why anyone would mock/insult and abuse someone with whom they disagree, and then expect to continue the discussion with them as if nothing has changed.

Welcome to the forum wilson.
There are plenty of interesting discussions to be had here with the many thoughtful and POLITE non-theists here.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It's amazing to me why anyone would mock/insult and abuse someone with whom they disagree, and then expect to continue the discussion with them as if nothing has changed.

As if nothign changed? Gosh, kitty, that's not my expectation.
I'd rather hope that "someone" would see that starting with unsupported assertions and a general attitude of distrust and/or accusation wasn't working, and maybe actually discuss their actual claims, to see if that change might garner a different response.
My expectations are rather low, for anyone purporting to have crucial information for the design argument, especially when they'd rather blame me for being prejudiced against their evidence before they even offer their evidence, but that comes from experience with so many special snowflakes who have the incredible bravery to wade into the lions den (No Pun Intended) to confront everyone else's beliefs, yet remain cagey about their own.

Then again, it's ALWAYS amusing to be told that you're being ignored. Or for people to talk about you in third person and pretend they're ignoring you...

 

[funinspace]

It's amazing to me why anyone would mock/insult and abuse someone with whom they disagree, and then expect to continue the discussion with them as if nothing has changed.

As if nothign changed? Gosh, kitty, that's not my expectation.
I'd rather hope that "someone" would see that starting with unsupported assertions and a general attitude of distrust and/or accusation wasn't working, and maybe actually discuss their actual claims, to see if that change might garner a different response.
My expectations are rather low, for anyone purporting to have crucial information for the design argument, especially when they'd rather blame me for being prejudiced against their evidence before they even offer their evidence, but that comes from experience with so many special snowflakes who have the incredible bravery to wade into the lions den (No Pun Intended) to confront everyone else's beliefs, yet remain cagey about their own.

Then again, it's ALWAYS amusing to be told that you're being ignored. Or for people to talk about you in third person and pretend they're ignoring you...

It's ok Lion, I don't think anyone has given Keith&Co his Snickers Snack today. And he is kind of grumpy when that doesn't happen

 

[Lion IRC]

I'm a creationist.
I think the Earth was created - deliberately, not accidentally.
And I kinda dislike the term 'intelligent' design.

Talk about being damned by faint praise.

There aren't words in human language that can even begin to express the mind power which designed the stuff we observe.
Little specs of carbon crawling around on a tiny planet i somewhere in a thing called 'space-time' arguing over whether God is 'intelligent'.

 

[bilby]

I'm a creationist.
I think the Earth was created - deliberately, not accidentally.
And I kinda dislike the term 'intelligent' design.

Talk about being damned by faint praise.

There aren't words in human language that can even begin to express the mind power which designed the stuff we observe.
Little specs of carbon crawling around on a tiny planet i somewhere in a thing called 'space-time' arguing over whether God is 'intelligent'.

HA! Nice try. But no atheist is interested in arguing whether God is intelligent, when you haven't yet jumped the first hurdle, that of showing any evidence at all that God is non-fiction.

I love the way theists try to sneak in their assumption that God is real, without taking the time to demonstrate that extraordinary claim. I particularly like it when this is done be a theist with a history of accusing others of intellectual dishonesty.

Try being intellectually honest (if you can). Show us some evidence for your purported 'god' as a real entity. If you can demonstrate the existence of such a thing, then we can discuss whether or not it might exhibit intelligence.

 

[wilson]

OK, Mr. Keith & Co,
Goodbye.
I will present my ideas to someone else and I will not respond to anything you have to say.
How about that?

It's amazing to me why anyone would mock/insult and abuse someone with whom they disagree, and then expect to continue the discussion with them as if nothing has changed.

Welcome to the forum wilson.
There are plenty of interesting discussions to be had here with the many thoughtful and POLITE non-theists here.

Thanks for your welcome, Mr IRC.
I have no desire for verbal warfare and I will not be pushed into it. I seem to have incurred the title of "enemy" because I favor design. That is all it took. Whew!!
Anyway, here's a little situation I ran into recently:
I was asked: "What criteria has to be met in order for you to know that an object is designed?"
My answer:
It must be:
1..Necessary.
2. Planned.
3. Useful.
4. Modeled.
5. Functional.
6. Economical
7. Intentional.
8. Practical.
9. Superior.
10. Arranged.
11. Draftable.
12. Orderly.
13. A designated objective.
14. A designated purpose.
15. Having functions capable of imitation.
16. Worthy of imitation.

Then I asked my questioner: How do you know when an object is NOT designed?
I put this question to you now.
I truly would like a polite discussion without name-calling, labeling, insults and sarcasm. I will not respond to any abusive posts.
Thank you.

 

[bilby]

It's amazing to me why anyone would mock/insult and abuse someone with whom they disagree, and then expect to continue the discussion with them as if nothing has changed.

Welcome to the forum wilson.
There are plenty of interesting discussions to be had here with the many thoughtful and POLITE non-theists here.

Thanks for your welcome, Mr IRC.
I have no desire for verbal warfare and I will not be pushed into it. I seem to have incurred the title of "enemy" because I favor design. That is all it took. Whew!!
Anyway, here's a little situation I ran into recently:
I was asked: "What criteria has to be met in order for you to know that an object is designed?"
My answer:
It must be:
1..Necessary.

In what way is life 'necessary'?

2. Planned.

What evidence do you have that life or the universe is planned?

3. Useful.

How is life useful?

4. Modeled.

What evidence is there that life is 'modeled'?

5. Functional.

What is the function of the biosphere?

6. Economical

How is life 'economical'?

7. Intentional.

What evidence is there of intent?

8. Practical.

What is practical about the existence of life?

9. Superior.

To what is life superior? If life is necessary and superior and intentional, why is it limited in scope to so few planets (only one that we know of, out of the entire vast universe)?

10. Arranged.

What does this even mean in this context?

11. Draftable.

What does this mean in the context of life, or the universe?

12. Orderly.

There is very little that is LESS orderly than life.

13. A designated objective.

What objective does life have?

14. A designated purpose.

What is the purpose of life?

15. Having functions capable of imitation.

What has functions that are NOT capable of imitation?

16. Worthy of imitation.

What about the universe is worthy of imitation?

Then I asked my questioner: How do you know when an object is NOT designed?
I put this question to you now.
I truly would like a polite discussion without name-calling, labeling, insults and sarcasm. I will not respond to any abusive posts.
Thank you.

You know an object is not designed when it is possible to envisage how it arose through natural and unintelligent processes, and when there is no evidence of a designer or a purpose for the object.

If, like William Paley, you find a watch on a heath, it is immediately obvious that the watch is designed, as it appears distinct and different from all the surrounding natural objects. Mr Paley would never have remarked upon the watch, had the surrounding grass, wildflowers, beetles, bees, worms, rocks and soil also had the appearance of design - the watch is only remarkable in the context of a world that is clearly not the product of a designer.

 

[wilson]

Thanks for your welcome, Mr IRC.
I have no desire for verbal warfare and I will not be pushed into it. I seem to have incurred the title of "enemy" because I favor design. That is all it took. Whew!!
Anyway, here's a little situation I ran into recently:
I was asked: "What criteria has to be met in order for you to know that an object is designed?"
My answer:
It must be:
1..Necessary.

In what way is life 'necessary'?

2. Planned.

What evidence do you have that life or the universe is planned?

3. Useful.

How is life useful?

4. Modeled.

What evidence is there that life is 'modeled'?

5. Functional.

What is the function of the biosphere?

6. Economical

How is life 'economical'?

7. Intentional.

What evidence is there of intent?

8. Practical.

What is practical about the existence of life?

9. Superior.

To what is life superior? If life is necessary and superior and intentional, why is it limited in scope to so few planets (only one that we know of, out of the entire vast universe)?

10. Arranged.

What does this even mean in this context?

11. Draftable.

What does this mean in the context of life, or the universe?

12. Orderly.

There is very little that is LESS orderly than life.

13. A designated objective.

What objective does life have?

14. A designated purpose.

What is the purpose of life?

15. Having functions capable of imitation.

What has functions that are NOT capable of imitation?

16. Worthy of imitation.

What about the universe is worthy of imitation?

Sir,
1. Life is not an object.
2. That was how I answered the question. I was not asked for evidence and I am not making this a requirement for everyone.
Which of those responses is incorrect?

Then I asked my questioner: How do you know when an object is NOT designed?
I put this question to you now.
I truly would like a polite discussion without name-calling, labeling, insults and sarcasm. I will not respond to any abusive posts.
Thank you.

You know an object is not designed when it is possible to envisage how it arose through natural and unintelligent processes, and when there is no evidence of a designer or a purpose for the object.

"Envisage?" You mean like - imagine? You would know an object is not designed by possibilities and imagination? Just askin'.
If you were looking for evidence of a designer, what would you look for? How would you know that there is no evidence of a designer?

 

[bilby]

In what way is life 'necessary'?

2. Planned.

What evidence do you have that life or the universe is planned?

3. Useful.

How is life useful?

4. Modeled.

What evidence is there that life is 'modeled'?

5. Functional.

What is the function of the biosphere?

6. Economical

How is life 'economical'?

7. Intentional.

What evidence is there of intent?

8. Practical.

What is practical about the existence of life?

9. Superior.

To what is life superior? If life is necessary and superior and intentional, why is it limited in scope to so few planets (only one that we know of, out of the entire vast universe)?

10. Arranged.

What does this even mean in this context?

11. Draftable.

What does this mean in the context of life, or the universe?

12. Orderly.

There is very little that is LESS orderly than life.

13. A designated objective.

What objective does life have?

14. A designated purpose.

What is the purpose of life?

15. Having functions capable of imitation.

What has functions that are NOT capable of imitation?

16. Worthy of imitation.

What about the universe is worthy of imitation?

Sir,
1. Life is not an object.
2. That was how I answered the question. I was not asked for evidence and I am not making this a requirement for everyone.
Which of those responses is incorrect?

Then I asked my questioner: How do you know when an object is NOT designed?
I put this question to you now.
I truly would like a polite discussion without name-calling, labeling, insults and sarcasm. I will not respond to any abusive posts.
Thank you.

You know an object is not designed when it is possible to envisage how it arose through natural and unintelligent processes, and when there is no evidence of a designer or a purpose for the object.

"Envisage?" You mean like - imagine? You would know an object is not designed by possibilities and imagination? Just askin'.
If you were looking for evidence of a designer, what would you look for? How would you know that there is no evidence of a designer?

No, not 'imagine'; More like 'explain'.

The default position is that entities don't exist. When we find evidence of things that can only be explained by a particular entity, then we start to consider the possibility that they do, in fact, exist.

If there is any evidence of a designer, then I have yet to see it. So I assume it doesn't exist - for the same reason that I assume that unicorns, fairies, invisible elephants, flying rhinoceroses and an infinity of other un-evidenced entities I could imagine, don't exist.

If you have such evidence - some repeatable observation that can ONLY be explained by the existence of a designer - then please present it. That's how human knowledge advances. Lots of apparently crazy things have been shown to exist, by the simple fact that we cannot explain testable behaviours of the real world without their existence. Electrons are a crazy idea - little thingies carrying charge and mass that can tunnel through solid obstructions. But we know they exist, because without them, we can't explain how computers work; And we can easily test the fact that computers DO work - this very discussion is solid evidence of that.

A designer of the universe, and/or of human life is not evidenced; There are more parsimonious explanations for the existence of these things, that don't require a designer. And in the case of the universe, a designer is not only not a parsimonious answer to the question 'Why is there something, rather than nothing?' - 'it was made by a designer' isn't an answer to that question at all, because a designer is something, and so still requires explaining.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I seem to have incurred the title of "enemy" because I favor design.

Where did anyone use that title?
Does anyone know where wilson has been titled 'enemy?'
The only place i find the word in this thread is wilson's post or someone quoting wilson.

Seems like wilson was in a bit of a rush to be the offended party...

 

[wilson]

No, not 'imagine'; More like 'explain'.

You would know an object is not designed by an explanation?
I admit I am puzzled. So I must ask you again:
If you were looking for evidence of a designer, what would you look for? How would you know that there is no evidence of a designer?

The default position is that entities don't exist. When we find evidence of things that can only be explained by a particular entity, then we start to consider the possibility that they do, in fact, exist.
If there is any evidence of a designer, then I have yet to see it. So I assume it doesn't exist

Let me get this straight - are you saying that you would not look for evidence of a designer because you assume that it does not exist?
If you do not look, how would you know there is no evidence?
This just brings me back to the question: How do you know that an object is not designed?
I gave 16 reasons how I would know. So, which of my responses is incorrect?

A designer of the universe, and/or of human life is not evidenced; There are more parsimonious explanations for the existence of these things, that don't require a designer.

Could you name one of the things that don't "require a designer?"

And in the case of the universe, a designer is not only not a parsimonious answer to the question 'Why is there something, rather than nothing?' - 'it was made by a designer' isn't an answer to that question at all, because a designer is something, and so still requires explaining.

Why are you supplying answers to your own questions? You seem to be quite familiar with the topics you are commenting on and I commend you. But they are not a part of this discussion.
You know what my question is.
It is not helpful for you to supply answers to questions and issues that have not been introduced yet.

 

[bilby]

You would know an object is not designed by an explanation?
I admit I am puzzled. So I must ask you again:
If you were looking for evidence of a designer, what would you look for? How would you know that there is no evidence of a designer?

Because despite thousands of years of searching, nobody has ever found any. This is the same evidence that we have for unicorns and fairies. Do you think that those are real things? If not, then you understand my reasoning in deciding that the 'creator' isn't real - it's the exact same reasoning you use for unicorns.

The default position is that entities don't exist. When we find evidence of things that can only be explained by a particular entity, then we start to consider the possibility that they do, in fact, exist.
If there is any evidence of a designer, then I have yet to see it. So I assume it doesn't exist

Let me get this straight - are you saying that you would not look for evidence of a designer because you assume that it does not exist?

No, I am saying that having looked, and found no evidence of a designer, I am comfortable with the assumption that it doesn't exist.

If you do not look, how would you know there is no evidence?

I wouldn't. But I did, so I do.

This just brings me back to the question: How do you know that an object is not designed?
I gave 16 reasons how I would know. So, which of my responses is incorrect?

All of them, as I indicated by my questioning each of them. Questions that I note you have ignored.

A designer of the universe, and/or of human life is not evidenced; There are more parsimonious explanations for the existence of these things, that don't require a designer.

Could you name one of the things that don't "require a designer?"

Sure. The Sun doesn't require a designer. Just lots of Hydrogen, and some basic physics.

The number of things that DO require a designer is very small. Only things made by intelligent animals are designed; Tools used by apes (both human and non-human apes), birds, and a handful of other animals such as elephants, octopi, etc.

Physics gives rise to Chemistry; Chemistry (very occasionally) gives rise to to Biology; Biology (very occasionally) gives rise to Intelligence; intelligence gives rise to design. It is perverse to imagine design existing at the beginning of this long and time-consuming process; As far as we can tell, it takes about ten billion years for a largely hydrogen universe to produce enough heavier elements for serious amounts of Chemistry to happen; About another billion years for Chemistry to become sufficiently complex as to qualify as Biology; and then another 3 or 4 billion years for Biology to become sufficiently complex as to give rise to intelligence. The universe starts out very simple, and becomes more complex over time. Designed objects start out complex - and are created by designers that are even more complex than the objects they design.

Creationism is essentially the claim that the most complex possible entity - a God - spontaneously exists.

Science suggests the exact opposite - only the most simple entities (the Leptons, Quarks and Bosons of the standard model) spontaneously exist, and then through the action of simple and well understood natural laws, they give rise to more and more complexity.

And in the case of the universe, a designer is not only not a parsimonious answer to the question 'Why is there something, rather than nothing?' - 'it was made by a designer' isn't an answer to that question at all, because a designer is something, and so still requires explaining.

Why are you supplying answers to your own questions? You seem to be quite familiar with the topics you are commenting on and I commend you. But they are not a part of this discussion.
You know what my question is.
It is not helpful for you to supply answers to questions and issues that have not been introduced yet.

You are not the boss of me; If I want to ask a particular question, I shall do so, with or without your permission.

I think that this particular question - Why is there something, rather than nothing? - lies at the very heart of this topic, so there can be no more useful question than that one.

You are free to answer (or not) as you see fit. But as I said, 'God' or any other designer doesn't work as an answer to that question; So you need something else. My best guess is that mass/energy cannot be created nor destroyed, and that therefore the mass/energy of the universe has always existed in one form or another. But of course, I don't know - and nor do you.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I gave 16 reasons how I would know. So, which of my responses is incorrect?

No, you listed 16 qualities you associate with design. You did not provide any explanation for how one detects such things, nor give examples, nor provide any evidence for finding these qualities in anything.
Your responses are incomplete, and none require an effort to show they're incorrect.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I'm a creationist.
I think the Earth was created - deliberately, not accidentally.
And I kinda dislike the term 'intelligent' design.

Talk about being damned by faint praise.

There aren't words in human language that can even begin to express the mind power which designed the stuff we observe.
Little specs of carbon crawling around on a tiny planet i somewhere in a thing called 'space-time' arguing over whether God is 'intelligent'.

I thought you were Catholic?

 

[Keith&Co.]

I'm a creationist.
I think the Earth was created - deliberately, not accidentally.
And I kinda dislike the term 'intelligent' design.

Talk about being damned by faint praise.

There aren't words in human language that can even begin to express the mind power which designed the stuff we observe.
Little specs of carbon crawling around on a tiny planet i somewhere in a thing called 'space-time' arguing over whether God is 'intelligent'.

I thought you were Catholic?

They're not mutually exclusive.

 

[Lion IRC]

Another way of looking at this design issue is that we, as observers, can tell the difference between a sand dune and a sand sculpture.

It's not so much in the fact that we detect 'fine tuning' but that we detect a difference between fine tuning and the absence of fine tuning.

This -
View attachment 6747

and this -
View attachment 6748

 

[DrZoidberg]

I thought you were Catholic?

They're not mutually exclusive.

Aha... so you belong to the stupid design camp? God created the world but is an idiot, which explains why he did such a shitty job?