I have now met a real life creationist.

[wilson]

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.

A designed object is an arranged object - would you agree?
When you were looking for evidence of design, were you looking for any arrangements? This is vital.
If you were washed up on an isolated island and you wanted to know if it was inhabited in the past of at present what would you look for? Perhaps logs or branches arranged in such a way that you could tell that it used to be, or is, living quarters? Burnt pieces of wood arranged in a circle, all pointing inwards tells you that a fire had been lit there.
Those are evidences that does not need the presence of living individuals.

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 sun is an arrangement - is it not? And it is a vital arrangement, too. It serves many purposes and does not wander off burning things up and causing others to freeze. In other words it operates according to a magnificient arrangement.

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.

Would you say that a tree is an arrangement consisting of different parts with different purposes that all work harmoniously together? Without trees, would the apes and birds and elephants and octopi, etc be able to exist on earth? If your answer is "no," then the arrangement works.
Please note # 10 in my list of reasons for recognizing design.
ANY arrangement is evidence of design.

 

[blastula]

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

But you believe the sand in both is designed.

 

[Lion IRC]

God designed the number of hairs on your head.

 

[wilson]

God designed the number of hairs on your head.

Mr. IRC, Your illustration of the sand is quite appropriate.
A pile of sugar spilled from a dropped cup is not arranged. A circle of 5 spilled cups of sugar is an arrangement.
If those who search for evidence of a designer would look for arrangements that humans could not have accomplished, they would see that evidence all around them. They were just looking for the wrong things.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The sun is an arrangement - is it not? And it is a vital arrangement, too. It serves many purposes and does not wander off burning things up and causing others to freeze. In other words it operates according to a magnificient arrangement.

So, the sun appears to be designed because it doesn't burn things it's not 'supposed' to.
On the other hand, just yesterday I read about the Himalayan Salt Lamp,
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01N34RJFF/ref=?tag=natdee-20
80,000 of these lamps have been recalled because they overheat and cause fires.
But most of the things on my desk are designed BUT have not burst into flames...

And my son threw out a butane lighter last night because it never worked to start fires when he needed it...

So, designed things do and do not burn things they're not supposed to, and they do and do not burn things they're supposed to. Meaning that it's not a quality that's of the slightest use in determining if things are or are not designed.

 

[DrZoidberg]

God designed the number of hairs on your head.

Or it's Mandelbrot fractals that designed it? It's the pattern you get if you leave design to the mechanics of evolution, ie no designer. Saying that it's because of that God wanted it that way is like saying that God buried all the dinosaur bones to confuse us.

Every example creationists point to as evidence of design is, if you dig a little, an even better example of why it's just the forces of evolution at work. There's just so many ways God could have designed it if he started from scratch. But he didn't. He started with a microbe in a puddle of water and then changed that incrementally to create all life. Why the complicated convoluted process? If he's so good, why didn't he just jump to the best design immediately? A design that doesn't lead 75% to wear glasses? Yup, the number really is that high. Why? The design is idiotic. At this point engineers are way way ahead of God. Today we could do a much better job. Any camera in any smart phone is leaps and bounds better than the crap you have in your head.

If life really is created by God, why is he trying so damn hard to fool us into believing that it's the result of random changes plus natural selection? So even if life is designed by God, shouldn't you obey God's wishes and not believe it's designed? He clearly doesn't want you to be a creationist.

 

[James Brown]

It would be possible to construct the sand dune in such a way that it is indistinguishable from a naturally-occurring sand dune. As far as a third party is concerned, the artificial dune is a product of nature.

But how do we determine that nature itself, as a whole, is designed? One might compare a sand dune to a sand sculpture and reasonably decide which one is designed. But to what do we compare the universe to make the same distinction?

 

[Learner]

God designed the number of hairs on your head.

Or it's Mandelbrot fractals that designed it? It's the pattern you get if you leave design to the mechanics of evolution, ie no designer. Saying that it's because of that God wanted it that way is like saying that God buried all the dinosaur bones to confuse us.

Mechanics - of - evolution. Yes it does seem to walk and quack like the mechanics of a duck in a manner of speaking. What an apt and discriptive name for a still 'unkown origin' process. Patterns appearing because its 'natural'. Natural what? A continously lucky shots and still existing ordered natural ?

Every example creationists point to as evidence of design is, if you dig a little, an even better example of why it's just the forces of evolution at work. There's just so many ways God could have designed it if he started from scratch. But he didn't. He started with a microbe in a puddle of water and then changed that incrementally to create all life.

Surely digging into why forces of evolution works this way in the first place could tell you more precisely if there is design or not.

Why the complicated convoluted process? If he's so good, why didn't he just jump to the best design immediately? A design that doesn't lead 75% to wear glasses? Yup, the number really is that high. Why? The design is idiotic. At this point engineers are way way ahead of God. Today we could do a much better job. Any camera in any smart phone is leaps and bounds better than the crap you have in your head.

Ahh yes but does the camera repair itself when its damaged? Can we make a camera with simple elements like water carbon and all the other 'abundant' elements as in the human body without making everything metalic..plastic..etc more expensive harmful to the environment when no longer in use?

If life really is created by God, why is he trying so damn hard to fool us into believing that it's the result of random changes plus natural selection? So even if life is designed by God, shouldn't you obey God's wishes and not believe it's designed? He clearly doesn't want you to be a creationist.

We could stop looking in the same old place

 

[wilson]

God designed the number of hairs on your head.

Or it's Mandelbrot fractals that designed it? It's the pattern you get if you leave design to the mechanics of evolution, ie no designer. Saying that it's because of that God wanted it that way is like saying that God buried all the dinosaur bones to confuse us.

Every example creationists point to as evidence of design is, if you dig a little, an even better example of why it's just the forces of evolution at work. There's just so many ways God could have designed it if he started from scratch. But he didn't. He started with a microbe in a puddle of water and then changed that incrementally to create all life. Why the complicated convoluted process? If he's so good, why didn't he just jump to the best design immediately? A design that doesn't lead 75% to wear glasses? Yup, the number really is that high. Why? The design is idiotic. At this point engineers are way way ahead of God. Today we could do a much better job. Any camera in any smart phone is leaps and bounds better than the crap you have in your head.

If life really is created by God, why is he trying so damn hard to fool us into believing that it's the result of random changes plus natural selection? So even if life is designed by God, shouldn't you obey God's wishes and not believe it's designed? He clearly doesn't want you to be a creationist.

So far, we have not been able to deny that the sun, the trees, the water, etc, all exist and operate according to arrangement. ANY arrangement is evidence of design.
Are we now trying to rationalize the discovery that design does exist and guessing at the motives of the designer?

 

[wilson]

It would be possible to construct the sand dune in such a way that it is indistinguishable from a naturally-occurring sand dune. As far as a third party is concerned, the artificial dune is a product of nature.

But how do we determine that nature itself, as a whole, is designed? One might compare a sand dune to a sand sculpture and reasonably decide which one is designed. But to what do we compare the universe to make the same distinction?

Nature itself is an elaborate arrangement that operates in one direction. It cannot be reversed, transgressed nor ignored. Its laws keep that arrangement in place despite the passing of time and anything else. The laws also enable different aspects to co-operate with each other making the orderliness evident.
Every object in nature is part of that arrangement and nothing can be found that does not fit in with it.
Humans can criticize the designer, but they cannot escape the design.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So far, we have not been able to deny that the sun, the trees, the water, etc, all exist and operate according to arrangement.

NO, no one has.
I don't think anyone's tried.
Arrangements are all over the place.
You've yet to prove that arrangements are significant, though.

ANY arrangement is evidence of design.

So you assert, then dodge any responsibility for supporting this assertion.

Why would we believe this to be true?

Are we now trying to rationalize the discovery that design does exist and guessing at the motives of the designer?

No.
We're asking you to support your claims which are not as 'self evident' as you'd like to believe.

 

[wilson]

Ya, nobody has much of a problem with the design argument beyond the fact that the arguments put forward for it are shit. The fact that they tend to be Christian arguments instead of Hindu arguments isn't relevant to the fact that they're just bad arguments which don't actually lead to the conclusions which creationists claim that they do.

What you should really do is try and trick us by telling us that they're Islamic arguments and then our white, liberal guilt will force us to concede that they're valid without looking into them because doing so would be racist of us.

You should find this interesting:
Who Made It?

"Sir Isaac Newton had a friend who, like himself was a scientist. Newton was a Christian and loved the Lord Jesus Christ. However, his friend was not a Christian. He didn't even believe that there was a God! Newton had spoken to his friend many times about how God had created a wonderful universe. Each time, though, his friend would shake his head saying, "No," and reply that the universe "just happened."

Newton had finished the design of a scale model of our solar system. A very skilled craftsman then built it from Newton's plans. In the center was a large ball made of brass which represented the sun. Revolving around this sun were smaller balls attached to spokes of different lengths. These balls represented the planets, and the spokes placed them at the proper distances from the sun. All of these balls, representing Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune, were in their proper order. (Today we know that the planet Pluto is also in our solar system, but Newton did not know this.) These balls were all geared together so that when a crank on the front was turned, they all moved in their orbits around the sun.

One day Newton was in his study reading when his friend came to visit him. His friend saw the model and instantly recognized what it was. As he slowly cranked the model he studied it closely. He said to Newton, "This is tremendous! Who made it?"

"Nobody," Newton answered without looking up from his book.

His friend turned to him with a confused look and said, "You must not have heard me. I asked, 'Who made this wonderful model?'"

Looking up, Newton said with a perfectly straight face, "Nobody made it. Those balls and gears just appeared and put themselves together!"

His friend, now quite upset, said, "You must think I'm a fool! Of course somebody made this! He's a genius, and I'd like to meet him!"

Newton set his book aside and slowly walked across the room to his friend. As they stood in front of the model, Newton explained to his friend, "This model is just a poor imitation of our wonderful universe. You know the laws and the precise order which govern our universe. I can't seem to convince you that this model, this toy, does not have a designer or a maker. However, you have said many times that the solar system, which this model represents, 'just happened.' Now tell me, is that the logical conclusion of a scientist?" http://www.wholesomewords.org/children/creation/whomadit.html
Whether or not the story is true, it makes a valid point.

 

[Angry Floof]

And completely ignores the assumption that there must be a who to do anything, in spite of the observable fact that innumerable things happen in nature without anyone around to decide that it should happen or how or when.

Is it really that scary to think creation is not an event of the past but happening always now, everywhere, all the time, with no one in charge? What is the objection to this, other than it doesn't confirm the religious beliefs? To me, it's clear that no one is in charge of creation and that humans like authority even though it's a construct that has no use or meaning outside of human endeavor.

I understand the desire for security. I'm the poster child for chronic anxiety. But this doesn't scare me. In fact, I find it wicked brilliant and beautiful, and comforting even.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ya, nobody has much of a problem with the design argument beyond the fact that the arguments put forward for it are shit. The fact that they tend to be Christian arguments instead of Hindu arguments isn't relevant to the fact that they're just bad arguments which don't actually lead to the conclusions which creationists claim that they do.

What you should really do is try and trick us by telling us that they're Islamic arguments and then our white, liberal guilt will force us to concede that they're valid without looking into them because doing so would be racist of us.

You should find this interesting:
Who Made It?

"Sir Isaac Newton had a friend who, like himself was a scientist. Newton was a Christian and loved the Lord Jesus Christ. However, his friend was not a Christian. He didn't even believe that there was a God! Newton had spoken to his friend many times about how God had created a wonderful universe. Each time, though, his friend would shake his head saying, "No," and reply that the universe "just happened."

Newton had finished the design of a scale model of our solar system. A very skilled craftsman then built it from Newton's plans. In the center was a large ball made of brass which represented the sun. Revolving around this sun were smaller balls attached to spokes of different lengths. These balls represented the planets, and the spokes placed them at the proper distances from the sun. All of these balls, representing Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune, were in their proper order. (Today we know that the planet Pluto is also in our solar system, but Newton did not know this.) These balls were all geared together so that when a crank on the front was turned, they all moved in their orbits around the sun.

One day Newton was in his study reading when his friend came to visit him. His friend saw the model and instantly recognized what it was. As he slowly cranked the model he studied it closely. He said to Newton, "This is tremendous! Who made it?"

"Nobody," Newton answered without looking up from his book.

His friend turned to him with a confused look and said, "You must not have heard me. I asked, 'Who made this wonderful model?'"

Looking up, Newton said with a perfectly straight face, "Nobody made it. Those balls and gears just appeared and put themselves together!"

His friend, now quite upset, said, "You must think I'm a fool! Of course somebody made this! He's a genius, and I'd like to meet him!"

Newton set his book aside and slowly walked across the room to his friend. As they stood in front of the model, Newton explained to his friend, "This model is just a poor imitation of our wonderful universe. You know the laws and the precise order which govern our universe. I can't seem to convince you that this model, this toy, does not have a designer or a maker. However, you have said many times that the solar system, which this model represents, 'just happened.' Now tell me, is that the logical conclusion of a scientist?" http://www.wholesomewords.org/children/creation/whomadit.html
Whether or not the story is true, it makes a valid point.

Well, it makes a point. Whether or not it's a valid one is a different question.

The universe and the things within it have certain rules by which they operate. The existence of these rules and the behaviours which result from them do not, in and of themselves, imply that therefore there was a conscious decision made to set up these rules. Stuff has to work in some manner, so the discovery that there is a manner by which they operate doesn't tell us anything about how this came about.

For instance, why do the planets orbit in ovals instead of circles? Why are planets different sizes and compositions instead of being standardized? What's the purpose of having a lifeless, super-heated hunk of rock like Mercury or a chunk of ice like Pluto? What was the thinking behind having an asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter instead of another planet? Why can't humans live and breathe on any of these planets other than Earth without technological assistance? If there was a conscious decision being made behind every one of these design decisions, then they all have a clear and straightforward answer which help us further understand what it was that the designer was going for when he created the solar system. If there's not and they're just the end result of whatever blind and random physical rules are behind solar system formations, then they're just interesting pieces of data without any meaning in and of themselves and just give us insight into the process itself.

The universe is a big place with a lot of complexity. All the various parts of it need to work and interact somehow. That means that pointing to the fact that there is a way which they work and interact doesn't tell us anything about a conscious design or lack thereof behind things. Finding a design behind the solar system would involve the answer to questions such as "We need Mercury where it is because of X and the solar system wouldn't be working as well without it there" and "The asteroid belt needs to be where it is because of Y and the solar system wouldn't be working as well without it there". Design means that there is a purpose behind the various processes which make them superior to any other potential processes, not simply that there are things and processes which exist.

 

[funinspace]

Ya, nobody has much of a problem with the design argument beyond the fact that the arguments put forward for it are shit. The fact that they tend to be Christian arguments instead of Hindu arguments isn't relevant to the fact that they're just bad arguments which don't actually lead to the conclusions which creationists claim that they do.

What you should really do is try and trick us by telling us that they're Islamic arguments and then our white, liberal guilt will force us to concede that they're valid without looking into them because doing so would be racist of us.

You should find this interesting:
Who Made It?

"Sir Isaac Newton <fable>"
http://www.wholesomewords.org/children/creation/whomadit.html
Whether or not the story is true, it makes a valid point.

Not really interesting or a valid point, but it does sound a made up story Christians tell themselves. I'd be impressed if one could find a reputable source for its origin, as Isaac Newton is quite well documented.

Newton also had issues with atypical trinitarian dogma. Got to learn something looking around for your fable...
http://www.credenda.org/index.php/Theology/isaac-newton-on-the-trinity-hypothesis.html

He also embraced the straightforwardly biblical position that the Father and Son are one. What Newton did not believe, however, was that the Father and Son were one in the sense that they were consubstantial or of the same substance. According to Newton, the Father and Son were one, but this unity was not a metaphysical unity; rather, it was one of dominion and purpose.

 

[Malintent]

Ya, nobody has much of a problem with the design argument beyond the fact that the arguments put forward for it are shit. The fact that they tend to be Christian arguments instead of Hindu arguments isn't relevant to the fact that they're just bad arguments which don't actually lead to the conclusions which creationists claim that they do.

What you should really do is try and trick us by telling us that they're Islamic arguments and then our white, liberal guilt will force us to concede that they're valid without looking into them because doing so would be racist of us.

You should find this interesting:
Who Made It?

"Sir Isaac Newton had a friend who, like himself was a scientist. Newton was a Christian and loved the Lord Jesus Christ. However, his friend was not a Christian. He didn't even believe that there was a God! Newton had spoken to his friend many times about how God had created a wonderful universe. Each time, though, his friend would shake his head saying, "No," and reply that the universe "just happened."

Newton had finished the design of a scale model of our solar system. A very skilled craftsman then built it from Newton's plans. In the center was a large ball made of brass which represented the sun. Revolving around this sun were smaller balls attached to spokes of different lengths. These balls represented the planets, and the spokes placed them at the proper distances from the sun. All of these balls, representing Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune, were in their proper order. (Today we know that the planet Pluto is also in our solar system, but Newton did not know this.) These balls were all geared together so that when a crank on the front was turned, they all moved in their orbits around the sun.

One day Newton was in his study reading when his friend came to visit him. His friend saw the model and instantly recognized what it was. As he slowly cranked the model he studied it closely. He said to Newton, "This is tremendous! Who made it?"

"Nobody," Newton answered without looking up from his book.

His friend turned to him with a confused look and said, "You must not have heard me. I asked, 'Who made this wonderful model?'"

Looking up, Newton said with a perfectly straight face, "Nobody made it. Those balls and gears just appeared and put themselves together!"

His friend, now quite upset, said, "You must think I'm a fool! Of course somebody made this! He's a genius, and I'd like to meet him!"

Newton set his book aside and slowly walked across the room to his friend. As they stood in front of the model, Newton explained to his friend, "This model is just a poor imitation of our wonderful universe. You know the laws and the precise order which govern our universe. I can't seem to convince you that this model, this toy, does not have a designer or a maker. However, you have said many times that the solar system, which this model represents, 'just happened.' Now tell me, is that the logical conclusion of a scientist?" http://www.wholesomewords.org/children/creation/whomadit.html
Whether or not the story is true, it makes a valid point.

Newton suffered from the same misconceptions that ID proponents today share.

This "friend" should have asked Newton to point to the gears (and the manufacturing marks on the cobbled together gears and spokes) that holds the Earth and other planets in their orbits.

It is like saying that a leather glove stuffed with cotton is proof that the human hand was designed.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Or it's Mandelbrot fractals that designed it? It's the pattern you get if you leave design to the mechanics of evolution, ie no designer. Saying that it's because of that God wanted it that way is like saying that God buried all the dinosaur bones to confuse us.

Mechanics - of - evolution. Yes it does seem to walk and quack like the mechanics of a duck in a manner of speaking. What an apt and discriptive name for a still 'unkown origin' process. Patterns appearing because its 'natural'. Natural what? A continously lucky shots and still existing ordered natural ?

But it's not unknown. It's not lucky shots. We figured out why these patterns form in the 70'ies. It's simply because the sun keeps adding energy to the system. If you keep adding sun to the system and you will have patterns in response to this. It's the same in mineral chrystals forming pretty patterns around hot vents under the sea. It's because the hot vents keep adding energy.

So if it walks like a duck (ToE) and quack like a duck (ToE) then it's probably ToE. No God to be found.

Every example creationists point to as evidence of design is, if you dig a little, an even better example of why it's just the forces of evolution at work. There's just so many ways God could have designed it if he started from scratch. But he didn't. He started with a microbe in a puddle of water and then changed that incrementally to create all life.

Surely digging into why forces of evolution works this way in the first place could tell you more precisely if there is design or not.

Exactly. And biologists haven't been lazy this century. No God or design to be found anywhere.

Why the complicated convoluted process? If he's so good, why didn't he just jump to the best design immediately? A design that doesn't lead 75% to wear glasses? Yup, the number really is that high. Why? The design is idiotic. At this point engineers are way way ahead of God. Today we could do a much better job. Any camera in any smart phone is leaps and bounds better than the crap you have in your head.

Ahh yes but does the camera repair itself when its damaged? Can we make a camera with simple elements like water carbon and all the other 'abundant' elements as in the human body without making everything metalic..plastic..etc more expensive harmful to the environment when no longer in use?

So what? It's still a shitty basic design. Your God is supposed to be omnipotent. Pesky things like the laws of nature shouldn't hamper an omnipotent God to fuck it up. Yet, fuck it up he did.

Also, we're right at the cusp of creating artificial life. Come back in 20 years and science will do this easy.

If life really is created by God, why is he trying so damn hard to fool us into believing that it's the result of random changes plus natural selection? So even if life is designed by God, shouldn't you obey God's wishes and not believe it's designed? He clearly doesn't want you to be a creationist.

We could stop looking in the same old place

So teachings of Rael?

 

[Keith&Co.]

"Sir Isaac Newton had a friend who, like himself was a scientist. Newton was a Christian and loved the Lord Jesus Christ. However, his friend was not a Christian. He didn't even believe that there was a God!

Can't help but noting this story doesn't identify the 'friend.' Like all those other oft-told theist myths about students in some nameless university, or a believer facing off with some nameless 'famous scientist' at a lecture.

It's also interesting that this story is also told, almost exactly, as happening to Benjamin Franklin.

And sometimes other great minds.

And sometimes, the 'atheist' is converted by the story's end, but not always.

 

[wilson]

You should find this interesting:
Who Made It?

"Sir Isaac Newton <fable>"
http://www.wholesomewords.org/children/creation/whomadit.html
Whether or not the story is true, it makes a valid point.

Not really interesting or a valid point, but it does sound a made up story Christians tell themselves.

I left room for that possibility, but the point is made.

I'd be impressed if one could find a reputable source for its origin, as Isaac Newton is quite well documented.

I don't care about the source - the point is made.

Newton also had issues with atypical trinitarian dogma.

I do too - but the point is made.

Got to learn something looking around for your fable...
http://www.credenda.org/index.php/Theology/isaac-newton-on-the-trinity-hypothesis.html

He also embraced the straightforwardly biblical position that the Father and Son are one. What Newton did not believe, however, was that the Father and Son were one in the sense that they were consubstantial or of the same substance. According to Newton, the Father and Son were one, but this unity was not a metaphysical unity; rather, it was one of dominion and purpose.

Even if you could prove that Newton was a lunatic, the point is made.

 

[wilson]

Also, we're right at the cusp of creating artificial life. Come back in 20 years and science will do this easy.

That would only prove that life was created.