A Question for Creationists

[It Aint Necessarily So]

That's just classification preference and it proves nothing but scientists' willing ignorance of the obvious.

So if a scientist classifies humans as apes, it's just "classification preference" that proves nothing except "willing ignorance", but if you classify man separately, it's somehow something different.

Scientists cannot prove abiogenesis, big bang theory, macro-evolution or any of the many, many assumptions used in the "truth" of such theories that deny the obvious, that the Creator created.

Still with the proof thing? Scientists don't require or care about proof, which is seldom possible. They require compelling evidence, and their degree of belief is commensurate with the quality and quantity of supporting evidence.

Why do faith based thinkers, who generally lack even evidence for their beliefs, speak of proof to the rest of us?

Why do you offer arguments that you would not accept yourselves? Where is your proof of a god? I'm guessing that such proof is not necessary for you to believe. Is that honers? Is that good faith argumentation or special pleading?

because existence is an expression of design, there is the implication that there would be a "designer" of some sort.

Now we know why you use that word. The baggage of a designer that you realize is attached to it. In that case, I'll call it patterns. I prefer a less tendentious term.

"Design" doesn't carry any baggage, for me. Design is just design, it does not automatically mean there has to be a "designer".

Really? Maybe you'd better read your other posts.

 

[DavidFirth]

Still with the proof thing? Scientists don't require or care about proof, which is seldom possible.

Good to see you've realized scientists have faith, too. It's to bad they put their faith in each other's guessing games.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Still with the proof thing? Scientists don't require or care about proof, which is seldom possible.

Good to see you've realized scientists have faith, too. It's to bad they put their faith in each other's guessing games.

They don't have faith. You are making false statements about others, a clear violation of the Ninth Commandment and as a Christian you should know better. They have massive amounts of evidence. I have yet to meet a creationist that understands the nature of evidence. Would you care to learn?

 

[leibowde84]

Of course it "points to it". Which is why you are arguing with it. All this existential design begs the question of a "designer". That's why the atheists here are trying so hard to dismiss it as being something other than what it is.

When it gets right down to it everything that exists exists as an expression of energy. And that expression is being governed, i.e., limited but a set of parameters that determine the ways in which that energy can and cannot be expressed. And those parameters are the ultimate origin of 'existential design'.

We have no idea exactly how, what, or where those limiting parameters come from, but the question posed by them is unavoidable. It 'begs' to be answered because that answer will finally reveal to us how and why we exist.

I actually have heard this argument quite a bit, but there is a major aspect of it that I have never been able to get a straight answer on. Maybe you can help me out with one.

Where do you get the idea that the parameters had to be "put in place" rather than merely being a description of how matter behaves in our universe? It seems like you are assuming that these parameters are rules that were created, but where are you getting that from?

For example, one parameter is that water freezes at 32 degrees fahrenheit. Are you suggesting that is a rule created by some entity? Why wouldn't it just be an observation of how water molecules behave at certain temperatures?

When I look at these parameters, I see no logical reason to believe they were created by anyone or anything. They are merely a way of describing how matter behaves in certain conditions. There is no reason to have some designer when parameters can be completely natural descriptions/observations.

 

[leibowde84]

Of course it "points to it". Which is why you are arguing with it. All this existential design begs the question of a "designer". That's why the atheists here are trying so hard to dismiss it as being something other than what it is.

When it gets right down to it everything that exists exists as an expression of energy. And that expression is being governed, i.e., limited but a set of parameters that determine the ways in which that energy can and cannot be expressed. And those parameters are the ultimate origin of 'existential design'.

We have no idea exactly how, what, or where those limiting parameters come from, but the question posed by them is unavoidable. It 'begs' to be answered because that answer will finally reveal to us how and why we exist.

Just to simplify, can you provide an example of one of these parameters that you believe couldn't have come about without some designer?

 

[leibowde84]

That's just classification preference and it proves nothing but scientists' willing ignorance of the obvious.

Nope, wrong again. The term "great ape" is a man-made term describing a certain taxonomic family of primates, of which we are included. It is a classification based on nearly insurmountable evidence. Beyond mere preference and you opinion about intelligence somehow contradicting the idea that we are primates, do you have any evidence that shows conclusively that we are not primates or part of the great ape family?

 

[leibowde84]

Scientists are the problem, not science itself. How one interprets evidence has everything to do with their own personal bias and preferences.

Scientists cannot prove abiogenesis, big bang theory, macro-evolution or any of the many, many assumptions used in the "truth" of such theories that deny the obvious, that the Creator created.

Yet you cannot come up with any verifiable, empirical evidence that shows a creator is necessary?

 

[Jose Fly]

We have no idea. However, because existence is an expression of design, there is the implication that there would be a "designer" of some sort. It is this implication that atheists are working SO HARD at trying to deny and dispel, even though the implication does not rise to the level of proof.

It seems to me that your framework is rather circular in that it assumes its conclusion.

 

[Jose Fly]

They don't have faith. You are making false statements about others, a clear violation of the Ninth Commandment and as a Christian you should know better.

He's exhibiting the sort of simplistic binary thinking that is typical of fundamentalists. He can only envision two possibilities.....something is either 100% proven, or it's just a belief that requires faith.

 

[leibowde84]

We have no idea. However, because existence is an expression of design, there is the implication that there would be a "designer" of some sort. It is this implication that atheists are working SO HARD at trying to deny and dispel, even though the implication does not rise to the level of proof.

Where do you get the idea that existence is an expression of design? That is a very large leap, so what evidence are you basing this on?

 

[PureX]

Where do you get the idea that the parameters had to be "put in place" rather than merely being a description of how matter behaves in our universe?

Matter is a complex expression of energy. The elemental quantum 'particles' that create matter are basically differentiated energy phenomena. What we don't know is why energy expresses itself through these differentiated phenomena, and not through any other. Something within, or innate to the "energy" (whatever that is, as we really have no idea) is dictating how it can and cannot express itself, and under what conditions. And these limitations are providing the "design parameters" for everything that exists as we recognize and experience existence.

The origin of all this 'energy', and of the limitations through which this energy is able, and unable, to express itself, is the 'first cause' of everything that is. It is the elemental "design" from which all other natural design originates.

It seems like you are assuming that these parameters are rules that were created, but where are you getting that from?

It is the elemental question of origin. Existential design, itself, begs us to ask that question.

For example, one parameter is that water freezes at 32 degrees fahrenheit. Are you suggesting that is a rule created by some entity? Why wouldn't it just be an observation of how water molecules behave at certain temperatures?

Water molecules behave as they do for a reason. And that reason is because they were 'designed' to behave that way by the elemental energy forces that generate them. Which begs the question, how did those forces originate? Ignoring the question doesn't make it irrelevant, or make it go away. Because we humans were 'designed' to ask it. And ask it, we do.

When I look at these parameters, I see no logical reason to believe they were created by anyone or anything.

Our 'ignorance' does not define reality, though. So what we don't see or don't understand does not make it cease to exist. Or to have an effect on us just the same.

They are merely a way of describing how matter behaves in certain conditions. There is no reason to have some designer when parameters can be completely natural descriptions/observations.

Like it or not, the fact that existence exists, and exists as it does, begs the question of how, and why. Closing your eyes and ears and mind to these questions won't make them go away. We humans were created to ask just such questions as these.

 

[PureX]

Just to simplify, can you provide an example of one of these parameters that you believe couldn't have come about without some designer?

No, we humans do not know what they are, or what is causing (enforcing) them. String theory postulates that 'energy' is made up of vibrating 'strings'. The rate of 'vibration' then determining how each of these strings manifests, phenomenally. An up-quark being the phenomena manifested by a string vibrating at a specific frequency, a down-quark being the phenomena manifested by a string vibrating at another frequency, and so on. But it's just a theory. We really have no idea what energy is, or why it manifests as the elemental 'particles' (phenomena) that it does.

To understand this is presumed to be the "Holy Grail" of quantum physics: the T.O.E (theory of everything). The scientific theory that finally explains all other existential phenomena.

 

[PureX]

It seems to me that your framework is rather circular in that it assumes its conclusion.

Design implies the result to be the intent. Yes. But this is not my logic. It's just the way it is, viewed logically.

It is my experience that the closer we get to the truth of what is, the more paradoxical it appears to us. And that's due to a weakness in the way we humans cognate our experience of reality. Not to any flaw in reality, itself.

 

[FearGod]

When we compare human DNA with the DNA of chimps and bonobos, we see 98-99% similarity. When we compare with other apes, such as gorillas, slightly less, and slightly less still for orangutans and other monkeys (if my memory is correct). The similarities decrease when we look at other mammals to around 80-something percent for dogs and maybe around 70-ish for mice (these are rough figures from my memory, but the general idea is correct). As we move toward other taxonomic groups of animals other than other mammals, we see increasingly less similarity. In other words, DNA analysis is confirming previous assumptions about genetic relationships based upon morphology (appearance). How can you reconcile this data with intelligent design? Genetic similarities clearly indicate common ancestry, with closer genetic relationships (higher percentage of DNA in common) indicating more recent common ancestry, and lower percentages of DNA in common indicating more distant common ancestry. All of this makes perfect sense under evolutionary theory, but no sense at all if species were intelligently designed.

DNA similarities doesn't prove anything, it doesn't prove a designer or accidental events, but still
a designer is much closer to be the case.

 

[PureX]

Where do you get the idea that existence is an expression of design? That is a very large leap, so what evidence are you basing this on?

Where do you get the idea that it's not. If existence was not an expression of design, it could not generate any result but chaos.

 

[leibowde84]

Design implies the result to be the intent. Yes. But this is not my logic. It's just the way it is, viewed logically.

It is my experience that the closer we get to the truth of what is, the more paradoxical it appears to us. And that's due to a weakness in the way we humans cognate our experience of reality. Not to any flaw in reality, itself.

You ARE assuming that existence is an expression of design. That is why your argument seems to be circular. Can you prove that, or is it just speculation?

 

[PureX]

You ARE assuming that existence is an expression of design. That is why your argument seems to be circular. Can you prove that, or is it just speculation?

It's self-evident. You're just refusing to see it. That's why you think it's a circular tautology. But there's no point is debating it with you.

 

[leibowde84]

It's self-evident. You're just refusing to see it. That's why you think it's a circular tautology. But there's no point is debating it with you.

I'm asking for your reasoning. If it is self-evident, it should be very easy for you to prove it is true. It's not like "self-evident" means that you aren't able to explain something.

 

[leibowde84]

It's self-evident. You're just refusing to see it. That's why you think it's a circular tautology. But there's no point is debating it with you.

Btw, I would appreciate it if you did not speak for me, make assumptions about me, or accuse me of refusing to see anything. I am politely and respectfully asking you to support your claim that "existence is an expression of design". If you can provide one, please do so. If you are unable to, please be honest and admit that.

 

[Jose Fly]

Design implies the result to be the intent. Yes. But this is not my logic. It's just the way it is, viewed logically.

It is my experience that the closer we get to the truth of what is, the more paradoxical it appears to us. And that's due to a weakness in the way we humans cognate our experience of reality. Not to any flaw in reality, itself.

Thanks for your time.