Are Creationists the Great Pretenders?

[wellwisher]

In the bible, man was created in God's image. Image does not mean a photographic likeness, since all humans look slightly different. Rather image has to do with natural human propensities, common to all humans. God is spirit and not matter. Whereas, human propensities is part of human spirit common to all.

If you look at humans and civilization, the human approach for engineering and construction is based on a logical plan. It is not a random schema. You plan first in your mind, and then on paper, where you do your calculations. Then you get approval from the zoning board. Finally, the plan materializes within reality.

Man in the image of God, would imply that God does creation in the same basic way and that man copies this approach. God broods; imagines and plans on paper, then he builds; let their be light. The foundation of civilization is based on creating, planning, peer reviewing, and then implementing. This is the overall approach of Genesis, with the details being an early prototype for planning; civilization.

The atheist approach is to use an underlying mechanism, that plays the role of God but without any personification. This mechanism is based on statistics and randomness, to help create life or build planets. If man was created in the image of this God; the god of random, we would have no plan, but we would go right to production on a whim, with the hope something will work, someday. Many empirical experiments use this approach. However, Civilization would not exist with this schema, alone. It is too slow and unreliable.

The paradox is the pseudo god of random, which is the natural mechanism used to explain how unique things come to be, was able to create a human race, that is able to plan. This is part of the atheist mythology, where the natural creation, from random, called man, supersedes the god of random. Man can plan, test and build, all based on knowledge of the laws of physics and directed choice. This is better than random; man becomes better than a god of random, and improves the flaws of god's creation; QC.

The problem is if you use a god of random, to explain natural choices at cross roads; first replicators, then perception of reality conceptually becomes based on more than one alternative or one theory. We can make up any last random step you need and then based on prestige and resources, it can fly, even if it is not real.

Random makes it possible for more than one theory to be possible, as is the case of physics; string theory, standard and wave theories. This is a dissociated universe, which is a product of a dissociated mind. Again this is another way to pretend to be a god; using alternate realities. This is an atheist past time.

The bible only allows for one plan and one theory, based on an original schema that had been planned and approved even before construction. It follows from fundamental laws already in place that make peer review possible. This is better for the human mind and civilization, since it converges humanity toward a single truth and goal, where the results work all the time.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

In the bible, man was created in God's image. Image does not mean a photographic likeness, since all humans look slightly different. Rather image has to do with natural human propensities, common to all humans. God is spirit and not matter. Whereas, human propensities is part of human spirit common to all.

If you look at humans and civilization, the human approach for engineering and construction is based on a logical plan. It is not a random schema. You plan first in your mind, and then on paper, where you do your calculations. Then you get approval from the zoning board. Finally, the plan materializes within reality.

Man in the image of God, would imply that God does creation in the same basic way and that man copies this approach. God broods; imagines and plans on paper, then he builds; let their be light. The foundation of civilization is based on creating, planning, peer reviewing, and then implementing. This is the overall approach of Genesis, with the details being an early prototype for planning; civilization.

The atheist approach is to use an underlying mechanism, that plays the role of God but without any personification. This mechanism is based on statistics and randomness, to help create life or build planets. If man was created in the image of this God; the god of random, we would have no plan, but we would go right to production on a whim, with the hope something will work, someday. Many empirical experiments use this approach. However, Civilization would not exist with this schema, alone. It is too slow and unreliable.

The paradox is the pseudo god of random, which is the natural mechanism used to explain how unique things come to be, was able to create a human race, that is able to plan. This is part of the atheist mythology, where the natural creation, from random, called man, supersedes the god of random. Man can plan, test and build, all based on knowledge of the laws of physics and directed choice. This is better than random; man becomes better than a god of random, and improves the flaws of god's creation; QC.

The problem is if you use a god of random, to explain natural choices at cross roads; first replicators, then perception of reality conceptually becomes based on more than one alternative or one theory. We can make up any last random step you need and then based on prestige and resources, it can fly, even if it is not real.

Random makes it possible for more than one theory to be possible, as is the case of physics; string theory, standard and wave theories. This is a dissociated universe, which is a product of a dissociated mind. Again this is another way to pretend to be a god; using alternate realities. This is an atheist past time.

The bible only allows for one plan and one theory, based on an original schema that had been planned and approved even before construction. It follows from fundamental laws already in place that make peer review possible. This is better for the human mind and civilization, since it converges humanity toward a single truth and goal, where the results work all the time.

You do realize that randomness isn't the only force operating in nature, right?

 

[Audie]

In the bible, man was created in God's image. Image does not mean a photographic likeness, since all humans look slightly different. Rather image has to do with natural human propensities, common to all humans. God is spirit and not matter. Whereas, human propensities is part of human spirit common to all.

If you look at humans and civilization, the human approach for engineering and construction is based on a logical plan. It is not a random schema. You plan first in your mind, and then on paper, where you do your calculations. Then you get approval from the zoning board. Finally, the plan materializes within reality.

Man in the image of God, would imply that God does creation in the same basic way and that man copies this approach. God broods; imagines and plans on paper, then he builds; let their be light. The foundation of civilization is based on creating, planning, peer reviewing, and then implementing. This is the overall approach of Genesis, with the details being an early prototype for planning; civilization.

The atheist approach is to use an underlying mechanism, that plays the role of God but without any personification. This mechanism is based on statistics and randomness, to help create life or build planets. If man was created in the image of this God; the god of random, we would have no plan, but we would go right to production on a whim, with the hope something will work, someday. Many empirical experiments use this approach. However, Civilization would not exist with this schema, alone. It is too slow and unreliable.

The paradox is the pseudo god of random, which is the natural mechanism used to explain how unique things come to be, was able to create a human race, that is able to plan. This is part of the atheist mythology, where the natural creation, from random, called man, supersedes the god of random. Man can plan, test and build, all based on knowledge of the laws of physics and directed choice. This is better than random; man becomes better than a god of random, and improves the flaws of god's creation; QC.

The problem is if you use a god of random, to explain natural choices at cross roads; first replicators, then perception of reality conceptually becomes based on more than one alternative or one theory. We can make up any last random step you need and then based on prestige and resources, it can fly, even if it is not real.

Random makes it possible for more than one theory to be possible, as is the case of physics; string theory, standard and wave theories. This is a dissociated universe, which is a product of a dissociated mind. Again this is another way to pretend to be a god; using alternate realities. This is an atheist past time.

The bible only allows for one plan and one theory, based on an original schema that had been planned and approved even before construction. It follows from fundamental laws already in place that make peer review possible. This is better for the human mind and civilization, since it converges humanity toward a single truth and goal, where the results work all the time.

You could have said more with a tenth of the words
if you tried. Kind of a courtesy.

As for your understanding of "random" and "god of
atheists" nah. That is silly. We are not so stupid
as you imagine, nor does science work as you imagine.

Where your biggest mistake / misunderstanding comes
in, aside from thinking there is some "god" is in not
getting it how the basic properties of matter and
energy take care of themselves.

Sbnowflakes form with no plant, but according to
the nature of the water molecule.

Random raindrops on random soil / rock act
together to form rivulets, streams, rivers.
Tributaries, distributaries, waterfalls, riffles, runs,
eddies, sand bars, meqnders, ox box, ox bow lakes,
canyons, caves with stalactities...all of it with no plan, at all.

For that matter, termites have no plan,nor yet do bees.
Yet termites create amazing structures with air conditioning,
and so forth.

You are underrating your "god", thinking he has to
ponder and plan out every friggin' detail, tinkering
with his creation as if it were a British sports car,
trying to keep it running. "He" is smarter than
that. Set it up right, it wont need all this tinkering.
up right, and it runs itself.

 

[Audie]

The bible only allows for one plan and one theory, based on an original schema that had been planned and approved even before construction. It follows from fundamental laws already in place that make peer review possible. This is better for the human mind and civilization, since it converges humanity toward a single truth and goal, where the results work all the time.

Terrific. Tell us what the theory is.

 

[blü 2]

Abiogenesis can never prove itself anyhow ~ in order for that to happen, we’d have to observe it occur on its own completely naturally, with no human hand or intelligence involved.

No, we'd only have to demonstrate one possible pathway from chemistry to biochemistry to replicating cell. That is, we only have to show it's possible, not that it happened exactly as our demonstration shows. The demonstration by itself would put an end to the argument that abogenesis is impossible.

Indeed, I'd be happy to argue that the fact we're here talking about it already makes abiogenesis a demonstrated hypothesis even without the details. That's because the only alternative to life arising from nature is life arising from magic.

 

[Audie]

No, we'd only have to demonstrate one possible pathway from chemistry to biochemistry to replicating cell. That is, we only have to show it's possible, not that it happened exactly as our demonstration shows. The demonstration by itself would put an end to the argument that abogenesis is impossible.

Indeed, I'd be happy to argue that the fact we're here talking about it already makes abiogenesis a demonstrated hypothesis even without the details. That's because the only alternative to life arising from nature is life arising from magic.

Predictions as to what the creos would say
if someone announced today that they had
started life from scratch in a lab?

 

[blü 2]

Predictions as to what the creos would say
if someone announced today that they had
started life from scratch in a lab?

On the old Beliefnet site, of happy memory, I asked each of the two most prominent YECs separately, "If science demonstrates abiogenesis, will you admit you're wrong?"

And each avoided answering the question ─ I think they have a YEC Question Evasion Manual as standard issue ─ from which fact I felt free to infer certain conclusions.

 

[shmogie]

Nice 'defense' of creationist pretenders.

On ignore you go. I have no use for those that protect condescending pretenders , all to prop up their failing middle eastern beliefs.

What makes you think I am making any effort to defend those you say you have had conversations ?

LOL, ignore ! Yes, go hide and lick your wounds, you have been exposed.

 

[Audie]

What makes you think I am making any effort to defend those you say you have had conversations ?

LOL, ignore ! Yes, go hide and lick your wounds, you have been exposed.

It is closing in on time for you to admit you are wrong
about "scientific proof"!

You could go to such as "can science prove"
and find things like... (from a Berkeley source)

MISCONCEPTION: Science proves ideas.

CORRECTION: Journalists often write about "scientific proof" and some scientists talk about it, but in fact, the concept of proof — real, absolute proof — is not particularly scientific. Science is based on the principle that any idea, no matter how widely accepted today, could be overturned tomorrow if the evidence warranted it. Science accepts or rejects ideas based on the evidence; it does not prove or disprove them.

or this Forbes article-

You've heard of our greatest scientific theories: the theory of evolution, the Big Bang theory, the theory of gravity. You've also heard of the concept of a proof, and the claims that certain pieces of evidence prove the validities of these theories. Fossils, genetic inheritance, and DNA prove the theory of evolution. The Hubble expansion of the Universe, the evolution of stars, galaxies, and heavy elements, and the existence of the cosmic microwave background prove the Big Bang theory. And falling objects, GPS clocks, planetary motion, and the deflection of starlight prove the theory of gravity.

Except that's a complete lie. While they provide very strong evidence for those theories, they aren't proof. In fact, when it comes to science, proving anything is an impossibility.

 

[shmogie]

Predictions as to what the creos would say
if someone announced today that they had
started life from scratch in a lab?

It won´t happen, but if it did, wouldn´t that be the result of intelligent design ?

What does created life from ¨ scratch""mean ?

To have any value regarding abiogenesis, this hypothetical organism would have to have information derived from some kind of chemical cocktail that that operates itś functions that define it as life.

Assuming that it would be DNA based, since life on earth is DNA based.

Even in the simplest organism, DNA controls extremely complicated operations .

DNA , in long chains of encoded bits of information, is ¨read¨ by the cell, and through RNA controls proteins which operates the cell.

So, they mythical precursor organism that started the whole life ball rolling, would have to have encoded information, in the absolute correct order, to operate an organism that doesn´t exist, yet. A cell or organism could not operate without this information, until the DNA is in place, an organism cannot exist.

So, the mythical cocktail would have to produce long strands of encoded information, a way to read the code, the RNA to operate from the encoded information and the proper proteins to implement the information.

Where did the information come from in the mythical first organism ?

In actual real organisms the information is passed from one organism to the next by DNA transfer, i.e. from your parents.

The mythical first organism had parents of dead chemicals, with no information, no DNA.

The impossible dream

So, where did this information come from ?

 

[shmogie]

It is closing in on time for you to admit you are wrong
about "scientific proof"!

You could go to such as "can science prove"
and find things like... (from a Berkeley source)

MISCONCEPTION: Science proves ideas.

CORRECTION: Journalists often write about "scientific proof" and some scientists talk about it, but in fact, the concept of proof — real, absolute proof — is not particularly scientific. Science is based on the principle that any idea, no matter how widely accepted today, could be overturned tomorrow if the evidence warranted it. Science accepts or rejects ideas based on the evidence; it does not prove or disprove them.

or this Forbes article-

You've heard of our greatest scientific theories: the theory of evolution, the Big Bang theory, the theory of gravity. You've also heard of the concept of a proof, and the claims that certain pieces of evidence prove the validities of these theories. Fossils, genetic inheritance, and DNA prove the theory of evolution. The Hubble expansion of the Universe, the evolution of stars, galaxies, and heavy elements, and the existence of the cosmic microwave background prove the Big Bang theory. And falling objects, GPS clocks, planetary motion, and the deflection of starlight prove the theory of gravity.

Except that's a complete lie. While they provide very strong evidence for those theories, they aren't proof. In fact, when it comes to science, proving anything is an impossibility.

OK. There is very strong evidence the earth is globular, yet it might be flat. I got it.

 

[Audie]

It won´t happen, but if it did, wouldn´t that be the result of intelligent design ?

What does created life from ¨ scratch""mean ?

To have any value regarding abiogenesis, this hypothetical organism would have to have information derived from some kind of chemical cocktail that that operates itś functions that define it as life.

Assuming that it would be DNA based, since life on earth is DNA based.

Even in the simplest organism, DNA controls extremely complicated operations .

DNA , in long chains of encoded bits of information, is ¨read¨ by the cell, and through RNA controls proteins which operates the cell.

So, they mythical precursor organism that started the whole life ball rolling, would have to have encoded information, in the absolute correct order, to operate an organism that doesn´t exist, yet. A cell or organism could not operate without this information, until the DNA is in place, an organism cannot exist.

So, the mythical cocktail would have to produce long strands of encoded information, a way to read the code, the RNA to operate from the encoded information and the proper proteins to implement the information.

Where did the information come from in the mythical first organism ?

In actual real organisms the information is passed from one organism to the next by DNA transfer, i.e. from your parents.

The mythical first organism had parents of dead chemicals, with no information, no DNA.

The impossible dream

So, where did this information come from ?

Ok, I guess you covered the responses. Thanks.

One detail in there would be that IF it happens, then
it shows that "god" is not necessary for life- creation.
Does that even matter to you? Why?

ETA As nobody can define life, the boundary line
if it exists at all, between life and non life is at best
blurry.
Are virus alive? Prions?
You are assuming a much more complex first life
than is necessarily the case.
How about a self replicating molecule, "living"
in a sea rich with various and often quite
complex organic molecules. It could make a lot
of copies of itself.
Might not a "better" version of that molecule
come about?

 

[Audie]

OK. There is very strong evidence the earth is globular, yet it might be flat. I got it.

No, you do not get it. I wonder why this is so hard for you?
Do you still think that a theory or law can be proved?

Do you think the below is false?

While they provide very strong evidence for those theories, they aren't proof. In fact, when it comes to science, proving anything is an impossibility.

 

[shmogie]

On the old Beliefnet site, of happy memory, I asked each of the two most prominent YECs separately, "If science demonstrates abiogenesis, will you admit you're wrong?"

And each avoided answering the question ─ I think they have a YEC Question Evasion Manual as standard issue ─ from which fact I felt free to infer certain conclusions.

If science demonstrates abiogenesis, it will by intelligent design. Thousands of extremely well educated people, using sophisticated lab equipment over a century to produce a living organism. Is that how it would have worked in nature ?

Nevertheless, if it happens ( I doubt it will ever occur) I, as a creationist, would have to reconsider my belief structure.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Nevertheless, if it happens ( I doubt it will ever occur) I, as a creationist, would have to reconsider my belief structure.

Do you not believe it's possible that nature - and therefore abiogenesis, if true - could be merely the expression of God's will?

 

[Audie]

If science demonstrates abiogenesis, it will by intelligent design. Thousands of extremely well educated people, using sophisticated lab equipment over a century to produce a living organism. Is that how it would have worked in nature ?

Nevertheless, if it happens ( I doubt it will ever occur) I, as a creationist, would have to reconsider my belief structure.

I think you are greatly exaggerating the effort
made to produce life in a lab.
I could look into it, but it seems to me unlikely
that anyone has a grant funding that particular
thing.

Now, one thing that IS heavily funded is
continuous hydrogen fusion. We know
it happens in nature,but cannot seem to
get it going in a lab.

Interesting observation about restructuring.
In what way,may I ask?

Seems to me, it wont take much. At one
time only God could make lighting, but
God seems unfazed by that being deleted
from his sole provenance.

 

[Audie]

Do you not believe it's possible that nature - and therefore abiogenesis, if true - could be merely the expression of God's will?

I am a bit surprised myself, at the limits people choose
to impose on God.

Surely He is clever enough to set up a universe that
allows for life to arise without his tampering and tweaking.

Give the guy some credit!

 

[shmogie]

Ok, I guess you covered the responses. Thanks.

One detail in there would be that IF it happens, then
it shows that "god" is not necessary for life- creation.
Does that even matter to you? Why?

I wonder how you "know" it cannot be done in a lab?
Is that infallible knowledge, or, just an opinion?

It is an opinion based upon my belief structure.

Of course it would matter to me if life was created in a lab.

However, I would want to know the correlation between how it was created, what equipment and lab conditions existed, how absolutely fine tuned the chemical formula is that was used, and potential natural conditions.

Abiogenesis has been a special area of interest for me. I am not too familiar with macro evolution, but I feel comfortable discussing the fundamentals of abiogenesis, the myth that keeps on giving.

 

[Shad]

I have been involved in the creation/evolution 'debate' online in one way or another for about 25 years or so.
One commonality among every single creationist I can ever recall encountering is an overblown, evidence-less sense of their own superior knowledge of the science. And this includes the 'professional' creationists (who may act the way they do for money or 'glory', hard to tell).
The very first creationist I ever encountered - on a now defunct listserv - asked me for a list of phylogenetic studies using nuclear DNA. I provided a list. He then attacked me for not 'explaining them all' to him. When I reminded him that he had merely asked for a list, not an explanation, he again attacked me, saying that a REAL scientist like Feynman would have explained it all, that the list actually supported creation, blah blah blah. In the end, I realized that he simply didn't understand the list I had presented, despite claiming to be a student and to have been involved in the 'debate for years.

Little has changed since then. On this very forum, there are creationists that insist up, down, left, and right that they have vast scientific knowledge, that that have "studied" evolution for decades, that they are 'science geeks', etc.

And then, they write things like this:

"Analysis of DNA" shows very little similarity, in the actual genes


"But if there is no genetic proof of descendancy, it is mere speculation to suggest it happened. How? What mechanism overcame the high genetic walls? It cannot happen, it did not happen, & it will not happen, with what we know of genetic science. Unless a force or mechanism can be defined & demonstrated, the leaps between genome pairs & genetic parameters is impossible. It is a myth based on children's drawings trying to indoctrinate naturalistic origins."

"The haplogroup is all the haplotypes together."

"Also, to clarify terms, 'haplotype' is the specific clade or branch in this tree, like dogs, coyotes, etc."​

And this gem:

"Because you can put together a graphical 'tree', showing plausibility of descent, does not provide evidence for descent. The conjectured graphic does not prove itself."​

Amazing...
And they apply laughably obvious double standards, embracing scientific studies that they have misinterpreted as being supportive of their claims, while dismissing studies using the same types of data and analyses if they do not....

etc., etc., etc.

Who do these folks think they are fooling? A freshman/sophomore biology major can see all the laughable errors in those claims, yet here we are, with adults claiming decades of study making these kinds of laughably wrong, totally wrong, claims, all the while insisting that their position/interpretation is correct..

Look, if you want to believe in your religious tales, go for it!

But DO NOT pretend to understand things you do not, because you not only make yourself look foolish, you make it your religion look like its existence hinges on it's adherents lying about it!!!

Grow up! Be a man (or woman)!

They are not pretending. It is a mistake in the evaluation of their knowledge, methods and conclusions. Toss in religious conviction. In my experience it works out this way.

 

[Audie]

It is an opinion based upon my belief structure.

Of course it would matter to me if life was created in a lab.

However, I would want to know the correlation between how it was created, what equipment and lab conditions existed, how absolutely fine tuned the chemical formula is that was used, and potential natural conditions.

Abiogenesis has been a special area of interest for me. I am not too familiar with macro evolution, but I feel comfortable discussing the fundamentals of abiogenesis, the myth that keeps on giving.

You do not always sound like you are, as in your
hypothetical first life. Plus your use of "myth" instead
of hypothesis, and related editorial cant.

But never mind.

I am focused on "proof" in science.
This is important to me, as it is so abundantly
obvious that you have misunderstood this
concept.
If you you are just never going to concede
this point, I would have to write you off as
an honest debater, something I would hate
to have to do.