Are Creationists the Great Pretenders?

[Audie]

Truly it is. But it does help to understand why they would think god must be an original with no reason to think or look further for anything else if something that will probably be rather quaint in 1000 years from now is considered a "holy grail." They may be content to stop when they find what they're looking for, but anyone with a passion and appreciation for knowledge knows at best they merely found a place to make camp for the night as the adventure will continue on tomorrow. When and where does it stop? It would be a great tragedy if ever does come to an end and we have learned and discovered everything (I'll declare it know, in the incredibly unlikely event that it does actually happen, that's probably when most people will find life without meaning and purpose).

For a rather concrete example of "go further"
I was told second hand of a paleontologist who
found a new species of proboscidian.

The proximal end of the jaw was exposed, and he
started digging, but instead of there being a "chin"
as expected, the bone kept going. And going.

He kept going and the jaw kept going! Imagine
the excitement. Was it Ambelodon? I forget.

 

[shmogie]

We all use words in informal ways.

"Proof" as applied to science has a specific
meaning.

You invoke the scientific method, ergo, science apparently sees it differently.

Yes, in science "proof" is different from its use in whiskey,
math, and various other applications.

May we assume you will cease to claim that science
ever tries to prove things?

Sure

Scientists tend to remarkably not as excited as things like that as the general public. And why should they? The biogenesis is, after all, nothing more than a drop in vast and endless ocean of questions that will still remain in need of answers. If we find out abiogenesis happened, Cool! But really it's such a small and insignificant thing once we turn our attention towards the biogenesis of life in this universe. And then that becomes utterly insignificant rubbish once we are able to explore outside of this universe (which actually at this point we don't know if there is an outside of if and how we can escape).
And really, that's what makes science so exciting and fascinating. The quest for knowledge is perpetual. We often say there is always a bigger fish, but in science there is always a bigger question. Holy Grails are for those content to stop early, having a defined and definite end point along a linear path, and sell themselves short instead of continuing on to see what's next.

There are only two ways life could have been created, biogenesis, or by powerful God, or gods.

Creationists have faith in the latter, natural science, the former.

Atheists who have faith in abiogenesis, shout about there being no evidence for God, and they are for the most part right. The natural cannot explain the supernatural.

Yet their rock hard faith in abogenesis is based on ropes of sand. The paltry alleged evidence touted, establishes nothing, As Sir Fred Hoyle said regarding abiogenesis, ¨ how many tornadoes in an airplane junkyard would ot take to put together a flying airplane ¨ in that context, biogenesis science in itś quest for a fully functional airplane has painted one of the propellers.

As time goes by, and the efforts to put the plane together and get it into the air fail, the other option looms.

As one abiogenisis researching biochemist said, ¨ I don´t see how it could have happened, I am beginning to consider that perhaps it didn´t happen, but I BELIEVE it happened, because the alternative is terrifying .

Of course abiogenesis is important, it is the atheist counter argument to life being created by God. To finally be stripped of their scientific excuse¨for a natural creation, they will have to admit that they just hold faith in a process that cannot be explained, just like now.

 

[Uncommon Sense]

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.

The demonstrative possibility or impossibility still hinges on an intelligent driving force ~ the human beings ~ along with all of the materials that were already here. It would be intelligence and nature, not just nature that arose the life. Living, intelligent human beings in combination with what’s already naturally here. What would be impossible now ~ is all of the ingredients coming together on their own in one location with no human intelligence involved, any other living organism involved ~ and arising into life on its own.

Depends on what you mean by magic.
If 200 years from now, the accumulative intelligence from some human beings on Earth discovered in totality how to demonstrate abiogenesis ~ along with all of the necessary energies to set replications in motion and trigger genetic switches on and off for mutations ~ along with coming to know the complete set of instructions/genetics/information for every specie we know of. Each species set of instructions/genetics/information put into each their own cell or multi-cells. Then found another location suitable for this abiogenesis to succeed ~ along with transfer means for each different species instructions and code ~ seeded the new location ~ and then being able to remotely or directly set the replications in motion and switch mutations on and off from Earth with the various energy sources required. Of course a bunch of mutations would be random due to the environment of the particular location. Then they sat here and watched their experiment transpire, if they were able to observe. All of the different species we know of on Earth coming to fruition in a distant location. It would end up pretty much being a penal colony in a way to an advanced colony on Earth. And how would we know if that’s not what happened here from an advanced intelligent race of human beings? Would that be magic?

 

[Audie]

Sure

There are only two ways life could have been created, biogenesis, or by powerful God, or gods.

Creationists have faith in the latter, natural science, the former.

Atheists who have faith in abiogenesis, shout about there being no evidence for God, and they are for the most part right. The natural cannot explain the supernatural.

Yet their rock hard faith in abogenesis is based on ropes of sand. The paltry alleged evidence touted, establishes nothing, As Sir Fred Hoyle said regarding abiogenesis, ¨ how many tornadoes in an airplane junkyard would ot take to put together a flying airplane ¨ in that context, biogenesis science in itś quest for a fully functional airplane has painted one of the propellers.

As time goes by, and the efforts to put the plane together and get it into the air fail, the other option looms.

As one abiogenisis researching biochemist said, ¨ I don´t see how it could have happened, I am beginning to consider that perhaps it didn´t happen, but I BELIEVE it happened, because the alternative is terrifying .

Of course abiogenesis is important, it is the atheist counter argument to life being created by God. To finally be stripped of their scientific excuse¨for a natural creation, they will have to admit that they just hold faith in a process that cannot be explained, just like now.

Nobody who is scientifically literate has "rock hard faith"
in anything.

Religion is a culture of faith, science is a culture of doubt.
Try not to mix things up.

Though a subset of Christians do do rock hard doubt
of ToE.

Now, keeping in mind that science cannot prove
things, proof that abio is impossible is, well, not too likely.

But let us say that it happened. Proof that only god
could make life.

To finally be stripped of their scientific excuse¨for a natural creation, they will have to admit that they just hold faith in a process that cannot be explained, just like now

Perhaps there are atheists who are that intellectually,
yes, dishonest. "If all the evidence in the universe turned
against my belief, I would believe anyway".

If on the other hand you refer to real people of
integrity, it would not go that way.

Me? I would be absolutely astonished, amazed,
and, delighted! What a fantastic discovery!

 

[Uncommon Sense]

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 ?

This is something that many don’t seem to either be aware of or are capable to an honest admittance of this.

 

[shmogie]

Nobody who is scientifically literate has "rock hard faith"
in anything.

Religion is a culture of faith, science is a culture of doubt.
Try not to mix things up.

Though a subset of Christians do do rock hard doubt
of ToE.

Now, keeping in mind that science cannot prove
things, proof that abio is impossible is, well, not too likely.

But let us say that it happened. Proof that only god
could make life.

To finally be stripped of their scientific excuse¨for a natural creation, they will have to admit that they just hold faith in a process that cannot be explained, just like now

Perhaps there are atheists who are that intellectually,
yes, dishonest. "If all the evidence in the universe turned
against my belief, I would believe anyway".

If on the other hand you refer to real people of
integrity, it would not go that way.

Me? I would be absolutely astonished, amazed,
and, delighted! What a fantastic discovery!

I have talked and communicated with many atheists who are all in on the natural explanation for everything, over the years..

Some have said that abiogenesis is an established fact, If that ain´t faith I don´t know what is.

 

[shmogie]

We all use words in informal ways.

"Proof" as applied to science has a specific
meaning.

You invoke the scientific method, ergo, science apparently sees it differently.

Yes, in science "proof" is different from its use in whiskey,
math, and various other applications.

May we assume you will cease to claim that science
ever tries to prove things?

We, ? do you have a little man in your pocket, or is it the royal we ?

Just for you, yes. I will use the word establish. Are we happy with that ?

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is something that many don’t seem to either be aware of or are capable to an honest admittance of this.

Actually that was a statement of faith that is not justified by what we observe. It also demonstrates an inability to address the question honestly. If science demonstrates abiogenesis then by definition it will not be by "intelligent design". Anyone that has even the lowest level of understanding can see this.

 

[Uncommon Sense]

I am not making things up. I am responding to what you post. I am aware of what was posted, what was suggested and what the context is. It is from that knowledge and awareness that I constructed my response. Your false dismissal will not fly.

Okay, so my suggestion was that every human having genetic variations from other humans were to try and show a little respect toward others and opposing arguments who are genetically different from others without having to be a complete D-bag about it like some are. How you turned that into what you did ~ is all you. I’m sure you wouldn’t appreciate someone making stuff up about you and using your words however they pleased. Delusions.

Now think of that all again and replace science with your church and see if you can figure out what is at stake. See if your message about sitting on your hands and suffering in silence will work for you then.

“Your” church. This is why it’s pointless even conversing with most people ~ they just assume as they please, twist words, concoct up whatever they please in their heads. I don’t have a church building, nor was anything ever mentioned about “church.” More delusions.

Are you paranoid about people believing that the universe was created? If you already know many you’re talking to aren’t going to listen or change their minds ~ why bother with something out of your control? If you feel the need to be heroic in speaking up and defending the science you view as truth at all costs ~ go for it. Not many people care, nor have a need or desire to be just as you or see that correcting any potential error in evolution theory you see in your views is integral for the human race to survive.

Reply if you’d like to, perhaps to get pats on the back from your social group ~ but there won’t be a reply. Too many delusions on your end to even have a mature, polite conversation with.

 

[Uncommon Sense]

Actually that was a statement of faith that is not justified by what we observe. It also demonstrates an inability to address the question honestly. If science demonstrates abiogenesis then by definition it will not be by "intelligent design". Anyone that has even the lowest level of understanding can see this.

So, human intelligence would have nothing to do with the designing of the abiogenesis procedure?

Science does nothing. Intelligent human beings do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, human intelligence would have nothing to do with the designing of the abiogenesis procedure?

Science does nothing. Intelligent human beings do.

Nope, not really. It is rather amazing that you can't see this. First off you need to watch the prejudicial language. There would be no "design" involved. That would be an error if scientists did that.

And I see that you have a problem with the English language. Surely you can do better than that.

 

[Uncommon Sense]

Nope, not really. It is rather amazing that you can't see this. First off you need to watch the prejudicial language. There would be no "design" involved. That would be an error if scientists did that.

And I see that you have a problem with the English language. Surely you can do better than that.

Ah ~ another demeaning one ~ and control freak telling others what they need to do while they are projecting their own ignorance onto others. I’m sorry if some nerves get struck by hearing the word “design” as it seems to only have one biased definition for you and that no human beings design anything. Sounds like you’re the prejudice one.

You too ~ reply if you would like, but won’t get any responses.

 

[Audie]

I have talked and communicated with many atheists who are all in on the natural explanation for everything, over the years..

Some have said that abiogenesis is an established fact, If that ain´t faith I don´t know what is.

Abio an established fact?
Faith? I'd call that stupid. One needn't take the
lowest and the dumbest as representative.

Kind of like that the guy who told me
the excess water from noahs flood was wafted
to Neptune, where it shines to this day as a warning
beacon against incoming rogue angels! Hardly fair
if I claimed he is fully representative of how Christians think.

As for natural explanation, that does go with atheism
as does supernatural with religion.

Natural explanation for everything? So far, that
is the score. Lightning is no longer thrown by god,
nor are volcaanoes signs of his anger.
We may yet detect supernatural explanations.
Has not happened yet, though, so one might have
"faith" that the pattern will hold.

 

[Audie]

We, ? do you have a little man in your pocket, or is it the royal we ?

Just for you, yes. I will use the word establish. Are we happy with that ?

Sheesh, guy, why the snide snarky?
EVERYBODY (we) uses words in informal ways.
You do, I do, and so does the man behind the tree.

You used proof in an informal way, which did not
fit with your using it to describe what science does.

ESTABLISH-achieve permanent acceptance or recognition for.

As you are just substituting another word that means the
essentially the same as proof, I have to feel you still dont
get the idea.

Maybe maybe you can just read a bit, as I suggested?
Then it is not personal, like this lil girl knowing something
you dont.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ah ~ another demeaning one ~ and control freak telling others what they need to do while they are projecting their own ignorance onto others. I’m sorry if some nerves get struck by hearing the word “design” as it seems to only have one biased definition for you and that no human beings design anything. Sounds like you’re the prejudice one.

You too ~ reply if you would like, but won’t get any responses.

Oh my! You have to try harder than that.

Do you wish to remain uneducated or would you like to profit from your errors?

 

[blü 2]

Any experiment in a lab is defacto by intelligent design. Intelligence designs the experiment, selects the equipment to use, selects what chemical compounds to use and in what amounts, produces an environment for actions to occur.

That's not what intelligent design usually means in this context.

It refers instead to a supernatural agency which though unspecified is by inference the Christian God and which by cleverly tinkering with reality brings into existence things ─ typically biochemical things ─ that can't come into existence through the ordinary operations of nature.

As I said, the number of authentic examples of intelligent design in this sense remains zero.

Likewise the number of authentic examples of magic ─ the alteration of reality independently of the rules of physics (the rules of reality), usually just by wishing, and necessarily implicit in the 'intelligent design' process ─ remains zero. Indeed, I'm not aware of any explanation, any testable hypothesis, as to how magic might work at all as an aspect of reality. So as at 2019 July it's entirely without credibility as an alternative to natural processes.

On all the available evidence, then, we conclude that life can come into existence by the ordinary operations of nature, because life in fact exists as part of nature ─ and on this planet had done so for around 3.5 bn years before there were humans ie before even the concept of gods existed.

I don't know if you keep an eye on the progress of investigations into abiogenesis, but the number of relevant discoveries keeps accumulating; so I think it's not a wild guess that we'll get a working description of the natural processes involved in the next decade or two.



By the way, further to what @Audie said, 'proof' has two distinct meanings, which we could think of as the mathematical and the legal. In maths and other formal systems eg logic, it's possible to say that within this system if A then [it MUST be] B. The highschool theorems of geometry are proofs of this kind. In much the same way, on the old mechanical adding machines, if you depress the 5 key, the plus key and the 4 key and turned the handle, you MUST get the answer 9. (These days the same thing is electronic, of course, but the machine is somehow more graphic.)

However, out in the real world, where law and science operate, 'proof' means something less than the mathematical [MUST BE] or [CAN ONLY BE] ─ we have to be satisfied that on the balance of possibilities the answer is B, or beyond a reasonable doubt the answer is B, or on all of the evidence we have the answer is B. You may have noticed that science accepted the reality of the Higgs boson when the evidence from the CERN experiments took the possibility of error below 1 in a million, which is the agreed threshold for that context.

That's why in science I always prefer the word 'demonstrate' to the word 'prove', though both are available.

I'm likely telling you what you already know; but the contrast with the subjective standards of 'truth' in much of religion is stark.

 

[shmogie]

That's not what intelligent design usually means in this context.

It refers instead to a supernatural agency which though unspecified is by inference the Christian God and which by cleverly tinkering with reality brings into existence things ─ typically biochemical things ─ that can't come into existence through the ordinary operations of nature.

As I said, the number of authentic examples of intelligent design in this sense remains zero.

Likewise the number of authentic examples of magic ─ the alteration of reality independently of the rules of physics (the rules of reality), usually just by wishing, and necessarily implicit in the 'intelligent design' process ─ remains zero. Indeed, I'm not aware of any explanation, any testable hypothesis, as to how magic might work at all as an aspect of reality. So as at 2019 July it's entirely without credibility as an alternative to natural processes.

On all the available evidence, then, we conclude that life can come into existence by the ordinary operations of nature, because life in fact exists as part of nature ─ and on this planet had done so for around 3.5 bn years before there were humans ie before even the concept of gods existed.

I don't know if you keep an eye on the progress of investigations into abiogenesis, but the number of relevant discoveries keeps accumulating; so I think it's not a wild guess that we'll get a working description of the natural processes involved in the next decade or two.



By the way, further to what @Audie said, 'proof' has two distinct meanings, which we could think of as the mathematical and the legal. In maths and other formal systems eg logic, it's possible to say that within this system if A then [it MUST be] B. The highschool theorems of geometry are proofs of this kind. In much the same way, on the old mechanical adding machines, if you depress the 5 key, the plus key and the 4 key and turned the handle, you MUST get the answer 9. (These days the same thing is electronic, of course, but the machine is somehow more graphic.)

However, out in the real world, where law and science operate, 'proof' means something less than the mathematical [MUST BE] or [CAN ONLY BE] ─ we have to be satisfied that on the balance of possibilities the answer is B, or beyond a reasonable doubt the answer is B, or on all of the evidence we have the answer is B. You may have noticed that science accepted the reality of the Higgs boson when the evidence from the CERN experiments took the possibility of error below 1 in a million, which is the agreed threshold for that context.

That's why in science I always prefer the word 'demonstrate' to the word 'prove', though both are available.

I'm likely telling you what you already know; but the contrast with the subjective standards of 'truth' in much of religion is stark.

Well, to me intelligent design means just that. On a cosmic scale where God is the designer,to a lab where everything about an experiment has been intelligently designed. The building, the A/C system, the lighting, on and on. None of it would be natural.

A true representative of natural abiogenesis can never be made, unless, of course you have a cooling planet where rain leaches chemicals out of rocks, and the atmosphere contributes some, and a few million years.

We aren´t discussing the Higgs boson, but I was delighted it was found.

We are discussing abiogenesis, and I do follow the research on the matter. The evidence to this point is shall we say, extremely lacking.

Prove, or establish or demonstrate, are all fine with me.

My friend is deeply offended by the word prove, and has written many paragraphs detailing the offense.

So, I will use the others.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, to me intelligent design means just that. On a cosmic scale where God is the designer,to a lab where everything about an experiment has been intelligently designed. The building, the A/C system, the lighting, on and on. None of it would be natural.

A true representative of natural abiogenesis can never be made, unless, of course you have a cooling planet where rain leaches chemicals out of rocks, and the atmosphere contributes some, and a few million years.

We aren´t discussing the Higgs boson, but I was delighted it was found.

We are discussing abiogenesis, and I do follow the research on the matter. The evidence to this point is shall we say, extremely lacking.

Prove, or establish or demonstrate, are all fine with me.

My friend is deeply offended by the word prove, and has written many paragraphs detailing the offense.

So, I will use the others.

How is it lacking? What have they solved? What have they not solved? Just curious to see if you are really following this or not. Most creationists that make that claim are usually at least 20 years or more behind the times. In fact the last I checked you were about 50 years behind the times.

 

[blü 2]

The demonstrative possibility or impossibility still hinges on an intelligent driving force ~ the human beings ~ along with all of the materials that were already here.

That's not how biochemistry works. It no more requires a supervisor than the sun does to make lithium, or the rain does to make snowflakes, or the yeast does to leaven the bread. or your pancreas does to provide you with insulin.

'It would be intelligence and nature, not just nature that arose the life.

So there's this preexisting intelligent being who puts the first cell together, you say? And what being put that preexisting intelligent being together? And what being put that being together? And what being put that being together? And at the end of that chain, why did any of them bother?

Depends on what you mean by magic.

I mean the alteration of reality independently of the rules of reality, often just by wishing eg "Let there be light" or "Accio broom!"

If 200 years from now, the accumulative intelligence from some human beings on Earth discovered in totality how to demonstrate abiogenesis ~ along with all of the necessary energies to set replications in motion and trigger genetic switches on and off for mutations ~ along with coming to know the complete set of instructions/genetics/information for every specie we know of.

You seem to be imagining that the first living thing sprang up fully formed, like Cadmus's warriors. That's not the scientific approach. There's no clear line, no exact point, at which chemistry becomes biochemistry, and biochemistry becomes life. There isn't even a yes/no definition of life. Is a prion alive? Is a virus? Neither has a cell but both replicate themselves. So do many chemical compounds in particular circumstances.

So I expect the origin of life will prove to be a path taken step by little step by little step, and that the first self-replicating biochemistry will occur in an environment where most of the necessary bits already naturally occur.

And evolution, starting with simple descent with variation, and moving to natural selection ─ &c &c &c ─ explains the rest.

Anyway, who put the first intelligent designer together, do you say?

 

[blü 2]

Well, to me intelligent design means just that. On a cosmic scale where God is the designer

But as far as I can tell, God is imaginary ─ exists only as a concept in individual brains, and is not an actual being out there in reality with objective existence, such as all real things have. The clearest illustration of this problem, or so it seems to me, is the absence of any coherent definition of such a god, a definition which would allow anyone to tell whether any real being, thing or phenomenon were God, or a god, or not. Is my neighbor, my keyboard, the air temperature, God? Or not? How can I tell? (Metaphors are no use in this case.)

It won't do to say God is 'immaterial' or 'spirit' or 'supernatural' ─ not unless you can give us an objective test to distinguish those alleged conditions from the imaginary.

And at the same time, there doesn't appear to be any coherent definition of 'godness', the real quality a real god would have that a real superscientist would lack, the thing we'd test for to make sure we were dealing with an actual god.

There isn't even a testable hypothesis as to what a real God might be, or how [he] might exist, let alone alter reality just by wishing.

If that's wrong, I welcome your correction and demonstration.