Are Creationists the Great Pretenders?

[Uncommon Sense]

That would simply move the problem of explaining abiogenesis off-planet (as would the panspermia notion).

That’s not very frightening, at least for me.

To be fair, the next logical question should be, how did the aliens come to exist?

The next logical question would be what they wanted with us, and what their intent was and is.

 

[blü 2]

That’s not very frightening, at least for me.

Possible, complicating, but so far not necessary. No, I don't see anything to be frightened of either.

 

[tas8831]

Okay, what he does with his middle eastern religion while you openly admit and/or perform that one should be psychologically attacked, shunned, demeaned, corrected, tossed out of the scientific church, and embarrass anyone who views your versions of truth differently ~ sounds like you’re practicing what Muhammad and others have said to do. Too funny, hypocritical ~ and primitive.

Cool incoherent and desperate ranting.

I "admit and/or perform" [sic] that if one is going to boast of decades of study on a subject, one should at the very least have a basic understanding of the subject.

Why is that so foreign a concept to you?

Do you have a dire need to be entertained by others, and do you think that your words have any kind of effects on me?

I frankly do not care what effect my words have on you. I do note however, that other than whiny rhetoric, you have offered nothing of substance to this thread.

 

[Jose Fly]

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.

And by the same token, they will have demonstrated that supernatural causation is not required and that life could emerge via purely natural mechanisms.

 

[Jose Fly]

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.

Well that's a rather convenient set up. If humans are involved in any way, shape, or form then creationists get to shout "intelligence was involved!!!" and declare vindication.

But what's the alternative, where absolutely no human intervention takes place? The only thing I can think of is if we stumble across a planet where it's occurring in real time and we observe from a distance. But of course that's simply not realistic, is it?

Looks to me like creationists are pre-gaming the situation so that when scientists do announce that they've discovered a plausible pathway by which the first life forms could have emerged, the creationists can still cling to their beliefs.

 

[tas8831]

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.

I'm sorry - what does this have to do with creationists claiming knowledge that they clearly do not possess? Are you justifying this 'lying for Jesus'?

 

[tas8831]

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

Science does nothing. Intelligent human beings do.

Creationist: Prove abiogenesis!

Sensible person: Here are some experiments on the subject.

Creationist: HA! That is actually evidence for Jesus because you are using experiments, and experiments are designed by an intelligence!

Sensible person: Ok... Then how about you provide evidence that Jehovah turned silicates into a fully formed adult human male.

Creationist: ....

Sensible person: ....

Creationist: Prove abiogenesis!

 

[tas8831]

Ah ~ another demeaning one ~ and control freak telling others what they need to do while they are projecting their own ignorance onto others.

Projection.


Why do you support creationists pretending to have knowledge that they do not have?

 

[tas8831]

No ~ you say. I’m speaking of here and now, and abiogenesis performed by intelligent human beings. ... since it will require human intelligence to do what we are discussing in the here and now. If you want it to be a good equivalence ~ then abiogenesis should prove itself with no supervisor or intelligent or living interaction and do it’s thing.

Perhaps you could do your integrity a favor and just admit that you will never accept any evidence of anything that does not prop up your ancient middle eastern beliefs and stop pretending to be logical.

Why do you support creationists claiming knowledge that they do not possess?

 

[shmogie]

And by the same token, they will have demonstrated that supernatural causation is not required and that life could emerge via purely natural mechanisms.

Really ? IF it happens, which I sincerely doubt, the alleged natural mechanisms are not natural mechanisms. Everything done in the process is not natural.

Using Sir Dr. Hoyles thoughts as to how many tornadoś would it take in an airplane junkyard to make a fully functional airplane, he is using a natural process.

In the case of a human created organism, it is as if a hundred aircraft engineers went to the junkyard, carefully selected and repaired every part, then using the finest machinery, fitted the parts altogether, then used sophisticated instruments to test and calibrate every system before the plane flew.

The natural process of creation, tornadoś, earthquakes, rain, sunlight have been eliminated for the unnatural creation of the flying airplane, intelligent people, machinery, plans, and instruments.

 

[Audie]

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

So, I will use the others.

Offended? Ha. It is kind of funny to see the triple
backflips, all to the greater discredit of creoism.

Actually, I recommend you go back to "prove", instead
of some wishy washy substitute like "establish"
that actually means the same thing but lacks the punch
a real macho-Christian would give to his words.

By calling it "prove", (or "establish") you show
you either know more than every scientist on earth
about how science works, or, you show you are
determined to be clueless and say ignorant things.

Your fellow creos will think it is great that you are
no better educated than they, and the rest of us
can be pleased if you will continue to show (prove? )
that creationism and ignorant go together like baseball,
hot dogs, apple pie and chevrolet.

By all means keep it up.

 

[Audie]

Cool incoherent and desperate ranting.

I "admit and/or perform" [sic] that if one is going to boast of decades of study on a subject, one should at the very least have a basic understanding of the subject.

Why is that so foreign a concept to you?



I frankly do not care what effect my words have on you. I do note however, that other than whiny rhetoric, you have offered nothing of substance to this thread.

I have studied American Foot Ball for 7 or 8 decades now.
I am an expert of profound football-knowingness.
Nobody here can match me for football-facts.

 

[Jose Fly]

Really ? IF it happens, which I sincerely doubt, the alleged natural mechanisms are not natural mechanisms. Everything done in the process is not natural.

In the context of this discussion, they most certainly are. If you disagree, point to any supernatural mechanism that's been employed in any origins research.

Using Sir Dr. Hoyles thoughts as to how many tornadoś would it take in an airplane junkyard to make a fully functional airplane, he is using a natural process.

That's not at all applicable and I would think you'd be reluctant to cite such a ridiculous straw man (hint: chemistry is non-random).

By your reasoning, there is no such thing as "natural chemistry" since humans can synthesize just about any molecule/compound in a laboratory. For example, does the fact that humans can synthesize water molecules by sparking mixtures of hydrogen and oxygen mean that water is a non-natural molecule that can only be created by "intelligence"?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Offended? Ha. It is kind of funny to see the triple
backflips, all to the greater discredit of creoism.

Actually, I recommend you go back to "prove", instead
of some wishy washy substitute like "establish"
that actually means the same thing but lacks the punch
a real macho-Christian would give to his words.

By calling it "prove", (or "establish") you show
you either know more than every scientist on earth
about how science works, or, you show you are
determined to be clueless and say ignorant things.

Your fellow creos will think it is great that you are
no better educated than they, and the rest of us
can be pleased if you will continue to show (prove? )
that creationism and ignorant go together like baseball,
hot dogs, apple pie and chevrolet.

By all means keep it up.

@shmogie claims to have been involved in law enforcement, that means he should be able to understand the legal standard of "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt". Though science does not "prove" anything, it can hit that standard. It would be foolish to believe that gravity does not exist merely because it cannot be formally proven to exist. The same of course applies to the theory of evolution. And worse than merely not being able to accept a lower standard of evidence where there is a possibility that it could be later overturned, just as some court trials are, they cannot even accept the concept of evidence.

Instead they have the false standard of "You can't prove my beliefs are wrong if I ignore all of your arguments" as somehow "proof" that they are correct. <sigh> If they could only be consistent in their reasoning.

 

[Audie]

In the context of this discussion, they most certainly are. If you disagree, point to any supernatural mechanism that's been employed in any origins research.


That's not at all applicable and I would think you'd be reluctant to cite such a ridiculous straw man (hint: chemistry is non-random).

By your reasoning, there is no such thing as "natural chemistry" since humans can synthesize just about any molecule/compound in a laboratory. For example, does the fact that humans can synthesize water molecules by sparking mixtures of hydrogen and oxygen mean that water is a non-natural molecule that can only be created by "intelligence"?

I think we are all entirely satisfied that our friend
is no chemist, and equally satisfied that his
sincere doubts about how it works are at least,
you know, sincere.

 

[shmogie]

In the context of this discussion, they most certainly are. If you disagree, point to any supernatural mechanism that's been employed in any origins research.


That's not at all applicable and I would think you'd be reluctant to cite such a ridiculous straw man (hint: chemistry is non-random).

By your reasoning, there is no such thing as "natural chemistry" since humans can synthesize just about any molecule/compound in a laboratory. For example, does the fact that humans can synthesize water molecules by sparking mixtures of hydrogen and oxygen mean that water is a non-natural molecule that can only be created by "intelligence"?

Nice try. Water is a simple, very simple compound. A living organism is infinitely more complicated, infinitely more complicated than Hoyles airplane.

In the context of abiogenesis, biochemistry certainly is random. A hot cooling planet with volcanic activity does not initiate a cascade of inevitable stages till life occurs, that is a total crock. a myth, a thumb to suck for the abiogenesists.

Miller - Urey was a total failure, unless you consider a few amino acids life, or inevitable life.

Biochemistry as relates to abiogenesis is random, thatś why it cannot be replicated, no one is able to figure out the randomness, the key.

So, tell me again how biochemistry, those natural processes, are going to create encoded DNA, to operate a cell, that has a mechanism to read the encoded information through RNA which in turn controls the proteins that operate the cell, before the cell exists.

Especially since there are eight hypotheses that I know of, all very different, as well as some that abandon biochemistry altogether as the answer. Sounds pretty darn random to me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nice try. Water is a simple, very simple compound. A living organism is infinitely more complicated, infinitely more complicated than Hoyles airplane.

In the context of abiogenesis, biochemistry certainly is random. A hot cooling planet with volcanic activity does not initiate a cascade of inevitable stages till life occurs, that is a total crock. a myth, a thumb to suck for the abiogenesists.

Miller - Urey was a total failure, unless you consider a few amino acids life, or inevitable life.

Biochemistry as relates to abiogenesis is random, thatś why it cannot be replicated, no one is able to figure out the randomness, the key.

So, tell me again how biochemistry, those natural processes, are going to create encoded DNA, to operate a cell, that has a mechanism to read the encoded information through RNA which in turn controls the proteins that operate the cell, before the cell exists.

Especially since there are eight hypotheses that I know of, all very different, as well as some that abandon biochemistry altogether as the answer. Sounds pretty darn random to me.

A mixture of pure denial, arguments from ignorance and a blatant false claim. Since the sole purpose of the Miller-Urey experiment was to demonstrate that amino acids from naturally how was the experiment a failure? Now you are making it look as if you are at least sixty years behind the times.

 

[Audie]

A mixture of pure denial, arguments from ignorance and a blatant false claim. Since the sole purpose of the Miller-Urey experiment was to demonstrate that amino acids from naturally how was the experiment a failure? Now you are making it look as if you are at least sixty years behind the times.

As if?

 

[ecco]

Looks to me like creationists are pre-gaming the situation so that when scientists do announce that they've discovered a plausible pathway by which the first life forms could have emerged, the creationists can still cling to their beliefs.

It doesn't matter. You could build a time machine, take them back and show them all the steps from atoms to humans, they still wouldn't believe it.

 

[ecco]

Using Sir Dr. Hoyles thoughts as to how many tornadoś would it take in an airplane junkyard to make a fully functional airplane, he is using a natural process.

In the case of a human created organism, it is as if a hundred aircraft engineers went to the junkyard, carefully selected and repaired every part, then using the finest machinery, fitted the parts altogether, then used sophisticated instruments to test and calibrate every system before the plane flew.

See post # 299 above.