A Question for Creationists

[Subduction Zone]

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.

It appears that all you have are unsubstantiated claims. A sure sign that someone is very very probably wrong. Too bad that there is not one whit of scientific evidence supporting your claims.

 

[DavidFirth]

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

It's painfully obvious that the Creator is necessary. It's obvious He created.

 

[DavidFirth]

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?

It's a classification. That's all it is.

 

[DavidFirth]

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?

I know enough about their evidence to know they cannot prove what they say. And yes, they do have faith.

Definition of FAITH

See 2b(1) and 3.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's painfully obvious that the Creator is necessary. It's obvious He created.

Sorry, if it was "obvious" then you could provide evidence that supports your claims. When there is no scientific evidence at all that supports your claims it is far from obvious.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know enough about their evidence to know they cannot prove what they say. And yes, they do have faith.

Definition of FAITH

See 2b(1) and 3.

Nope, you are demonstrably wrong. But since you made that claim the burden of proof is upon you. I can help you to learn. That way you will not continue to write posts with embarrassing errors in them.

Faith is not allowed in the sciences. You are projecting your flaws upon others. A common creationist error.

 

[PureX]

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.

"I think, therefor I exist" is considered a self-evident truth. How would you propose one "prove this"? Existence is organized by an enormous collection of interlocking and repeating patterned behaviors. It is "designed" in this way by the parameters (innate limitations) with 'energy' that dictate the ways that energy can and cannot express itself. These limitations and their respective allowances are the "design parameters" of existence as we know it. What part of this can't you understand, and won't you recognize?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Show me an ape that's human.

Got a mirror handy?

 

[SkepticThinker]

There is a lot you think you know that you dont.

You can show that cars reproduce themselves? Do tell.

That's a fact, not just a scientific denial.

Scientists are busy now trying to determine exactly how that happened a few billion years ago.

Scientists need to get busy on feeding everybody, curing cancer, AIDS and researching things that really matter.

They're doing all of those things as well. Apparently, they're able to walk and chew gum at the same time.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It's painfully obvious that the Creator is necessary. It's obvious He created.

If you can't provide any evidence, then it can't be all that obvious.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"I think, therefor I exist" is considered a self-evident truth. How would you propose one "prove this"? Existence is organized by an enormous collection of interlocking and repeating patterned behaviors. It is "designed" in this way by the parameters (innate limitations) with 'energy' that dictate the ways that energy can and cannot express itself. These limitations and their respective allowances are the "design parameters" of existence as we know it. What part of this can't you understand, and won't you recognize?

We can all observe that we think. We can't observe any evidence for your supposed creator. Nor is there any reason to assume design. The theory of evolution works just fine without a designer.

You seem to object to the fact that you can't support your claims one iota so instead you claim "It is obvious". If I claimed that evolution was obvious people would correctly reject my claim.

 

[PureX]

We can all observe that we think. We can't observe any evidence for your supposed creator.

I didn't propose any "creators". I simply observed that existence is an expression of design. And the "proof" is that it is extremely complex, interactive, and therefor organized. Chance has a role, but it is not the dominant factor.

The theory of evolution works just fine without a designer.

The process of the evolution of life forms IS DESIGN.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didn't propose any "creators". I simply observed that existence is an expression of design. And the "proof" is that it is extremely complex, interactive, and therefor organized. Chance has a role, but it is not the dominant factor.
The process of the evolution of life forms IS DESIGN.

Sorry, you are merely waving your hands and abusing terminology. First off there is no "proof" in the sciences. If you don't have evidence then you have nothing. And please, we are not fools here. We know what creationists are trying to claim when they use the word "design".

You are correct that chance is not the dominant factor. Natural selection plays a huge roll. And what is called "chance" is not really chance. Those in the insurance biz know that accidents happen. With a large population one is not dealing with "chance" one is dealing with statistics. Since variation is part of reproduction in a large enough population reaction to changing environments is all but guaranteed (if the environment does not change too quickly. For example the non-avian dinosaurs were not able to survive a major meteor strike).

If you want people to take you seriously you need to quit handwaving and find some evidence that supports your claims.

Let me help you on that. In the sciences to even be able to claim that you have evidence you need a testable hypothesis first. If you can't formulate a testable hypothesis all you have is an ad hoc explanation. Those are of no value at all in the world of sciences. Two questions, and the second is the more important one, what observations would support your claim? What observations would refute your claim? The second needs to be a reasonable possible observation. If you can't think of a way that your idea could possibly be refuted what you are proposing is not science.

 

[leibowde84]

It's painfully obvious that the Creator is necessary. It's obvious He created.

If it's obvious, what is the evidence?

 

[leibowde84]

It's a classification. That's all it is.

Right. It is a classification for all great apes, including non-humans. That's the point.

 

[leibowde84]

"I think, therefor I exist" is considered a self-evident truth. How would you propose one "prove this"? Existence is organized by an enormous collection of interlocking and repeating patterned behaviors. It is "designed" in this way by the parameters (innate limitations) with 'energy' that dictate the ways that energy can and cannot express itself. These limitations and their respective allowances are the "design parameters" of existence as we know it. What part of this can't you understand, and won't you recognize?

The part where you assume your conclusion (that it is a design) in your premise (That it is designed in this way with parameters ...). This is a clear example of circular reasoning. You have to first prove that the parameters are necessarily a design. Can you attempt to do that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Right. It is a classification for all great apes, including non-humans. That's the point.

The problem is that they hate the reason that we are classified as being apes. Strangely enough they will admit that we are mammals, tetrapods, vertebrates, etc. even though the reasons for those classifications are the same.

 

[leibowde84]

The problem is that they hate the reason that we are classified as being apes. Strangely enough they will admit that we are mammals, tetrapods, vertebrates, etc. even though the reasons for those classifications are the same.

Well-put. I really don't get it. It's almost as if they are offended by the idea that we could be related to other animals.

 

[PureX]

Well-put. I really don't get it. It's almost as if they are offended by the idea that we could be related to other animals.

Our biases are often irrational, as they are ruled by our egos rather than by our reason. If we want to understand the bias of others, all we have to do is examine those of your own. The mechanisms are the same, even if the subjects are different.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Our biases are often irrational, as they are ruled by our egos rather than by our reason. If we want to understand the bias of others, all we have to do is examine those of your own. The mechanisms are the same, even if the subjects are different.

Yes, those of theists are extremely irrational. Let's try to obey the rules of logic and reason in our debates. Do you think that you can do that?