Are Creationists the Great Pretenders?

[Uncommon Sense]

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?

No ~ you say. I’m speaking of here and now, and abiogenesis performed by intelligent human beings. Stop trying to redirect if you can.
Curiosity? Fascination? I don’t know, I’m content with not knowing or being able know certain things currently.

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.

While that is accurate, it is a poor equivalence for what we are discussing~ 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.

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

I don’t know. It’s pretty difficult to comprehend anything just always being there or anything just popping into existence on its own. But you keep trying to redirect to something that’s never even been discussed by me. I’ve never once mentioned anything about full deduction to an initial source ~ only what is now and with human intelligence and with human design. Once again, stop trying to redirect to that if you can~ it is you and only you who have done that.

You seem to be imagining that the first living thing sprang up fully formed, like Cadmus's warriors. That's not the scientific approach.

No. You are imagining that and projecting it onto me. Not sure how you did that with what I said. My best guess would be you have this bias in your mind towards anyone who doesn’t share your exact views ~ so you think everyone else must think something magically just sprang up fully formed.

 

[Uncommon Sense]

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.

That we agree with. Fuzzy line between what is “living” and what is “non-living.”

 

[Subduction Zone]

No ~ you say. I’m speaking of here and now, and abiogenesis performed by intelligent human beings. Stop trying to redirect if you can.
Curiosity? Fascination? I don’t know, I’m content with not knowing or being able know certain things currently.



While that is accurate, it is a poor equivalence for what we are discussing~ 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.



I don’t know. It’s pretty difficult to comprehend anything just always being there or anything just popping into existence on its own. But you keep trying to redirect to something that’s never even been discussed by me. I’ve never once mentioned anything about full deduction to an initial source ~ only what is now and with human intelligence and with human design. Once again, stop trying to redirect to that if you can~ it is you and only you who have done that.



No. You are imagining that and projecting it onto me. Not sure how you did that with what I said. My best guess would be you have this bias in your mind towards anyone who doesn’t share your exact views ~ so you think everyone else must think something magically just sprang up fully formed.

You continue to demonstrate that you do not understand what scientists are doing in abiogenesis research. They are not trying to design life. They are trying to reproduce the key environments of the past as see if that would lead to life forming itself.

 

[shmogie]

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.

You and I will totally disagree, no matter what we say. Letś let it go.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You and I will totally disagree, no matter what we say. Letś let it go.

Don't you think it a bit strange that you have such a strong belief in something that has no reliable evidence and yet complain about the supposed lack of evidence for abiogenesis. Clearly, your beliefs are not evidence based.

 

[blü 2]

No ~ you say. I’m speaking of here and now, and abiogenesis performed by intelligent human beings. Stop trying to redirect if you can.
Curiosity? Fascination? I don’t know, I’m content with not knowing or being able know certain things currently.

Then you're right, I need a better understanding of your position. Would you please clarify the following points for me:

Do you believe that intelligent design is something that can only be done by naturally existing creatures?

If so, why would the notion of intelligent design be relevant to abiogenesis at all?

If not, what, in addition to naturally existing creatures, is capable of intelligent design?

And what part do you say [it] played in abiogenesis?

And on what grounds do you base that view?

Yes, I see that you expressly don't want to talk about original abiogenesis, but if that's not the actual topic of the conversation, why use the loaded expression "intelligent design" in relation to scientific abiogenesis research? If the question how the first abiogenesis occurred has no bearing on the conversation, what's the point of the conversation at all?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

“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.

I will no longer be responding to you either. I am joining several others in ignoring any future posts by you. There is nothing from you but lies, misrepresentation, impolite rudeness, logical fallacies, willful ignorance and very, very common nonsense.

 

[blü 2]

You and I will totally disagree, no matter what we say. Letś let it go.

That's a pity. That question would make for a substantial and interesting discussion.

But ─ as you wish.

Go well.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

I think you will be able to provide the logic, reason and information that a reasonable person should have no trouble understanding, but I do not see how anyone is going to be able to provide the ability to creationists to shift to a reasonable position in their thinking.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

Abiogenesis is the scientific argument for the origin of life. Atheism has nothing to do with the formulation of the hypotheses. Squeeze as hard as you like, that one is not going to float and avoid a trip down the rotating water column.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes, I believe old earthers believe this. It would be troubling for me though.

Why would it be troubling for you?

 

[Uncommon Sense]

Then you're right, I need a better understanding of your position. Would you please clarify the following points for me:

That would still be re-directing since the only topic of discussion so far has been human intelligence and their designed models and experimentation in an attempt to re-create abiogenesis.

Do you believe that intelligent design is something that can only be done by naturally existing creatures?

You or I both do not know if there are other naturally existing intelligent creatures or naturally existing intelligent non-creatures anywhere else.

If so, why would the notion of intelligent design be relevant to abiogenesis at all?

“Intelligent design” is only loaded for someone who makes it that way in their own mind and cannot be honest in admitting this ~ that abiogenesis can only be replicated by intelligent human beings and their designs, experiments, and what is already naturally here.

If not, what, in addition to naturally existing creatures, is capable of intelligent design?

More naturally advanced intelligent beings, with capable forces. Something human beings themselves may become one day and that you hope them to.

And what part do you say [it] played in abiogenesis?

The same thing that would play the part of abiogenesis here and now ~ intelligent beings with the capabilities of designing experiments.

And on what grounds do you base that view?

What intelligent beings are doing now, or trying to do now.

Yes, I see that you expressly don't want to talk about original abiogenesis, but if that's not the actual topic of the conversation, why use the loaded expression "intelligent design" in relation to scientific abiogenesis research? If the question how the first abiogenesis occurred has no bearing on the conversation, what's the point of the conversation at all?

It is only a loaded expression for those that make it loaded in their own minds. You or I both would not know initial abiogenesis ~ so we can either speculate, guess, think, believe. You’ve mentioned it would be terrifying I think to one alternative (correct if wrong) ~ what would be terrifying about that to you if it were so?

 

[Audie]

I will no longer be responding to you either. I am joining several others in ignoring any future posts by you. There is nothing from you but lies, misrepresentation, impolite rudeness, logical fallacies, willful ignorance and very, very common nonsense.

One of those zen mysteries-if it goes away,
will anyone notice?

 

[blü 2]

It ["intelligent design"] is only a loaded expression for those that make it loaded in their own minds.

For someone like me, who remembers the Dover trial, and the cross-examination of Michael Behe, which showed his "intelligent design" to be the Emperor's new clothes, your statement sounds faux naïf; an impression reinforced by your wish to evade the issues relevant there.

After all, the only possibilities for earth's initial abiogenesis are that it was the product of natural events, or that it had a supernatural element (at Dover represented by "intelligent design") ─ that's to say, if not by science, then by magic.

I have no reason to think that magic ─ the alteration of reality independently of the rules of physics, usually by wishing ─ exists outside of individual imaginations, and accordingly I don't think it can be a candidate explanation.

If your point is that research into abiogenesis is conducted on scientific principles, that seems unarguable, hence scarcely worth all these posts.

 

[Uncommon Sense]

After all, the only possibilities for earth's initial abiogenesis are that it was the product of natural events, or that it had a supernatural element

You’d have to state what you mean by supernatural, as if there were intelligent designers behind the initial ~ they would just be another part of nature.

an impression reinforced by your wish to evade the issues relevant there.

What is the issue relevant here? I stated that the abiogenesis currently can only be replicated by intelligent human beings and their designed models/experiments. In which you evaded by imposing initial abiogenesis ~ in which I’ve already stated that you or I don’t know.

I think you may have expectations that I’m going to try and prove to you that there was intelligence behind initial abiogenesis ~ while you bring up Behe, supernatural design, and other stuff I never even once mentioned in order to do whatever it is you’re trying to do. (I’ve seen enough of these to know the intent anyhow.) Sorry to disappoint.

If you’d like to use your mind as to speculate, guess, think, or believe what could or could not have, or may or may not have happened ~ go for it. If you believe it all to have arose naturally and spontaneously on its own with no intelligence behind ~ that’s not my concern. I respect your view of that.

 

[blü 2]

You’d have to state what you mean by supernatural, as if there were intelligent designers behind the initial ~ they would just be another part of nature.

If in nature then real, and accordingly in the realm of the physical sciences, yes.

I’ve already stated that you or I don’t know.

The point was not whether you or I knew it, but what your use of the particular expression 'intelligent design' was intended to convey.

I think you may have expectations that I’m going to try and prove to you that there was intelligence behind initial abiogenesis ~ while you bring up Behe, supernatural design, and other stuff I never even once mentioned

But, as I pointed out, directly implied.

Sorry to disappoint.

Apology accepted.

 

[Uncommon Sense]

That is a lot of enabling of someone pretending to know things he doesn;t all to prop up his middle eastern religion.

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.

You are boring.

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?

 

[Uncommon Sense]

I have no reason to think that magic ─ the alteration of reality independently of the rules of physics, usually by wishing ─ exists outside of individual imaginations, and accordingly I don't think it can be a candidate explanation.

I don’t mind that view ~ and it’s a possibility.

I asked you before what would be frightening about the alternative possibility if it were an advanced race of intelligent beings who did this on Earth?

 

[Wandering Monk]

I don’t mind that view ~ and it’s a possibility.

I asked you before what would be frightening about the alternative possibility if it were an advanced race of intelligent beings who did this on Earth?

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

 

[blü 2]

I don’t mind that view ~ and it’s a possibility.

I asked you before what would be frightening about the alternative possibility if it were an advanced race of intelligent beings who did this on Earth?

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