What is creationism?

[Valjean]

"Proactive" sounds like active intervention by alteration of the "natural laws of physics and chemistry," ie: a miracle or magic.

The natural laws of physics and chemistry were already in place. You claim they created the world, so any subsequent intervention by God would have been unnecessary. If there was an intervention, then the world was not created by the natural laws of physics and chemistry, but by magical intervention.

And what is this "intelligence?" some kind of mechanism?

 

[rusra02]

"Darwin's Enigma" is written by Luther Sunderland, an aerospace engineer. He died in 1987.

Judging from the quote you've given (and assuming it's accurate) it sounds like he doesn't understand evolution. Of course every type of life that appears is complete and fully functional. Evolution doesn't state that anything else should be the case.
What is this guy looking for exactly? Half wings or half a toe or something? What he's saying doesn't appear to make sense. Also, his conclusion doesn't follow from his premise.

Why should anybody take you seriously when 1) you can't even get these peoples' names right, and 2) You continue to quote mine when the dishonesty of the tactic has been pointed out to you innumerable times?

So, is it your position that an eye or wing "evolved" fully formed and functional? Can you explain how that worked?

 

[Valjean]

Creationism posits magic, though they call it "divine intervention, omnipotence" or "miraculous." Just semantic quibbling, though, like changing "creationism" to "intelligent design."

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So, is it your position that an eye or wing "evolved" fully formed and functional? Can you explain how that worked?

Nothing "evolves fully formed and functional", everything evolves incrementally from prior traits that were themselves functional. It's not that there once was no eye, then a "half-eye", then an eye. It started with something simple but still functional, like a small patch of light-sensitive cells on the skin which the organism can use to detect light. From there, the cells on the skin become indented so that the direction of the light can be detected as well. Eventually this indent increases to form a chamber and detect light from a wider variety of directions, which later develops a transparent humour that prevents contamination and allows for filtering. Lenses develop on the surface to help focus the light into the back of the chamber.
SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

In other words, at no step was anything truly "full formed" or "half-formed". Every "step" was an incremental improvement on the latter, but each step also represented a functional organ that provided a benefit to the organism. Our current eyes (which aren't even the best eyes we can find in nature) are merely a slightly improved version of a slightly improved version of a slightly improved version, etc. of means to detect light. Wings developed in a similar, incremental way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_avian_flight

 

[rusra02]

Nothing "evolves fully formed and functional", everything evolves incrementally from prior traits that were themselves functional. It's not that there once was no eye, then a "half-eye", then an eye. It started with something simple but still functional, like a small patch of light-sensitive cells on the skin which the organism can use to detect light. From there, the cells on the skin become indented so that the direction of the light can be detected as well. Eventually this indent increases to form a chamber and detect light from a wider variety of directions, which later develops a transparent humour that prevents contamination and allows for filtering. Lenses develop on the surface to help focus the light into the back of the chamber.
SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

In other words, at no step was anything truly "full formed" or "half-formed". Every "step" was an incremental improvement on the latter, but each step also represented a functional organ that provided a benefit to the organism. Our current eyes (which aren't even the best eyes we can find in nature) are merely a slightly improved version of a slightly improved version of a slightly improved version, etc. of means to detect light. Wings developed in a similar, incremental way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_avian_flight

Whether you chose to believe that is your decision, of course. I do not believe an eye or a wing developed by non- intelligent forces.

 

[metis]

Whether you chose to believe that is your decision, of course. I do not believe an eye or a wing developed by non- intelligent forces.

But that wasn't the point IF was making.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Whether you chose to believe that is your decision, of course. I do not believe an eye or a wing developed by non- intelligent forces.

I believe it because I have researched the facts. I don't "choose" to believe it. Have you read the evidence and analysis I have provided? Do you at least appreciate the fact that I have answered your question as to how the eye and wing could have developed through evolution?

 

[rusra02]

I believe it because I have researched the facts. I don't "choose" to believe it. Have you read the evidence and analysis I have provided? Do you at least appreciate the fact that I have answered your question as to how the eye and wing could have developed through evolution?

I have presented the evidence I find convincing to prove a Creator, God. You have presented yours. I will leave it to each interested person to decide what evidence convinces them. I do not find yours convincing in the slightest way.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I have presented the evidence I find convincing to prove a Creator, God. You have presented yours.

I have yet to see any evidence presented by you for anything. Besides, what relevance does that have to what I have presented? What I have presented says nothing whatsoever about God.

I will leave it to each interested person to decide what evidence convinces them. I do not find yours convincing in the slightest way.

The difference is that I can explain, rationally, why I find your arguments not convincing, and I can show facts that directly contradict your claims. You have presented no argument to refute what I have presented, and can present no facts that contradict my claims. Whatever you may think, my argument is clearly stronger, and any rational person who is interested should see that. You can't even acknowledge when an answer has been provided to your question, and revert to outright dismissal. What do you think that says about you?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Not very good at doing what you say you are going to, eh?

And what did I say that I was going to do?
You also haven't told me what my argument was from a couple of posts ago..

I shouldn't bother wading through the last few pages .. it really doesn't matter

 

[SkepticThinker]

Nothing "evolves fully formed and functional", everything evolves incrementally from prior traits that were themselves functional. It's not that there once was no eye, then a "half-eye", then an eye. It started with something simple but still functional, like a small patch of light-sensitive cells on the skin which the organism can use to detect light. From there, the cells on the skin become indented so that the direction of the light can be detected as well. Eventually this indent increases to form a chamber and detect light from a wider variety of directions, which later develops a transparent humour that prevents contamination and allows for filtering. Lenses develop on the surface to help focus the light into the back of the chamber.
SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

In other words, at no step was anything truly "full formed" or "half-formed". Every "step" was an incremental improvement on the latter, but each step also represented a functional organ that provided a benefit to the organism. Our current eyes (which aren't even the best eyes we can find in nature) are merely a slightly improved version of a slightly improved version of a slightly improved version, etc. of means to detect light. Wings developed in a similar, incremental way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_avian_flight

This ^^^

Or if an animal had excess skin or webbing on its arms, the body part acts as a arm, but can also be used to glide from treetops of over a body of water, as a type of wnig. But it's not truly "half a wing" or "half an arm."

 

[SkepticThinker]

Whether you chose to believe that is your decision, of course. I do not believe an eye or a wing developed by non- intelligent forces.

It's not a matter of belief. It is something that can be demonstrated. Do you have any claims that are actually demonstrable?


Why couldn't god have created the process of evolution? Wouldn't that make "him" pretty brilliant?

 

[Sapiens]

That's not what I believe. I believe that God proactively created the world using his intelligence.

So, is it your position that an eye or wing "evolved" fully formed and functional? Can you explain how that worked?

Evolution of flight: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/flight/evolve.html

Evolution of sight: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/eyes_01 http://motherboard.vice.com/read/cosmos-calmly-stared-down-a-tired-anti-evolution-argument

Evolution of flagella: https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~matzke/matzke_cv/_pubs/Pallen_Matzke_2006_NRM_origin_flagella.pdf https://www.newscientist.com/articl...e-bacterial-flagellum-is-irreducibly-complex/

.

Watch Behe commit stupidity, possibly perjury:

After the (Dover) trial, there were calls for the defendants, accused of not presenting their case honestly, to be put on trial for committing perjury. "Witnesses either testified inconsistently, or lied outright under oath on several occasions," Jones wrote. "The inescapable truth is that both [Alan] Bonsell and [William] Buckingham lied at their January 3, 2005 depositions. ... Bonsell repeatedly failed to testify in a truthful manner. ... Defendants have unceasingly attempted in vain to distance themselves from their own actions and statements, which culminated in repetitious, untruthful testimony." An editorial in the York Daily Record described their behavior as both ironic and sinful, saying that the "...unintelligent designers of this fiasco should not walk away unscathed.

It does not matter how many "irreducibly complex" arguments are falsified, the IDers just, dishonestly and with no hindsight, move on to another structure and make the same claim.

And what did I say that I was going to do?

MI: "I think that I'm wasting my time in this thread."

You also haven't told me what my argument was from a couple of posts ago..

Something about "laws of your invisible friend."

 

[Midnight Rain]

So, is it your position that an eye or wing "evolved" fully formed and functional? Can you explain how that worked?

You chose the two worst possible traits to ask that for since we know exactly how the wing and the eye have evolved. We also have eyes and wings at every step of the evolutionary process alive and well today.
For the eye.
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/another-gap-filled-more-evidence-for-eye-evolution/
http://www.proof-of-evolution.com/evolution-of-the-eye.html
https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/evolution_of_the_eye.htm
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080101193317.
htmhttps://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080101193317.htm

for wings
http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2012/8959.html
http://www.sussexvt.k12.de.us/science/Evolution/Evidence for Evolution.htm
http://www.shmoop.com/evidence-evolution/structure-function.html
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/flight/evolve.html

Irreducible complexity itself is a bunk argument that has been settled numerous times in debate and discussions. There are logical problems with the assertions itself but what is worse is that the predictions made based on it have always been wrong. So its highly problematic for anyone invoking the argument. Secondly you chose the eye and the wing. These two are incredibly well understood. Asking why we have skin rather than scales if we evolved from scaly creatures would have been a much better question but wings and eyes are both understood because they evolve independently so often in the life on this planet.

 

[Scott C.]

"Proactive" sounds like active intervention by alteration of the "natural laws of physics and chemistry," ie: a miracle or magic.

The natural laws of physics and chemistry were already in place. You claim they created the world, so any subsequent intervention by God would have been unnecessary. If there was an intervention, then the world was not created by the natural laws of physics and chemistry, but by magical intervention.

And what is this "intelligence?" some kind of mechanism?

If I build a house, I use existing materials in some form. I apply my knowledge of the laws of physics to that material and I organize it into the form of a house. Likewise, God built the world and the universe from co-eternal matter in some unorganized form. We have a scripture that uses the term "God organized" rather than "God created", in reference to the earth. Mormons reject creation "from nothing" or "ex nihilo." If I build a house, in a sense I created it, but perhaps I more organized the elements into that desired form. This requires intelligence or knowledge. God has infinite knowledge and power and comprehension of "how" to do things. There's no magic. It's all quite logical and scientific to God. We must realize that our understanding of science is infinitely small when compared with God's grasp of the subject. This is how God does miracles. No magic, just knowledge, but knowledge that so far surpasses mere mortal understanding that it appears as magic, as you use the term.

If someone would have seen a smart phone 500 years ago, they would have thought it was magic. They certainly would have thought that it defied the laws of nature. But given our advanced understanding of science today, we realize there is no magic. So, when we see the miracles of God, we see them as defying nature, what some would call magic. But it's no more magical than a smart phone to one who understands the science.

 

[Midnight Rain]

If I build a house, I use existing materials in some form. I apply my knowledge of the laws of physics to that material and I organize it into the form of a house. Likewise, God built the world and the universe from co-eternal matter in some unorganized form. We have a scripture that uses the term "God organized" rather than "God created", in reference to the earth. If I build a house, in a sense I created it, but perhaps I more organized the elements into that desired form. This requires intelligence or knowledge. God has infinite knowledge and power and comprehension of "how" to do things. There's no magic. It's all quite logical and scientific to God. We must realize that our understanding of science is infinitely small when compared with God's grasp of the subject. This is how God does miracles. No magic, just knowledge, but knowledge that so far surpasses mere mortal understanding that it appears as magic, as you use the term.

It seems as if you are in favor of theistic evolution? Do you favor it in a reconciliation way?

 

[Scott C.]

It seems as if you are in favor of theistic evolution? Do you favor it in a reconciliation way?

God may have used evolution in the process of creation in the opinion of this one Mormon. Or we may find out someday that evolution, as understood today, is bogus. I don't know what time will reveal about the process of creation. Personally, I don't believe we will understand "how" God did it until we live with him in eternity and perhaps he will teach us.

 

[Sapiens]

If I build a house, I use existing materials in some form. I apply my knowledge of the laws of physics to that material and I organize it into the form of a house. Likewise, God built the world and the universe from co-eternal matter in some unorganized form.

Any real evidence of this? If so ... please share.

We have a scripture that uses the term "God organized" rather than "God created", in reference to the earth.

The accuracy and origin of your scripture is a whole different story.

Mormons reject creation "from nothing" or "ex nihilo." If I build a house, in a sense I created it, but perhaps I more organized the elements into that desired form. This requires intelligence or knowledge.

Yes, in the case of a house assembled from manufactured parts. I know people whose house is a lava tube, a completely natural "creation.".

God has infinite knowledge and power and comprehension of "how" to do things. There's no magic.

There is no evidence of this "god" of yours.

It's all quite logical and scientific to God.

He told you so?

We must realize that our understanding of science is infinitely small when compared with God's grasp of the subject. This is how God does miracles. No magic, just knowledge, but knowledge that so far surpasses mere mortal understanding that it appears as magic, as you use the term.

Oh, so Mormonism is just another version of Sir Arthur's Thrid Law?

If someone would have seen a smart phone 500 years ago, they would have thought it was magic. They certainly would have thought that it defied the laws of nature. But given our advanced understanding of science today, we realize there is no magic. So, when we see the miracles of God, we see them as defying nature, what some would call magic. But it's no more magical than a smart phone to one who understands the science.

See previous.

 

[Midnight Rain]

God may have used evolution in the process of creation in the opinion of this one Mormon. Or we may find out someday that evolution, as understood today, is bogus. I don't know what time will reveal about the process of creation. Personally, I don't believe we will understand "how" God did it until we live with him in eternity and perhaps he will teach us.

The evidence is rather strong so I doubt what we know of today will be "bogus". Hopefully our understanding of the process with become immensely more accurate and complete but I doubt its wrong. Even Darwin who was wrong on many aspects had the correct general idea.

 

[LuisDantas]

I believe that God used the natural laws of physics and chemistry, including laws unknown, unimagined, and incomprehensible to mere mortals, to create the world. I consider that creationism. Do you?

That's not what I believe. I believe that God proactively created the world using his intelligence.

That what you describe should logically be called theistic creationism. In practice, "Creationism" involves some sort of attempt at denying known biological facts, though.