theists, please explain.

[kid]

g'day guys,
i was just wondering how and why you believe in creationism? i mean what is creationism did a finger just come out of the sky and create everything in 7 days. why does it take 7 days? is it because a book writen by humans told you so, because theres a book that tells me about the Valar and undying lands and elves. should i believe this book. what makes the bible so special? please tell me so i can understand and make a descision on what i believe happened.
thanks everyone, KID.

[buckshot23]

g'day guys,
i was just wondering how and why you believe in creationism? i mean what is creationism did a finger just come out of the sky and create everything in 7 days. why does it take 7 days? is it because a book writen by humans told you so, because theres a book that tells me about the Valar and undying lands and elves. should i believe this book. what makes the bible so special? please tell me so i can understand and make a descision on what i believe happened.
thanks everyone, KID.
If you have serious questions we can talk via PM. :)

[kid]

buckshot that would be good but i havent been on this site for ages and never known what pm is. also i am going to school in 2 minutes. is it just private messages because it would be good thanks

[Dragon]

The Bible is fake.

[obliteration]

I would like to see answers to these questions here in the thread.

[buckshot23]

buckshot that would be good but i havent been on this site for ages and never known what pm is. also i am going to school in 2 minutes. is it just private messages because it would be good thanks
Yes private message.

[buckshot23]

The Bible is fake.
You can see why I would want to do it in PM now. Can't you?

[obliteration]

The Bible is fake.

Oh the Bible is real, of course... it is the fables IN the Bible that shouldn't be taken as serious science.

[kas]

You can see why I would want to do it in PM now. Can't you?

No, I can't. Surely you are able to defend your opinions against honest criticism? If not, they probably aren't worth much. This is a discussion forum, after all.

[buckshot23]

No, I can't. Surely you are able to defend your opinions against honest criticism? If not, they probably aren't worth much. This is a discussion forum, after all.
Yeah honest criticism.

[ecco]

Buckshot23: Yeah honest criticism.

State your case and I'm sure many of us will honestly criticize it.

[Doubting Didymus]

That may well be the case, but there are still enough people out to unconstructively ridicule anything a creationist says to make buckshots concern justified. Things here do seem to be better than they were at the end of my tenure, but I still can't imagine wanting to post very much if I were a creationist.

[RBH]

Thanks, DD: Saved me making the same point.

RBH

[discombobulated]

How does one offer constructive criticism, instead of ridicule, about a topic where the central theme is as follows: "My religious book says your scientists are wrong." How does one even discuss an issue where facts are not relevant, where faith is all that matters?

If I could find a good answer to that question, I might have an easier time with creationists in general ...

-disco

yes, it's a derail, and yes, it's an honest question.

[Doubting Didymus]

Plenty of people manage to keep themselves in check when they discuss this issue. Actually, just as many are even able to get emotional and heated about it, without abandoning content for striaght out ridicule.

I've had plenty of honest discussions with creationists. I'm good friends with more than a few. I've never been entirely certain what the problem is. We discuss creationism like it's a normal topic.

Because it is one.

[kid]

Well thanks for all this great debating but no one has answered my question yet, is it just cause its a boring topic or are there no theists on this site?

[Doubting Didymus]

Low on creationists. Has been for years. The reasons for this are the subject of speculation.

[judanne]

g'day guys,
i was just wondering how and why you believe in creationism? i mean what is creationism did a finger just come out of the sky and create everything in 7 days. why does it take 7 days? is it because a book writen by humans told you so, because theres a book that tells me about the Valar and undying lands and elves. should i believe this book. what makes the bible so special? please tell me so i can understand and make a descision on what i believe happened.
thanks everyone, KID.
Fruitful discussion of questions is often enhanced by posing them one at a time. If I was a creationist (I'm not, BTW) I might reply to your post with the slightly snarky "is there any particular order you would like those questions answered?". It is also in keeping with the intended spirit of this forum if the questions themselves do not contain or imply derision. Creationists might be more willing to answer questions about the reasons for their belief if those who question avoided presupposing their answers.

[Doubting Didymus]

Well well. Nice to meet you, judanne.

[checkmate]

Because atheism hasn't answered the following questions to my satisfaction:

1. What is the source of the informational specification that organizes the
atomic parts into a life-support system.

2. How can the random interaction of nonliving matter produce structures
so sophisticated that our most advanced technology seems pale by
comparison.

3. What experiment has ever shown that functionally coherent complex
patterns are produced by the chaotic motion of dust?

[buckshot23]

Low on creationists. Has been for years. The reasons for this are the subject of speculation.
I wish it wasn't so. I think part of it is some here get so excited to put down a creationist that they unfairly criticize everything that is said. It's like a feeding frenzy when creationist blood is in the water. Look at the bush and evolution thread for an example. Starting from here.
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2572129#post2572129
While most here are fair it is the few who really have an axe to grind IMO who ruin it for creationists here. If you notice in that thread alot of you guys did come to my defense and I appreciate it. :thumbs:

[Godless Wonder]

Because atheism hasn't answered the following questions to my satisfaction:

1. What is the source of the informational specification that organizes the
atomic parts into a life-support system.

2. How can the random interaction of nonliving matter produce structures
so sophisticated that our most advanced technology seems pale by
comparison.

3. What experiment has ever shown that functionally coherent complex
patterns are produced by the chaotic motion of dust?
Creationism doesn't answer these either. It provides a facile "answer" of GodDidIt, which really only moves the problem, rather than answering it, and makes a bigger problem (how did God come to exist?), and by the means of bald assertion, puts this bigger problem into a place where it cannot even be examined.

Why do you require answers to these questions without regard to the quality of those answers? The "answers" that you have are of the poorest quality conceivable, they tell you nothing, and demand faith, and demand that you say that faith is a good thing.

Much better to say "I don't know" than to accept fabricated answers. And "I don't know" should not be confused with a license to believe arbitrary assertions aka random crap.

[kid]

hi judanne,
i just want an answer not <edit> you to come and criticise what i have asked. the derision that you say i imply only intends the theists to convince me otherwise not to pesuppose their answers. its a nudge to answer what im having trouble with. so could you take your own advice and keep in the spirit of this forum and not be a rude little <edit>
thank you very much, KID

[checkmate]

You have certainly learned to use alot of words to say, "I don't know."
These are fair questions. Really thought you could do better than that.

[Ad Astra]

Because atheism hasn't answered the following questions to my satisfaction:
Oh, I certainly hope the following questions are about the existence or non-existence of god(s), since atheism is the lack of belief in any god(s) and is not any sort of theory or hypothesis used to explain natural phenomena.

1. What is the source of the informational specification that organizes the atomic parts into a life-support system.
This has nothing to do with atheism. Rather, the origins of life is a topic best suited for chemistry and physics.

2. How can the random interaction of nonliving matter produce structures so sophisticated that our most advanced technology seems pale by comparison.
This has nothing to do with atheism. Rather, the functions of living organisms is a topic best suited for chemistry and biology.

3. What experiment has ever shown that functionally coherent complex patterns are produced by the chaotic motion of dust?
This has nothing to do with atheism. Rather, the interactions and motion of chemicals is best suited for chemistry and physics.

[Godless Wonder]

You have certainly learned to use alot of words to say, "I don't know."
These are fair questions. Really thought you could do better than that. I don't know what's in your pocket but I know it's not a live elephant. Claiming Biblical Creationism is true is like claiming somebody that you heard about on TV one time had a live elephant in his pocket.

[checkmate]

I guess my expectations have been too high re answers. These questions are fair and legit. And you blame us fundies for stupid responses. Oh my!

[checkmate]

Keep dodging. Your looking good.

[Doubting Didymus]

He's got a point.

[Doubting Didymus]

What do you think of the answers provided to your second and third questions by the introduction to evolutionary theory part 1, which you can find in the rescources sticky at the top of this page? The basic message is that natural selection isn't random.

[Godless Wonder]

Keep dodging. Your looking good.
I'm not dodging, you are, as evidenced by your very nearly contentless posts. Nobody knows what "created" the universe, if such words even apply. Any persons that claim they know are either lying or mistaken. All the evidence we do have indicates that the Biblical account is not correct.

[trendkill]

You have certainly learned to use alot of words to say, "I don't know."
These are fair questions. Really thought you could do better than that.
Actually his point was more like, "I don't know, and you don't either". You just ignored the part about you and focused on the part about him, apparently because you don't have an answer.

[checkmate]

Thank you for a sane response. I knew that there had to be someone here I could see did not have a axe to grind. I simply answered the question on why I am a theist. The natural selection post wasn't the issue. I am looking before evolution to find out where the empirical warrant is for the faith that presupposes that lifeless particles forst made a home for themselves (the earth), endowed themselves with a living awareness of their own existence (us), and then proceeded to build art museums, music halls,etc.

[Ad Astra]

I guess my expectations have been too high re answers.
Thinly-veiled insults will get you nowhere.
These questions are fair and legit.
I disagree. Forgive me if I am wrong, but I have had quite a bit of experience on these boards and other forums on the internet, and my experience is telling me that you have no intention of reading and responding to answers to your question, but rather are attempting to argue your own points by indirectly misrepresenting your "opposition" through questions and statements set-up with tricky wording and false assumptions designed to convince the reader that scientists really believe in the things that you are questioning.

For example, you wrote...
Because atheism hasn't answered the following questions to my satisfaction:
...which gives the quite mistaken impression that atheism is supposed to provide answers to your questions regarding science. Atheism is a disbelief in the existence of deities; it is not a theory or hypothesis.

Your first question was...
1. What is the source of the informational specification that organizes the atomic parts into a life-support system.
...which, unless I am reading it wrong (note my mention of tricky wording above), assumes that there is some sort of pre-set biological "blueprint" that must be followed in order for non-living molecules to form into living organisms, giving the very strong implication that there must have been some sort of "designer" present to construct such living organisms.

Your second question was...
2. How can the random interaction of nonliving matter produce structures so sophisticated that our most advanced technology seems pale by comparison.
Here, you try to give the reader the mistaken impression that scientists believe chemical interactions are random and are the sole mechanism responsible for complex biological structures.

Finally, you asked...
3. What experiment has ever shown that functionally coherent complex patterns are produced by the chaotic motion of dust?
Here, you try to give the reader the mistaken impression that scientists believe the "chaotic motion of dust" is the mechanism responsible for the production of "functionally coherent complex patterns."

And you blame us fundies for stupid responses. Oh my!
I have done no such thing. In fact, I don't recall ever using the words "fundie," "fundies," "fundamentalist" or any such thing in my response.

[Ad Astra]

I am looking before evolution to find out where the empirical warrant is for the faith that presupposes that lifeless particles forst made a home for themselves (the earth), endowed themselves with a living awareness of their own existence (us), and then proceeded to build art museums, music halls,etc.
Again, another example of purposeful misrepresentation designed to give the reader the mistaken impression that your "opposition" really believes such things.

[checkmate]

I do not have the answer? Simon says you should not try to play the omniscience game. Just because your world view leaves you intellectually sterile, don't assume mine does.

Godless, the only reason my posts seem contentless my be they are just too deep for you. If we take away your sarcasm, you may have enough words to make a sentence.

[Godless Wonder]

IGodless, the only reason my posts seem contentless my be they are just too deep for you. If we take away your sarcasm, you may have enough words to make a sentence.
So what is the deep meaning of "keep dodging. Your [sic] looking good," Mr. Sarcastic?

You are the one making a claim of knowledge about deity, but you refuse to defend it, because you can't. All you have done is tell me that I don't know, which, duh, I already said that I don't know. The fact that I don't know doesn't prove that you do. Your position is indefensible.

[checkmate]

Maybe sometime you and I can discuss with less crap throwing and learn to really see why we both believe as we do. My questions should be very relevent because I assume we are both very curious about the world and universe. Since atheists do not believe in a personal creator, why isn't it ok for me to ask questions about, "Where did the complex patterns come from? I you say you do not know, great. There are hard questions in both camps. Right? Anyhow, I was asked why I am a creationist and I let you know.

[buckshot23]

I think we could get further in this discussion without the comments about being too deep or having contentless posts. There is enough hostility without such remarks. That being said. In my opinion I think the universe could not form itself through a Big Bang and create the stars planets elements and life by accident. I am a creationist though because I believe that Christ is who He said he was. I believe His testimony about creation. It's really that simple.

[Godless Wonder]

Maybe sometime you and I can discuss with less crap throwing and learn to really see why we both believe as we do. My questions should be very relevent because I assume we are both very curious about the world and universe. Since atheists do not believe in a personal creator, why isn't it ok for me to ask questions about, "Where did the complex patterns come from? I you say you do not know, great. There are hard questions in both camps. Right? Anyhow, I was asked why I am a creationist and I let you know.

Actually you didn't. You listed some questions which for which we don't have complete answers (though we do have good answers that get us from a hypothetical simple imperfect chemical self-replicator to, it would seem, arbitrary levels of complexity,) and then you say you accept an "answer" to all of these questions which explains nothing and for which there is no evidence at all. E.g. you posit the existence of some undetectable superpowerful sentient entity even more complex than the complexity which you are attempting to explain in the first place. Why? Why does this even more complex, undetectable sentient being require no explanation while you sit here and look at the apparent complexity of the universe and demand an explanation? And you accept as an explanation a more than doubling of the unexplained complexity, with no evidence for any of it?

Edit: I think this post may be cross posted with the one below. Checkmate's post below refers to a prior post of mine, but not to this post, I think.

[checkmate]

I saw a spark of humility in your last post. When you said you did not know, was refreshing. As I told Ad, there hard questions in both of our camps. If you feel my position has not merit, hey, you are welcome to your opinion. I cannot see how a person can even doubt there was a creator. We disagree and that is ok. I am not going to belittle you or your belief. Still, what made me a creationist was the questions I asked could not be answered by anything but a creator. Seems we ought to be able to disagree without throwing crap. Please accept my apology if I was out of line in my responses.

Best :)

[Ad Astra]

Maybe sometime you and I can discuss with less crap throwing and learn to really see why we both believe as we do.
All the crap seems to be coming from your end. I've tried to be civil and organised, going so far as to outline my problems with each of your "questions" in a manner that, I hope, is easy to read and understand. All you've given me in dodging and insults. Now, after all that, why on Earth would I want to "really see why we both believe as we do" with you? If you can attempt to be civil and coherent, maybe we can continue, but if not, I have better things to occupy my time with.
My questions should be very relevent because I assume we are both very curious about the world and universe.
Given your posts in this thread, I, unfortunately, cannot assume that you have any interest in learning "about the world and universe." Or, at the very least, you have no interest in doing such here at IIDB.
Since atheists do not believe in a personal creator, why isn't it ok for me to ask questions about, "Where did the complex patterns come from?
I never said such a thing. Yes, there are many important questions regarding the origins and development of life for theists and atheists alike, but what you are trying to do is contort atheism into some sort of system of belief, complete with it's own account of the creation of life, the universe and everything. Quite simply, you are wrong, and rather than examine your own beliefs and possible learn something about atheism, science, etc. you'd rather go off and insult people.
I you say you do not know, great. There are hard questions in both camps. Right? Anyhow, I was asked why I am a creationist and I let you know.
And along with that, you purposely misrepresented atheism and, it seems to me, nearly all of science.

[Godless Wonder]

Please accept my apology if I was out of line in my responses. No problem. I have a fairly thick skin. Apologies likewise if any of my posts caused offense.

[checkmate]

Ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. How tragic. I did not misrepresent your position. You are the one stuck with believing we have universe that organizes itself. I guess it is really hard to defend that. Oh well. Guess I will have to go and have my daily Bible study. Can't learn much here.

[buckshot23]

And along with that, you purposely misrepresented atheism and, it seems to me, nearly all of science.
How can you charge that he "purposely misrepresented" atheism? He may of misrepresented atheism but you can't know if he "purposely" did it.

[checkmate]

I am going to bed. Too tired. You and I talked about issues that are very much a part of us. We all tend to get overly defensive when that happens.
I really do appreciate your response. Maybe we can chat again. I promise I will be nicer.

[judanne]

Just when I'm about to warn everyone about maintaining a congenial tone you guys go and make-up! :)

Goodnight all, I've got to work in the morning. Yikes!

[show_no_mercy]

Because atheism hasn't answered the following questions to my satisfaction:

1. What is the source of the informational specification that organizes the
atomic parts into a life-support system.

2. How can the random interaction of nonliving matter produce structures
so sophisticated that our most advanced technology seems pale by
comparison.

3. What experiment has ever shown that functionally coherent complex
patterns are produced by the chaotic motion of dust?

So only atheists can rely on scientific evidence via biologiy and cosmology, and theists can only rely on the dogmas of their specific religions?

I did not know that.

So what are all those evolutionary biologists who are also theists doing? Don't they know that they can't be both?

[ApatheticParasites]

I saw a spark of humility in your last post. When you said you did not know, was refreshing. As I told Ad, there hard questions in both of our camps. If you feel my position has not merit, hey, you are welcome to your opinion. I cannot see how a person can even doubt there was a creator. We disagree and that is ok. I am not going to belittle you or your belief. Still, what made me a creationist was the questions I asked could not be answered by anything but a creator. Seems we ought to be able to disagree without throwing crap. Please accept my apology if I was out of line in my responses.


So, Checkmate... are you saying that if science answers those questions you will abandon your belief in god?


If history is something to go by then I'm quite confident eventually we will have quite a good understanding of the questions you provided. I'm sure our ancestors used to think simular things about the weather as you do about the universe.

[Doubting Didymus]

Thank you for a sane response. I knew that there had to be someone here I could see did not have a axe to grind.
Oh but I do! I've just been grinding it on people other than creationists lately. ;) It's a break from old habits.

I simply answered the question on why I am a theist. The natural selection post wasn't the issue. I am looking before evolution to find out where the empirical warrant is for the faith that presupposes that lifeless particles forst made a home for themselves (the earth), endowed themselves with a living awareness of their own existence (us), and then proceeded to build art museums, music halls,etc.
Yes of course, but, this being a creation v evolution forum, the focus is usually on the explanation for biodiversity rather than on the origin of the earth, universe, etc. The difference, primarily, is that evolution is a theory of biology, and the knowledgeable folk who post about it here are read in biology. The universe and the earth are dealt with by geologists, and astrophysicists, and such specialties are too boring/tricksy for simple minded genetics students such as myself.

That said, we could have a discussion about how organisms came to exists the way they do, post- creation of earth. I could tell you how evolutionists think biological systems came to be. However, I'm not the type of person to launch into a massive post about it unless the poor sap i'm going to be boring the limbs off (i.e. you) really wants to discuss it. Say the word, friend.

[Jet Black]

Because atheism hasn't answered the following questions to my satisfaction:

1. What is the source of the informational specification that organizes the
atomic parts into a life-support system.

2. How can the random interaction of nonliving matter produce structures
so sophisticated that our most advanced technology seems pale by
comparison.

3. What experiment has ever shown that functionally coherent complex
patterns are produced by the chaotic motion of dust?

I will give a number of reasons as to why atheism has not answered these questions.

Firstly, atheism is not a scientific model: it is not supposed to answer things like that.
Secondly, the first question is terminology-poor. what exactly do you mean by "informational specification" and why does it have to have a source?
Thirdly, 2/3 are more or less versions of each other, and are known as a strawman argument - a weak and unrepresentative version of the position you are questioning or arguing against. Chemistry is most certainly not "random". Taking the definition of "random" to mean directionless, then random chemical interactions are not the foundation of the formation of modern biological structures. you are missing out the critical point of differential reproductive success of replicators. To focus a little more on question 3, who actually asks that question? nobody as far as I am aware. what exactly is it that you are even asking, it is not clear to me.

so at the core of it, your questions are irrelevant questions, because they are misrepresentative of the way the universe works and is thought to work, and you are asking why atheism does not answer them, when atheism does not even answer scientific questions. Please remember that Atheism is not a synonym for evolution - while Granted most of the people here will be atheists and agnostics (this is Internet Infidels after all) There are huge numbers of theists who also accept the formation of life through abiogenesis and evolution, though they also think that God played a part somewhere along the line.

[Jet Black]

g'day guys,
i was just wondering how and why you believe in creationism? i mean what is creationism did a finger just come out of the sky and create everything in 7 days. why does it take 7 days? is it because a book writen by humans told you so, because theres a book that tells me about the Valar and undying lands and elves. should i believe this book. what makes the bible so special? please tell me so i can understand and make a descision on what i believe happened.
thanks everyone, KID.

Just to make a point here, collectively targeting this at theists is a bit misrepresentative. there are many theists of many different religions who obviously do not believe any of that because they think the Bible is wrong, and even many Christians actually think that Young Earth Creationism, which is what you are describing there, is extremely damaging to Christianity as a whole.

[Richard Forrest]

Because atheism hasn't answered the following questions to my satisfaction:

'Atheism' can't answer these questions: it is a belief which is independent of science. There are many scientists who are theists, a many who are devout Christians. To label such people as 'atheists' (which is, I think, what you are doing) is rather offensive to their beliefs.

1. What is the source of the informational specification that organizes the
atomic parts into a life-support system.

This is a red herring: 'informational specification' is a label applied to the outcome of a complex series of events. The shape of the water within a puddle would requre a lot if information to describe it acurately, yet nobody would argue that its shape implies the existence of an intelligence.


2. How can the random interaction of nonliving matter produce structures
so sophisticated that our most advanced technology seems pale by
comparison.

What on earth has our technology to do with the matter? The characteristics of biological systems are completely different from those produced by our design and manufacturing processes. There is no basis on which you can compare them.

'Random interaction of nonliving matter' can produce very complex structures such as snowflakes which we could not manufacture. Is a snowflake evidence for a guiding intelligence? Furthermore, it has been shown that the precursor molecules of living organisms can be produced using simple methods from simple molecules. Matter has certain preferred ways of organising itself; this leads to such structures as crystals and snowflakes. It also leads to the production of complex organic molecules.

3. What experiment has ever shown that functionally coherent complex
patterns are produced by the chaotic motion of dust?

What on earth is a 'functionally coherent complex pattern'? I don't understand what you mean by this. Perhaps you could explain.


Richard Forrest

[Oolon Colluphid]

I think we could get further in this discussion without the comments about being too deep or having contentless posts. There is enough hostility without such remarks. Next time we have a moderator vacancy, I'll offer this as evidence in favour of your appointment :thumbs:
That being said. In my opinion I think the universe could not form itself through a Big Bang and create the stars planets elements and life by accident.
Fine. All of these have nothing whatever to do with evolution, though. Take it up with cosmologists and biochemists.

I, Oolon Colluphid, hereby state that as far as I know or care, the universe and the original self-replicators could have come about through natural processes, by the hand of god(s), by pan-dimensional beings, or by being sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure.

Evolution is what you get once you have life.

I have an opinion on what is most likely, but I just want to make sure nobody conflates evolution with all science.

I am a creationist though because I believe that Christ is who He said he was. I believe His testimony about creation. It's really that simple.
Despite evidence? You are unaware that the easy majority of Christians have no problem with evolution, or science in general?

Could you please point me towards Jesus's comments about creation (I'm feeling lazy ;)). Does he say how God created?

[Oolon Colluphid]

'Atheism' can't answer these questions: it is a belief which is independent of science.
Just to emphasise this. It is not that atheism cannot answer them -- it does not try, because that is not what it's about. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods. Scientists can be theist or atheist. They all try to answer such questions with 'this is how it seemes to have happened', but whether a god or gods were behind that happening is beyound science's scope.

IOW, atheist scientists regard the mechanisms we discover as sufficient; theist scientists regard the mechanisms as sufficient but that that's because that's how god set it up and wanted it.

[Doubting Didymus]

Just to emphasise this. It is not that atheism cannot answer them -- it does not try, because that is not what it's about. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods.
This is true for some atheisms. I believe people often label this kind of person a 'weak' atheist, for some reason I'm yet to fathom (as it's an infinitely stronger empirical position that its 'strong' cousin ;) )

Furthermore, none of this stops some individuals from associating or even equating atheism with naiive scientism, to the shame of the rest of us. How often have you seen it said: "Atheism is a belief that the universe is as revealed by science", or some variant? (If never, you've been lucky).

[Oolon Colluphid]

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods. This is true for some atheisms. I believe people often label this kind of person a 'weak' atheist, for some reason I'm yet to fathom (as it's an infinitely stronger empirical position that its 'strong' cousin ;) )
If I'm following you, then George Smith might disagree. I've just started reading Atheism: The Case Against God, and he is at pains to point out that "simply a lack of belief in gods" is the most basic meaning. He compares it to agnosticism, which seems to get confused (if confusion it is) with 'weak atheism', a softer, more user-friendly position. But it is not. One can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist -- the 'gnosis' is where the empiricism comes in.

Can we discuss some fossils now please?! :o ;)

[Sven]

Others have certainly already addressed this, but here's my take anyway:

Let me start with stating the obvious (at least to everyone except you): The opposite of "creationist" isn't "atheist".

[why you are a creationist?]
Because atheism hasn't answered the following questions to my satisfaction:
1. What is the source of the informational specification that organizes the atomic parts into a life-support system.
(1) This doesn't address the question what your problem with evolution are.
(2) How you define life? Does an RNA strang catalyzing its own formation count? If yes, then the answer to your question is: chemistry.

2. How can the random interaction of nonliving matter produce structures so sophisticated that our most advanced technology seems pale by comparison.
Evolution. Next question. BTW, nature and thus evolution isn't random at all. So this question does not even make sense.

3. What experiment has ever shown that functionally coherent complex patterns are produced by the chaotic motion of dust?
:huh: What's the relevance of this? Looks like a huge strawman.

[Sven]

I simply answered the question on why I am a theist.
But nobody asked this question. The question was why you are a creationist.

The natural selection post wasn't the issue. I am looking before evolution to find out where the empirical warrant is for the faith that presupposes that lifeless particles forst made a home for themselves (the earth), endowed themselves with a living awareness of their own existence (us), and then proceeded to build art museums, music halls,etc.
Then you are not addressing the question in the OP. Plain and simple.

[Sven]

In my opinion I think the universe could not form itself through a Big Bang and create the stars planets elements and life by accident. I am a creationist though because I believe that Christ is who He said he was. I believe His testimony about creation. It's really that simple.
Please choose one: Are you are creationist because of your incredulity (your first reason given) or because Christ said so (the second reason given)?

After you've answered this, we can delve into the countless problems with each of your "arguments".

[Sven]

How can you charge that he "purposely misrepresented" atheism? He may of misrepresented atheism but you can't know if he "purposely" did it.
That's the first time I have to agree with buckshot. Strange. :eek:

[Oolon Colluphid]

That's the first time I have to agree with buckshot. Strange. :eek:
It's been happening a lot recently (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2622288#post2622288). I find it downright freaky.

[Doubting Didymus]

Brave new world, friends.

[Oolon Colluphid]

I am a creationist though because I believe that Christ is who He said he was. I believe His testimony about creation. It's really that simple.Could you please point me towards Jesus's comments about creation (I'm feeling lazy ;)). Does he say how God created?
Well I've now had a bit of a browse. Bucky, may I point you to this:
Faith & Reason Ministries: What Jesus Said About the Creation Story and the Flood (http://www.faithreason.org/farmadam.htm)

Seems Jesus said what we Brits would term 'bugger all' about it.
There are mountains of evidence supporting Jesus' deity (including miracles and God's power in the Christian's life) and accepted (correct) science. There are only sparse, minuscule words supporting the idea that Jesus took the Creation Story and the Flood literally. Obviously, the words are either figurative, not exactly what Jesus said, or simply writer embellishments.

The very fact Jesus spoke little, if any, about Adam, Eve, and Noah is further evidence of His deity.
Maybe I'm still missing something. Please tell me what else there is of "His testimony about creation".

[Tuvar Ane Ingolenen]

<parody sillyness=medium>
Why I am an atheist
Because theism hasn't answered the following questions to my satisfaction:

1. What is the weight of the tools that God used to shape the firmament.

2. How can divine guidance of a supernatural inteligence produce actions so barbaric that selfish pragmatism seems moral by comparison.

3. What scriptural verse has ever shown how functional neurons are produced by breathing on mud?
</parody>

Are these sensible questions?

Your answers to these questions would be similar to my answers to yours.

[_Naturalist_]

In my opinion I think the universe could not form itself through a Big Bang and create the stars planets elements and life by accident.

No that is true. The elements were created as a result of the nculear fusion within the stars, in turn created because of gravity.

I am a creationist though because I believe that Christ is who He said he was. I believe His testimony about creation. It's really that simple.
Even when the evidence goes against it? Why?

[buckshot23]

That's the first time I have to agree with buckshot. Strange. :eek:
Oh Oh here come the four horsemen!

[buckshot23]

Please choose one: Are you are creationist because of your incredulity (your first reason given) or because Christ said so (the second reason given)?

After you've answered this, we can delve into the countless problems with each of your "arguments".
I don't think I was offering any arguments. The first portion were my opinions and the second was the reason I am a creationist. Because of my belief in Christ. Now why am a YEC creationist? I believe Christ was. I believe He accepted a literal world wide flood and a literal creation. He referred to Adam as a real person of history.

[Jet Black]

I don't think I was offering any arguments. The first portion were my opinions and the second was the reason I am a creationist. Because of my belief in Christ. Now why am a YEC creationist? I believe Christ was. I believe He accepted a literal world wide flood and a literal creation. He referred to Adam as a real person of history.

he also said that mustard is the least of all seeds. what did he mean by that? normally people say he meant that mustard is the smallest seed.

you might also well note that the culture back then in terms of telling parables was totally different to now.

[buckshot23]

he also said that mustard is the least of all seeds. what did he mean by that? normally people say he meant that mustard is the smallest seed.

you might also well note that the culture back then in terms of telling parables was totally different to now.
I am not going to get into that. All I will say is context.

[Sven]

I don't think I was offering any arguments. The first portion were my opinions and the second was the reason I am a creationist. Because of my belief in Christ.
I understand that you mean creationist here in the sense that the Christian god created the universe in some unspecified way; this says nothing particular about the history of the universe. Right?

Now why am a YEC creationist? I believe Christ was. I believe He accepted a literal world wide flood and a literal creation. He referred to Adam as a real person of history.
Now we are it again: You do use the bible as a science book. You simply can not know if Jesus indeed said this, and if, what he really means. We can only determine the meaning by looking at reality - again. It follows that either your interpretation of his words is wrong, his words were not recorded right, or that he was simply wrong. Let's exclude the last possibility for the moment since this delves into the discussion if he was god or not, which is, frankly, irrelevant for the point in question.

[rook]

At home my user name is checkmate. At the office it is rook. I am now at my office. I guess I have been posting in the wrong place. I would like to continue my original discussion. Should the mods move it? My questions are sincere. I have no religious axe to grind. No doubt I painted with too broad a stroke lumping evolution and atheism together. Sorry about that. This was not intentional. I have learned more by having my beliefs challenged than by folks who just agree.

Doubting...I would like to go over my questions as per your suggestion. I can only post between appointments so it may be a little time between discussions. :cool:

[Sven]

No doubt I painted with too broad a stroke lumping evolution and atheism together. Sorry about that. This was not intentional.
OK, thanks for admitting this! :thumbs:
You know, one can only make progress when admitting to oneself that one was/is wrong.

[Nice Squirrel]

g'day guys,
i was just wondering how and why you believe in creationism?
:wave: Theist here, but nope, the Bible ain't literal.
i mean what is creationism did a finger just come out of the sky and create everything in 7 days. why does it take 7 days? Your Bible may use the word "finger", but mise doesn't. It uses the word "wang". is it because a book writen by humans told you so, because theres a book that tells me about the Valar and undying lands and elves. should i believe this book. what makes the bible so special? please tell me so i can understand and make a descision on what i believe happened.
thanks everyone, KID.The Bible provides some (not all) ways to get to better understand and ponder creation, but as a moral or historically accurate document it ranks near last month's cheese curds.

[whichphilosophy]

g'day guys,
i was just wondering how and why you believe in creationism? i mean what is creationism did a finger just come out of the sky and create everything in 7 days. why does it take 7 days? is it because a book writen by humans told you so, because theres a book that tells me about the Valar and undying lands and elves. should i believe this book. what makes the bible so special? please tell me so i can understand and make a descision on what i believe happened.
thanks everyone, KID.

As a theist who was once top at RE (hence of no worth in the job market) I feel the creation story and some of the stories in the bibles were fables with metaphorical representations.

The mistake some atheists and theist make is to assume the existence of God is determined by evaluating whether there was a Creation per the bible, there was evolution. This is irrelevant

I believe the creation story was a tale with a message, but the interpretations of the messages are sometimes different. I don't regard this as important as determining whether we are spiritual or not, or whether evolution exists (which from what I can see is very much the case).

There are three views on what happened.

1. From eternal energy that was forever constant some sort of chain reaction occured to the where we are now.

2. From something that is forever constant, some sort of chain reaction occured to the point we are now.

3 There is disbelief but of course reasoning that something happened and thus changes occured. Here there is nothing to suggest a Prime force/God etc or there was nothing.

Now believe it or not here is where atheism and theism can almost align.

There are some atheists who reason we are energy. At the same time there are theists who also reason we are energy.

The reasoning for theism is if we are alive the the energy is alive. The reasoning for atheists is we are energy (atheists please correct me if I am wrong) but energy is not actually life.

My view is we are energy. This may well give us a potential to cause things, think and overcome problems. For this reason and based on experience theism fits the best. Unfortunatly I don't see angels Jesus or talk to God and hear him talking to me as such. Must be boring for some.

[Sparrow]

Which, you are correct that disproving the Christian creation story does not prove the non-existence of a god, but the rest of your post is so general as to be almost meaningless. Your three possible views set up a false trilemma. Are you sure those are the only possible choices?

Your view that we are energy reminds me of some of the life forms encountered in the old Star Trek show. While such a resemblance does not tell us whether you are right or wrong, my concern is that your description is vague. It clearly isn’t the personal god of a fundamentalist Christian, but dressed the right way your words could be used to support such a view. Such seems to be the case with many of these types claiming the founding fathers of the US were all Christians. A fair number of them were at best Deists, with a different view of what a god was and could do. Many doubted the divinity of Jesus. But those distinctions are nowhere to be found in the current discussions.

I’ve even heard definitions so loose that the creation story is compatible with big bang cosmology. It’s only a small step from there to claim that Genesis prophesied modern physics.

[Doubting Didymus]

Doubting...I would like to go over my questions as per your suggestion. I can only post between appointments so it may be a little time between discussions. :cool:
I'd be delighted, but this thread is probably not the right place for it. How about you start a new thread, and I'll trundle over and have a chat. I don't intend to debate you as such, but I reckon I can explain how biologists think we got from non-life to life. Hows that for a topic? If you don't mind, you could start by letting me in on what you think 'life' is, biologically speaking.

Yours
D.

[ecco]

Originally Posted by checkmate
3. What experiment has ever shown that functionally coherent complex
patterns are produced by the chaotic motion of dust?

Snowflakes

[Doubting Didymus]

Snowflakes
not functional.

[Richard Forrest]

not functional.

It still begs my question though:
What is a "functionally coherent complex pattern"?
I have no idea at all of what this means. What is the function of a pattern, complex or otherwise? Is the pattern on my William Morris wallpaper "functionally coherent"? It's certainly complex. I can fill a shallow bowl with water and subject it to vibrations (a big loudspeaker under the bowl works very well). The surface of the water forms complex patterns which vary according to the frequency of the vibrations. Are these "functionally coherent"?

Richard Forrest

[Sven]

Snowflakes
not functional.
Adding to Richards point: One could very well argue that "function" is similar to "purpose", in the sense that it only has a meaning when humans assign it to something.
So if we assigned specific numbers to specific patterns of snow flakes, we could, for example, use them for data storage, IOW assign them a function.

It perhaps really boils down to that "functional" doesn't make any sense in these arguments.

[Doubting Didymus]

How hard can it be? a snowflake is not functional, an enzyme is. The importance to the evolutionary argument is that molecules in a snowflake, though organised, can be a practically limitless number of actual arrangements and remain a snowflake, while an enzyme fulfills a specific role which is, to couch it in scientific terms, "royally fucked" if you look at it funny.

Because of this, enzymes require a very special explanation for their existance. There's no change in heck that a system of enzymes (i.e. an organism) ever came about through sheer luck. That's the point of the creationist argument, and you just need to apply a little charity to see it.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Or as Dawkins wrote, you don't need to be a mathematician or physicist to calculate that a haemoglobin molecule would take from here to infinity to self-assemble by sheer higgledy-piggledy luck.

[Sven]

How hard can it be? a snowflake is not functional, an enzyme is.
Apparently you missed my (our) point. Or my thinking is simply to muddy. Let's see where we get.
An enzyme is only "functional", because humans see/assign a function.

The importance to the evolutionary argument is that molecules in a snowflake, though organised, can be a practically limitless number of actual arrangements and remain a snowflake, while an enzyme fulfills a specific role which is, to couch it in scientific terms, "royally fucked" if you look at it funny.
But this role is only specific because we, as humans, say so. The same way, we could say that snowflakes have a specific role.

[Oolon Colluphid]

So because both an individual snowflake and a haemoglobin molecule have a unique shape, it's only we humans that think one is functional? Sorry Sven, I don't get it. Let me know when you find a snowflake that does anything more exciting than melt.

[Sven]

So because both an individual snowflake and a haemoglobin molecule have a unique shape, it's only we humans that think one is functional? Sorry Sven, I don't get it.
As I said, perhaps it's muddy thinking. ;)

Let me know when you find a snowflake that does anything more exciting than melt.
So "function" can be in some way objectively determined? So far, we have "does something exciting", which isn't overly objective.

[Oolon Colluphid]

I'd settle for "does something". Or Dawkins's 'designoid' concept. A particular snowflake's structure may be improbable, but an enzyme is vastly more improbable, because there's its own unlikelihood multiplied by the improbability that it would also catalyse a reaction. The chances that something randomly assembled would also be able to do something complex is at the heart of Dawkins's -- and Paley's -- argument.

[Sven]

Well, essentially I see this discussion as an attempt to get the fuzzy term "functional" defined in some sensible way.

I'd settle for "does something".
As you said yourself, snowflakes do something: they melt.
Probably a better definition would be: "effects something else".

Or Dawkins's 'designoid' concept. A particular snowflake's structure may be improbable, but an enzyme is vastly more improbable[...]
So "functional" boils down to improbable. What renders arguments like "it's improbale that something functional evolves" somewhat redundant.

because there's its own unlikelihood multiplied by the improbability that it would also catalyse a reaction. The chances that something randomly assembled would also be able to do something complex is at the heart of Dawkins's -- and Paley's -- argument.
So now we have "does something complex". But without a definition of "complex", this also doesn't help us.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Okay smartypants, what's the answer? :Cheeky: :huh:

[Doubting Didymus]

Lets try an example for a non-fuzzy function: Hexokinase jams a phosphate group onto glucose as the first step in glycolysis. That's just flat out what it does. There's absolutely zero room for interpretation in the function of hexokinase. Your hexokinases have to phosphorylate glucose, or you are instantly dead.

If any old protein could run around phosphorylating the occasional glucose, then hexokinase might be in the same sort of category as a snowflake. Unfortunately, while many enzymes have a relative amount of play in them, the fact is they are still extremely specific in the exact shape they need to be to function however it is you need them to function. They get huffy and sulk in their trailers if it's slightly too hot, never mind having the precise sequence of amino acids right.

So. Enzymes most definitely have specific functions, things they need to do to stop you being dead. Snowflakes are just snowflakes.

[Jet Black]

all haemoglobin molecules are essentially the same (though there might be slight variants depending on mutations) but snowflakes only have two defining characteristics, one is that they are made of frozen H20 (where the heck is wade with tex?) and the other is that they have sixfold rotational symmetry.

[Sparrow]

For the lurkers here: in post 83 Oolon claims that Dawkins wrote that assembling haemoglobin by sheer luck appears impossible (paraphrased version). Having not read that particular Dawkins quote, but knowing Dawkins stances in general, that seems a bit . . . unusual. It would be super keen to have an explanation.

[Doubting Didymus]

What do you mean? no-one's ever going to get much in the way of any functional protein by luck.

Non-chance explanations are required, one of which is evolution by natural selection.

[Oolon Colluphid]

For the lurkers here: in post 83 Oolon claims that Dawkins wrote that assembling haemoglobin by sheer luck appears impossible (paraphrased version). Having not read that particular Dawkins quote, but knowing Dawkins stances in general, that seems a bit . . . unusual. It would be super keen to have an explanation.
If you know Dawkins's stance, you should be able to guess the answer! :Cheeky: It is of course that haemoglobin did not assemble by sheer luck.

The quote's from Chapter 3 of Climbing Mount Improbable... and is (deliberately) out of context.
www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/writings/climbingmountimprobable.shtml

In full:
...To this day, and in quarters where they should know better, Darwinism is widely regarded as a theory of 'chance'. It is grindingly, creakingly, crashingly obvious that, if Darwinism were really a theory of chance, it couldn't work. You don't need to be a mathematician or physicist to calculate that an eye or a haemoglobin molecule would take from here to infinity to self-assemble by sheer higgledy-piggledy luck. Far from being a difficulty peculiar to Darwinism, the astronomic improbability of eyes and knees, enzymes and elbow joints and the other living wonders is precisely the problem that any theory of life must solve, and that Darwinism uniquely does solve. It solves it by breaking the improbability up into small, manageable parts, smearing out the luck needed, going round the back of Mount Improbable and crawling up the gentle slopes, inch by million-year inch. Only God would essay the mad task of leaping up the precipice in a single bound. And if we postulate him as our cosmic designer we are left in exactly the same position as when we started. Any Designer capable of constructing the dazzling array of living things would have to be intelligent and complicated beyond all imagining. And complicated is just another word for improbable - and therefore demanding of explanation. A theologian who ripostes that his god is sublimely simple has (not very) neatly evaded the issue, for a sufficiently simple god, whatever other virtues he might have, would be too simple to be capable of designing a universe (to say nothing of forgiving sins, answering prayers, blessing unions, transubstantiating wine, and the many other achievements variously expected of him). You cannot have it both ways. Either your god is capable of designing worlds and doing all the other godlike things, in which case he needs an explanation in his own right. Or he is not, in which case he cannot provide an explanation. God should be seen by Fred Hoyle as the ultimate Boeing 747.

[Sven]

Lets try an example for a non-fuzzy function: [...]
So. Enzymes most definitely have specific functions, things they need to do to stop you being dead. Snowflakes are just snowflakes.
So you define "functional" in biology by "having a function in biology"? Looks a bit circular to me...

[Doubting Didymus]

Do you have some sort of digital copy? Please tell me you're not transcribing by hand.

[Doubting Didymus]

So you define "functional" in biology by "having a function in biology"? Looks a bit circular to me...

What are you on about? I know exactly what the function of hexokinase is, and I've told you. It phosphorylates glucose, to keep it inside cells and prep it for glycolysis, thus allowing you to live for another few seconds. Where's the circularity?

[Sven]

What are you on about? I know exactly what the function of hexokinase is, and I've told you. It phosphorylates glucose, to keep it inside cells and prep it for glycolysis, thus allowing you to live for another few seconds. Where's the circularity?
That's not the point. The point is what "function/functional" means in general. You know, an example is not a definition.
And by defining the one by the other, we have already completed half of the circular argument...

[Oolon Colluphid]

Do you have some sort of digital copy? Please tell me you're not transcribing by hand.
^^^^
Linky... :Cheeky:

[Doubting Didymus]

It may well be a fuzzy thing to define non-functional and functional in general, but it's also something that we definitely don't have to bother trying to sort out.

Enzymes have functions so highly specific that they'd count as functional by any definition. So, if we plug it into your problem above, we get something like "it's improbale that something [functional]/[that phosphorylates glucose] arises through chance"

I don't see why we need a definition of function beyond your everyday colloquial "does stuff" for this to make sense.

[Jet Black]

So. Enzymes most definitely have specific functions, things they need to do to stop you being dead.

I'd say the function of an enzyme is to ensure that the gene coding for that enzyme is replicated.

[Doubting Didymus]

I'd say the function of an enzyme is to ensure that the gene coding for that enzyme is replicated.
smartarse. :D

[Sven]

It may well be a fuzzy thing to define non-functional and functional in general, but it's also something that we definitely don't have to bother trying to sort out.

Enzymes have functions so highly specific that they'd count as functional by any definition. So, if we plug it into your problem above, we get something like "it's improbale that something [functional]/[that phosphorylates glucose] arises through chance"

I don't see why we need a definition of function beyond your everyday colloquial "does stuff" for this to make sense.
Hmm, maybe you are right. But I was addressing specifically this question:
"3. What experiment has ever shown that functionally coherent complex
patterns are produced by the chaotic motion of dust?"

Since it was not specified that it's about enzymes, I thought the question what "functional" is supposed to mean is legitimate.

And please note that I tried myself to define it: "effects other things" - which is, I think, more specific than "does stuff".

[ecco]

Checkmate: What experiment has ever shown that functionally coherent complex patterns are produced by the chaotic motion of dust?

First off, I don’t think Checkmate really cares about experiments, I think he is really referring to what can occur in nature and what can or cannot occur without the help of an experimenter or “designer�. Secondly, I think Checkmate knows that abiogenesis and evolution do not rely on “chaotic motions of dust� (although, a snowflake is literally created by chaotic motions of dust).

There has been no criticism of my “snowflake� reply in terms of a snowflake being coherent and complex. The sticking point is whether it is or is not “functional�.

Organic Chemistry Basics
Organic molecules contain carbon with at least one hydrogen atom
CH4, methane, is an organic molecule
CO2, carbon dioxide is an inorganic molecule

Is methane more functional that carbon dioxide? Does it take a creator to make every methane molecule? Does it take a creator to make every carbon dioxide molecule? Does it take a creator to make every snowflake?

The internet is a wonderful thing. If you take the time to cruise the Internet looking at terms like atoms and molecules and basic chemistry and organic chemistry you will begin to learn how atoms combine to form molecules, and how molecules combine (naturally) to form more complex molecules. You will also learn that the knowledge in this area is changing and growing daily. If you keep an open mind, you will find it fascinating. If you do not understand the basics, it is not surprising that you cannot see the bigger picture.

Perhaps this last comment belongs in another thread but, America is rapidly losing its world leadership role in the sciences. India, Pakistan and China are graduating far more PHD’s than we are. We cannot afford to dumb down the education of our young people. The loss of scientific leadership is a far greater threat to the future of this country than all the terrorists combined.

[HRG]

What are you on about? I know exactly what the function of hexokinase is, and I've told you. It phosphorylates glucose, to keep it inside cells and prep it for glycolysis, thus allowing you to live for another few seconds. Where's the circularity?

That's the behavior of hexokinase. But it is only its function because we call it so in the context of a living organism.

What is the function of the sun ?

To hold the planets in their orbits ?
To transform a couple of teratons of hydrogen into helium every year?
To send photons in all specific directions ?
To provide life on earth with energy ?


All those are particular facets if its behavior. Let's not confuse behavior with function (shudder) or function with purpose (double shudder).

Regards, HRG.

[Sven]

That's the behavior of hexokinase. But it is only its function because we call it so in the context of a living organism.
[...]
Ah, at last someone who understands what I'm getting at. :)

[Oolon Colluphid]

That's the behavior of hexokinase. But it is only its function because we call it so in the context of a living organism.

What is the function of the sun ?

To hold the planets in their orbits ?
To transform a couple of teratons of hydrogen into helium every year?
To send photons in all specific directions ?
To provide life on earth with energy ?

Are you trying to tell me that the behaviour of a can opener is to cut through metal, and it is only its function in the context of cans?

Surely this renders the whole 'why this behaviour' question redundant, and makes science pretty pointless beyond collecting lists of behaviours?

[Doubting Didymus]

It's the function of hexokinase, because hexokinase was designed by NS to complete the specific task it does. The sun doesn't have an objective function, but hexokinase most definitely does.

Besides, the point of the argument should be easy to grasp even if we don't use the words behavior, function, or purpose.

It's easy enough to see that something so sensitive and specific as hexokinase is impossible to aquire through random molecular interactions. It needs a very special explanation.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Are you trying to tell me that the behaviour of a can opener is to cut through metal, and it is only its function in the context of cans?

Surely this renders the whole 'why this behaviour' question redundant, and makes science pretty pointless beyond collecting lists of behaviours?
To emphasise this, function is an answer to a 'why' question. If we observe a behaviour, but do not ask why, then we're just stamp-collecting.

[Doubting Didymus]

Just to clarify what I'm saying about enzymes, I believe enzymes can indeed be said to have a function in a special way that the sun doesn't. Enzymes aren't just chemicals we find lying around that happen to have interesting behaviour; they've been designed, and put where they are for a reason.

In other words, Paley was right. He just jumped to one of multiple possible explanations, but the fact remains that if you find a watch, or an organism, on a beach, you need to seek a really bloody good explanation for it.

On that note, I'm going to have to dissapear until morning. Night comes from the other direction in the southern hemisphere.

[Sparrow]

Enzymes aren't just chemicals we find lying around that happen to have interesting behaviour; they've been designed, and put where they are for a reason.

In other words, Paley was right. He just jumped to one of multiple possible explanations, but the fact remains that if you find a watch, or an organism, on a beach, you need to seek a really bloody good explanation for it.

On that note, I'm going to have to dissapear until morning. Night comes from the other direction in the southern hemisphere.Good night and sleep tight. When you wake, perhaps you can show some supporting evidence for this alleged 'designed' quality you assert.

[Sven]

Good night and sleep tight. When you wake, perhaps you can show some supporting evidence for this alleged 'designed' quality you assert.
As far as I understand him, his argument roughly is the one of Dawkins: That enzymes look designed because evolution "designed" them.

[Justin Z]

Because atheism hasn't answered the following questions to my satisfaction:

1. What is the source of the informational specification that organizes the
atomic parts into a life-support system.

2. How can the random interaction of nonliving matter produce structures
so sophisticated that our most advanced technology seems pale by
comparison.

3. What experiment has ever shown that functionally coherent complex
patterns are produced by the chaotic motion of dust?

Because atoothfairyism hasn't answered the following questions to my satisfaction:

1. What is the source of the informational specification that human children lose teeth.

2. How can the random loss of teeth by millions of children worldwide produce money under their pillows -- an effect so amazing that our most advanced technology seems pale by comparison.

3. What experiment has ever shown that functionally coherent currency can be produced by the chaotic loss of teeth.

[ecco]

Doubting Didymus:
Enzymes (have) been designed, and put where they are for a reason.

Or they have evolved naturally. People who study chemistry in the 21st century believe they evolved naturally. People who know little about chemistry and, instead, rely on a 3000 year old book believe in the design concept. Thanks, but I’ll take the knowledge of the 21st century over the knowledge of sheep herders who lived 3000 years ago,

Doubting Didymus:
... but the fact remains that if you find a watch, or an organism, on a beach, you need to seek a really bloody good explanation for it.

I couldn’t agree more. If I find a watch on a beach I know from experience and knowledge that it was made by a human. Of course I could also believe that god made it and put it there to make his presence known. But, when discussing abiogenesis and evolution we are not talking about watches.

Realistically, how much seeking have you really done? I think you read a few chapters in Genesis and ended your intellectual searching. As I said in my earlier post, try to learn something about the natural world before you try to discount science. Do you even have any concept about how atoms combine to form molecules?

[Sven]

Or they have evolved naturally. People who study chemistry in the 21st century believe they evolved naturally. People who know little about chemistry and, instead, rely on a 3000 year old book believe in the design concept. Thanks, but I’ll take the knowledge of the 21st century over the knowledge of sheep herders who lived 3000 years ago,
[snip]
Realistically, how much seeking have you really done? I think you read a few chapters in Genesis and ended your intellectual searching. As I said in my earlier post, try to learn something about the natural world before you try to discount science. Do you even have any concept about how atoms combine to form molecules?
Hint: Look at his profile. Read my post (#112).

[Oolon Colluphid]

Hint: Look at his profile.
Given the picture there, the rest is doubtful too.

[RBH]

Given the picture there, the rest is doubtful too.LOL!!!

[Sven]

Given the picture there, the rest is doubtful too.
You have a point... :D

[HRG]

Are you trying to tell me that the behaviour of a can opener is to cut through metal, and it is only its function in the context of cans?

Actually, it is the usual behavior of a can opener to lie unmoving in the cupboard. It is the usual behavior of the total system "human + can opener" to cut through specific metals, and that's why the human defines the function of the can opener as "can opening" ;)


Surely this renders the whole 'why this behaviour' question redundant, and makes science pretty pointless beyond collecting lists of behaviours?

Not at all. Scientific theories explain those lists of behaviors by a few basic principles of a theory. E.g. Maxwell's classical electrodynamics explains most behaviors of light and other e.m. waves, electric currents etc. It does not care about what might be the function of light.

Regards, HRG.

[HRG]

It's the function of hexokinase, because hexokinase was designed by NS to complete the specific task it does. The sun doesn't have an objective function, but hexokinase most definitely does.

You are using a lot of metaphors ("designed", "complete", "task"). That's fine as long as you do not forget that they are metaphors (as many IDists continually do).

Otherwise I might say that the sun was designed by gravitational collapse to complete the task "construction of a well-lighted planetary system.

My point is that hexokinase does not have an objective function, only one within the context of a living organism.


It's easy enough to see that something so sensitive and specific as hexokinase is impossible to aquire through random molecular interactions. It needs a very special explanation.

Sure. That's what we have M & NS for :D

Regards, HRG.

[Doubting Didymus]

You are using a lot of metaphors ("designed", "complete", "task"). That's fine as long as you do not forget that they are metaphors (as many IDists continually do).
I'm not at all convinced they are metaphors. Enzymes are effectively adaptations, so they can be spoken of as having a function and completeing a task as much as an eye can.

Unlike the sun, biological adaptations don't just happen to have a helpful property. They have work they are finely tuned specifically to do, and can't differ greatly without coming to bits (this is especially true of enzymes. Work in a biochem lab sometimes feels like taking care of petulant divas in tiny tiny tubes: you look at those enzymes the wrong way and they're gone.)

The property of being adapted neccessarily implies that there is something the adaptation is for. The specificity of the information involved (gee, who does that sound like?) means that most ordinary explanations are categorically ruled out.

Of course, you and I both know that:
That's what we have M & NS for :D
But I do think we have to acknowledge that biological phenomena are fundamentally different from almost all other natural phenomena in that they often do have functions (nothing has an objective function of course, but it's a function nonetheless), and that the specificity of things like enzymes means we aren't doing ourselves any favours by suggesting that the complexity of snowflakes is anything close to the same league.

[Doubting Didymus]

Realistically, how much seeking have you really done? I think you read a few chapters in Genesis and ended your intellectual searching. As I said in my earlier post, try to learn something about the natural world before you try to discount science. Do you even have any concept about how atoms combine to form molecules?

I'm an undergrad genetics student.

[Doubting Didymus]

Meanwhile, I'm shocked and hurt that some unkind souls in this thread are jumping to the conclusion that my profile photo isn't genuine.

Next you'll be telling me that www.didymus.com isn't my real homepage. Does your organisation have the cunning of a fox? I didn't think so.

[judanne]

I'm not at all convinced they are metaphors. Enzymes are effectively adaptations, so they can be spoken of as having a function and completeing a task as much as an eye can.
Yes, the continued survival of the organism in the context of the environment that shaped ("designed"?) it.

Unlike the sun, biological adaptations don't just happen to have a helpful property. They have work they are finely tuned specifically to do, and can't differ greatly without coming to bits (this is especially true of enzymes. Agreed. The development of complex biological structures requires a better explanation than can be provided by physics and chemistry alone. I've somewhat recently come to understand that until we acknowledge this, the proponents of "intelligent design" have the upper hand in this argument. Not because their silly default conclusions - god did it, planet seeding, Scotty beamed us down from Vorlon or whatever, are correct, but simply because organisms of any type are complex. This is both intuitive and demonstrable, which lends ID a credibility it ultimately doesn't deserve. The modern evolutionary synthesis is the best explanation for this complexity, this "design" (I'm still not comfortable with that word). In comparison, the conclusions drawn by the majority of IDers (mostly creationists) are without evidential foundation. The other ID stuff - the flagellum argument, for example, can also be shown to be shoddy science, that is simply wrong. It isn't their conclusions or their poor arguments that pose a threat to science. It's their misrepresentation of what evolution is and the assumption that because we don't fully understand its mechanisms, the whole thing should be scrapped, leaving theistic or some other flaky belief system in its place that's the problem. While most of us in this thread would not be fooled by such nonsense, I would make the conjecture that the majority of people (in this country anyway) wouldn't know a good scientific theory if it violently invaded their rectums. Now that's a problem.

On a lighter note DD, I thought about chastising OC, RBH and Sven for talking about you in such a mean way while you were sleeping, but thought better of it, since I now must get some sleep and I don't want them talking about me while I'm sleeping :devil3:

[ecco]

Doubting Didymus:
Enzymes (have) been designed, and put where they are for a reason.

Doubting Didymus:
... but the fact remains that if you find a watch, or an organism, on a beach, you need to seek a really bloody good explanation for it.

Ecco: Realistically, how much seeking have you really done?

Doubting Didymus:
I'm an undergrad genetics student.

DD,

Following this exchange I’m really confused. In the quoted posts you come across like a CID (Creationist/IDer). Then you tell us that you are “an undergrad genetics student.� How does a student of genetics come to post anything like “Enzymes (have) been designed, and put where they are for a reason�? This sounds to me like you are implying a role for a “designer�. Could you please clarify your position.

Thanks,

ecco

[Doubting Didymus]

Enzymes were designed and put in place by evolutionary processes. The specificity of their cmplexity means they can't be compared with other "complex" phenomena, such as snowflakes. A very special explanation is required for their existance, and I believe that explanations provided by evolutionary biology do the job quite well.

Sorry if I confused you, but rest assured you're not the first! I apparently make a habit of saying things that aren't approved EAC dotrine ;) . Over in the eog and grd fora I'm mistaken for a theist on a semi-regular basis. In fact, I remember confusing the buggery out of principia way back when, by making the same argument I'm pressing right now!

Matter of fact, I wouldn't mind betting that the only reason half the forum hasn't tried to destroy my arguments is because they know me already...

[judanne]

DD,

Following this exchange I’m really confused. In the quoted posts you come across like a CID (Creationist/IDer). Then you tell us that you are “an undergrad genetics student.� How does a student of genetics come to post anything like “Enzymes (have) been designed, and put where they are for a reason�? This sounds to me like you are implying a role for a “designer�. Could you please clarify your position.

Thanks,

ecco
Does design necessarily imply a designer? If not, what do we mean by design? Is it merely a synonym for a type of highly ordered complexity that is unlike anything else in the natural universe? If so, is it a synonym befitting the phenomena? These seem to be the important semantic issues to me. IDers are wrong if/when they make the assumption that design does imply a designer (they're wrong about other things too but I'll try to stick to the point here). We could say that hexokinase evolved (or was designed by evolutionary processes) to perform a specific function in respirating organisms. It functions solely to cleave a particular functional group off a particular type of sugar and nothing else. This requires a special explanation. Fortunately, the ToE is the best we have and has only improved since the time of Darwin's cognitive leap.

[ecco]

Webster.com
DESIGN
Main Entry: 2design
Function: noun
1 a : a particular purpose held in view by an individual or group <he has ambitious designs for his son> b : deliberate purposive planning <more by accident than design>
2 : a mental project or scheme in which means to an end are laid down
Function: verb
1 : to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan : DEVISE, CONTRIVE
2 a : to conceive and plan out in the mind <he designed the perfect crime> b : to have as a purpose : INTEND <she designed to excel in her studies> c : to devise for a specific function or end <a book designed primarily as a college textbook>

DESIGNER
Main Entry: 1de·sign·er
Pronunciation: di-'zI-n&r
Function: noun
: one that designs : as a : one who creates and often executes plans for a project or structure <urban designers> <a theater set designer> b : one that creates and manufactures a new product style or design; especially : one who designs and manufactures high-fashion clothing <the designer's new fall line>

DD:
Enzymes were designed and put in place by evolutionary processes.

Judanne:
Does design necessarily imply a designer? …. IDers are wrong if/when they make the assumption that design does imply a designer

DD,
Thanks for the clarification.

The dictionary references are from Webster.com with only the primary references listed. I also looked up these words on Dictionary.com and found similar definitions.

I think it’s more than a stretch to say that evolution DESIGNED enzymes and I think Iders, or anyone else, including me, is right to assume that DESIGN does indeed imply a DESIGNER.

The purpose of language is to communicate information from one person to another as clearly as possible (something that I do not always do). However, in English, “design� clearly implies a “designer� with the capability to formulate a thought process. I would be happy to include beavers and bees, but I would draw the line far above enzymes.

[judanne]

Or so says Mr. Webster. A lexicon is a great general reference but doesn't encompass all meaning. A design (n.) can also be a pattern. Does this imply a patternmaker? I'm not suggesting that the word in the ID context isn't problematic. I think it is, but I'm also not convinced that it "clearly" implies a designer. That is why I posed the ideas as questions. I am really trying to wrap my own head around DD's argument. I think it's an important one to flesh out, although admittedly not a very popular one. It's a kind of infidel sacred cow. This community (for lack of a better description) is fairly heavily invested in the anti-ID argument of infinite regression - who designed the designer? - that is based on the assumption that design = designer. The former argument works ok for me if we are debating the existence of some kind of omniscient, purposeful designer. I am a lifelong atheist. There has been no viable evidence produced to indicate any kind of god. For me (I won't be so bold as to speak for DD or anyone else who may still be involved) this discussion is like one of those self-reflective exercises where we critically examine our own arguments. In the end this process makes our arguments stronger. In order to have such discussions though, we have to at least be willing to put sacred cows up on the block. The second that the proponents of ID admit that they actually do have a particular designer in mind is when the infinite regression argument becomes impenetrable. Until that time, I'm just not fully convinced that design = designer, after all, this is also the basic premise of the ID argument. Does that make any more sense?

[Doubting Didymus]

I was using the word primarily to differentiate the kind of highly specific, function-fulfilling complexity an ezyme represents from the far less important nonspecific, functionless complexity represented in things like snowflakes.

The reason that enzymes are complicated in these special ways is because they were created, modified, and fine tuned by the standard evolutionary processes we're all familiar with. You start out with not much and end up at the end of the process with an incredibly efficient and bogglingly useful object. The only word I have in my vocabulary that describes such a process very well is design. So long as it's clear I'm not proposing drawing-boards, set squares and intelligence (which I humbly admit, I did not make at all clear enough), the meaning gets through.

The reason this is a problem is interesting in itself. Throughout all of human history, we have known of only one process that can bring complex, useful, purposeful tools into existance from practically nothing, and that's been design. It's no suprise we don't have a word for such a process that doesn't imply a designer! No such thing has ever been known until just recently.

[ecco]

Doubting Didymus,

I fully understand your point of view and your dilemma. Languages constantly change: old words take on new meaning and new words are created. Cool once referred to temperature; "it’s too cool to go outside without a sweater": later it reflected ones persona or a place’s essence; "He’s cool", "that’s a cool place". When someone stuck an engine into a wagon and got rid of the horse the resulting device was called a horseless carriage or an automobile. Finally someone realized that those terms weren’t catchy enough and coined “car�.

See Also: catchy & coined

Since “design� implies a thought process and since CIDers have attached a very definite meaning to the word, perhaps you need to come up with a new word to describe the process.

Simple enzymes aget complex enzymes. The process is called agettion.
Simple enzymes bregin complex enzymes. The process is called bregintion.
Simple enzymes cronate complex enzymes. The process is called cronation.
Simple enzymes desuild complex enzymes. The process is called desuillation.

I realize that all of these suggestions are really, really awful. Maybe you could post a new topic and see what the members can come up with.

[judanne]

There's a cool idea! :)

[Ahab]

Doubting Didymus,

I fully understand your point of view and your dilemma. Languages constantly change: old words take on new meaning and new words are created. Cool once referred to temperature; "it’s too cool to go outside without a sweater": later it reflected ones persona or a place’s essence; "He’s cool", "that’s a cool place". When someone stuck an engine into a wagon and got rid of the horse the resulting device was called a horseless carriage or an automobile. Finally someone realized that those terms weren’t catchy enough and coined “car�.

See Also: catchy & coined

Since “design� implies a thought process and since CIDers have attached a very definite meaning to the word, perhaps you need to come up with a new word to describe the process.


Well the word 'design' is good enough for J. W. Valentine. The second chapter in his book: "On the Origin of Phyla", is entitled 'Design Elements in the Bodyplans of Phyla'; so I don't see what the problem is with Doubting Didymus using the D word here. :)

[dmarker]

One could say that the length of gazelle legs were designed by the sharpness of lion teeth. :Cheeky:


Or the sexual preferences of peahens designed the peacock's tail.

I'll stop now before I get ridiculous with it.

[judanne]

I suppose there wouldn't be any problem with the word design at all if the IDers/creationists didn't insist it implied the hand of an omniscient designer and there wasn't such a substantial portion of the population willing to jump on that bandwagon.

[ecco]

Aye Matey, and thar's the rub.