Creation...is proof of the Creator

[davidc]

"A building," says Cult Leader Ray Comfort, "is absolute proof there was a builder. A painting is proof there was a painter." "Squeak!" chimes in hand puppet/mascot Kirk Cameron.

Sorry to disappoint you, Ray-Ray. This premise is so weak, it makes your bananalogy look like Quantum Mechanics.

"We come to you not as molecular biologists or rocket scientists, but as an actor and an author", says Mikey. Well, no shit. Perhaps even a glance at a biology text would have helped you figure out the fallacy you and your deranged mentor have just spewed all over national T.V.

In case you missed it, Ray, a building is not a biological organism. A painting is not a biological organism. Human beings mate to reproduce themselves. Your folksy little simile about the Coke can spontaneously forming itself couldn't possibly be any less appropriate if you tried. No wonder your "Way of the Master" tripe only appeals to those who dropped out of Remedial Christianity 101.

I'm going to throw you a bone. I will admit I have a creator. As a matter of fact, I have two of them.

I call them Mom & Dad.

[Tiberius]

And of course it's circular logic. He's assuming that the universe was created in order to show that it was created.

[Mizled]

He compares things we know to have been designed to things which show no discernible evidence for it. It's bullshit through and through.

[Tiberius]

Yeah, Mizled. If he wants us to accept that the universe was designed, he should provide a mechanism by which we can recognise design.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

davidc: "A building," says Cult Leader Ray Comfort, "is absolute proof there was a builder.

Stop right there and you're done.

What does it take to be a "builder"? Well, the evidence shows it takes millions of years of learned, evolutionary survival techniques to be able to build a building. Not magic. What Ray glosses over (metaphorically speaking) is the fact that a watch isn't made in a sandstorm, because a watch is man made. My apologies to our equally capable sisters. It takes applied application to create such things; one would call it intelligence. But not with a capital "i" and certainly not without the good old delta.

This isn't about the chicken or the egg, this is about the idea of the chicken. So if that's what came first, then all bets are off. Then anything we can imagine is what God can imagine and then some. Nothing is real beyond subjective experience. But how could that be if there were a necesary God instantiating it? That axiomatically means that an objective reality exists; where at least you and God exist. If there is an "and" to that equation of existence, then that existence cannot be anything other than objectively true.

But what does the objecitvely true reveal? That there is no God.

Same cognitive dissonance, only resulting in different interpretations. Is one true? Yes. It must be, or else "true" has no ultimate meaning. And if it has no ultimate meaning, then we're just all left to our own imposition of meaning.....of a pattern on the patternless......or order on chaos...Oh. Right. That's the way it actually is. Sorry. Forgot a minute about the practical, seeing as how my "I" is largely a product of just one of my brains. Seeing bunnies in the sky is a fun cognitive trick, but as the basis of an entire epistomology? Not so much.

An abstraction, while a fascinating and useful cognitive ability emergent from and as a result of our predatory pattern solving skills, is necessarily timeless. Like one side of a coin, all it "sees," all it references, all it can acknowledge is itself unencumbered by the necessity of practical application. Without time, there is no change and therefore no reason to measure change. An application, however, is necessarily in time and therefore changes, thereby providing a reason to measure that change, as well as something to measure. To explode the analogy, it's the "flip-side" of that epistomological coin that results in/allows the flip.

This is a justification for inference that requires no other presupposition.

Now what were you saying...?

[J. T.]

What kind of "thinking" are they appealing to when they boast about being unqualified?

Science is for smart people who think they're better than you. You can trust us, 'cause we're just a couple of idiots like you.

[Karalora]

What is this, Argumentum ad Terminology? We call it Creation, therefore it was Created by a Creator?

Does this mean that prairie dogs are canids after all?

[Iacchus]

Yeah, Mizled. If he wants us to accept that the universe was designed, he should provide a mechanism by which we can recognise design.Um ... DNA?

[LukeS]

Um ... DNA?

I'll remind you of what Karalora had just said: "What is this, Argumentum ad Terminology? We call it Creation, therefore it was Created by a Creator?"

We call it designed, therefore...

Were caves designed as houses for cavemen? There's even evidence that God hung some pictures on the walls...

Now there is no painting without a painter...

Where were we?

[J. T.]

Um ... DNA?

Add one teaspoon of DNA to the item.

If the DNA turns red, the item was designed.
If it turns blue, the item was evolved.
If it turns green, the item is magical: exercise caution.

[RAFH]

What is this, Argumentum ad Terminology? We call it Creation, therefore it was Created by a Creator?

Does this mean that prairie dogs are canids after all?

Nup, they's prairienids. The 'dog' is just a reference to their barking madness and a slight tip of the hat to a backwards god.

[davidc]

Now what were you saying...?

I was saying...Cameron & Comfort are to Evangelism, Apologetics and Creationists what Carrot Top and Sinbad are to Stand-up Comedy:

Without material.

[Iacchus]

Add one teaspoon of DNA to the item.

If the DNA turns red, the item was designed.
If it turns blue, the item was evolved.
If it turns green, the item is magical: exercise caution.No, the DNA is the design. There's just some issue as to who or what created it, be it "the Creator" or, the processes of nature ... in and of themselves, that is.

[GenesisNemesis]

No, the DNA is the design. There's just some issue as to who or what created it, be it "the Creator" or, the processes of nature ... in and of themselves, that is.

How do you know it's designed?

[Mizled]

How do you know it's designed?
Don't bother, man. I've asked countless times for a proponent of ID to explain what the criteria for it to be "designed" is. You'll get no further then "if it looks designed then it is" - but they manage to stretch that into pages of useless verbiage and fluff.

[Coleslaw]

The same argument that IDer's try to use against evolution, "nobody ever observed evolution" applies equally well (actually better) to ID-nobody ever saw an intelligent designer create a tree or mountain or moon. We know buildings have builders because we can watch buildings being built. We know paintings have painters because we can watch them being painted. We can even make such things (however well or poorly) ourselves. When Cameron and Comfort can show me an intelligent designer building a whale or a giraffe, I'll believe in ID.

[Mister Agenda]

Mizled, I think to be precise, the argument isn't over whether or not organisms are designed. When it comes down to it, we're all in agreement that they are. The debate is over whether the apparent design is a result of the actions of a conscious entity or the process of natural selection in combination with genetic variablility. It's not the design that's at issue, it's the Intelligent Design.

[Iacchus]

Don't bother, man. I've asked countless times for a proponent of ID to explain what the criteria for it to be "designed" is. You'll get no further then "if it looks designed then it is" - but they manage to stretch that into pages of useless verbiage and fluff.No, a design is generated by virtue of the proccess. If there is no process, there is no design. I'm merely asking if the processes of nature are all that there is? If so, then we have to concede to the idea that things "just happen," or else try to explain how those processes got there, "magically," in and of themselves. It's that simple, really.

Whereas if we are to lend ourselves over to the notion that magic did it, then why can't that notion also entail God? At least in that respect we have an accounting for why the design is laid out in a logical and intellegible manner.

[GenesisNemesis]

No, a design is generated by virtue of the proccess. If there is no process, then there is no design. I'm merely asking if the processes of nature are all that there is? If so, then we have to concede to the idea that things "just happen," or else try to explain how those processes got there, "magically," in and of themselves. It's that simple, really.

Whereas if we were to lend ourselves over to the notion that magic did it, then why can't that notion also entail God? At least in that respect we have an accounting for why the design is laid out in such a logical and intellegible manner.

?

Well yeah. Things do "just happen". No miracles. Yay!

[Mizled]

Mizled, I think to be precise, the argument isn't over whether or not organisms are designed. When it comes down to it, we're all in agreement that they are. The debate is over whether the apparent design is a result of the actions of a conscious entity or the process of natural selection in combination with genetic variablility. It's not the design that's at issue, it's the Intelligent Design.
Of course, I thought I had implied that but I see I left out a few key words. My fault.

[Tiberius]

Um ... DNA?

Um, how does DNA tell us if something was designed? A Coke bottle was designed, but it doesn't have DNA.

Can you clarify?

[Iacchus]

Um, how does DNA tell us if something was designed? A Coke bottle was designed, but it doesn't have DNA.

Can you clarify?The DNA is merely the blueprint, just as I am sure there is a blueprint for that Coke bottle somewhere.

[Iacchus]

?

Well yeah. Things do "just happen". No miracles. Yay!You don't think it's a "miracle" that the Universe just magically appeared out of nowhere?

[RBH]

The DNA is merely the blueprint, just as I am sure there is a blueprint for that Coke bottle somewhere.Sorry. I have to object strenuously to the "blueprint" metaphor for DNA, even though it's widely used. DNA does map onto phenotype in anything like the way the elements of a blueprint map onto a finished product, say a coke bottle. What DNA is more akin to is a recipe. It specifies (parts of) a process which, via development, 'grows' a phenotype. There is nothing like the isomorphism of blueprint and object in the DNA-phenotype relationship.

Hence the analogy fails, and provides no support for the notion of distinguishing designed stuff via blueprints.

RBH

[The Path of Needles]

No, the DNA is the design. There's just some issue as to who or what created it, be it "the Creator" or, the processes of nature ... in and of themselves, that is.


DNA is not proof of creation and nature doesn't create, it reassembles.

[The Path of Needles]

You don't think it's a "miracle" that the Universe just magically appeared out of nowhere?

How do you know the universe just magically appeared out of nowhere?
How do you that if it did the process involved a conscious being.

[GenesisNemesis]

You don't think it's a "miracle" that the Universe just magically appeared out of nowhere?

The Universe didn't magically appear out of nowhere. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass-energy)

[Iacchus]

The Universe didn't magically appear out of nowhere. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass-energy)So what? All this tells us is that there's some process in place. It doesn't tell us how that process got there. I don't think anything could ever explain how it got there, in and of its own accord.

[GenesisNemesis]

So what? All this tells us is that there's some process in place. It doesn't tell us how that process got there. I don't think anything could ever explain how it got there, in and of its own accord.

It tells us that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, and that means the Universe is eternal, thus no need to put a "who" into the equation.

[The Path of Needles]

So what? All this tells us is that there's some process in place. It doesn't tell us how that process got there. I don't think anything could ever explain how it got there, in and of its own accord.

It shows that this process exists now, and far more likely than not always has. Do you have anything credible that refutes this?

[Iacchus]

It tells us that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, and that means the Universe is eternal, thus no need to put a "who" into the equation.It does? So how do you account for the Big Bang and the advent of time and space then, which is finite? Are you suggesting that the Universe is something other than this or, that there is something more to it than that? Because usually when I bring up the notion of eternity, in accord with the Big Bang that is, people start claiming that I'm nuts, saying, how can you refer to anything prior to the beginning of time?

[Iacchus]

It shows that this process exists now, and far more likely than not always has. Do you have anything credible that refutes this?So, was there ever a time when "no" process existed? Utlitmately this is what we are looking at is it not?

[The Path of Needles]

So, was there ever a time when "no" process existed?

Probably not, according to evidence I've seen. Maybe there was, but if your argument hinges on the fact that at some point there was nothing, I think you got some 'splaining to do.


ETA: The Big Bang is not evidence of creation, or that at some point nothing existed. I believe the general consensus (if there is one) is that matter and time existed before the BB.

[GenesisNemesis]

It does? So how do you account for the Big Bang and the advent of time and space then, which is finite? Are you suggesting that the Universe is something other than this or, that there is something more to it than that? Because usually when I bring up the notion of eterny, in accord with the Big Bang that is, people start claiming that I'm nuts, saying, how can you refer to anything prior to the beginning of time?

That's because eternity= no beginning

[Iacchus]

Probably not, according to evidence I've seen. Maybe there was, but if your argument hinges on the fact that at some point there was nothing, I think you got some 'splaining to do.Sorry, I misread what you said. I thought you were suggesting that the processs that exists currently, has more than likely not always existed. My mistake.

ETA: The Big Bang is not evidence of creation, or that at some point nothing existed.It suggests that time and space had a beginning, however.

I believe the general consensus (if there is one) is that matter and time existed before the BB.I don't. I don't believe that nothing existed either.

[RAFH]

It suggests that time and space had a beginning, however.

It suggests no such thing. If you believe such, I request references to that effect.

The general consensus regarding the Big Bang is it was of such a violent nature no useful information regarding whatever may have existed prior to the Big Bang survived the event. As such, it essentially becomes a benchmark that can be assigned a value of '0'. Whatever preceded it would be assigned a negative value. That does not mean it is negative, but only negative in regard to an artificially set benchmark. This is similar to how we measure temperature, we set 0 at either the freezing point of water of some other arbitrary point. Time as well, we set a benchmark roughly about when some annoying rabbi type was supposed to have been born. Time before that is sort of a negative.

But, it currently doesn't appear there will be useful information about anywhen prior to the Big Bang. So it might as well be 0, even though it is may not be.

[Jet Black]

You don't think it's a "miracle" that the Universe just magically appeared out of nowhere?

Shit man, did you see the universe just "magically appear out of nowhere"?

[Jet Black]

It suggests that time and space had a beginning, however.


no it doesn't. the Big Bang theory is derived from General Relativity, which is a fundamentally flawed theory. You might as well try and derive the curvature of spacetime from purely newtonian considerations.

[Jobar]

Iacchus, it's common to compare the Big Bang with the formation of a black hole's event horizon. Time, matter and energy exist outside a black hole, but from inside there's no way to perceive any of those. It's the same for the universe; from inside, we can't see out. However, the simple existence of the universe implies the existence of an outside, although the conditions there are possibly very different from the ones we know.

[Iacchus]

Shit man, did you see the universe just "magically appear out of nowhere"?Yes, first thing when I woke up this morning! :D

[EarthWalker]

Science admits that "energy can neither be created nor destroyed," yet they cannot see the Creator of the universe :-)

Have you people seen "truth" (not subjective but absolute truth) and not seen God? For God is a spirit, of truth and of love.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Science admits that "energy can neither be created nor destroyed," yet they cannot see the Creator of the universe :-)
Is it me and my hangover, or is the second phrase a complete non sequitur?
Have you people seen "truth" (not subjective but absolute truth)
Nope. That's the problem with abstract nouns.
and not seen God?
Nope. Never seen 'im. He's always out, and doesn't return my calls either. If I didn't know better I'd wonder if he even exists at all.
For God is a spirit
Nope. Spirits have proof. I should know...
of truth and of love.
Nope. He deceives people (eg Jeremiah 4:10; Ezekiel 14:9), and the Old Testament is jam-packed with examples of his love... of the stench of seared flesh.

[Ezkerraldean]

Science admits that "energy can neither be created nor destroyed," yet they cannot see the Creator of the universe :-)



what does that mean? say something solid and coherent for once, please.

and energy can be created or destroyed if it is interchanged with mass as in fusion and matter-antimatter encounters.

[Sven]

and energy can be created or destroyed if it is interchanged with mass as in fusion and matter-antimatter encounters.
This isn't destruction or creation of energy - mass is enegery (just a special form thereof). That's what E = mc² means.

[Jet Black]

of the stench of seared flesh.

that doesn't mean he doesn't love us. I love pigs..... pork chops, bacon....

[TomboyMom]

Science admits that "energy can neither be created nor destroyed," yet therefore they cannot see the Creator of the universe :-)

Have you people seen "truth" (not subjective but absolute truth) and not seen God? No, truth is an abstract concept. I have however seen a number of true statements. For God is a spirit, of truth and of love. And the IPU is a spirit of horniness, speed and hue.

[EarthWalker]

and energy can be created or destroyed if it is interchanged with mass as in fusion and matter-antimatter encounters.
Now that's just silly. Energy equals Mass times the speed of light squared. Anti-matter split when the universe was created, it was repulsed by matter. There’s probably an anti-universe out there, huh...