Is a creationist a creationist because they feel it makes sense?

[DrkSdBls]

You had said: Just because you can reasonably conclude that the Universe could have Formed, as with all Life within it, all on it's own, that doesn't mean that that is how it did happen nor even if it's the most likely possibility.
This was the claim we were discussing. I would, personally, word it differently and less ambiguously, but for all intents and purposes it is an accurate description of one of my beliefs.

Right.

Non sequitur. I'm not sure how this response relates to my post.

It's not Non-Sequitur. Actually, That's my typical responce to others but maybe you aren't deserving of.

Ah, I see. I would personally use the term 'causal chain', if you are describing what I think you're describing. Perhaps it is the rigours of my mathematical training that make me object to the word 'equation'; it has a very specific meaning to me

That might fit better.

I disagree. The pool of chemicals, plus certain atmospheric conditions, would be sufficient to for abiogenesis to occur. As far as I am aware, there is no 'unknown' in our model for the abiogenesis event. But I'll grant you that our knowledge of the event is relatively sparse compared to how we think life evolved thereon out.

Then that's something I'd very much like to see reproduced.

 

[DrkSdBls]

Lets review your assumptions,
was prebiotic Earth a vaccum?

Alright, Correction. Not "Vaccum" persay but an Atmosphere devoid of Oxygen. My point is that just being defient in Oxygen is not the only factor which defines the prebiotic Atmophere and you addressing it as such does nothing for your arguement.

was the timeframe in which you "came back later" sufficient?
Would you recognize an early life precusror for what it was?

Very good questions. Of course, it's one of the most basic method of science is just to experiment and note the results. Of course, Time is often but one of the Attributing Factors that may alter the results.

And then, there's knowing what you have when you see it.

But, couldn't it be said that if you get Any results, then you have made some progress?

Then one wonders why creationists continue to assert their opinion on the results of abiogenesis, before it has even formed its first whole threory. 'Fraid much?

I wouldn't know how the Mind of a Creationist works. You're asking that question to the wrong guy.

Nonsense! If you know something, even if only about what others perceive as God, then you know something about the idea of God. Even atheists know something about God (sometimes, moreso than a lotta people)...

No. I know what Other people Believe about God and I know what I believe about God but I only know what I'm told or what I find out for myself.

I "Know" nothing about God with any certainty except what I Discover myself.

Just because someone tells me something about God that they say is true, does that make it fact?

Sometimes, I feel like I'm more Rational then most Atheists.

 

[arensb]

Would you be willing, knowing that the Christian God exists to do His will instead of what you want to do?

If there were a good reason, then yes. But then, I like to think that any god worth worshiping would be a good teacher, and would be able to explain why his laws are optimal.

Contrary to what you may believe, I don't want for there not to be any gods. I want to know what's true. If there are any gods, I want to know that. But I don't want to fool myself, either. And when I look at the universe, I don't see anything for which the most plausible explanation is that there's a god.

Yes, it would be nice to know that I'm not really going to die, that there's a guiding hand behind everything, but as far as I can tell, that's not how things are.

At any rate, returning to the subject at hand, it seems to me that you've conceded the argument that "If God were to show himself, we would have no choice but to love and obey him, which would violate our free will".

 

[arensb]

In many cases I am sure that indoctrination occurs, in the Islamic tradition young men are indoctrinated very early and it is required for them to follow Allah. If Christians were the same as Muslims in this regard, you would be forced to worship the Christian God. Being raised in a nation where Christians were the majority, you were not indoctrinated into the faith. So your premise fails.

Actually, as I recall, the reason we have the free exercise and establishment clauses in the first amendment to the US constitution is that the founders wanted to prevent exactly the kinds of abuses you describe, ones that they saw in Christian countries and colonies.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It's not Non-Sequitur. Actually, That's my typical responce to others but maybe you aren't deserving of.

As for as I could tell, the statement didn't follow from what I had wrote. Therefore, it's a non sequitur. Of course, if you could explain to me what you meant (paraphrase it, or whatever), then I could respond properly.

Then that's something I'd very much like to see reproduced.

I recommend reviewing the Miller-Urey experiments, and those that followed from it. They replicate the conditions that early Earth is thought to have been under (aquatic and atmospheric chemistry, pressure and temperature, etc), and yeild a remarkable 13 out of the 22 amino acids required for today's biological life.

 

[DrkSdBls]

As for as I could tell, the statement didn't follow from what I had wrote. Therefore, it's a non sequitur. Of course, if you could explain to me what you meant (paraphrase it, or whatever), then I could respond properly.

Actually, after going back and rereading your post, I realized I misread it to begin with. That's my mistake.

"Oh, and given the assumption that I reasonably concluded my claim, is this not in itself support for my claims probability? "

Thou, if you would, could you clearify what you meant by that?

Because now I'm reading it as though you are saying that because you find your assumption to be reasonable, it's proof that your assumption is probable.

I recommend reviewing the Miller-Urey experiments, and those that followed from it. They replicate the conditions that early Earth is thought to have been under (aquatic and atmospheric chemistry, pressure and temperature, etc), and yeild a remarkable 13 out of the 22 amino acids required for today's biological life.

Key words are bolded.

I'm familiar with the Miller-Urey experiments. Back in school, that was a ground-breaking news that was required reading in Biology.

But the fact that they only recreated 13 out of the 22 required amino Acids suggests that they are quite a distance from knowing the exact conditions required to simulate the Formation of Life.

A Puzzzle! It just occured to me. That's a far better Metaphor then "Equation." It's like peicing together an emence Jigsaw puzzle but without having the Finished Picture to work from And having to do a Scavengerhunt to find it's peices first.

Anyway. I'm not saying that Miller-Urey experiments weren't important. But that's a far cry from seeing the actual recreation of Basic life.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Actually, after going back and rereading your post, I realized I misread it to begin with. That's my mistake.

"Oh, and given the assumption that I reasonably concluded my claim, is this not in itself support for my claims probability? "

Thou, it you would, could you clearify what you meant by that?

Because now I'm reading it as though you are saying that because you find your assumption to be reasonable, it's proof that your assumption is probable.

You misunderstand. It is not the assumption that is reasonable, for that is assumed in the hypothetical context of our discussion. No, the fact that I came to my beliefs rationally is itself support for my beliefs.

Key words are bolded.

I'm familiar with the Miller-Urey experiments. Back in school, that was a ground-breaking news that was required reading in Biology.

But the fact that they only recreated 13 out of the 22 required amino Acids suggests that they are quite a distance from knowing the exact conditions required to simulate the Formation of Life.

Indeed. The abiogenesis event took place over many millenia (arguably 1 billion years), whereas the Miller-Urey experiments took place over a matter of days or weeks. I find it astounding that they formed over half of the amino acids at all.
Also note that I said they formed 13 of the 22 acids needed for modern day life. I said nothing about the other acids they formed, or that those 22 (or even 13) acids were required for abiogenesis.

A Puzzzle! It just occured to me. That's a far better Metaphor then "Equation." It's like peicing together an emence Jigsaw puzzle but without having the Finished Picture to work from And having to do a Scavengerhunt to find it's peices first.

Perhaps.
I see the piecing together of things like this as a model (hence the term 'modelling'). Mathematicians model a pendulum as being a point mass on the end of an inflexible rod of one-dimension. This holds, but only up to a point, namely for large amplitudes.
Anyway.
When we model the abiogenesis event, we ignore things such as the velocity of Alpha Centauri B, and instead concentrate on coming up with conditions that one would expect to find on early Earth that lead to abiogenesis. One such set of conditions were recreated by Miller and Urey, and, lo and behold, complex organic molecules spontaneously formed.
So it is not so much excluding supernatural entities, but finding the most likely conditions, whatever they may be.

Anyway. I'm not saying that Miller-Urey experiments weren't important. But that's a far cry from seeing the actual recreation of Basic life.

Indeed, and I have never alluded to the contrary. You have a penchance of putting words into my mouth, it seems.

 

[DrkSdBls]

You misunderstand. It is not the assumption that is reasonable, for that is assumed in the hypothetical context of our discussion. No, the fact that I came to my beliefs rationally is itself support for my beliefs.

Oh! I getya now.

Indeed. The abiogenesis event took place over many millenia (arguably 1 billion years), whereas the Miller-Urey experiments took place over a matter of days or weeks. I find it astounding that they formed over half of the amino acids at all.
Also note that I said they formed 13 of the 22 acids needed for modern day life. I said nothing about the other acids they formed, or that those 22 (or even 13) acids were required for abiogenesis.

True. I'll concede that.

When we model the abiogenesis event, we ignore things such as the velocity of Alpha Centauri B, and instead concentrate on coming up with conditions that one would expect to find on early Earth that lead to abiogenesis. One such set of conditions were recreated by Miller and Urey, and, lo and behold, complex organic molecules spontaneously formed.
So it is not so much excluding supernatural entities, but finding the most likely conditions, whatever they may be.

Excluding one postulation, even if merely for the sake of arguement, is useful for the purpose of reasoning a model within certain Parameters (Or, in other words, elimanating a supposed factor in order to observe the model in a different light) is one way to see if that factor is truely an influancing force in the model.

I don't disagree. Take out a peice of the puzzle a see if the Image works without it. It's an excellent way to understand things. I employ this same method in Philosophy everyday.

But by excluding a idea just because you can not see an immediate effect can cause a problem later. Take your Alpha Centauri B example. Whose to say that the Velocity of Alpha Centauri B did not have an effect on the start of life on our planet?

Even if you can reasonably assume that it has no effect because all avaliable Data shows no indecation of doing so, that doesn't mean that it did not have a sigificate impact never-the-less. And excluding the possiblity outright might lead one to dismiss a possible link later.

Even if it is a variation of the "Butterfly Effect," It's not inconceivable that a random, innocuous event light years away could of had an effect on our early planet.

I don't think of our planet as a single closed system. To say that there is not an actually high probablity that our Earth is the product of Billions of Years of Universal Ebbs and Tides is a wholely limited point of view indeed.

Of course, that is beside the point, I know.

Indeed, and I have never alluded to the contrary. You have a penchance of putting words into my mouth, it seems.

Wasn't trying to. It's just that those who I've had similar conversions with have often followed along the same train of logic which you have demonstrated before trailing into that same reasoning.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Excluding one postulation, even if merely for the sake of arguement, is useful for the purpose of reasoning a model within certain Parameters (Or, in other words, elimanating a supposed factor in order to observe the model in a different light) is one way to see if that factor is truely an influancing force in the model.

Naturally. Changing a parameter in an experiment and analyising the results gives us an indication that said parameter is involved. However, it is neither proof, nor is it particularily useful at telling us how it is involved.

I don't disagree. Take out a peice of the puzzle a see if the Image works without it. It's an excellent way to understand things. I employ this same method in Philosophy everyday.

But by excluding a idea just because you can not see an immediate effect can cause a problem later. Take your Alpha Centauri B example. Whose to say that the Velocity of Alpha Centauri B did not have an effect on the start of life on our planet?

Even if you can reasonably assume that it has no effect because all avaliable Data shows no indecation of doing so, that doesn't mean that it did not have a sigificate impact never-the-less. And excluding the possiblity outright might lead one to dismiss a possible link later.

Even if it is a variation of the "Butterfly Effect," It's not inconceivable that a random, innocuous event light years away could of had an effect on our early planet.

I don't think of our planet as a single closed system. To say that there is not an actually high probablity that our Earth is the product of Billions of Years of Universal Ebbs and Tides is a wholely limited point of view indeed.

Of course, that is beside the point, I know.

I agree with you, and have studied chaotic and non-linear theories as extensively as I have had time for. The reason we ignore the velocity of Alpha Centuari B, for example, is because we are well within reason to think that it has neglible affect on it. Indeed, in this particular example, the velocity isn't affecting the abiogenesis event, since it is so far away; any causal relationship would either excede the relevant timespan, or would come from a third party.

But yes, I am aware that the Earth is not a closed system, nor indeed is any part of the universe. But just as we can ignore the trigonometric nature of a simple pendulum when it is at low amplitudes, so to can we ignore irrelevant data.

 

[DrkSdBls]

Naturally. Changing a parameter in an experiment and analyising the results gives us an indication that said parameter is involved. However, it is neither proof, nor is it particularily useful at telling us how it is involved.

Nor is it expected to.

I agree with you, and have studied chaotic and non-linear theories as extensively as I have had time for. The reason we ignore the velocity of Alpha Centuari B, for example, is because we are well within reason to think that it has neglible affect on it. Indeed, in this particular example, the velocity isn't affecting the abiogenesis event, since it is so far away; any causal relationship would either excede the relevant timespan, or would come from a third party.

But yes, I am aware that the Earth is not a closed system, nor indeed is any part of the universe. But just as we can ignore the trigonometric nature of a simple pendulum when it is at low amplitudes, so to can we ignore irrelevant data.

True. Although, Chaos theory might have made more sense if we were discussing Gravitmetic forces generally instead of Velocity alone.

It's reasonable to assume that the Gravational forces through Galaxy interact with one another, thus has effects on the delevopment of every other Physical Body that has a Gravational force. (Imagine how our Moon might have influanced our Develpoment.)

Of course, the Rotation and Speed of a Moving Body also has noticable effects on that Body's Field of Gravity and thus would also be taken into account when examaning the Interactions of Gravational forces.....

But, anyway. Everything's Interconnected is all I mean and one can't understand everything about one thing without knowing everything of everything else. So, we'll never know everything......

Oh, Nevermind. Totally not the point Anyway. I'm getting so off tract.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

True. Although, Chaos theory might have made more sense if we were discussing Gravitmetic forces generally instead of Velocity alone.

Or weather, or complex oscillators. But yes.

It's reasonable to assume that the Gravational forces through Galaxy interact with one another, thus has effects on the delevopment of every other Physical Body that has a Gravational force. (Imagine how our Moon might have influanced our Develpoment.)

The gravitational force drops off exponentially, but I, for example, am still feeling the effects of the gravitational pull of the Andromeda galaxy, albiet very weakly. The fact that it is very weak means that I can negate it in any modelling I do on Earth (though some experiments in nutrino detection are so sensitive that they have to take into account all sorts of tidal forces).
I do not disagree that everything affects everything else, but that we can negate the vast majority of effects (the Moon, for example, is often left in abiogenesis and evolutionary models).

Of course, the Rotation and Speed of a Moving Body also has noticable effects on that Body's Field of Gravity and thus would also be taken into account when examaning the Interactions of Gravational forces.....

Agreed.

But, anyway. Everything's Interconnected is all I mean and one can't understand everything about one thing without knowing everything of everything else. So, we'll never know everything......

Oh, Nevermind. Totally not the point Anyway. I'm getting so off tract.

I've quite forgotten what the original track was. Something about Creationists making sense? Well, that can't be right...

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Being an atheist doesn't make sense at all. There is a possibility that God exists no matter how small you feel that is, you can't know that there is no God. So reasonably you could be an agnostic, which then is a somewhat more reasonable stance.


In a purely evolutionary world view you can't rely on what your brain tells you is true, what does truth mean to a purely naturalistic viewpoint?

Why would you believe that everything your brain tells you is true and believe that others do not have the same ability?




The Bible makes sense when you realize that God is real. It is very easy to dismiss it as mythical and fictional when you have no reason to believe that God exists. When you find that God is real then the Bible takes on a whole new emphasis.


This does not hold true very often, more often than not people who were raised Christian turn away (sometimes they come back and sometimes they do not) and those raised in Christian families become agnostics. Manners and language yes, but for things that we believe, we must have reason to believe and that we were taught to believe is not reason enough for most.

I personally was not brought up a Christian and religion was not part of my upbringing.




Very true. Belief is a stepping stone, it either brings culmination in either knowing the belief is true or whether or not it is false. Belief is an area where doubt still exists.


It depends on what information is available to make you feel the argument makes sense. For me it makes sense that God created the universe because I know that God exists. For you it makes sense that evolution alone must have because you the arguments you have seen are not sufficient to change your mind and vice versa.


There is evidence but you choose to dismiss it. It is a choice and you have made that choice. You come up with other reasons for the evidence that is available.


So on the other hand when someone says that they are unable to think any other way because it doesn't make sense you claim they are deluding themselves. What if you are deluding yourself?

Oncedeceived vbmenu_register("postmenu_35945079", true);

Being an atheist doesn't make sense at all. There is a possibility that God exists no matter how small you feel that is, you can't know that there is no God. So reasonably you could be an agnostic, which then is a somewhat more reasonable stance.

There is also the possibility that the spaghetti monster exists, but not only exits, it comes to us in our dreams, and tells us god created the universes, to put us of his trail. The spaghetti monster loves mysticism, it keeps him safe.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

There is also the possibility that the spaghetti monster exists, but not only exits, it comes to us in our dreams, and tells us god created the universes, to put us of his trail. The spaghetti monster loves mysticism, it keeps him safe.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Do I have to experience schizophrenia before I conclude that another schizophrenic is not Elvis? This doesn't make any sense.

We can all make pretty extreme examples that may not make sense. In the case of the above, there are not millions of people who are schizophrenic and conclude that God exists. If so I would say that is the norm and you are perhaps the real schizo.

If something is real then there will be objective evidence that it is real.

Alright, before I comment here I want to ask you something. What do you feel is the real answer to the first living organism on earth and why do you feel that way?

Earlier you said that we should "trust you".

LOL I can't believe how many people have jumped on that and completely missed the part where automan was the one that said it and I was restating his remark with my position inserted. Sheesh.

I would bet a large sum of money that you would not be convinced by the personal experiences of a devout Hindu. I say that we should not trust each other. We could both be fooled or deluded about our belief or disbelief. So what are we left with? Objective facts. Things we both agree on. Things we can both touch, sense, or experiment with. Things that are outside of our direct influence.

How much of the information that you take as objective have you yourself felt, or experimented with? If fossil evidence is what floats your boat, just how many fossils have you examined yourself? If you believe that meme theory is objective, just how do you examine the evidence? Are many of the things that you claim as true and objective do you have direct interaction with?

 

[Oncedeceived]

verse(s), please.

Psa 50:6 And the heavens shall declare his righteousness: for God [is] judge himself. Selah.

Psa 75:7 But God [is] the judge: he putteth down one, and setteth up another.

Ecc 3:17 I said in mine heart, God shall judge the righteous and the wicked: for [there is] a time there for every purpose and for every work.

Act 10:42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God [to be] the Judge of quick and dead.

I've got enough to answer the question, and if I learn more later, I'll refine the answer even more...

How do you know you have enough to answer the question if you don't know everything there is to know?

You don't have all the information on God. So, if you have to have all the information to know, then How do you know you know? See how this argument doesn't work? Lack of omniscience doesn't invalidate posative knowledge, be it theological, scientific, or otherwise.

In the Christian world view I don't need all the information on God, all I need is Christ's death on the cross and the Bible's instruction. If God is as He claims the Creator of universe and everything in it, then being in His charge would insure that I have adequate knowledge to act on the purpose of my life.

 

[Loudmouth]

We can all make pretty extreme examples that may not make sense. In the case of the above, there are not millions of people who are schizophrenic and conclude that God exists. If so I would say that is the norm and you are perhaps the real schizo.

In both cases, the only thing propping up the belief is the belief itself.

Millions of people could be deluded for the same reason that a single person is deluded. The hindu would believe you are deluded in the same way that you believe the hindu is deluded. Again (paraphrasing Stephen Roberts), I only disbelieve in one more god than you do. Once you understand why you disbelieve in all those other gods you will understand why I disbelieve in yours.

Alright, before I comment here I want to ask you something. What do you feel is the real answer to the first living organism on earth and why do you feel that way?

The earliest evidence of life are stromatolite-like colonies. This coincides with thick sediments of oxidized iron, consistent with these stromatolites producing the first source of oxygen that led to something resembling our current atmosphere. Before that I have no evidence of what life was like. The only thing that is even remotely supportable is that these stromatolite-like colonies had precursors, as does all life.

How much of the information that you take as objective have you yourself felt, or experimented with?

Objectivity is not defined by what I have personally measured or sensed. Objectivity is defined by what can be measured or sensed.

Have I checked the data in every scientific paper ever published? Of course not, but why should this be expected of me?

If fossil evidence is what floats your boat, just how many fossils have you examined yourself?

I have dug up many fossils myself, including my favorite which is a fossilized leech. My second favorite is a well preserved "monkey jaw" which is actually a gill raker from a fish that specialized in eating shelled invertebrates. My fossil collection is limited to aquatic fossils in the Snake River Basin in SW Idaho, but it's not bad.

If you believe that meme theory is objective, just how do you examine the evidence?

I don't think that meme theory is objective. I have swayed back and forth on this one in the past, but I now am firmly convinced it is not an objective theory.

Are many of the things that you claim as true and objective do you have direct interaction with?

I work in a lab where I could, in principle, repeat every experiment dealing with genetics, such as the ERV papers. Again, objectivity is not defined by what Loudmouth has measured or sensed. If I truly had a question about something in science I could test it, even if this involved going back to school and getting into a lab in a specific field.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So you think the Muslims and the Mormons could well have been indoctrinated but not the Christians, the Christians have all come to Jesus all on their own, even if they live in a town or a village that is all Christian and they would be ostracized if they were to believe anything else (as they would be if they were Muslims).

I didn't say anything about the Mormons. Muslim tradition does indeed indoctrinate and if you know anything at all about them you would see the difference between Christian and Muslim tradition.

I lived in a Christian town, at least where most went to Church and I didn't. I was not ostracized at all. I am sure that there may be cases where that might happen, but should it happen anyway, what would insure that the one being forced to comply was "indoctrinated". There would have to be more motivation than being ostracized for someone to believe something they didn't.

I bet you feel really lucky that you have hit on the one religion where everyone believed because they wanted to believe.

I think that for the most part this is true. For those who do not believe due to their own accord, would not be forced to stay...they could leave and in fact many do. Children raised in a Christian home many times leave the religion behind and many come back. It is their choice. As a whole Christians do not force anyone to believe in God.

Luckily for me I was raised in a country that is about 75% atheist, the UK, so I was not subjected to a religion as I was growing up,
a few of my friends were, mostly Catholics,
so I know at first hand that most religions need to be taught to the very young for them to be most effective,
if a child is not caught early enough they are pretty well lost for ever to religion, a few are not but the majority are.

If that were true then the world would not be most Christian.

So are you saying that if you were raised in this country you would have been a Christian?

So I think you are completely wrong in your assumption that most Christians are Christians out of choice,
some were most certainly given no choice at all, and they are unable to change,
(like a lot of married people when love has gone, it is easier to stay married than it is to get a divorce, so they stay with what is easiest.)

This is total bunk. People are free to choose. You have a very skewed view of Christianity.

I am happily married by the way, to another Atheist, we were married in a registry office, not a church.

Your point?

 

[Oncedeceived]

If there were a good reason, then yes. But then, I like to think that any god worth worshiping would be a good teacher, and would be able to explain why his laws are optimal.

So you think that Jesus was not a good teacher?

Contrary to what you may believe, I don't want for there not to be any gods. I want to know what's true. If there are any gods, I want to know that. But I don't want to fool myself, either. And when I look at the universe, I don't see anything for which the most plausible explanation is that there's a god.

The fact that you want truth is a good start. In a purely evolutionary world view truth is lacking. What is there in an evolutionary process that would establish truth?

Yes, it would be nice to know that I'm not really going to die, that there's a guiding hand behind everything, but as far as I can tell, that's not how things are.

May I assume that Christianity is offensive to you? Would I then equally assume that you would not want the God that would be real to be Him?

At any rate, returning to the subject at hand, it seems to me that you've conceded the argument that "If God were to show himself, we would have no choice but to love and obey him, which would violate our free will"

Yes, I feel that if God were to reveal Himself before the time He has planned it would violate our free will.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Actually, as I recall, the reason we have the free exercise and establishment clauses in the first amendment to the US constitution is that the founders wanted to prevent exactly the kinds of abuses you describe, ones that they saw in Christian countries and colonies.

The abuses that I describe were nothing like what the founding fathers were fearful of. Taxation and lack of freedom of thought were the real problems. Freedom of religion is consistent with Christianity. Freedom to choose. No one in the United States is forced to become a Christian at the threat of losing one's life.

 

[Oncedeceived]

There is also the possibility that the spaghetti monster exists, but not only exits, it comes to us in our dreams, and tells us god created the universes, to put us of his trail. The spaghetti monster loves mysticism, it keeps him safe.

Does the spaghetti monster have millions of followers that claim he exists? Does he have any claims that I need to know? I don't know of any. Perhaps you could provide the information I need to make a educated evaluation on its claims.