Is the fundamental gap between creationists and non-creationists...

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Hmm .. maybe.
I think its the equations that make the practical difference there though .. not so much the way we regard them(?)
Either way, I can still acknowledge, in awe, the mind(s) which achieved all of that.
'Beauty' there, still took a human mind to conceive .. and is never separate from one.

ok then add awe to dlamberths set in regards to the windblown arch and the math that allows you to understand why it is not yet just two pillars. I don't really think dlamberth thinks his concepts come from a blood pumping organ.

 

[lesliedellow]

It is probably true to say that creationists and non creationists start out with fundamentally different presuppositions. But an argument can only be won if there are shared presuppositions, and it can be demonstrated that the position held, by one side or the other, is incompatible with those presuppositions.

 

[SelfSim]

ok then add awe to dlamberths set in regards to the windblown arch and the math that allows you to understand why it is not yet just two pillars. I don't really think dlamberth thinks his concepts come from a blood pumping organ.

How can I test for 'awe' and return consistent results that we can all agree on? (Different people don't consistently demonstrate 'awe' or 'beauty' of/at what they see). Because if I can't do that, then it has no business being part of the model which consistently makes evident to us, how that arch does not appear as two pillars(?)

 

[Frank Robert]

What the Earth constantly shows me is that it was designed to function. And designed by a master artist, to be beautiful.

Science takes no stance that a master artist could have created the laws of nature. The difference between that possibility and creationism is one of degree.

 

[SelfSim]

It is probably true to say that creationists and non creationists start out with fundamentally different presuppositions. But an argument can only be won if there are shared presuppositions, and it can be demonstrated that the position held, by one side or the other, is incompatible with those presuppositions.

Welcome back @lesliedellow .. Its nice to have your contributions again!
Nice post ..
(That's the first time I've seen that the purpose of posting here, is to 'win' arguments though .. I must have joined for a 'wrong' reason? .. ) Has anyone ever 'won an argument' here, I wonder? Cheers

 

[AV1611VET]

if anyone ever detected ic they might be able
to define this dubious distinction.

Here you go.

A picture is worth a thousand words.

 

[SelfSim]

Here you go.

A picture is worth a thousand words.

IC is not something which 'exists' independently from the (human) mind of the observer/perceiver.
That mind is always our own until, say, a mousetrap, mysteriously shows up somewhere where no person can be shown to have ever been before, (or influenced in any way).

 

[AV1611VET]

IC is not something which 'exists' independently from the (human) mind of the observer/perceiver.

Then test it yourself.

Remove one of its components and see how it works.

 

[SelfSim]

Then test it yourself.

Remove one of its components and see how it works.

How can I possibly test it myself, without involving myself?

 

[AV1611VET]

How can I possibly test it myself, without involving myself?

I didn't say stick your finger in the trap. I said remove one of its components.

 

[SelfSim]

I said remove one of its components.

And how do I get your meaning there?

 

[renniks]

Science takes no stance that a master artist could have created the laws of nature. The difference between that possibility and creationism is one of degree.

Not " could have". There has to be an artist for the exquisite art that is everywhere in nature to exist.
It's not a matter of possibilities, it's the only logical explanation.

 

[dlamberth]

What the Earth constantly shows me is that it was designed to function. And designed by a master artist, to be beautiful.

What the Earth constantly shows me is just how creative life is in itSelf.

 

[renniks]

What the Earth constantly shows me is just how creative life is in itSelf.

Is life an entity? I don't know what that's supposed to mean.

 

[dlamberth]

Is life an entity? I don't know what that's supposed to mean.

Ya...but without it, we wouldn’t be here. So it must be something, one would think.

 

[renniks]

Ya...but without it, we wouldn’t be here. So it must be something, one would think.

Jesus said he is the bread of life and he is living water.
Also, we are told that he holds all matter together.
I love the natural world, but it points me to the Creator, not to itself.

 

[SelfSim]

It's not a matter of possibilities, it's the only logical explanation.

It may be the only logical explanation based on the untestable belief you hold .. but its not the only logical explanation .. (not by a longshot).

 

[dlamberth]

Jesus said he is the bread of life and he is living water.
Also, we are told that he holds all matter together.
I love the natural world, but it points me to the Creator, not to itself.

Kind of like the Light of God shines through Nature from its source? Like a ray from the sun shines from its source?

 

[Speedwell]

Jesus said he is the bread of life and he is living water.
Also, we are told that he holds all matter together.
I love the natural world, but it points me to the Creator, not to itself.

That is a fine sentiment and I agree, but what has it to do with the gap between creationists and non-creationists?

 

[SelfSim]

Is life an entity? I don't know what that's supposed to mean.

'Life' on Earth is distinguishable, by us, from 'the Earth', y'know(?)
That's what we develop objective tests and defintions for.