Creationists: Explain how the designer created and/or modified living things on Earth

[Speedwell]

actually its science. its scientific to conclude design when we see a watch or a robot or a natural gear like this one:

(image from Creature with Interlocking Gears on Legs Discovered)

It's not scientific, just unwarranted. I don't see any evidence of intentional manufacture in that picture.

 

[Brightmoon]

I agree that the logical conclusions are not "proof" by any means. There are limitations to the arguments. First, as you mentioned, it does not prove God exists. Second, it doesn't prove or disprove the existence of any god/gods to include the God of Abraham. The existence of smoke doesn't prove the existence of fire. But any reasonable person can conclude that smoke is very real evidence of a possible fire that any reasonable person would investigate. Likewise, because the logic doesn't prove God's existence, it doesn't necessarily mean that the logical arguments cannot be classified as "evidence". Because it is evidence that points to the possibility of the existence of God. Even if it is one that is now completely uninvolved in our universe (deism). What the evidence demonstrates is that science has revealed that the existence of God is a very rational and logical possibility that ought not be dismissed. To reject this rational and logical possibility requires sacrificing logic for faith.

At macro scales it’s logical to be able to determine the speed and the position of an object. If you get into subatomic particle that logic gets thrown out the window- Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. What you’re describing isn’t really logic it’s confirmation bias. You believe it so to you everything points to design . I’ll reserve judgment because design hasn’t been well described snowflakes look designed but their shape is dependent on humidity, windspeed, temperature and the shape of the water molecule itself

 

[Ophiolite]

It's not scientific, just unwarranted. I don't see any evidence of intentional manufacture in that picture.

I take a minor exception to your statement. I see minor, lightweight evidence*, though there is zero supporting evidence.

*It is evidence since the features match items heretofore known only as the end product of design and manufacture. If there was design in nature, this is the sort of thing we would expect to see. The appearance of these gears is consistent with, and thus evidence for, design in nature. However, since it is also consistent with natural development that evidence is not compelling and in the absence of any other supporting evidence it should carry little weight.

 

[Speedwell]

I take a minor exception to your statement. I see minor, lightweight evidence*, though there is zero supporting evidence.

*It is evidence since the features match items heretofore known only as the end product of design and manufacture. If there was design in nature, this is the sort of thing we would expect to see. The appearance of these gears is consistent with, and thus evidence for, design in nature. However, since it is also consistent with natural development that evidence is not compelling and in the absence of any other supporting evidence it should carry little weight.

Indeed so, but Xianhua's position is that such structures are entirely and obviously inconsistent with natural development so that when they are found in nature they are prima facie evidence of intelligent design.
Part of the problem is that Xiangua (like IDists everywhere) is cynically trading on the equivocal character of the word "design." In one sense, "design" means purpose or intention. In the other sense it is merely a term describing a functional arrangement. Functional arrangement = design = intention, ergo ID.

 

[Ophiolite]

Indeed so, but Xianhua's position is that such structures are entirely and obviously inconsistent with natural development so that when they are found in nature they are prima facie evidence of intelligent design.
Part of the problem is that Xiangua (like IDists everywhere) is cynically trading on the equivocal character of the word "design." In one sense, "design" means purpose or intention. In the other sense it is merely a term describing a functional arrangement. Functional arrangement = design = intention, ergo ID.

Absolutely, I don't dispute your central thesis, nor fail to recognise the hopeless illogic of Xiangua's position. However, since I berate creationists when they claim there is no evidence for evolution, rather than saying they question the quality of the evidence, it would be hypocritical of me if I did not point out there is evidence - though very poor - for design in the creationist sense.

 

[Speedwell]

Absolutely, I don't dispute your central thesis, nor fail to recognise the hopeless illogic of Xiangua's position. However, since I berate creationists when they claim there is no evidence for evolution, rather than saying they question the quality of the evidence, it would be hypocritical of me if I did not point out there is evidence - though very poor - for design in the creationist sense.

As a theist, of course, I believe that design as Telos is present in everything. The problem is proving it. Of course, at bottom the IDists are not interested in proving it, which is why they have suggested no mechanism for how the "design" (as functional arrangement) gets into natural objects. The main objective is to incapacitate the theory of evolution, allowing for the rehabilitation of biblical creationism.

 

[Ophiolite]

As a theist, of course, I believe that design as Telos is present in everything. The problem is proving it. Of course, at bottom the IDists are not interested in proving it, which is why they have suggested no mechanism for how the "design" (as functional arrangement) gets into natural objects. The main objective is to incapacitate the theory of evolution, allowing for the rehabilitation of biblical creationism.

I find it entirely plausible that your postulated Telos is present. The four fundamental forces, the fundamental particles and the half dozen or so vital constants may constitute the design elements in which the aim is implicit. Emergence of ever more complex properties over time leads to, amongst other things, the appearance humanity. Thus evolution is one of the tools that the Divine power uses to achieve its goal.

As I say I find it plausible, but see no compelling evidence to believe it. At the same time I, equally, have no reason to castigate those who do. Those who propose implausible explanations are the ones who merit castigation.

Aside; I am uncomfortable, on a (pseudo) philosophical level that science has discarded teleology as having an impact on the development of the universe. It is probably a correct solution, but if you declare there is no monster under the bed, you are much less likely to look. (Not than I'm suggesting teleology is a monster.)

 

[pitabread]

actually its science.

In no universe is "Goddidit" considered scientific. Even your fellow creationists know this as is evident from reading the responses in this thread.

You're alone in this claim.

 

[pitabread]

when we see a watch on a far planet we dont need a mechanism to conclude that such a watch was designed. the same is true with living things.

You're not answering the question posed in the OP. The question isn't whether or not you think living things are designed.

The question is that if you think living things were created by a designer, then how were they created?

Can you answer that question? If you can't answer that question, then creation is not an explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

That's all very well, but it does not address the OP.

That is a fair statement. In regards to the OP, I think my final statement is leave it to the scientists to answer the how questions and leave it to theologians to answer the why questions. I think saying anything else is just distracting to the OP.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

At macro scales it’s logical to be able to determine the speed and the position of an object. If you get into subatomic particle that logic gets thrown out the window- Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. What you’re describing isn’t really logic it’s confirmation bias. You believe it so to you everything points to design . I’ll reserve judgment because design hasn’t been well described snowflakes look designed but their shape is dependent on humidity, windspeed, temperature and the shape of the water molecule itself

It is simple logic. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. Science has proven that the universe had a definite beginning. Therefore, we can logically conclude that the universe has a cause. At a minimum, a deistic God is a reasonable option that is on the table of possibilities. Their is no justifiable reason, other than out of faith, to take that option off the table. Even in the realm of quantum physics, some claim that particles "appeared out of nothing" in a vacuum. The problem is that a vacuum isn't nothing. There is still time and space in a vacuum. It is impossible to test or measure "nothingness" because it would require stepping outside of time and space.

 

[pitabread]

Everything that begins to exist has a cause. Science has proven that the universe had a definite beginning. Therefore, we can logically conclude that the universe has a cause.

This is essentially a classical physics view of the origin of the universe where causality as we perceive it would apply. However, classical physics doesn't necessarily apply since once you cross a certain threshold in time and space (Planck time/space), classical physics breaks down.

When you start getting into quantum mechanics you can get weird situations where classic causality no longer applies: How quantum trickery can scramble cause and effect

And that's where things get weird.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

This is essentially a classical physics view of the origin of the universe where causality as we perceive it would apply. However, classical physics doesn't necessarily apply since once you cross a certain threshold in time and space (Planck time/space), classical physics breaks down.

When you start getting into quantum mechanics you can get weird situations where classic causality no longer applies: How quantum trickery can scramble cause and effect

And that's where things get weird.

So...magic without a magician?

 

[pitabread]

So...magic without a magician?

Sure.

 

[Brightmoon]

It is simple logic. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. Science has proven that the universe had a definite beginning. Therefore, we can logically conclude that the universe has a cause. At a minimum, a deistic God is a reasonable option that is on the table of possibilities. Their is no justifiable reason, other than out of faith, to take that option off the table. Even in the realm of quantum physics, some claim that particles "appeared out of nothing" in a vacuum. The problem is that a vacuum isn't nothing. There is still time and space in a vacuum. It is impossible to test or measure "nothingness" because it would require stepping outside of time and space.

. Pure Vacuum has an energy that allows subatomic particles to pop into existence. I’m not a physicist so I can’t explain it better than that . But it does make sense to me because subatomic particles are basically “solidified” energy.

 

[Speedwell]

. Pure Vacuum has an energy that allows subatomic particles to pop into existence. I’m not a physicist so I can’t explain it better than that . But it does make sense to me because subatomic particles are basically “solidified” energy.

Probably

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

. Pure Vacuum has an energy that allows subatomic particles to pop into existence. I’m not a physicist so I can’t explain it better than that . But it does make sense to me because subatomic particles are basically “solidified” energy.

You don't have to be a physicist to know that things are not created by nothing from nothing. I would argue that in the example you provided, the only thing that is proven is that their is a cause for the particles to "pop into existence" that we do not understand yet. Again, these tests are done in a vacuum, not in pure nothingness. The bottom line is this, we do not know what causes the particles to come into existence. But what we do know is that they did not come from nowhere without a cause. To suggest otherwise is more absurd than magic.

 

[Brightmoon]

You don't have to be a physicist to know that things are not created by nothing from nothing. I would argue that in the example you provided, the only thing that is proven is that their is a cause for the particles to "pop into existence" that we do not understand yet. Again, these tests are done in a vacuum, not in pure nothingness. The bottom line is this, we do not know what causes the particles to come into existence. But what we do know is that they did not come from nowhere without a cause. To suggest otherwise is more absurd than magic.

. Pure vacuum has no atoms in it . That’s all . Vacuum energy can allow subatomic particles to pop into existence.

 

[Anthony Edgar]

Because I'm curious. Aren't you curious?

I believe life "evolved" but I also believe it was the result of God's miraculous power, it which case a scientific explanation is impossible. Increasing numbers of evolutionary theorists (eg, Gerd B. Muller) are becoming disillusioned with the power of neo-Darwinism to explain the macroevolutions evident in the fossil record (surprise, surprise!).

I'm not curious as to how God performed such miracles because those are events that can't possibly be understood.

 

[Anthony Edgar]

For the record, this thread isn't about Goddidit versus God didn't do it. This thread is to ask creationists how Goddidit.

This thread is a futile waste of time, in that case. How can you expect anyone to explain what they believe to be a miracle?