How to choose between creation and evolution.

[rjs330]

They are not.
A mountain is unique, complex and has a function in climate conditions.

Are mountains "designed"?



I just gave you an example of geology.



Computers are made from unnaturally occuring elements.
Computers bare labels like "made in china".
I can go and visit a computer factory.



It's not.

Yes mountains are designed to do exactly what you said they do. Just because we call it geology doesn't make it "not designed".

In fact the point they do exactly what you say which assists life to exist on this planet tells us it's designed to make it so life exists.

 

[rjs330]

But what we see in life is not "common design".
What we see are nested hierarchies.

It's not the same thing.

No you see common design. You interpret what you see as you wish.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes mountains are designed to do exactly what you said they do. Just because we call it geology doesn't make it "not designed".

In fact the point they do exactly what you say which assists life to exist on this planet tells us it's designed to make it so life exists.

lol, okay.

I rest my case, assuming most people here have had explained to them how mountains form during high school geology.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No you see common design. You interpret what you see as you wish.

It's not an interpretation.
It's the output of counting and mapping the matches.

The pattern factually exists.

You can stick your head in the sand again now. Don't forget to stuff your ears and scream "lalala".

 

[Speedwell]

That just silly. We just believe what God says

But why should we believe what you say God says?

 

[rjs330]

You are engaging in an equivocation fallacy for sophistical purposes, just like the radical Dominionists at the Discovery Institute who originated it.

"Design" as a term, is used with two different and distinct meanings.

First of all, it means "purpose." As a theist, I believe that the universe is infused with divine telos. But purpose is not directly detectable in an object or phenomena, it must be inferred from other evidence. Typically, it is inferred from evidence of human manufacture, Paley's "indications of contrivance." Such evidence as tool and molding marks, the use of refined alloys and non-natural materials, etc. Consequently, the presence of design as purpose is a scientifically unfalsifiable proposition. Its presence can be concluded by inference from other evidence, but cannot be demonstrated directly and it can never be scientifically ruled out. That is sufficient for me as a believer, but I understand it is not enough for those whose political agenda requres that it's presence be demonstrated directly.

On the other hand "design" is also used to describe functional arrangements of components, but this usage does not imply purpose.

The equivocation fallacy is obvious: "Design (as functionality) is present in nature, therefore design (as telos) is proven."

It's interesting that you can fully believe in evidence of human contrivance, but reject Godly contrivance. Design IS present in nature and since the Bible tells us God created it makes sense. Since we observe functuonality and purpose is aways designed it is only logical to apply it to life.

 

[Speedwell]

It's interesting that you can fully believe in evidence of human contrivance, but reject Godly contrivance.

I don't reject it, but because it is unfalsifiable it can't be a scientific proposition.

Design IS present in nature and since the Bible tells us God created it makes sense.

That's what we believe, but it can't be demonstrated scientifically.

Since we observe functuonality and purpose is aways designed it is only logical to apply it to life.

Functionality and purpose are not the same thing. You accused us of identifying them except where that identity might lead to belief in your God. That was rather insulting of you, I thought, but it is also a logical fallacy--the fallacy of equivocation.

 

[Brightmoon]

You come up with evidence that God said anything first . Then you come up with evidence that this is your version of the Bible. The thing about nature that creationists never seem to figure out is that the Creation is telling mainstream scientists what’s going on . We don’t tell nature what to do when it comes to what is actually going on. Nature is saying evolution; Nature is saying the earth is very old; Nature is saying the universe is very very old; Nature is saying we’re stardust; etc etc etc.

 

[Brightmoon]

Mountains are pushed up by plate tectonics. They’re an accident of wherever 2 plates happen to touch and the pressure stress applied to different minerals Some fold with a rounded profile and some break and form as large faults. You could google OROGENESIS. Saying this is designed is just silly

 

[rjs330]

lol, okay.

I rest my case, assuming most people here have had explained to them how mountains form during high school geology.

Of course the mountains were formed. No one said they weren't.

The one who forms the mountains, creates the wind, makes known his thoughts to humankind, makes the morning darkness, and moves over the heights of the earth— the Lord, the God of heavenly forces is his name! - Amos 4:13 Bible Gateway passage: Amos 4:13 - Common English Bible

 

[Astrophile]

Creation and design. Stuff had to come from somewhere. If the universe didn't exist 4.6 billion years ago where did it all come from?

First, we don't know where the universe came from, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it was created by a God. Second, science is a work in progress with the frontiers of scientific knowledge in continuous recession. In view of the advances in cosmology in the last 55 years, it is quite possible that within the next 20 or 30 years cosmologists will have worked out where the universe did come from.

 

[rjs330]

It's not an interpretation.
It's the output of counting and mapping the matches.

The pattern factually exists.

You can stick your head in the sand again now. Don't forget to stuff your ears and scream "lalala".

It's an interpretation of what you see. All you see is patterns or all you see is similarities and you interpret them to mean evolution. We interpret them as evidence that God created this world and we see that as evidence that supports what the Bible says happened.

 

[rjs330]

But why should we believe what you say God says?

We've already been through this Speed. God said it specifically in Exodus. I merely quote what he says. It's like quoting anyone else. If we have the quote it's a quote. It's what the person said. And God said it .

 

[Astrophile]

As a creationist I assume that since all things have DNA and all things have some similarities that God used the same building blocks to create all life.

Why did God use the same building blocks to create all life? If He had made the DNA of humans, chimpanzees and gorillas, or the DNA of whales and hippopotamuses, entirely different, there would have been no danger of people inferring biological relationships from similarities in DNA, and there would have been no doubt about the different species having been separately created.

 

[rjs330]

I don't reject it, but because it is unfalsifiable it can't be a scientific proposition.That's what we believe, but it can't be demonstrated scientifically. Functionality and purpose are not the same thing. You accused us of identifying them except where that identity might lead to belief in your God. That was rather insulting of you, I thought, but it is also a logical fallacy--the fallacy of equivocation.

Then science is wrong. If science says something different then science is wrong. I believe that science would say the ressurrection of Christ is impossible. But we believe it anyway. So what if creation is unfalsifiable? Man decided in his own that something has to be unfalsifiable. God is unfalsifiable. So does that mean he does not exist?

Functionality and purpose are always evidence of design.

 

[Astrophile]

It's an interpretation of what you see. All you see is patterns or all you see is similarities and you interpret them to mean evolution. We interpret them as evidence that God created this world and we see that as evidence that supports what the Bible says happened.

But can creationists use the patterns and similarities to make testable predictions? That is what scientists do. For example, Charles Darwin used our similarity to chimpanzees and gorillas to predict that the earliest forms of humans would be found in Africa. The discovery of Homo habilis and Homo ergaster confirmed this prediction. If the earliest forms of humans had been found in Asia, or in Europe or the Americas, Darwin's prediction would have failed, and that failure would have cast doubt on his theory.

 

[rjs330]

Why did God use the same building blocks to create all life? If He had made the DNA of humans, chimpanzees and gorillas, or the DNA of whales and hippopotamuses, entirely different, there would have been no danger of people inferring biological relationships from similarities in DNA, and there would have been no doubt about the different species having been separately created.

I don't know why God did it that way. But but it is your interpretation of the design that is faulty. But that is the way of man. He is faulty in his understanding because he is limited.

 

[rjs330]

But can creationists use the patterns and similarities to make testable predictions? That is what scientists do. For example, Charles Darwin used our similarity to chimpanzees and gorillas to predict that the earliest forms of humans would be found in Africa. The discovery of Homo habilis and Homo ergaster confirmed this prediction. If the earliest forms of humans had been found in Asia, or in Europe or the Americas, Darwin's prediction would have failed, and that failure would have cast doubt on his theory.

I think most Bible Scholars would have told you the same thing. Since the history of the Bible occurs in the area of Africa and moves to the land of Canaan during the founding of Israel. I certainly believed the earliest men would be found in Africa. No surprise.

 

[Speedwell]

God is unfalsifiable. So does that mean he does not exist?

It means nothing of the kind. What it means is the existence of God can never be disproven by science.

Functionality and purpose are always evidence of design.

Only if you assume that functionality cannot come about by natural causes. Which is the thing you are trying to prove. Tsk. And you are only trying to prove it because you don't realize that natural causes can be as much of a vehicle for divine telos as direct divine intervention.

 

[Astrophile]

I think most Bible Scholars would have told you the same thing. Since the history of the Bible occurs in the area of Africa and moves to the land of Canaan during the founding of Israel. I certainly believed the earliest men would be found in Africa. No surprise.

First, can you cite any Bible Scholars who actually predicted, before the discovery of fossil humans, that the earliest humans would be found in Africa? Second, can you provide any other predictions that were made by creationists and confirmed by later observations?