I don't understand the point of creationism

[pitabread]

Of course you shouldn't, these experiments show how certain basic chemical building blocks of DNA can be manufactured through intelligent design, not natural processes- that's a fair observation

The processes are natural insofar as they are all natural chemical reactions. There is nothing about something being in a lab that somehow causes chemical reactions to function differently.

It's just a rationalization so that creationists looking to believe in Intelligent Design can have a reason to reject anything from lab experiments simply by relabeling it.

is that your failsafe against logic in it's purest form?

Just pointing out incredulity when I see it. If that's all your argument boils down to... meh.

It's nothing new or interesting in these discussions. Most intelligent design arguments seem to boil down to incredulity.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

If you like. But Darwin didn't know anything about how it actually worked at the genetic level. He observed the randomly distributed variation, but he didn't understand how it was produced. Know we now more about it, and understand that there are 2nd order feedback loops at work as well. Classical Darwinism is long gone; why rail against it? Are you skeptical of Newtonian Physics, too?

Yes, Darwin reasonably assumed at the time that biological mechanisms might work by the same general model as physics- by a handful of simple 'immutable' laws + lots of time and random chance - i.e. natural selection acting on random variation

So I agree with his original premise, only today, since quantum mechanics/ subatomic physics etc, that means by a vast array of specific instructions/information, predetermining how, when ,where development occurs.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Just pointing out incredulity when I see it. If that's all your argument boils down to

no, again the argument for creative intelligence recognizes that this quest is not a dead end, there is a well proven mechanism by which such systems can be originated.

 

[pitabread]

no, again the argument for creative intelligence recognizes that this quest is not a dead end, there is a well proven mechanism by which such systems can be originated.

What you're talking about isn't a mechanism. "Intelligent design" is a concept, but it's not a specific mechanism. And it's certainly not something you can arrive at re: living organisms by way of arguments based on equivocation, false equivalence and incredulity.

And this is one of the great weakness in current ID thinking. They don't have any specific, testable mechanisms or processes by which they claim an intelligent designer effected design on living beings. Consequently this is why you see arguments based on equivocation, false equivalence and incredulity. There isn't anything else.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

What you're talking about isn't a mechanism. "Intelligent design" is a concept, but it's not a specific mechanism. And it's certainly not something you can arrive at re: living organisms by way of arguments based on equivocation, false equivalence and incredulity.

And this is in fact one of the great weakness in current ID thinking. They don't have any specific, testable mechanisms or processes by which they claim an intelligent designer effect design on living beings. Consequently this is why you see arguments based on equivocation, false equivalence and incredulity. There isn't anything else.

and again, a person reading this might have no idea about any of the tech involved in making these letters appear on our screens.

an early explorer might be entirely baffled by the Easter island heads

this has nothing whatsoever to do with their recognizing the intelligent agency involved- that's the whole point of focusing on the information, the mechanism of creative intelligence producing specifying information is an objective fingerprint in itself- regardless of how it was done

 

[pitabread]

and again, a person reading this might have no idea about any of the tech involved in making these letters appear on our screens.

an early explorer might be entirely baffled by the Easter island heads

this has nothing whatsoever to do with their recognizing the intelligent agency involved- that's the whole point of focusing on the information, the mechanism of creative intelligence producing specifying information is an objective fingerprint in itself- regardless of how it was done

What you're talking about is pattern recognition. And along those lines, a lot of claims about intelligent design re: living things seems to just be cases of apophenia (i.e. false pattern recognition).

 

[Guy Threepwood]

What you're talking about is pattern recognition. And along those lines, a lot of claims about intelligent design re: living things seems to just be cases of apophenia (i.e. false pattern recognition).

Of course the distinction depends on the quality and quantity of the information,

if we see the word 'CAT' in our alphabet soup, we might presume a fluke

But if we see "ENJOY YOUR SOUP!" we know somebody probably messed with it

Because like the grains of wheat on the chessboard, each improbability compounds the others very quickly- usually beyond our intuitive comprehension- so that the odds against a gambler playing 4 royal flushes in a row exceeds (I believe) the number of stars in the universe- and hence we know he's cheating, regardless of knowing the mechanism

i.e. the fallacy can work both ways, extremely improbable initiated events can be mistaken as 'flukes'

 

[pitabread]

Of course the distinction depends on the quality and quantity of the information,

Again, it's not "information", it's pattern recognition.

Though from what I recall in previous discussions you are using information as basically a catch-all for any observation. Which renders the term so generalized as to be largely irrelevant and leads right into equivocation.

 

[Astrid]

What you're talking about isn't a mechanism. "Intelligent design" is a concept, but it's not a specific mechanism. And it's certainly not something you can arrive at re: living organisms by way of arguments based on equivocation, false equivalence and incredulity.

And this is one of the great weakness in current ID thinking. They don't have any specific, testable mechanisms or processes by which they claim an intelligent designer effected design on living beings. Consequently this is why you see arguments based on equivocation, false equivalence and incredulity. There isn't anything else.

Its God o' the gap of course, arguing for unevidrnced magic against
a hugely evidenced body of science. Withal rather silly.

Not one fact of any sort contrary to ToE.

But a couple of arguments against "Darwinism", as if that were
anything but a dead horse.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I think we agree on the lack of fossil evidence then, as does Dawkins

"The Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years [], are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history"

Quote mining now? In the 25 years since Dawkins wrote that (and explained why he doesn't see it as a problem, there have been numerous Cambrian and Pre-cambrian fossil finds that help fill some of the gaps, especially the Cambrian fossils from South China, which have preserved many soft body parts. The Burgess shales in Canada are still producing new finds (e.g. an ancestral stem-hemichordate).

Again, one can come up with any number of excuses for the lack of evidence for gradual micro to macro evolution (again- nothing personal whatsoever) but you have to ask yourself at some point, are those excuses really demanded by the evidence, or just by the theory?

On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence for it; but when there is exceptionally rapid diversification, it is expected that there will be significant gaps in the evolutionary record, as it is unlikely that fossilised strata will be available for more than part of that period. Pointing to gaps in the fossil record and claiming they falsify macroevolution is like pointing at the gaps in time between the pictures in a family photograph album and claiming the they prove it's fake.

 

[Astrid]

Quote mining now? In the 25 years since Dawkins wrote that (and explained why he doesn't see it as a problem, there have been numerous Cambrian and Pre-cambrian fossil finds that help fill some of the gaps, especially the Cambrian fossils from South China, which have preserved many soft body parts. The Burgess shales in Canada are still producing new finds (e.g. an ancestral stem-hemichordate).


On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence for it; but when there is exceptionally rapid diversification, it is expected that there will be significant gaps in the evolutionary record, as it is unlikely that fossilised strata will be available for more than part of that period. Pointing to gaps in the fossil record and claiming they falsify macroevolution is like pointing at the gaps in time between the pictures in a family photograph album and claiming the they prove it's fake.

"As though.." refers to appearsnce, not fact.
The quote mine here is in the (deliberate ?)
misrepresentation.

Talk of "excuse" is an accusation of intellectual dishonesty
on the part of the scientific community.

 

[Astrid]

What you're talking about isn't a mechanism. "Intelligent design" is a concept, but it's not a specific mechanism. And it's certainly not something you can arrive at re: living organisms by way of arguments based on equivocation, false equivalence and incredulity.

And this is one of the great weakness in current ID thinking. They don't have any specific, testable mechanisms or processes by which they claim an intelligent designer effected design on living beings. Consequently this is why you see arguments based on equivocation, false equivalence and incredulity. There isn't anything else.

No, he is right that there is a proven mechanism for intelligent
design. People do it all the time. The hows of it are well known.

BUT, "god" is not proven, at all. If he were, that's not proof he is
finding it necessary to meddle with his creation, lacking the
omnipotence to make a universe that doesn't need him tinkering
with it all the time.

Frankly, I think its an insult to the God a person believes in,
assuming he has to treat creation like cranky old English sports car.

 

[pitabread]

No, he is right that there is a proven mechanism for intelligent design. People do it all the time. The hows of it are well known.

For clarity, I'm referring to in the context of unknown beings originating or modifying living things on Earth.

We definitely do know how humans can tinker with genetics. But for some reasons ID proponents never refer to human mechanisms for doing so.

If he were, that's not proof he is finding it necessary to meddle with his creation, lacking the omnipotence to make a universe that doesn't need him tinkering with it all the time.

And therein lies the rub. ID proponents are entirely too vague about how and when a supposed designer was doing all this stuff.

Though some ID proponents (e.g. Stephen Meyer) do seem to be proposing repeated tinkering with life at various times throughout Earth's history.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

And this is one of the great weakness in current ID thinking. They don't have any specific, testable mechanisms or processes by which they claim an intelligent designer effected design on living beings.

Another weakness is that they cannot account for the multiple independent lines of evidence, from diverse fields of study, all - for some strange reason - supporting evolutionary theory.

 

[SkyWriting]

Based on a couple decades of conversing with creationists and more broadly Christians in general, I've come away with two basic conclusions re: creationism:

1) It's not required for salvation by Jesus Christ.

2) It's not derived on the basis of God's Creation.​

I don't otherwise see the point of adopting creationist beliefs.

1. Yes, it's a result of Faith in God.
2. Creation by God is required by Science to explain existence.

 

[Astrid]

1. Yes, it's a result of Faith in God.
2. Creation by God is required by Science to explain existence.

Faith in God, or in ones self? ( as
being inerrant )
Creationism is not written into creation,
quite the opposite.
Science looks at what is, not at what
someone chooses to think is inerrant
reading of a perfect book.

 

[Speedwell]

1. Yes, it's a result of Faith in God.

Then how do you explain that to two billion Christians worldwide who are not creationists.

2. Creation by God is required by Science to explain existence.

But not creationism.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't otherwise see the point of adopting creationist beliefs.

I look at it this way: God did it.

End of story.

That makes me a creationist.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

I look at it this way: God did it.

End of story.

That makes me a creationist.

So does that make you "God" by resurrecting all of these dead threads?

 

[AV1611VET]

So does that make you "God" by resurrecting all of these dead threads?

I wasn't aware this thread had died.

I just came back from being off for a few months (some think I've been "off" for decades) ... but anyway, I just came back and started posting in threads that captured my interest.

I love to discuss creationism.