My Creationism vs Intelligent Design Challenge

[MissRowy]

LOL

How about Sarah Palin?

Im not even gonna go there!!

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I think if creationism is true (i.e. we are created as part of Gods plan), then intelligent design (Gods plan) gave rise to creation (of human beings etc).

 

[AV1611VET]

I think if creationism is true (i.e. we are created as part of Gods plan), then intelligent design (Gods plan) gave rise to creation (of human beings etc).

We are not a product of Intelligent Design, but we are designed intelligently.

The difference is creationism.

 

[rturner76]

So wrong on so many levels. You weren't told that it didn't exist, just that it wasn't necessarily brought about by an intelligent creation. When the premise of your argument is unfounded then there's no way the conclusion should be accepted as fact by default. What evidence is there for the beginning of our universe? Why should I accept it was created? It could've come about naturally via some as yet unknown mechanism, or there could be some type of eternal existence punctuated by a singularity that brought about this latest incarnation of this universe, or, the ever more popular multiverse could have brought about the beginning of this universe... none requiring an implausible & incredible supreme intelligence...

Take you for example. You were born, not created. You have a biological mother and father and we can test you using dna to verify that fact. You started out as a uni-celled embryo to get to the size and complexity you are now through absolutely well understood biological and molecular processes. All the evidence we have indicates no intelligence required.

Singularity or multiverse or whatever, it is still a creation. I am born but I am also a creation. I was created out of my mom and dad's biological material. That's why I am a creature (creature=create). Nothing makes itself. If you want a chair, you must make it. If you want a universe, you must make it.

 

[rturner76]

You can't just assume that the universe was created and try to use that to justify your conclusion. That is circular reasoning. If you want to claim that there was a creator the burden of proof is upon you.

Try one more time without unwarranted and improper assumptions.

How is it improper to assume something must be created to exist. It's pretty much commonsense.Like I told the other guy. If you want a chair, you have to make it. If you want a universe,you have to make it.Pretty simple really.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Singularity or multiverse or whatever, it is still a creation. I am born but I am also a creation. I was created out of my mom and dad's biological material. That's why I am a creature (creature=create). Nothing makes itself. If you want a chair, you must make it. If you want a universe, you must make it.

Wordsalad. Meaningless wordsalad at that. Everything we understand about our universe to date indicates all the matter and energy has always been here, nothing had to be created, unless you are conflating changes in state as a created something.... In your opinion, what's the difference between create & come about naturally without an intelligence? Could something come about by natural means (i.e. no intelligent agent)? like oxygen, carbon, nitrogen - well, pretty much everything with an atomic weight of more than 4?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How is it improper to assume something must be created to exist. It's pretty much commonsense.Like I told the other guy. If you want a chair, you have to make it. If you want a universe,you have to make it.Pretty simple really.

First off the word "created" assumes that something created it. You are assuming the answer before you even start. That is circular reasoning. When someone says "it is common sense" it almost always means that that person cannot reason. And a chair is a made object. We know how they are made. You can't say the same about the universe. To claim that the universe is made you would have to know how to make it using your poor analogy.

Here are a few possibilities:

The universe could have always existed in some form. The Big Bang only marks when the singularity expanded. We have no evidence of anything "before the Big Bang", so we cannot say what happened before then.

Time may have begun with the Big Bang. That means that phrases such as "before the Big Bang" may be as nonsensical as "north of the North Pole". There is no North of the North Pole. Up at the North Pole is not north. And before the Big Bang may not make any sense.

Time may have existed, but the universe may have "created" itself. On a quantum level the simple cause and effect that you believe in does not exist.

Now I am not saying that any of these is the definite right answer. You might even have the right answer, but that is highly dubious. But those possibilities show that your use of the word "created" is simply wrong. You can't assume the answer and then use that assumption to "prove" that you are correct.

 

[KWCrazy]

. Everything we understand about our universe to date indicates all the matter and energy has always been here, nothing had to be created...

So you believe matter/energy to be eternal?
You and what other misguided persons?
Most of use realize that the second law of thermodynamics indicates that the universe will continue to decay until it is one mass of more or less equivalent useless energy.
Eternity is a religious concept. The universe is finite.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you believe matter/energy to be eternal?
You and what other misguided persons?
Most of use realize that the second law of thermodynamics indicates that the universe will continue to decay until it is one mass of more or less equivalent useless energy.
Eternity is a religious concept. The universe is finite.

You clearly do not understand the second law of thermodynamics.

Also the total energy of the universe appears to be zero. That means that the universe appearing from nothing does not break any of the laws of thermodynamics.

 

[rturner76]

Wordsalad. Meaningless wordsalad at that. Everything we understand about our universe to date indicates all the matter and energy has always been here, nothing had to be created, unless you are conflating changes in state as a created something.... In your opinion, what's the difference between create & come about naturally without an intelligence? Could something come about by natural means (i.e. no intelligent agent)? like oxygen, carbon, nitrogen - well, pretty much everything with an atomic weight of more than 4?

I don't think of it as an intelligence that is a person or a brain that sits somewhere controlling everything and creating new things. It's more like "The Force" in Star Wars. It surrounds us and binds us. Holds our atoms together so they don't just scatter across the cosmos. If our universe it eternal, it is the universe itself is the source of our what I would call "cosmic order" it is the architect of the chain of events that lead to intelligent life and it sustains that life.

 

[rturner76]

First off the word "created" assumes that something created it. You are assuming the answer before you even start. That is circular reasoning. When someone says "it is common sense" it almost always means that that person cannot reason. And a chair is a made object. We know how they are made. You can't say the same about the universe. To claim that the universe is made you would have to know how to make it using your poor analogy.

Here are a few possibilities:

The universe could have always existed in some form. The Big Bang only marks when the singularity expanded. We have no evidence of anything "before the Big Bang", so we cannot say what happened before then.

Time may have begun with the Big Bang. That means that phrases such as "before the Big Bang" may be as nonsensical as "north of the North Pole". There is no North of the North Pole. Up at the North Pole is not north. And before the Big Bang may not make any sense.

Time may have existed, but the universe may have "created" itself. On a quantum level the simple cause and effect that you believe in does not exist.

Now I am not saying that any of these is the definite right answer. You might even have the right answer, but that is highly dubious. But those possibilities show that your use of the word "created" is simply wrong. You can't assume the answer and then use that assumption to "prove" that you are correct.

Ok, so as you say then. You don't know the answer of where the universe came from or how it was formed. For me, I believe the only answer if the universe wasnot made it has always been here and that would indicate that the universe itself has or is the intelligence that created life. Not being a creative being but a creative force that wrote the program that would lead to intelligent life.

 

[TLK Valentine]

We are not a product of Intelligent Design, but we are designed intelligently.

The difference is creationism.

Sounds like doubletalk.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, so as you say then. You don't know the answer of where the universe came from or how it was formed. For me, I believe the only answer if the universe wasnot made it has always been here and that would indicate that the universe itself has or is the intelligence that created life. Not being a creative being but a creative force that wrote the program that would lead to intelligent life.

Beliefs without evidence are not of any merit or use in a debate.

 

[rturner76]

Beliefs without evidence are not of any merit or use in a debate.

Are we debating weather there is a creator or intelligence to the design of life? I think those are two different questions. As for a creator, one would not be necessary if the universe existed from eternity however far fetched an idea that is.

As for intelligence designing life.....one only need look at the complexity of a cell to know it has not been randomly assembled. Every creature down to it's atomic level is organized indicating a design is in place. A working design needs some form of intelligence as a designer. Even if it is an impersonal unseen force of nature, there is an intelligence at play. Otherwise there would just be chaos. Mathematics and physics for example have predictable outcomes based on equations that are made factual by the laws of nature. Where do these laws come from? They have a designer. The same designer that designed the atom, cell, and so on. The intelligent designer of natural law. Does that make it clear now? We don't yet have a real name for this force and we can't effectively see it, or put an effective name to it so we debate about it.

 

[Loudmouth]

So you believe matter/energy to be eternal?
You and what other misguided persons?
Most of use realize that the second law of thermodynamics indicates that the universe will continue to decay until it is one mass of more or less equivalent useless energy.
Eternity is a religious concept. The universe is finite.

Given the creationist misconceptions about thermodynamics you have to wonder if they think their refrigerators run on magic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are we debating weather there is a creator or intelligence to the design of life? I think those are two different questions. As for a creator, one would not be necessary if the universe existed from eternity however far fetched an idea that is.

Why is the lack of a creator far fetched? If anything it seems that would describe your beliefs.

As for intelligence designing life.....one only need look at the complexity of a cell to know it has not been randomly assembled. Every creature down to it's atomic level is organized indicating a design is in place. A working design needs some form of intelligence as a designer. Even if it is an impersonal unseen force of nature, there is an intelligence at play. Otherwise there would just be chaos. Mathematics and physics for example have predictable outcomes based on equations that are made factual by the laws of nature. Where do these laws come from? They have a designer. The same designer that designed the atom, cell, and so on. The intelligent designer of natural law. Does that make it clear now? We don't yet have a real name for this force and we can't effectively see it, or put an effective name to it so we debate about it.

Argument from ignorance fail. Plus circular reasoning again.

You really need to work on your logic skills

 

[Loudmouth]

As for intelligence designing life.....one only need look at the complexity of a cell to know it has not been randomly assembled.

No one is saying that the modern cell is randomly assembled. We are saying that the modern cell is assembled through natural processes.

Every creature down to it's atomic level is organized indicating a design is in place.

Why does that indicate a design is in place? Water molecules organize themselves into intricate hexagonal designs. Does this mean that a deity is guiding each atom to make these designs?

A working design needs some form of intelligence as a designer. Even if it is an impersonal unseen force of nature, there is an intelligence at play.

Then what in the world would disprove intelligent design? It seems that no matter what you observe you will conclude that a designer is part of the process. Am I wrong?

Mathematics and physics for example have predictable outcomes based on equations that are made factual by the laws of nature. Where do these laws come from? They have a designer.

Based on what evidence?

The same designer that designed the atom, cell, and so on. The intelligent designer of natural law. Does that make it clear now? We don't yet have a real name for this force and we can't effectively see it, or put an effective name to it so we debate about it.

So you can't point to a single thing in the universe that is not designed?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why is the lack of a creator far fetched?

No creator means nothing created.

And that's the position of atheism:

In the beginning nothing exploded and here we are today.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No creator means nothing created.

And that's the position of atheism:

In the beginning nothing exploded and here we are today.

Correct, nothing created because there was no need.

And it is not too late for you to learn AV. If you did that you could find better people to quote without having to quote a convicted liar and tax cheat without accreditation.

 

[AV1611VET]

Correct, nothing created because there was no need.

And it is not too late for you to learn AV. If you did that you could find better people to quote without having to quote a convicted liar and tax cheat without accreditation.

Perhaps if you see us all as liars and breakers of the 9th Commandment, you've been spending too much time in the mirror?