To atheists: a museum analogy regarding Creationism

[Halbhh]

I find that very hard to believe.

Got it. I understand what you are saying.

 

[AirPo]

Got it. I understand what you are saying.

Good, then maybe you'll think twice before trying to apply your way of think upon others.

 

[Halbhh]

Good, then maybe you'll think twice before trying to apply your way of think upon others.

Since your hypothesis is then that people not believing in Christ do know what He said in detail.

Then you could test that.

Past perhaps the most famous of all, the "love your neighbor" quote. You could test the "do unto others" quote, test your hypothesis.

Unless you don't like talking to people, can could do it by asking say about a dozen to 25 non believers, asking them directly where you can see they don't just look it up.

Or you could just presume your hypothesis is correct and never test it. I wouldn't be satisfied myself with that. I like to test, and test.

 

[AirPo]

Since your hypothesis is then that people not believing in Christ do know what He said in detail.

Incorrect, which makes the rest of this post moot.

Then you could test that.

Past perhaps the most famous of all, the "love your neighbor" quote. You could test the "do unto others" quote, test your hypothesis.

Unless you don't like talking to people, can could do it by asking say about a dozen to 25 non believers, asking them directly where you can see they don't just look it up.

Or you could just presume your hypothesis is correct and never test it. I wouldn't be satisfied myself with that. I like to test, and test.

 

[Halbhh]

Incorrect, which makes the rest of this post moot.

Ok. Have a good day.

 

[xianghua]

I have never seen a car with a whip for wheels. It is not even like a car axel. It is a short axel run by processes that are possible at that scale.

If you are looking for evidence of a designer, I would think there would be more evidence at our scale.

so why the flagellum isnt a spinning motor?

 

[Speedwell]

so why the flagellum isnt a spinning motor?

What difference does it make? We have no evidence that the flagellum is designed, whether it's a "spinning motor" or not.

 

[Paulos23]

so why the flagellum isnt a spinning motor?

It works, many of it components are from other parts, so it is not a stretch that it evolved over time. Even the between stages give some advantage.

Why do you think this means it is designed?

 

[xianghua]

It works, many of it components are from other parts, so it is not a stretch that it evolved over time. Even the between stages give some advantage.

no. actually only several parts of the flagellum are similar to other system called ttss. even a car and an airplane shared a lots of parts. but they cant evolve from each other even if they were able to reproduce.

Why do you think this means it is designed?

because it's a motor. and as far as we know any motor is evidence for design.

 

[Paulos23]

no. actually only several parts of the flagellum are similar to other system called ttss. even a car and an airplane shared a lots of parts. but they cant evolve from each other even if they were able to reproduce.

And yet his bacteria does reproduce. There is plenty of links in this thread about how it evolved, but it looks like you have a history of ignoring.

because it's a motor. and as far as we know any motor is evidence for design.

So it is a motor, but so are mussels. What about it makes you say there is a designer? And what does it tell us about that designer?

 

[Speedwell]

because it's a motor. and as far as we know any motor is evidence for design.

If you think "because it's a motor" is evidence of design you are going to have to give us a detailed explanation of why you think such a strange thing.

In the meantime, the flagellum exhibits nothing in the way of what most people take to be evidence of design, whether you classify it as a motor or not.

 

[Obliquinaut]

A friend of mine brought this up: saying that the universe and all the life on the Earth arose from randomness without a designer is like saying that when you go into an art museum and see all the paintings, you say "Oh, I don't think people made all these beautiful prices of artwork, I think paint cans just exploded to make them".

How would you respond to this?

1) why do people think all the processes in chemistry are purely random? Just curious. Yes, there is a degree of randomness in a solution that is reacting (things bouncing together at distribution of speeds and orientations), but indeed chemical reactions DO FOLLOW SPECIFIC RULES.

2) Have you see this?

(Emotional Explosion is a painting by Natalie Holland)

 

[Obliquinaut]

If you think "because it's a motor" is evidence of design you are going to have to give us a detailed explanation of why you think such a strange thing.

In the meantime, the flagellum exhibits nothing in the way of what most people take to be evidence of design, whether you classify it as a motor or not.

Are we going to return to the evolving robot penguins again? Cool!

 

[Obliquinaut]

but a snowflake cant evolve naturally.

Actually you are kinda wrong.

Crystals grow due to the template laid down by the previous layer of atoms and they follow a set of about 5 relatively simple rules (Pauling's Rules). But, indeed, just like in evolution if the environment the crystal is growing in changes it can change the form of the crystal.

We see it things like galena. You can find instances where the fluids from which the Galena crystals were growing changed in composition and the forms of the Galena crystal took on changed. (They stay within the same crystall class, isotropic, but they do change.)

In a sense it is a change over time brought on by environmental stressors.

(I have to note that I'm kind of going on vapors of memory of a paper I read about 30 years ago when I was doing my masters research in Southeast Missouri MVT ore deposits, so forgive me if I mucked something up there.)

 

[Halbhh]

1) why do people think all the processes in chemistry are purely random? Just curious. Yes, there is a degree of randomness in a solution that is reacting (things bouncing together at distribution of speeds and orientations), but indeed chemical reactions DO FOLLOW SPECIFIC RULES.

2) Have you see this?

(Emotional Explosion is a painting by Natalie Holland)

People that imagine chemistry processes we see that are involved in life are just "random" would have an usual belief that is actually at odds with the Bible.

Same for evolution -- those thinking it is just randomness first don't know enough about the theory, so their critiques in that case are merely beside the point of course.

But simply presuming evolution could not work actually implies little faith that God could design laws of nature that work. It's just an odd argument to hear from someone that thinks God created.

We that believe God created all would naturally think the laws of nature -- physics and chemistry -- being a part of that all, would then work great.

If we believe He is an able designer.

Nice painting by the way! Enjoyed seeing it.

 

[pitabread]

because it's a motor. and as far as we know any motor is evidence for design.

You're making an equivocation fallacy. A flagellum is not a motor in the same way that a human-designed motor is.

Honestly, you need to get off this habit of trying to continually equate human made objects with biological ones based on superficial functional similarities. When you get into the nitty gritty, an object made of metal and plastic is in no way equivalent to a biological organism.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

A friend of mine brought this up: saying that the universe and all the life on the Earth arose from randomness without a designer is like saying that when you go into an art museum and see all the paintings, you say "Oh, I don't think people made all these beautiful prices of artwork, I think paint cans just exploded to make them".

How would you respond to this?

By saying that it is a false analogy.

 

[Halbhh]

By saying that it is a false analogy.

Yes. The real question is rather simply Does God exist, not whether physics and chemistry work, thus biochemistry and evolution and all that ensues from physics.

I discovered then tested Christ's instructions on how to live by trying them--

"Love your neighbor as yourself"

This is something that can be tested. One can try it and find out how it works, using Christ's guideline on how, His how-to:

"So in everything, do to others as you would have them do to you"

One can test these by doing them to see how they work out.

If you really do love, then you are doing it. And can get results. Test it at least on 3 or more, and see for yourself the outcome.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes. The real question is rather simply Does God exist, not whether physics and chemistry work, thus biochemistry and evolution and all that ensues from physics.

I discovered then tested Christ's instructions on how to live by trying them--

"Love your neighbor as yourself"

This is something that can be tested. One can try it and find out how it works, using Christ's guideline on how, His how-to:

"So in everything, do to others as you would have them do to you"

One can test these by doing them to see how they work out.

The so-called "golden rule" isn't original to christianity by any means.
It was written down long before judaism even existed. Many cultures around the globe figured this "rule" out independently from one another. It's pretty much unavoidable to stumble upon such an idea, if you wish to live in a succesfull cooperative society.

Cultures that don't act like that, tend to die out.

If you really do love, then you are doing it. And can get results. Test it at least on 3 or more, and see for yourself the outcome.

As said, it's a sensible rule and it isn't exclusive or original to christianity by any means.

 

[Halbhh]

The so-called "golden rule" isn't original to christianity by any means.
It was written down long before judaism even existed. Many cultures around the globe figured this "rule" out independently from one another. It's pretty much unavoidable to stumble upon such an idea, if you wish to live in a succesfull cooperative society.

Cultures that don't act like that, tend to die out.



As said, it's a sensible rule and it isn't exclusive or original to christianity by any means.

Truth isn't 'original', of course, but totally independent of any individual. I bet you agree. A proposition that is 'true' (the best way or solution known) is true objectively in that it works better than any alternative. It's truth is not dependent on source even slightly. I bet you agree on all of that.

More, if it's about how to live, then if it is true, we should see it appearing in endless variations. Everywhere. Over and over and over. Right?

If a proposition is false, it should fade out in a generation or two.

If a proposition is true, it should last and last, be considered real "wisdom" by a great many, and still be around centuries later.

Nevertheless, we might be lucky (or diligent and endlessly reading) enough to discover which individual can offer the most of it, in the best said form. Right?

Who wouldn't want to learn from the best?

After all, consider these 2 'golden rules' --

A) "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you"

B) "Refrain from doing to others what you don't want them to do to you"

Which do you think is better ('true')?
B) isn't bad, it can help me avoid committing crimes, or most crimes. It would not require me to actually love my neighbor.
A) would entail that I have to love my neighbor at least in some senses (like consideration or kindness perhaps). What would it be like to love my neighbor?

You could test and get results. The result is how is life when you do not love your neighbor compared to how is life when you do love your neighbor. This can be hard to do at times, depending on the neighbor, and the Teacher, Christ, has more details about that for us to learn in his teaching. Some of it is hard to imagine doing, until you try, and get the surprising results.