Why do creationists redefine and/or make up words out-of-context?

[Chinchilla]

This is the best implicit argument against Design that I have read. Anytime. Anywhere. Thank you for the insight.

Not really against design but against evolution . Some folks believe earth came to being in 7 days by design and not billion of years .

 

[Brightmoon]

Does everything have mind ? Plant , dog , human , ape , rock , dirt ?

Second question , why can't I just turn off sygnal from my broken foot so it does not hurt anymore with my brain after my leg has been treated by doctor and is in state of repairing . The further pain does not help me

As far as your broken bone . Your body is telling you to be careful of the injury or to stay off of it.
You’re first questions as to whether other organisms have mind . Dogs, humans and apes - yes they can tell what you’re thinking by your behavior and they act on that. Plants - we don’t know but they do respond to stimuli and there’s evidence that they can communicate ( in the sense of conveying information) with other plants and insects by using pheromones . Dirt contains living bacteria protists small insects and fungi.
Some don’t have brains so they don’t have minds.small non social insects don’t have minds . They eat , avoid predators and reproduce. With Social insects the hive acts like a type of neural network; I don’t know whether to call that a mind or not. Some wasps can recognize others as individuals of their own species . So in insects , there’s a range.
The other material ,organic mineral and rocks, is just chemicals , they don’t think .

 

[Ophiolite]

Not really against design but against evolution . Some folks believe earth came to being in 7 days by design and not billion of years .

The picture, accurately painted by Sarah, is of third rate, chaotic design. This is what we would expect from a partially random process such as evolution. It is not what we have been led to expect from a supreme being.

Those who believe God performed his act of creation in a literal seven days have the security of their faith to support that belief. If they manipulate the findings of science in an attempt to provide objective support for that belief they call into question their integrity and seem to cast a searchlight of doubt on their faith.

 

[Chinchilla]

The picture, accurately painted by Sarah, is of third rate, chaotic design. This is what we would expect from a partially random process such as evolution. It is not what we have been led to expect from a supreme being.

Those who believe God performed his act of creation in a literal seven days have the security of their faith to support that belief. If they manipulate the findings of science in an attempt to provide objective support for that belief they call into question their integrity and seem to cast a searchlight of doubt on their faith.

Why would you not expect that from supreme being like God ? If he exist and if Bible is his word then he clearly stated that in beginning earth was without form and void not in order but he had to make order there like potter and clay .

I suggest reading about Radium Polonium Halos . You probably never heared of such thing am i right ?

 

[DogmaHunter]

The second question is related because you said that your brain is your mind

Not exactly. What I actually said was that the conceptual mind is something that is produced by our brains. Call it a "function" of our brain. Or a "property" or something.

But close enough, I guess.

In any case: it doesn't exist as a seperate entity.

and that he is the dictator of everything which is happening in your body , so why can't he stop sending pain sygnals at your command but need to have his pain sygnals interrupted by morphine ? Unless you and your brain are two different things this does not make sense .

I still don't see what the point is of this extremely bizar question.
We have no control over these processes, seems the obvious answer.

Again, I have no idea where you are going with this, nore how it's relevant to the point at hand.

You seem to be implying that if the mind is a function of the brain, we should somehow be able to shut down our nervous system by command?
How does this make any sense?

Back to first question , if mind happens only in brains as you said that means that this sequence of atoms in form of a brain have something which atoms in sequence of rock do not have

It is news to you that specific configurations of atoms/molecules into macroscopic objects or certain patterns, produces distinct functions etc?

Really?
Did you ever attend a chemistry or physics class?

Since everything evolved from hydrogen , why some atoms are given "mind"

Atoms don't produce minds. Brains produce minds.

when they are linked together and the other are not having " mind" if they come from the same source ?

For the same reason that plastic and wood, aren't the same thing. Eventhough they are also made out of atoms that started out as hydrogen eons ago wich then fused inside stars to produce heavier elements etc etc.

Also: ginormous genetic fallacy.

Could you explain it as analogy that first earth was without form and void and God made order in everything , he ordered the sequence of no mind of atoms from rock to different sequence of atoms that have mind - brain and that's what Bible calls "formed man from ground and breath into him life " ?

No, you can't explain anything with unfalsifiable faith based mystery.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Not really against design but against evolution

No. For evolution, things need to work just "well enough".

Some folks believe earth came to being in 7 days by design and not billion of years .

And those folks are horribly, horribly mistaken.
Their mistake is on the order of believing the US from coast to coast measures only 2 miles.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You're right! There is no way it just happened.

Now, on your way to see that designer about cataracts.

Watch out for that swinging door.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That's rather obvious. I doesn't make sense to me either.
We are not physicists, so that's not really surprising.

Yet, nukes explode and planes fly.


You don't get to invoke your ignorance on a topic as an argument against it.

But, I know how planes fly. I'm a pilot.

 

[Clint Edwards]

Yes, really.

The "god" explanation, requires assuming the existence of rather extra ordinary entities.
The first, does not.

The explanation with the least assumptions, and all that....

No, not really. an assumption must be made that completely unknown forces acted in an unknown number of first causes in a chain to create the universe. That is a lot of assumptions

 

[DogmaHunter]

Why would you not expect that from supreme being like God ?

Because we expect efficiency and perfection from a supreme being.
Not inneficient nonsense that would get even a mere puny human engineer fired...

If he exist and if Bible is his word then he clearly stated that in beginning earth was without form and void not in order but he had to make order there like potter and clay .

And if Paris was small enough, I could fit it in my back pocket.

I suggest reading about Radium Polonium Halos . You probably never heared of such thing am i right ?

Not only have we all heared from it (ad nauseaum), we also know that it's one of those silly PRATT's that keeps coming up every few months. Oftenly by people who think they have some "gotcha!" in their heads that we never heared about before.

What's next? Piltdown perhaps? Or Haeckle's embryo's?
Ow, no, wait, I know..... take the "moondust argument". We haven't heared that one in a while on here.

 

[Clint Edwards]

Because you are betting on an unfalsifiable model, which is as arbitrary as it gets.
Unfalsifiable models, are infinite in number.

Also, I would think that if this christian God exists and indeed is omniscient and values sincerity and true belief - he won't be very impressed by someone who just "bets" on "winning everything, just in case".

So, regardless of how fallacious the wager is, it also kind of goes against the spirit of the very religion you are "betting" on.

Perhaps. However, what difference does it make to you ? you aren't a Christian.

 

[DogmaHunter]

But, I know how planes fly. I'm a pilot.

And do planes fly because the science that backs it is sound - eventhough the equations etc might not make sense to us?

Or is it just a coincidence that they fly and doesn't it say anything about how accurate the science is that underpins all that technology?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That class is called "biology".



1. no change "must" occur
2. no idea what "equations" you are talking about
3. sounds like you might want to freshen up on that good ol' biology as well



ow, so you are talking about useless hindsight probabilities?



Indeed, you are talking about that nonsense creationist propaganda that is infested with teleological and hindsight fallacies.

It assumes that all species that exist to had to exist. That they were meant to exist.
That's not the case at all.

As I said in the previous quote: no change in evolution "must" occur.

In other words to get from A to Z an organism really doesn't have to (must) go through changes B through Y? How does that work? It is those changes, and the math involved, that I'm interested in. And it's not just 24 changes, but probably 24 million changes that would be involved.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No, not really. an assumption must be made that completely unknown forces acted in an unknown number of first causes in a chain to create the universe. That is a lot of assumptions

Projection.

It's you who's making claims about the origins.
The rest of us are content with saying "we don't know, scientists are working hard to try and find out".

That a natural origin is more plausible is not the same as claiming it to be accurate.
It's just saying that it's more plausible.

For the simple reason that a natural origin does NOT need to assumption of entities that are unsupportable in every possible way.

Nature and natural forces, actually exist.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And do planes fly because the science that backs it is sound - eventhough the equations etc might not make sense to us?

Or is it just a coincidence that they fly and doesn't it say anything about how accurate the science is that underpins all that technology?

The theory of flight and the ToE are hardly comparable, imo.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Perhaps. However, what difference does it make to you ? you aren't a Christian.

It makes no difference. But when you are going to invoke such arbitrary faith based "choices" in context of a discussion on a scientific discussion, then it becomes relevant to the point being made. And in that case, it needs to be pointed out how nonsensical it is.

 

[Chinchilla]

Because we expect efficiency and perfection from a supreme being.
Not inneficient nonsense that would get even a mere puny human engineer fired...




And if Paris was small enough, I could fit it in my back pocket.



Not only have we all heared from it (ad nauseaum), we also know that it's one of those silly PRATT's that keeps coming up every few months. Oftenly by people who think they have some "gotcha!" in their heads that we never heared about before.

What's next? Piltdown perhaps? Or Haeckle's embryo's?
Ow, no, wait, I know..... take the "moondust argument". We haven't heared that one in a while on here.

Or maybe what was first DNA or Proteins .
Thing is that you believe that one day science will explain that without problem , but that's putting faith into something and it's just like religion , not really science but scientism . Cherry picking or ignoring evidence based on presupposition does not make that evidence go away so that's why you see it comming back over and over again...

 

[DogmaHunter]

In other words to get from A to Z an organism really doesn't have to (must) go through changes B through Y?

No, that's not the point at all.
The point is that you are implying that somehow Z, was "planned" or something.
A doesn't need to get to Z.

It also could have been Z1, Z2, Z3, XYZ,... or none at all and simply go extinct (like 99.99% of species did).

THAT is the point.
Any attempt at calculating the probability of A becoming specifically Z, is thus a nonsense figure by defintion, as such an exercise assumes that Z was inevitable, while it wasn't.

Again, it's a hindsight teleological fallacy.

How does that work? It is those changes, and the math involved, that I'm interested in.

Why? What do you find interesting about it?

And it's not just 24 changes, but probably 24 million changes that would be involved.

So?

Every new generation comes with a set of changes... And these changes are then passed on to the next generation and so they accumulate, generation by generation.

So yes, after a lot of generations, there will be a lot of accumulated changes. Why is this a problem?

 

[DogmaHunter]

The theory of flight and the ToE are hardly comparable, imo.

1. they are comparable in the sense that they are both scientific theories, concluded through the same scientific method

2. the point at hand was not about evolution. It was about being able to trust scientific knowledge being accurate, while not having the required expertise to be able to evaluate that accuracy for yourself. My point on that was that "we can know that physicists know that they are talking about when discussing atomic theory, because nukes explode". My point was that science can be trusted due to its practical and very succesfull track record, regardless of our own level of expertise (or lack thereof).

 

[Ophiolite]

Why would you not expect that from supreme being like God ?

The Christian god is portrayed as omniscient and omnipotent. Why would such a being produce a third rate design? On the other hand a contingent process, such as evolution, would produce exactly that.

If he exist and if Bible is his word then he clearly stated that in beginning earth was without form and void not in order but he had to make order there like potter and clay.

Precisely so. One would then expect that order to reflect Divine perfection. It does not.

I suggest reading about Radium Polonium Halos . You probably never heared of such thing am i right ?

Did you notice my user name? Do you know what an ophiolite is? If you do, then you will understand they are studied by geologists. Do you see my avatar? Rocks and a geologist's hammer. Do you now realise you have made a wholly unwarrented assumption? I certainly know enough about "radium polonium halos"(sic) to know that you have misnamed an interpretation of pleochroic haloes that is the work of the physicist Robert Gentry.

There are numerous problems with Gentry's claims. In summary:

• Polonium is a fission product in both the U238 and Th232. The haloes alleged to be from polonium decay should, therefore, be found in both decay lines, yet Gentry has only found them in the former.
  
• He has failed to establish that only polonium can be the source of observed haloes.
  
• Most telling from a geological standpoint is that Gentry claims granites represent the primordial crust of the Earth. This is essential to the validity of his hypothesis. However, there is a wealth of data from geochemistry, geochronology, metamorphic petrology, mineralogy, igneous petrology and planetology that contradicts it and none - that I am aware of - that supports it.

And all that is quite apart from the many independent lines of evidence pointing to an old Earth. I will give Gentry this much credit and praise. He has attempted to demonstrate a scientific hypothesis, using the scientific method and done so in a reasonably responsible and professional way. It's just that the evidence does not add up and his lack of geological understanding has blinded him to the irreconcilable problems with his hypothesis.