Why Creation Is The Only Logical Explanation...

a reply to: whereislogic

What facts are you speaking of? What is your version of a fact? How do you come to the conclusion that your beliefs are facts and that scientific evidence showing humankinds long history on the earth is a lie?

a reply to: whereislogic

Inductive reasoning is a logical process in which multiple premises, all believed true or found true most of the time, are combined to obtain a specific conclusion. Inductive reasoning is often used in applications that involve prediction, forecasting, or behavior.

SHOW me your God the doubter cries.
I point him out the smiling skies;
I show him all the woodland greens;
I show him peaceful sylvan scenes;
I show him winter snows and frost;
I show him waters tempest-tossed;
I show him hills rock-ribbed and strong;
I bid him hear the thrush's song;
I show him flowers in the close
The lily, violet and rose;
I show him rivers, babbling streams;
I show him youthful hopes and dreams;
I show him stars, the moon, the sun;
I show him deeds of kindness done;
I show him joy, I show him care,
And still he holds his doubting air,
And faithless goes his way, for he
Is blind of soul, and cannot see!

In this poem, where is inductive reasoning actually used? What is the conclusion?

First you say it's inductive reasoning and then you say it's just a poem about peoples' state of mind. What are you saying? The poem pretty much lists a whole bunch of things that do not have anything to do with god and yet you claim inductive reasoning is used. Sorry I don't see it, unless you're claiming the conclusion of this poem is that the sky and woods exist along with all the other natural aspects of the earth.

Here's a better poem, with actual logic.

SHOW me evidence of evolution, the doubter cries,
I point him out the fossil finds,
I show him research on genetic mutations,
I show him labs that observed speciation,
I show him natural selection, choosing traits,
I show him numerous studies on mutation rates,
Peer reviewed journals, genetic drift,
Scientific evidence that is never addressed,
I show him flowers in the close,
The lily, violet and rose,
Without this process, they wouldn't exist ,
Frequency of alleles is modern synthesis,
I show him genomes, I show him genes,
But he still denies, or so it seems,
I show him human fossils, found in Africa,
But still he prefers a reason that's magical,
I show him radiometric dating for rock layers,
But yet he still holds his doubting air,
All this evidence, yet he still denies,
Because strong faith, keeps him blind,
And clouds his way, he just can't see,
That he is completely illiterate, scientifically.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: whereislogic

You make it sound like a popularity contest or high school cliques trying to out-cool each other.

...well, if the shoe fits...

originally posted by: TzarChasm
...well, if the shoe fits...

But Newton and Tyson are not trying to out-cool each other so, I don't think the shoe fits unless your like whereislogic and are doing a lot of shoehorning.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: TzarChasm
...well, if the shoe fits...

But Newton and Tyson are not trying to out-cool each other so, I don't think the shoe fits unless your like whereislogic and are doing a lot of shoehorning.

the awesome thing about tyson is, he doesnt care what is cool. neither does science.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
the awesome thing about tyson is, he doesnt care what is cool. neither does science.

Did someone say they did?

a reply to: Barcs

I truly enjoyed that poem. So perfect and so true.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: whereislogic

In this poem, where is inductive reasoning actually used?

The 'doubter' is encouraged to use inductive reasoning but like yourself, refuses to do so or to think about how it may apply to what is being pointed towards.

Like I said before, it should be more obvious if someone is pointing towards biomolecular machinery or some other type of machinery or design. Such as Stephen Hawking when he wrote a book about the universe calling it:

"The Great Design". (the book and the universe by implication)

But no point in getting into what he actually suggested was the cause of this "Great Design" since I already did many times, perhaps in this thread as well (basically boils down to another 'Mother Nature/Gaia did it' god of the gaps argument, well hidden of course behind agnosticism and a lot of nonsensical philosophizing in his book where he claims that "Philosophy is dead" when his philosophy book sells so well under the marketinglabel of "science"; and while his philosophies are being believed and repeated or used as arguments to defend certain views or promote them). Biomolecular machinery is even more obvious anyway, but also other biological machinery and systems of machinery at a larger scale, such as the examples Isaac Newton used in the video I shared.

Michael Behe also says something crucial about that in the video at 8:16 in this comment.

The whole thing also comes down to willingness to accept the meaning of language and usefulness of rational communication. If you've already accepted like Stephen Hawking that it's a design...there are logical follow-throughs that can't be denied with elaborate but ultimately nonsensical philosophies (and "capitalizing on the ambiguity of language", twisting logic and facts, "information overload", cunning attempts at "short-circuiting rational thought", etc.).

originally posted by: whereislogic
The 'doubter' is encouraged to use inductive reasoning but like yourself, refuses to do so or to think about how it may apply to what is being pointed towards.

Can you give me some examples of doubters refusing to use inductive reasoning? What are you referring to? The poem had no inductive reasoning in it whatsoever. OMG flowers are pretty is not inductive reasoning. It is jumping to conclusions if you wish to consider it evidence for a higher power or ID. Doubters of god doubt because there is no evidence. Doubters of evolution doubt in spite of mountains of evidence. Big difference here. The fact that you ignored my question and went back to quote mining speaks volumes here. To suggest Stephen Hawking believes in ID is ludicrous. Nature can design things. That doesn't mean there is an intelligent conscious designer.

there are logical follow-throughs that can't be denied with elaborate but ultimately nonsensical philosophies (and "capitalizing on the ambiguity of language", twisting logic and facts, "information overload", cunning attempts at "short-circuiting rational thought", etc.).

For example?

a reply to: whereislogic

Stephen Hawking has never said that he supports ID. That claim came from World Nut Daily and has been exploded for more than a year. Here.

originally posted by: Barcs
Nature can design things.
...
For example?

A logical follow-through for me would be that to believe what you suggested I would require logical reasonable evidence that the laws of nature (or Mother Nature/Gaia, your hidden god of the gaps) actually CAN design things as you claim (not someone falling back on agnosticism when supposed 'evidence' for this is discussed in more detail as I've seen you do before).
So...

that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses

or worse, unsupported unsubstantiated just-so stories or maybe-so stories that nature can design things. Pointing to or bringing up snowflakes, crystal lattices, computer simulations based on human designed algorithms, other mathematical formulas and programs, etc. falls under the category of earlier mentioned nonsensical philosophizing (in the way I've seen it done that is). What I've heard so far in support of the claim and god of the gaps argument 'Mother Nature/Gaia did it' that you just rephrased as "Nature can design things" doesn't even qualify as hypotheses (that includes fancy tales about the multiverse or the universe creating itself from nothing or the existence of the interdependent biomolecular machinery in living cells being caused by the laws of nature acting upon chemicals without any intelligent guidance or input from the start and gradually over multiple generations of lifeforms and starting from non-living chemicals; a slightly more fancy way of saying 'nature did it', or previously known as 'Gaia did it').

I was quoting Newton again earlier.

Here is some of the biomolecular machinery that's inside the mentioned flower in the poem; but as a sidenote (even though you might like to focus on this because it's much easier to confuse people about, I'm still mentioning it for those who do want to try to understand the poem) there's also a desire for artistic expression (in the endproduct) being alluded to in the poem, a motive Gaia/nature/the laws of nature only has if you temporarily pretend to yourself nature is the god Gaia and talk as if nature can find a way to produce such artistic expressions whose beauty can only be appreciated by lifeforms (and possibly only lifeforms of a particular intelligence type with a particular range of emotions such as humans). Keyword as usual, interdependency (she mentions it once as "work in tandem", this keyword is regarding the claim* 'nature can design' these biomolecular machines and systems of interdependent machinery gradually over multiple generations of lifeforms and starting from non-living chemicals, such as the ones in flowers who have the mechanical or engineering capabilities described below).
* = a claim you conveniently won't spell out and vaguely refer to as "nature can design things".


Oh btw, I thought I already closed the door to pretending that I was saying that "Stephen Hawking has ... said that he supports ID" (semi-quoting someone else in this thread who's repeating what you did as well when you pretended that I was suggesting "Stephen Hawking believes in ID" when I made it clear he didn't and you know or should know from previous conversations that I don't think that at all, and now you pretend I'm suggesting it so you can nitpick when I don't close a door properly because I can't phrase everything perfectly to do that) . By what I said below that, guess not, pointless conversations as usual where just everything you try to say gets twisted. The only thing Stephen Hawking was doing was referring to a "Great Design". I already said something regarding his philosophizing about where this "Great Design" came from or what caused it.

originally posted by: whereislogic
A logical follow-through for me would be that to believe what you suggested I would require logical reasonable evidence that the laws of nature (or Mother Nature/Gaia, your hidden god of the gaps) actually CAN design things

So everything in the poem you posted, which we can actually see occur in nature, therefore, is a product of nature, is evidence that god did it but it can't be evidence that nature did it?

The logic ain't there.

Here is some of the biomolecular machinery that's inside the mentioned flower in the poem; but there's also a desire for artistic expression (in the endproduct) being alluded to in the poem,

No, that's you anthropomorphizing.

a reply to: whereislogic

You think science is philosophy and your religion is fact and not philosophy. You must have been indoctrinated young.

originally posted by: whereislogic
A logical follow-through for me would be that to believe what you suggested I would require logical reasonable evidence that the laws of nature (or Mother Nature/Gaia, your hidden god of the gaps) actually CAN design things as you claim (not someone falling back on agnosticism when supposed 'evidence' for this is discussed in more detail as I've seen you do before).

Agnosticism has nothing to do with nature itself. It's about belief in god. I admit I don't know the answer whether god exists. It has nothing to do with YOUR CLAIM of DNA being too complex to arise via natural means.

There are countless examples of nature designing things. And no it's not some conscious mother nature entity, it's about natural processes. The Grand Canyon is a great example. It gives the appearance of being intelligently designed, yet was formed by natural water erosion over millions of years. Evolution, the thing you all deny is another great example of natural design.




Take a close look at these pictures (not too close, you might go blind). These formations appear to be designed by intelligence, do they not?

According to the facts, it's not. It was formed via natural erosion of the volcanic rock. There are tons of examples like this throughout nature.

This is why you can't rush in half-cocked. Without understanding the background and facts behind those formations, it's easy to be fooled and attribute them to ancient man. It is very similar to what you guys are doing with DNA comparing it to information theory as if it's computer code when science is still working on learning how it arose, they just don't have the full picture. That's not appealing to agnosticism. It's sticking with the facts and not adding assumptions to them.

Anyways, that is what Stephen Hawking and others mean when they see the grand design of the universe. They aren't saying it was created by god just because they mention design (and you mentioned this below). They are amazed by how such beauty and complexity emerged via natural means.

fancy tales about the multiverse or the universe creating itself from nothing or the existence of the interdependent biomolecular machinery in living cells being caused by the laws of nature acting upon chemicals without any intelligent guidance or input from the start and gradually over multiple generations of lifeforms and starting from non-living chemicals; a slightly more fancy way of saying 'nature did it', or previously known as 'Gaia did it').

Love the blatantly obvious double standard to avoid burden of proof. Hilarious how you take that bolded statement as a "fancy tale" without any intelligent guidance, but WITH intelligent guidance magically becomes valid without any evidence cuz we can't prove it's not. How do you not see this?

Here is some of the biomolecular machinery that's inside the mentioned flower in the poem;

Biggest cop out ever. You said the poem contained inductive reasoning, and now you are adding things to it that were not there originally to suggest it does, when we already know that those flowers evolved.

Nature doesn't consciously or intentionally design. When I say "nature can design," I'm referring to things like the pictures above. Natural processes, like wind, rain and lightning creating things. Scientists have seen nature "design" stars and observed nebulae form. Things that all have been proven to exist and have been observed in action. It's not the equivalent of saying "god did it" because we have never observed god or a non human intelligent entity consciously design or create anything. But we do see things forming naturally all over the place on almost every level. No, it's not Gaia or magical nature god, it's natural processes and interaction of matter and energy and various causes and effects.

a reply to: Barcs

Volcanic penises? This has to be the work of forces beyond our comprehension.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Hahaha. The phallic is strong in the Grand canyon lol. I was wondering who would be the first.

originally posted by: Barcs

Take a close look at these pictures (not too close, you might go blind). These formations appear to be designed by intelligence, do they not?

They do not (at least not convincingly enough for me, see what I mentioned regarding Michael Behe's presentation and the crucial thing he mentions starting at 8:16). They remind me of the snowflake or crystal lattice (patterns) argument I already brought up wouldn't suffice for me though. They demonstrate to me that you're not interested in bringing up or responding to the similar examples that Michael Behe used in his presentation regarding "The Old Man of the Mountain" as well as what I emphasized and encouraged people to listen to at 8:16 (the peculiar mountain formations are discussed shortly thereafter). No point in getting into that since you don't want to hear it anyway and will do anything you can to prevent other people from thinking about what he says regarding those subjects. Michael Behe's presentation is in this comment for those having trouble finding it or understanding why a response was already given to the examples Barcs used before he decided to use them in spite of it because hardly anyone will look anyway and learn something rather than express their beliefs and philosophies endlessly and repeatedly as they use concepts borrowed from ancient Pagan (religious) philosophers in order to explain their beliefs.

a reply to: whereislogic

Can I ask why you seem to think that Behe is in any way shape or form an expert on evolution?

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

The simple fact that Behe harps on Natural Selection alone and ignores all other mechanisms of the evolutionary process is enough to demonstrate that he, like other creationists hiding behind the facade of ID, has begun with the conclusion he favors and then creates the circumstances to fit the end result he already began the process with. It's just a shinier presentation in a prettier box because he has a doctorate. It's a joke and every single "fact" Behe tours as such is easily refuted by any high school biology student with a library card.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: AngryCymraeg
he has begun with the conclusion he favors and then creates the circumstances to fit the end result he already began the process with.

...As is evolutionary theory. The scientific community assumes its correct and reports their results accordingly.