Creationism/Intelligent Design: PROVE IT!

reply to post by MrXYZ

You are equalling nature with "accidental and coincidence". That is WRONG and scientifically speaking total hogwash.

Again, I will repeat myself, because you have cornered you own self.

I never said natural laws are accidental and coincidence.

Again, read

1. We have instances of laws which came to existence through intelligence (hence human laws).
2. We have instances of laws which came to existence through unknown causes (hence natural laws)
3. We have no instances of laws which came to existence through chance/accident..

Get it?

If you think natural laws do not have unknown causes, then please tell us where they came from? If you can't, then it is unknown, until we known, we will leave it in the unknown category.

I use the three instances to support my belief in a creator.

Once again, take the challenge, please ohh lord force my Conrad to take the challenge, force him to conduct experiments proving laws can come to existence by chance, or without any creator/intelligence...

reply to post by oozyism


reply to post by oozyism


Hey oozyism -

Mr ALPHABET ends his incorrect rantings by saying we don't understand science or theories or some science nonsense he makes up. He did it with me too. So don't take it personally.

It's his way of admitting he's lost the point and has only that to fall back on to.

Ignore him. He'll fester for ahwile but then go away.

You've given him enough to think about. I'm sure he's pondering over it now - even though he'll never admit it because he's so walled in.

But I'm sure you've planted the seed.

reply to post by oozyism


Disregard my last post to ignore him...you're crushing him in to the ground.

Let's see him weasel out of this one.

reply to post by oozyism


Last try at dumbing it down: You can't separate accidental and unknown laws because just because something might SEEM accidental, doesn't mean it IS. It just means we haven't figured it out yet. Before we understood lightning can cause fires, people considered it accidental or a "sign of god". In reality, they just didn't have the knowledge to understand the process leading to the fire yet.

Your categories 2 and 3 are the same!!! And none of them supports creationism.

First of all, we know of systems that don't need a creator to work because we can fully describe them and know how the natural processes work. We also know of some systems where we don't really know how they work, those are the unknown causes. The accidental category is hogwash because it just means we don't fully understand it yet, it's therefore the same as the unknown category.

But like I said, all this doesn't matter because it's clear there's systems that don't require a creator because we understand the natural processes behind them. Your entire premise that all systems require a creator is 100% uninformed hogwash simply because your entire "theory" burns to the ground by listing a few systems/laws that don't require a creator (because we get the natural processes). Need an example? Look at a tree. Look at mountains. We know how those work or come into existence through natural processes we fully understand.

You are looking at the world through the glasses of a man from the middle ages, and that's kinda sad imo. You can repost your 3 categories as many times as you want, but one of them is total hogwash and that won't change, and none of them supports creationism.

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
reply to post by oozyism

 

Disregard my last post to ignore him...you're crushing him in to the ground.

Let's see him weasel out of this one.

...says the guy who tried to refute the OP's answer by saying "LOL, God's on my side"

You're actually doing an almost better job than some of us at making creationists look uneducated and stupid. Thanks for the laughs

I only have time for one more response today, so I'll make it a longer one.

And I'm editing this in:

You've yet to provide any positive proof for creationism/intelligent design.

Even if you could disprove evolution, it wouldn't prove your position.

reply to post by mrvdreamknight

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
YAY - You responded! And you didn't attack my spelling, which really does suck even with spell check.
EDIT: Awwww...you did attack my grammar - I just read your entire post - dang it - you're no better than her.

I attacked your grammar because you created a 'question' that isn't a question and has no objective meaing.

I see how you picked certain points and avoided other points - hmmm...that's a definite trend with you fellas. I wonder why?

I systematically addressed every single line of your post.

Obviously, you must have missed a few of them, I'm sure you didn't intentionaly do that - so here: explain this simple Harvard video: webcache.googleusercontent.com...:www.godlikeproductions.com...

I'm sure that ends this discussion

Oh no, a CGI video of the inner workings of a cell looks really precise...except that proves nothing. It's actually a very inaccurate way to portray the inner workings of a cell. It's more a gibbering mess in there and things don't fit into place right away. Take a look under a really powerful microscope if you ever get the chance, it's very fun.

but...since you went over one of my posts point by point let me have some fun and return the favor.

Didn't you just say I avoided some of them? Can't you at least stay consistent within a span of several sentences?

Hmm...attacking the messenger...calling them names...oh wait, you earlier compared people who accept material science as being 'parrots'.

Yep - Only AFTER he, as all of you superior brainy people do, compared us to the dark ages or some sort of uneducated stone age era. Soooo...I guess if you smart people can do it, I can do it too.

Um...you are working off of assumptions that date back directly to the dark ages and have the exact same anti-science mentality.

Ummm...no they are not -anyone at any time can change them. That's why my daughters H.S. and even my other daughters middle school won't even allow wiki to be used as sources. I kind of thought everyone knew that.

And you clearly don't understand the meaning of the word 'sourced'. Many wikipedia articles have sources from which statements are taken, they can be found at the bottom of the pages.

I pointed out that the articles provided were well sourced.

To quote wiki: (yeah I quoted it just to mock you - sorry) - "in modern science the term "theory", or "scientific theory" is generally understood to refer to a PROPOSED explanation of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with the scientific method."

Wow, you took the most broad and non-specific portion of a theory.

However, you're also quoting one of the parts of the article that is unsourced.

How about I provide a nice, sourced definition?

theory

a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"

Source, Princeton wordnet

Guess that means I understood what a theory is and you don't. Ouch - bet that hurts, hunh?

No, you still demonstrated complete ignorance in trusting an improper definition.

Unless of course either 'Proposed' has a different meaning to you than the rest of the universe

No, but you should see the far superior above definition.

or wiki is wrong but we know how highly you hold wiki so it can't possible be that.

I trust wikipedia as far as I can follow changes and sources. I actually said that the articles were well sourced, differentiating them from unsourced articles. You made an (improperly formatted) quote from an unsourced portion of the article. For all I know you added it.

Those aren't questions.

WHICH is why I said "I know, you're going to say that wasn't even a question but think again - it is."

That statement, as idiotic as it is, doesn't do anything to change the fact that they aren't questions. They are sentence fragments with question marks attached.

Boy oh boy - you are just trying to pick me apart but it doesn't seem to be working out so well for you now does it?

No, the rational people realize that I'm doing quite a good job. I won't sink to your level of making this a childish game of name calling and personal attacks though.

YEP - I do. BUT...(notice how I capitalize my first words just to piss you off) -

Well, you just admitted you don't understand the thing you're trying to debate against and that you're a troll.

at least I admit I have horrible grammar

Except in claiming that sentence fragments are sentences.

and science in writing

And yet you still hold to your ignorance instead of allowing us to help you understand what you're getting wrong.

while you admit your ignorance by your defending your limited beliefs - i.e. - believing in goofy theories and sounding intelligent while you know deep down you are wrong - that's ignorance at it's best.

I'm not defending limited beliefs and they aren't goofy theories and I don't have any desire to sound intelligent, I merely have a desire to know what's right.

And deep down, in the most rational portion of my brain, evolution makes sense.

I know, you're going to say that wasn't even a question but think again - it is.

SEE? I did write that sentence -didn't I? Oh darn, that wasn't a sentence either was it? Darn it...MY BAD. Dang. No sentence again...

Um...no, that one is a sentence. A stupid sentence, but a sentence nonetheless.

You are too funny, you're just being an arse and everyone who reads this knows you are - like you really didn't know what I meant? Come on, even I admit you're wayyyyy smarter than that.

I'm not being any sort of posterior. I'm being honest.

"What evolution?" can have myriad meanings.

What is evolution?
What is the mechanism by which evolution operates?
What causes evolution?
What undergoes evolution?
What evidence indicates evolution?
What papers were written about evolution?

See? Entirely different questions that all contain 'what' and 'evolution'

WHAT? Was that a sentence???? WOW- do you know how hard it is not to write out my LOL's throughout my response to you?

Hey look, you're ignoring my legitimate request to know what you're trying to ask.

Or in your language: What ask?

Drugs? Do you do drugs? No? Sorry. That was low. I apologize.

More trolling, not surprised.

See? You call names and say bad things too - so it must be ok, hunh? So why pick on me for doing it? LMAO I just added that one to mock you some more.

More admissions of trolling. I simply pointed out that you use laughing abbreviations and ignorance. High levels of exposure to nitrous oxide cause that sort of thing. I didn't want to simply say you're an ignorant troll.

The real reason is that you excluded verbs.

On purpose - duh

To make the questions incomprehensible?
Hooray, a creationist admits to making questions definitively impossible to answer.

Thank you for doing your best...your best has been so good so far I can't wait to hear this mess too.

Um...more trolling.

Who evolution?
Every living thing.

LIVING? What does that mean to you? Inert chemicals or God? How do things come to life? Hmmm...got you on that one - again.

No...an inert chemical is by definition nonliving.

...Do you even know what 'inert' means? There aren't all that many inert chemicals.

I'd say the most basic definition of 'living' is a self-replicating, self-contained system.

And "How do things come to life?" isn't the field of evolution, it's abiogenesis. Entirely different field of science. That's like asking a mechanic to do your plumbing. Sort of related, but completely different. This is a mistake you'll repeatedly make.

Evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life, merely with the origin of species.

What evolution?
The change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations

And when did those generations start? Where did the first generation come from? Where? Let me guess inert chemicals? Right? But where did the first generation come from?

Well, your immediate response is to push back to abiogenesis and a lack of understanding of chemistry.

Inert chemicals....

Let me define the term 'inert' for you, as your scientific illiteracy needs to be addressed by somebody and everyone else on here doesn't have the patience to deal with it. Honestly, had I had a bad day I'd probably not have enough patience either.

Inert

S: (adj) inert, indifferent, neutral (having only a limited ability to react chemically; chemically inactive) "inert matter"; "an indifferent chemical in a reaction"

Proteins aren't inert. Life arose from proteins.

Where evolution?
Everywhere that life exists.

There's that LIFE word again -

Yes, because evolution deals only with living things.

that seems to be your cornerstone & your downfall. You can't explain it or create it - can you?

Um...evolutionary theory doesn't have to explain the origin of life, nor does it have to create life. Abiogenesis deals with it. I hate to keep repeating that statement but I will.

Wait, I almost forgot - lightning is the official explanation of how life started for you braniacs

Um...no, no it really isn't. Lightning might have aided chemical reactions as a catalyst, but it isn't the explanation for how life started.

but where did that lightning come from?

Now I have to explain physics to you too?
Friction in clouds, that's where it came from.

When evolution?
The second life formed

Can science create life?

Possibly.

Has science ever created life?

Not yet, but we're getting there.

NOPE AND NOPE. Sorry but are you feeling crushed right about now? Admit it, you are.

The only crushed feeling I have right now is that it's crushing to see someone who is afflicted by such ignorance.

Why evolution?
Organisms are unable to perfectly replicate genetic information and certain mutations caused by this are beneficial, through selective pressures organisms either survive or die based off of those mutations, those who survive are able to reproduce and continue the mutation that helped them succeed.

Yep - and how do these organisms do this by blind luck and chaos or through intelligence? oops - looks like you've proved my point yet again. Thanks so much. You are making this way too easy.

I just explained the entire mechanism of evolution in a very simple manner and you simply ignored it. I don't really have an explanation to how that is possible except for willful ignorance.

It's not 'blind luck' if it were 'blind luck' evolution wouldn't really occur because there wouldn't be anything guiding the process. Selective pressures such as food sources and sexual reproduction are what guides the process.

Organisms don't choose to evolve because they don't evolve themselves. They are products of evolution, but only species as a whole evolve.

In an even simpler manner:
Animals and plants that survive and then reproduce pass on their traits. These traits then accumulate to the point where there is a clear difference between species.

I already smashed you on the 'theory' thing so I'll spare you that humiliation again.

And I've already pointed out that you didn't really.

Hello? If YOU, not science, truly modified it to conform with new observations you'd admit there is I.D.

Intelligent design doesn't fit into observations about the world, evolution does.

- other wise I guess you feel a tornado can really go through a junkyard and assemble a jet liner. Please say you really don't believe that do you?

That is a ridiculous comparison and there's a whole thread in this forum already that has destroyed the ignorance of that argument.

Of course a jetliner couldn't be assembled by a tornado, but that's not at all what evolution is like. It's a slow and gradual process that is guided by survivability, not a random chaotic process.

Wow - And I keep referring to you guys as the smart ones and you keep missing easy, obvious points, I may have to change my opinion of you all. I meant, for you to come up with some new ways of defending your position.

Well, since you're rehashing the pathological misunderstanding of what the words 'evolution' and 'theory' mean as well as regurgitating talking points of creationism, I don't really see how you, as the pot, can call me, the kettle, black.

There's only one way to defend our position, using the facts. That's what I'm doing, speaking truth to ignorance.

Here, this one is just for you - LMAO - LOL - hahahaha Sorry- I couldn't hold it in anymore.

You shouldn't really laugh when you're being ignorant, it makes you look worse.

You are a very smart sounding, funny guy, I bet you're the life of the party aren't you?

Since I learned to not take troll bait years ago I'll simply say that I actually am.

But please don't feel too bad for getting your arse handed to you,

You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means.

after all I have GOD on my side.

And I have SCIENCE on my side, and you're using a computer so you've already admitted defeat.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


To me Creationism and Intelligent design are companions, you cannot have one without the other.

How can something be created without intelligence?

Or is this too simple?

reply to post by MrXYZ


It is still the same, laws don't come without intelligence, or don't come to existence by chance. Do you want me to rephrase it, OK..

1. We have instances of laws which came to existence through intelligence (hence human laws).
2. We have instances of laws which came to existence through unknown causes (hence natural laws)
3. We have no instances of laws which came to existence without a creator/intelligence..

What about the above? I changed number three to make you happy. Can I use it now to support my belief in a creator? Unless you provide evidence that laws can come to existence without a creator/intelligence?

First of all, we know of systems that don't need a creator to work because we can fully describe them and know how the natural processes work. We also know of some systems where we don't really know how they work, those are the unknown causes. The accidental category is hogwash because it just means we don't fully understand it yet, it's therefore the same as the unknown category.

Firstly you are trying to change the topic now, but anyways, I'm willing to flow with you..

In regards to systems, we still have three:

1. We have systems which came to existence through intelligence (hence human inventions).
2. We have systems which came to existence through unknown causes (hence natural systems (hence big bang)).
3. We have no systems which came to existence without a creator.

We are still stuck with three

And don't give me an example of a tree lol..

Or evolution.

Those are all subsystems, which are part of the system, hence part of the whole universe. We don't know where the Universe came from => unknown causes.

For anyone interested. I have some links from pro evolution sites that go over claims over creationist and intelligent design. [1] [2]
Click on the 1 or 2.

Originally posted by remrem
To me Creationism and Intelligent design are companions, you cannot have one without the other.

How can something be created without intelligence?

Or is this too simple?

Well, you could have unIntelligent design, a stupid but all-powerful creator. But that's not what we're really talking about.

Nobody has put forth any real proof of intelligent design. Something that is as falsifiable as the theory of evolution. The majority of posts have been an attempt to discredit evolution. As I've said before, that wouldn't prove creationism.

Oozyism is attempting to put forth a philosophical position, which is at least a nice try, but it's semantic and based on indefinite causation with a conclusion being drawn from a tenuous comparison.

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

It is still the same, laws don't come without intelligence, or don't come to existence by chance. Do you want me to rephrase it, OK..

Originally posted by oozyism

1. We have instances of laws which came to existence through intelligence (hence human laws).

Sure, we design things and know how they work...cars/computers...so fine. That still doesn't make it clear how that would support a creator.

Originally posted by oozyism

2. We have instances of laws which came to existence through unknown causes (hence natural laws)

Not all natural laws are unknown causes, so this category isn't formulated correctly. If it's unknown, it just means we don't know how it works. We know how some things like trees work governed by different natural process. So you have to split up this category.

If it's unknown, it does NOT support creationism or any other theory. You can't use a lack of knowledge to support a theory...trying to do so isn't scientific method and would make you look uneducated.

If it's a natural process we understand, it also doesn't support creationism because we understand how it works without the need/intervention of a creator.

Originally posted by oozyism

3. We have no instances of laws which came to existence without a creator/intelligence..

Well, apart from thermodynamics which we understand and that don't need the intervention of a creator...or if you start looking at systems, trees, mountains, various chemical reactions, and the list goes on. In fact, the largest group is probably the unknown group given that there's so much we don't understand yet. The second largest consists of systems we fully understand and that are governed by natural laws we understand. No creator required. And there's the third category, stuff we created.

Not one of those categories implies the existence of a super-creator. You can keep on closing your eyes and ears and repeat your false way of thinking as many times as you want...it doesn't change the fact that what you try to do isn't scientific method, and therefore 100% worthless for this discussion.

Intelligent design is hogwash too.



Intelligent by who's standard? Not from our perspective for sure, and if it's intelligent from some super-deity's perspective he clearly didn't design all this for us...because it's not exactly a hospitable place and we aren't equipped for it optimally.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


WOW! All of your rantings and name calling and all I can remember is you saying Lightning comes from clouds - who knew? But you again miss even that simple point - so where does the friction come from- where does the clouds from? Where does the water come from? Where does it all come from? Where? Or a better question is who?

You have no answer period. NONE.

Because before your big bang theory or multiverse theory or any string theory or evolution theory there was nothing in your thought pattern of explaining things.

Our answer is that some supernatural being made the chemicals (inert - which everyone knows are lifeless- that's why I used the example) and everything that makes the lightning and all other b.s. that spews out of our mouth.

Where did you come from? Where? A sperm and an egg? Where did they come from? Where? Hello? Wake up. Quit hiding behind your walls. Open your eyes. Open your mind.

You say our beliefs come from the stone age but guess what the cavemen thought lightning was god too...just like you do.

And really, a computer proves science, really? really? Who gave man the capacity to think of a computer or the breath to breath to live to make the computer or the sand to make the chips or the metal to make the casing? Who? Or did your elements just poof up majically? If so then you believe in a God too. Except your god is poof the majic god of creating elements.

Dam just how closed can one mind be???????

reply to post by MrXYZ


I'll keep repeating until you get it, you still have failed to either grasp what I'm trying to put forward as evidence, or just trying to add confusion in the matter.

I will start asking you some questions, and you answer with yes or no, this will be much easier I think

1. Do we have any laws which came to existence through intelligence?

2. Do we have any laws which have unknown causes?

3. Do we have any laws which came to existence without intelligence?

Please I beg you, answer with yes or no..

reply to post by mrvdreamknight






Creationism "proof" explained

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

I'll keep repeating until you get it, you still have failed to either grasp what I'm trying to put forward as evidence, or just trying to add confusion in the matter.

I will start asking you some questions, and you answer with yes or no, this will be much easier I think

1. Do we have any laws which came to existence through intelligence?

2. Do we have any laws which have unknown causes?

3. Do we have any laws which came to existence without intelligence?

Please I beg you, answer with yes or no..

Let me asnwer for them - because they will not answer yes or no.

They can't. Because it will prove them wrong.

So they will answer with a long convoluted answer. Or they will call you a troll. Or they will dismiss your argument as not scientific or not scientific enough. Or all of the above.

But they will never just answer yes or no - just watch and see.

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

I'll keep repeating until you get it, you still have failed to either grasp what I'm trying to put forward as evidence, or just trying to add confusion in the matter.

I will start asking you some questions, and you answer with yes or no, this will be much easier I think

1. Do we have any laws which came to existence through intelligence?

2. Do we have any laws which have unknown causes?

3. Do we have any laws which came to existence without intelligence?

Please I beg you, answer with yes or no..

1) Yes, whatever we create...or whenever a monkey uses a stick to leverage ants out of some hole. No creator but us or the animals required.
2) Yes, of course...ton's of stuff we don't understand yet. Doesn't mean there's a creator.
3) Yes, we have no indication whatsoever that thermodynamics and a ton of other laws require a creator. We can explain how they work through natural processes. No creator required.

To qualify as a law, something must adhere to the following principles:

- True, at least within their regime of validity. By definition, there have never been repeatable contradicting observations.
- Universal. They appear to apply everywhere in the universe. (Davies, 1992:82)
- Simple. They are typically expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. (Davies)
- Absolute. Nothing in the universe appears to affect them. (Davies, 1992:82)
- Stable. Unchanged since first discovered (although they may have been shown to be approximations of more accurate laws—see "Laws as approximations" below),
- Omnipotent. Everything in the universe apparently must comply with them (according to observations). (Davies, 1992:83)
- Generally conservative of quantity. (Feynman, 1965:59)
- Often expressions of existing homogeneities (symmetries) of space and time. (Feynman)
- Typically theoretically reversible in time (if non-quantum), although time itself is irreversible. (Feynman)

Source

So by their very scientific definition, to be categorized as a law, they need to be explained in a way that doesn't require magic (aka a creator).

NOT A SINGLE LAW REQUIRES A CREATOR (MAGIC) BECAUSE YOU COULDN'T DEFINE IT AS A LAW OTHERWISE...apart from legal laws we create. But in that case it's us creating stuff...not some super being.

Your entire "theory" isn't a theory and nothing but creationist "fake science".

So since you've been begging me to do stuff, I will do the same. Please, pretty please with a cherry on top, from now on at least bother looking up the definition of what you're talking about. You've been brabbling about "laws" for pages now, and it turns out the whole time you didn't even know what a "law" is defined as. Follow the motto of this site and deny ignorance instead of making posts that make you look stupid.

reply to post by MrXYZ

3) Yes

Please provide an example and tell us where the law came from ..

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

3) Yes

Please provide an example and tell us where the law came from ..

There: LINK

We fully understand those laws without requiring a creator. Like I said, it wouldn't be a law if it would require magic. You still don't seem to understand what a "law" is, kinda sad after all those pages.

reply to post by MrXYZ


It seems you have been reading articles, but haven't truly grasped much..

I will repeat, where did it come from??

I'm trying to keep it as simple as possible, yet you're acting like this is level 7 Cosmology or something.. Simple question, tell us where it came from.