Creationism/Intelligent Design: PROVE IT!

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


It's easy to argue against creationists, what is difficult is arguing with people who believe what we have discovered about the universe through science and at the same time believe in a Creator. The argument an atheist would have to make that their is no God would be to prove we live in a universe that originated with no "first cause"- even in an infinite multiverse something would have had to cause it.

reply to post by JohnCJ


First, thank you for making the 500th post in this thread, making it by far the longest thread I've ever created.

Originally posted by JohnCJ
It's easy to argue against creationists,

You would think that, but it really isn't. Some of them have a habit of repeating points that you debunk, not listening, and moving the goalposts back. That's all aside from having the educate people about several complex scientific fields due to their ignorance.

what is difficult is arguing with people who believe what we have discovered about the universe through science and at the same time believe in a Creator.

...well, that's not at all the topic of this thread. I'll respond to the rest, even though it's off topic, but I direct you to the link in my signature below which leads you to another thread I created that deals with the existence of a deity.

This thread is about a specific idea, not the existence of a deity.

The argument an atheist would have to make that their is no God would be to prove we live in a universe that originated with no "first cause"- even in an infinite multiverse something would have had to cause it.

...a first cause doesn't necessarily have to be a deity. You're falling for a philosophical argument that was made by Aquinas centuries ago and has been debunked in various ways since.

The first cause isn't necessarily divine, it's merely the first cause. Being first doesn't make you all powerful nor does it give you the ability to be any further cause.

Originally posted by JohnCJ
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

It's easy to argue against creationists, what is difficult is arguing with people who believe what we have discovered about the universe through science and at the same time believe in a Creator. The argument an atheist would have to make that their is no God would be to prove we live in a universe that originated with no "first cause"- even in an infinite multiverse something would have had to cause it.

1) No, we don't know whether or not the universe (or multiverses for that matter) are infinite or if something started it all. You are ASSUMING something had to start it.

2) Atheists don't really have to prove anything in the absence of proof for a creator. Just like people who don't believe in unicorns don't have to come up with proof.

Look, there is of course a remote chance there is a creator...we just have no evidence to support that claim. If there were any real proof, don't you think after over 20 pages someone would have posted it here

reply to post by Xtrozero


The problem is that there would be something to show the interference of a deity in this scenario. Something would fall outside of direct natural occurrence.

Take this example that I often use when people say you can't prove evolution:

Let's say you get home and, to your complete shock, your living room is trashed and your television is gone.
You would immediately say that someone has broken into your house and stolen your television and possibly other goods.


Now take a different scenario. You get home and your television is on the floor, broken, and your bookshelf has collapsed. You look at everything and realize that the television toppled off of the surface it was on because you forgot to push it back when you were plugging in your new Blu-Ray player and the bookshelf collapsed because one of the shelves became unable to support the encyclopedia set on it


The difference between these two cases is that one is clearly the act of an intelligent agent and the other isn't.

Now, if we're talking on the cosmic scale, there has to be something.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

First, thank you for making the 500th post in this thread, making it by far the longest thread I've ever created.

John CJ

madnessinmysoul: (Creationists) have a habit of repeating points that you debunk, not listening, and moving the goalposts back.

See, the thing is, they're kind of preaching, while you're teaching. Once you're finished with Proposition One you figure, okay, that's established, now let's go on to Proposition Two. But to them, a forum like this is just a platform to keep on repeating their version of Proposition One over and over again, hoping to rope in new recruits. It's not stupidity; it's tactics. And it isn't you they're after, it's the kids.


I used to share your frustration, but I find it hard to give this kind of thing the time of day any more. I just give out the facts as I know them and go after the liars. I salute your persistence in keeping up the debate.

A first cause doesn't necessarily have to be a deity. You're falling for a philosophical argument that was made by Aquinas centuries ago and has been debunked in various ways since.

The first cause isn't necessarily divine, it's merely the first cause.

Yes, the Unmoved Mover is the dodgiest of all assumptions. On what grounds is it made? But there is no need for a first cause. If the last hundred years in physics have demonstrated anything, they have demonstrated that human beings don't have the sorriest hint of a clue what time is. Again, a topic for another thread--but to put it in a nutshell, the beginning of the universe is a concept that only makes sense from inside the universe. But the universe has no outside. Just as there is no space outside the universe, there is no time outside, either. This eliminates the need for a First Cause.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Xtrozero

 

The problem is that there would be something to show the interference of a deity in this scenario. Something would fall outside of direct natural occurrence.

This is correct IF the deity actually worked outside of nature. Since all life on our planet is related to each other then this suggests we all came from the same single life source, and that spark happened relative early in earth's history, roughly 3.8 billion years ago. Since then we have not seen continued creations of life from inorganic material, so one needs to wonder how it seemed to happen so quick and easily but never again in earth's history.

We should have many completely unrelated life forms in many different stages of evolution, but once again we don’t. The grass, trees, bugs, micros….and us are all related with our basic DNA interchangeable.

With that said…something really strange happened 3.8 billion years ago and it never happened again….random act of nature?…..maybe…maybe not

reply to post by Xtrozero


Well, scientists have narrowed down the window of time for abiogenesis to be possible to around 100,000 years. The reason we don't see it happening now is that there aren't the right conditions anymore.

The crazy thing is that we don't seem to have a single last common ancestor like we thought. It seems that there was a lot of horizontal gene transfer in the early stages of life, so that the many life forms that evolved and used a proto-DNA system ended up exchanging genes.

Unfortunately, the entire post you made is flawed in that it assumes that abiogenesis theory puts for the idea that life spontaneously arises. All it puts forth is that life can and probably will arise under the right circumstances.

And this part confused me

We should have many completely unrelated life forms in many different stages of evolution, but once again we don’t. The grass, trees, bugs, micros….and us are all related with our basic DNA interchangeable.

...um...we cannot interchange a lot of animal and plant DNA.

And nobody says that we should have unrelated life forms...

But the crazy thing is...we do have an insane variety of stages in evolution.
Every single animal and plant is at a different stage of evolution.

reply to post by Xtrozero

This is correct IF the deity actually worked outside of nature.

If the deity only operates according to the rules of nature, then the deity is nature, as Spinoza and Liebniz (in their different ways) sugested. Such a deity will not satisfy believers in an active divine creator; it is invisible, can't or won't do miracles, doesn't listen to or answer prayers and is only divine in the sense that it excites awe and reverence in us when we think about it, the same way Mount Everest or the birth of a child do.

The generally accepted attributes of divinity in popular culture demand a God that can contravene the laws of nature and make miracles; a God that can answer the difficult question 'Where did all this come from?' A deus in machina such as you propose would be worse than useless.

*

We should have many completely unrelated life forms in many different stages of evolution, but once again we don’t. The grass, trees, bugs, micros….and us are all related with our basic DNA interchangeable.

We should have nothing of the sort. On the contrary, it is fairly obvious that we should not.

Life is a deadly struggle, and only the fittest survive. During those misty aeons when life was first differentiating itself from non-life, this battle for survival ensured that only the fittest protolife survived to become the ancestor of all life now extant. That is why all God's chilluns got DNA. Any subsequent instances of abiogenesis became food for the DNA carriers, who had an evolutionary head start on them.

We do see species at different 'stages' of evolution--sort of. Viruses are probably quite close in form to the original protolife. We have algae, bacteria, colony organisms like slime moulds and corals, plankton, flatworms... need I go on? These modern contemporaries of ours illustrate the development of increasing complexity among lifeforms. The difference is that we now see all forms of life as more or less perfect adaptations to an evolutionary niche, and talk of 'higher' and 'lower' forms is merely a convenience.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


My post was simply my first impression upon reading the OP sorry for being OT.

As someone who holds a single article of faith which encompasses many ideas (the universe how ever you may define it was an intentional happening)- when arguing with a creationist the first thing I point out is what isn't in the Bible and are widely accepted truths. When you mention something like the atom and expect the creationist to site the book and verse the atom was explained- you will either get nothing or you will get a convoluted barrage of disconnected verse. They miss the entire intention of the Bible itself- the only real mention of anything like the development of life that agrees with science is that beasts arose before man. Creationists attempt to fit a square peg into a round hole- if it was important for you soul to know that man evolved to the being he is vs being blinked into existence- the Bible would have been very specific. That is what is wrong with creationists. The advocates of intelligent design aren't much better they need a constant and mindful hand in every step of the evolution of life- when if life was crafted in such a way every species would have redundant and various methods of survival. All life would be giant omnivores with the ability to utilize photosynthesis- while being efficient enough to survive in lean times and still be able to travel the stars (i think you get the point). Essentially neither the creationists nor the ID people have any kind of challenging arguments. You are essentially trying to run a race against people with no legs.

The argument simply can't be made to prove an article of faith as faith is a belief in something that can't be measured. I think that essentially people who try to prove an article of faith are trying to prove it to themselves and I would imagine that they are wracked with guilt for knowing rationally that faith can't be proven and they are sinners for thinking such thoughts. But, they are simply to dumb to figure out that an article of faith can't be proven and that is the whole point of having faith- believing in a Creator that can't be proven.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
I've tried multiple times to put forth the vast mountains of evidence that support evolution, only to be ignored or to have these explanations waved away.

I've tried asking creationists what their specific problem is with evolution, only to not get many direct answers and to have my explanations of the problems again get waved away.

Well, evolution is a positive position, it requires proof, which I've tried to provide. Creationism/ID is also a positive position, so it also requires proof.

Lately, I've not seen a single person put forth an argument for the creationist perspective, I've only seen attacks on the evolutionary theory, as if disproving the evolutionary theory would immediately put the creationist/ID theory into the place of truthfulness. This is not true. You need to provide your own proof.

So, where is it?

Thats like asking me to prove i haven't read a cetain book. The very nature of science cries cause and effect, so the universe was caused, no life could have formed by chance, this is scientific FACT so something must have directed it. How much more proof do you need?

reply to post by jelleepie

Thats like asking me to prove i haven't read a cetain book.

In what way are they alike?

The very nature of science cries cause and effect, so the universe was caused

What caused the cause, then?

no life could have formed by chance, this is scientific FACT

Really? Prove it. But before you start talking about probabilities, kindly refer this thread. You may find your arguments have already been exploded.

so something must have directed it.

Will is not the only alternative to chance.

How much more proof do you need?

More than you have provided!

the whole evolution vs creation conflict is an invention or tool of the illuminati to separate and conflict the masses.

Things in life just make sense, that's enough proof to show that intelligent design is real. Besides that there are things that don't, but that's just because it's beyond us to understand it, we just don't understand it... yet. But if you knew the cause you would see how it made sense.

Evolution theory is ok, it's just that Darwin's conception of evolution is incomplete. Macro-evolution is more how it's supposed to be.

We humans also could not have just evolved from apes the way Darwin proposed. It seems we were helped along the way to 'evolve' into what we did, but it wasn't simply by 'natural selection' as Darwin called it.

Read Biology of Belief by Bruce Lipton. Darwin wasn't the first one to propse evolutionary theory anyway.

Originally posted by The Quiet Storm
the whole evolution vs creation conflict is an invention or tool of the illuminati to separate and conflict the masses.

Yes, because the 'illuminati' control all of the science institutions in the world and prevent any single one of them from speaking out.

It also somehow manipulated the natural world to make it so that evolution is the only functioning theory of the development of life.

Things in life just make sense, that's enough proof to show that intelligent design is real.

Common sense is useless when we're talking about science

And the only way they 'make sense' is in an evolutionary framework.

Can you please prove your statement true?

Besides that there are things that don't, but that's just because it's beyond us to understand it, we just don't understand it... yet. But if you knew the cause you would see how it made sense.

Like what? Can you provide some examples?

You're being awfully vague about stuff that would change the entirety of our scientific understanding of the universe.

Evolution theory is ok, it's just that Darwin's conception of evolution is incomplete. Macro-evolution is more how it's supposed to be.

...Darwin's concept is 150 years old. He's not the end-all to evolution. We have modified the theory to make more and more sense over the decades since he came up with it.
And there is no such thing as 'macro' or 'micro' evolution. Those distinctions are made nowhere in scientific literature.

We humans also could not have just evolved from apes the way Darwin proposed.

Why? Because we're special?
Where's the evidence to back up that statement?

News flash! We're primates. And all the genetic information shows that we are very closely related.

It seems we were helped along the way to 'evolve' into what we did, but it wasn't simply by 'natural selection' as Darwin called it.

Again, why is that so?
Where's the evidence for this claim?

Read Biology of Belief by Bruce Lipton.

No, I'm not reading the works of an unpublished 'scientist' who writes books about things that, if were true, he should definitely be doing academic work in.

Now prove your previous propositions are true, this is about proof not 'read X by Y'

Darwin wasn't the first one to propse evolutionary theory anyway.

He was the second one to publish it, though he had worked on his book for a long time before publishing it. The first published pamphlet was only some 10 pages long, while Darwin had a whole book.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
It also somehow manipulated the natural world to make it so that evolution is the only functioning theory of the development of life.

Yep, and how do people like richard dawkins debate, he calls people names. The geezer never debates anyone that has any debating skills, and he even says this.

Evolution is just a joke in the form they tell us.

Originally posted by The Quiet Storm
Things in life just make sense, that's enough proof to show that intelligent design is real.

Oh really? Everything makes sense and seems intelligent and just made for us?



As for your whole "we've never observed macro-evolution"...comon', people in this thread linked you to speciation several times in this thread, and we directly observed macro-evolution several times. What you are doing is substituting your "I don't know" with "I don't have an explanation, god must have done it". That's a typical god of the gaps argument

Here's a clue: I don't even believe in "god". It's just a word to me. There might be things that could fit the definition of a "god", by some definitions anyway.

Does this confuse you? How can a person not believe in a "god" at least in the most common conception of "god" and believe both creationism and evolution?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Our generic makeup is all related to a degree. Chimps are just slightly off from us where a banana is only related to about 50%. Genes are interchangeable to…

Fruit Flies

Can you describe the concept of the "genetic toolkit"?

Because different organisms look so different-a fly looks so different from a human-we used to think that their developmental regulatory mechanisms must be very, very different. However, we have discovered that the genetic took-kit used by a fly and by a human and most other animals is very, very similar. So a genetic toolkit is the basic groups of genes that control how developmental processes occur.

For example, Hedgehog is part of the toolkit, Hox genes are part of the toolkit and they're used in flies and they're used in humans in very, very similar ways.

It's utterly amazing to me that similar genes can control development in such a wide variety of creatures. For example-look at the face of a fly. And then look at your own face. To think the same processes are controlling the way a fly's eye develops, the way a fly's antennae develop and the way your limbs develop, the way your eyes develop, the way your brain develops-it's utterly mind-boggling.

It's truly amazing how similar the action of genes are from very, very different species. For example, in fruit flies there's a mutation called "eyeless," so the flies with this mutation don't make an eye. You can isolate the same gene from humans. In humans when that gene is mutated, it causes a person not to make an iris to the eye. And if you take that gene from a human and put it into a fruit fly cell and cause that cell to develop into an eye, it makes an eye. So that the human gene can replace the function of the broken gene in the fruit fly.

Does it make it a human eye? Or a fly eye?

It turns out it makes a fruit fly eye. The human gene expressed in a fruit fly cell causes a fruit fly eye to be formed. And that's because what causes the eye to be formed is the downstream targets. So that the eyeless gene is a regulatory gene-it turns 'on' different genes that make the actual eye. Those genes that make the actual eye are still fruit fly genes, not human genes. What the human gene does is it turns 'on' the genes those fruit fly genes.

What this all suggests is life on earth is all related. Big life such as animals are just a small branch of all that life, but as we go back in time at some point we came from the same very basic life that branched off first into planet, micros etc.

But once again "the right conditions" seems to not happen very much otherwise we would have much more life completely unrelated, generically since the beginning spark would all have their own unique start, but that is not the case. We are basically dealing with one spark 3.8 billion years ago, and if there were other sparks they didn’t make it.

So when I talk about different life forms I’m talking about life forms that come from different life sparks that create different independent paths. We do not see new life forming anywhere from inorganic material…

So...just what are the right conditions...

reply to post by andy1033

Originally posted by andy1033
Yep, and how do people like richard dawkins debate, he calls people names.

Can you please provide evidence of Richard Dawkins resorting to name-calling in a debate?

The geezer never debates anyone that has any debating skills, and he even says this.

He never really debates the subject of evolution vs creation. Why? Because there's no debate. The science is quite clear no the subject.

I mean, he's an Oxford professor, he has better things to do with his time than waste it debating creationists.

Evolution is just a joke in the form they tell us.

No, evolution is the most elegant scientific theory for understanding the means by which species develop.

reply to post by The Quiet Storm


Um...none of this is in reply to what I said or related to what you said previously...so I'm a bit confused here, but I'll give it a go.

Originally posted by The Quiet Storm
Here's a clue: I don't even believe in "god". It's just a word to me. There might be things that could fit the definition of a "god", by some definitions anyway.

Such as?

Does this confuse you? How can a person not believe in a "god" at least in the most common conception of "god" and believe both creationism and evolution?

It does confuse me. I think the obvious answer is they're...confused themselves.

What conception of a deity to you believe in and how do you believe in both creationism and evolution?

Now, you could theoretically believe in creationism up to the point of primitive life, with evolution taking over from there.
...even though that's a bit silly, but it could be true. Evolutionary theory doesn't require you to accept anything related to cosmology or abiogenesis.

But honestly, what sort of question is "Does this confuse you?" when you've given me only the barest hint as to what you believe? You're being vague, of course I'm confused.


reply to post by Xtrozero


I've already explained that the right conditions don't exist now. They did exist some 3.5 billion years ago.

Here's a great video that explains the formation of life and what is currently known about abiogenesis in detail:

Ok.. well maybe I'm just considering the creation of humanity rather than the creation of reality itself.

I give some credit to the theory that humanity may have been helped along the way ie genetically engineered, for example by extraterrestrials.

That's what I mean by 'creationism'.

But now that I think about this more.. that isn't creationism. Creationism is the belief that all of "creation/reality" was designed by some intelligent being much greater.

But why not? If the Universe is one Giant thought bubble, and we are inhabitants of this, why wouldn't you call this "intelligent" if you would call humans intelligent in the first place?

Also.. our Reality is what we observe it to be. Or rather, observership. We in part create the reality as the reality creates itself. We are somewhat one and the same.

Now, evolution theory is credible thought there are parts I just don't agree with. Like for example Darwin thinking that humans evolved without any help whatsoever from apes. We do have ape in us, or moreso homo-erectus. being part homo-erectus. There are just some things taht don't add up.

And also I dont agree with painting human reality as some fear based competitive society if that's what animals do. Even if we were, it just keeps us in that reality, and not rising up.

Originally posted by The Quiet Storm
Ok.. well maybe I'm just considering the creation of humanity rather than the creation of reality itself.

I give some credit to the theory that humanity may have been helped along the way ie genetically engineered, for example by extraterrestrials.

That's what I mean by 'creationism'.

Ok, but that still doesn't explain where the extraterrestrials came from. That would mean they would have had to have evolved.

And why would humans get this special exemption? We don't put up any red flags for evolutionary theory.

But now that I think about this more.. that isn't creationism. Creationism is the belief that all of "creation/reality" was designed by some intelligent being much greater.

Sort of. But yeah, that's a workable enough definition.

But why not? If the Universe is one Giant thought bubble, and we are inhabitants of this, why wouldn't you call this "intelligent" if you would call humans intelligent in the first place?

...how is the universe a 'thought bubble'?

Also.. our Reality is what we observe it to be. Or rather, observership. We in part create the reality as the reality creates itself. We are somewhat one and the same.

...no, we don't. Reality exists separate to observation.

Now, evolution theory is credible thought there are parts I just don't agree with. Like for example Darwin thinking that humans evolved without any help whatsoever from apes. We do have ape in us, or moreso homo-erectus. being part homo-erectus. There are just some things taht don't add up.

Like what? What doesn't add up. We are fundamentally apes.

And also I dont agree with painting human reality as some fear based competitive society if that's what animals do. Even if we were, it just keeps us in that reality, and not rising up.

Evolution doesn't paint society in any way. It's simply a description of how life changes over time.

If you want a description of human society and/or the human mindset, look at sociology, anthropology, and psychology.