Origins & Creationism is such a dead place these days!

It seems that there are a lot of people who support creationism/intelligent design on ATS that simply decided not to post in Origins & Creationism (O&C) anymore....either that or there simply aren't any people who support that school of thought.

...since we're on a conspiracy forum that tends towards non-mainstream views, I'm guessing it's the former rather than the latter.

Why is this? I'm not going to complain that I don't have to deal with as many people who have a frustratingly low level of science literacy that are attempting to challenge evolution in the most ridiculous ways, but...yes, I am.

I think I'm a masochist, so I'd like to use this rant to invite all of those who have any sort of problem with evolution to visit O&C and join the discourse.

Who knows, you might provide a compelling case that convinces me to renounce evolution....don't get your hopes up too high, but I'm open for it.

I follow the tyranny of evidence in science. You show me the evidence, I'll have to accept it.

Anyway, I'm just complaining about how in the last 3 hours there are 4 threads with new posts on O&C, 1 of them was in a thread I haven't entered because...of my own reasons. 1 was me starting a new thread (this is the most recent post). 1 was me responding to a thread which I did not author. And 1 was me attempting to take a derailed thread (which I started) and put it back on track.

Does anyone have any ideas about why it's so dead over there?

1. We have laws which have intelligent origins (communication protocols etc).
2. We have laws which have unknown origins (natural laws).
3. We have absolutely no laws which have come to existence without intelligence.

What you need to do is to setup tests and experiments, to show us that laws can come to existence without intelligence.

If not, I will stick with my belief, and I will use the 3 statements as my evidence. When you come and provide some evidence otherwise to counter, we will continue this discussion.

reply to post by oozyism


Not sure if those questions were directed at the OP, but even if you're questions could not be answered at this time, it doesn't mean they could not be answered in the future. Regardless, just because it cannot be answered means we can just fill in the blanks with whatever tickles our fancy, as in just saying we'll my version of a god did it etc.

1. We have laws which have intelligent origins (communication protocols etc).
2. We have laws which have unknown origins (natural laws).
3. We have absolutely no laws which have come to existence without intelligence.

Maybe I'm getting the wrong idea here, but isn't saying that they have "unknown" origins basically saying the same as what I said above. As in if it's unknown, it's unknown, not well we don't know so let's say since you cannot explain x, I have to come to the conclusion some dude outside the universe did it.

Why is it even "unknown" if you already believe that god started it...?

reply to post by oozyism


I answered this in the same thread where you kept repeatedly making these assertions over at O&C. Check out O&C for the response.

This is not a thread about any O&C topic, it's a thread about the inactivity of a section of ATS.

reply to post by Whyhi

Maybe I'm getting the wrong idea here, but isn't saying that they have "unknown" origins basically saying the same as what I said above. As in if it's unknown, it's unknown, not well we don't know so let's say since you cannot explain x, I have to come to the conclusion some dude outside the universe did it.

All men are mortal,
and
Aristotle is a man;
therefore
Aristotle is mortal.

Unless you can prove one instance of a man being immortal, the above logic stays true.

All laws have intelligent origin,
and
natural laws are

laws
therefore
natural laws have intelligent origin

Unless you can prove any instance of laws being the product of anything other than intelligent, the above stays true.

reply to post by oozyism


Please, stop directing this off-topic. I already made a post where I made it clear that I've addressed this in another thread. This is a thread about the level of activity over at O&C and nothing else.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Although I am on the fence about evolution and creationism, I do think that mathmeticians have a kick butt argument. Scientist know that species evolve, but do not know the definate details of micro evolution. In the history of the universe mathmeticians claim that the time elapsed since is not sufficiant enough to allow for evolution of any complex animals, much less simple organisms. What athiest usually do not understand is that when creationist think of a creator, they do not think of a being zapping into existance things as it wants. Many scientific creationists normally believe that there is an intelligence not yet understood by humans. You know athiests its ok to not know. I always here the "there is no scientific evidence" bla bla bla bla. Isn't it alright to entertain ourselves with the many possibilities and maybe expand our mind in the process alittle? Now I am not saying just go out and join a church at all, but atleast acknowledge that it is a possibility for atleast a second that in our universal plane exists some sort of intelligence. Great discussion though. Hopefully no offense, just playing devils advocate.

Good Day

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Yeah, I lurk here occasionally and noticed a bit of a slow down in activity...Maybe creationists are getting the message?

reply to post by oozyism

All laws have intelligent origin,

If only to go off topic again, prove that any law had intelligent origin without resorting to logical fallacies that just make you look silly. You're the one making the claim, the burden of proof is on you.


Edit: Yeah, this is probably going to go off-topic fast.

reply to post by Whyhi

If only to go off topic again, prove that any law had intelligent origin without resorting to logical fallacies that just make you look silly. You're the one making the claim, the burden of proof is on you.

My proof was in the three statements:

1. We have laws which have intelligent origins (communication protocols etc).
2. We have laws which have unknown origins (natural laws).
3. We have absolutely no laws which have come to existence without intelligence.

So what's your claim

I'm going to humor this post, but can you please take the actual discussion of the topic of evolution over to O&C please?

Originally posted by cbaskins
Although I am on the fence about evolution and creationism, I do think that mathmeticians have a kick butt argument. Scientist know that species evolve, but do not know the definate details of micro evolution.

What are the 'definite details' you speak of?
We know pretty much everything down to the base information as represented in digital code.

In the history of the universe mathmeticians claim that the time elapsed since is not sufficiant enough to allow for evolution of any complex animals, much less simple organisms.

I'm sorry, but I have a few complaints about this statement:

Who: Who are the mathematicians?
What: What mathematical equations are they using to claim this?
Where: Where was this published?
When: When was this published?
Why: Why haven't I heard of this before?
How: How did they come to this conclusion?

What athiest usually do not understand is that when creationist think of a creator, they do not think of a being zapping into existance things as it wants.

...um...isn't that exactly what creationism is? I mean, at its very base the creator operates on a whim and nothing more...

Many scientific creationists normally believe that there is an intelligence not yet understood by humans.

They cannot be 'scientific creationists'. It would be like being a 'scientific geocentrist'.

Again:
Who: Who is this intelligence?
What: What does it do?
Where: Where does it exist? Where is the evidence for its existence?
When: When did it come into existence?
Why: Why does it operate in the manner it does?
How: How does it operate?

You know athiests its ok to not know.

Yes, that's alright by me. But I prefer to put a question mark in the space where I don't know instead of just making up an unfounded answer.

I always here the "there is no scientific evidence" bla bla bla bla.

This is a statement I find obscene. You cannot equate 'there is no scientific evidence' to meaningless blather. We benefit from that statement immensely. There was 'no scientific evidence' for 'the aether' so we changed our theories of physics in a way that allowed us all sorts of benefits.

Isn't it alright to entertain ourselves with the many possibilities and maybe expand our mind in the process alittle?

That's what works of fiction are for.

Now I am not saying just go out and join a church at all, but atleast acknowledge that it is a possibility for atleast a second that in our universal plane exists some sort of intelligence.

There's a possibility. But I've said it before many times, there's a possibility that the universe was created last Thursday and that all evidence to the contrary was placed there by an omnipotent trickster.

reply to post by oozyism

prove that any law had intelligent origin without resorting to logical fallacies that just make you look silly. You're the one making the claim, the burden of proof is on you.

Creationists are silly
You're a creationist
Therefore you're silly.

Durrrrrrrr I win

Deductive fallacy

Again, please provide evidence that any law had intelligent origins.

reply to post by oozyism


Since you seem intent on dragging this discussion off-topic after I've repeatedly stated that I already responded to you in an appropriate thread for this sort of discussion, I guess I'll just have to quote myself:

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by oozyism
1. We have laws which have intelligent origins (communication protocols etc).
2. We have laws which have unknown origins (natural laws).
3. We have absolutely no laws which have come to existence without intelligence.

What you need to do is to setup tests and experiments, to show us that laws can come to existence without intelligence.

If not, I will stick with my belief, and I will use the 3 statements as my evidence. When you come and provide some evidence otherwise to counter, we will continue this discussion.

This was posted repeatedly in this thread, but also in another thread where it's off topic, so I brought it into an on-topic thread.

This is not a valid logical deduction. I know logical deductions.

They rely on a common definition.

I have already asked you to provide one simple thing to make this a valid deduction: demonstrate how natural laws and legal laws are the same thing.

I can perform the same sort of linguistic trickery if you'd like to demonstrate that your deduction is invalid.

1: All biological life forms evolve.
2: Political ideas evolve.
3: Political ideas are biological life forms.
QED

...that is invalid. I'm using two different meanings for the word 'evolve'.

The word 'law' has multiple meanings, please show me that 'natural law' and 'law' in a legal sense are the same thing.

So there you are, there's a response. If you'd like I can continue to show examples of the same linguistic magic you employed with different examples, but I'd like to do it in a more appropriate thread.

Please respond to it here instead of dragging this thread further off-topic.

reply to post by Whyhi


Then I only have to prove one instance where a creationist is not silly, are suggesting I can't provide even one instance of a creationist who is not silly

FAIL

reply to post by oozyism


Natural laws are merely ways in which nature behaves, we humans are the one that called them laws and they have no correlation to societal/legal laws. Because the two are not related your argument is fallacious.

This is similar to saying:

This manmade lake required intelligence to be made

Therefore all lakes require intelligence to be made.

Only its worse than that because you are also wrongfully assuming that a natural law has even the slightest in common with a legal one.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by oozyism

 

Natural laws are merely ways in which nature behaves, we humans are the one that called them laws and they have no correlation to societal/legal laws. Because the two are not related your argument is fallacious.

laws and rules are the same, funny how Atheists usually call Creationists on word play, then they do the same.

Call them all protocols, how about that?

Now find an instance of a protocol being the product of anything but intelligence.

reply to post by oozyism


No.

Natural laws describe how nature behaves, they are not rules or laws of how nature MUST behave they are merely the facts observed of how it does behave.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by oozyism

 

No.

Natural laws describe how nature behaves, they are not rules or laws of how nature MUST behave they are merely the facts observed of how it does behave.

For example programming, the creator of a system uses a language to write the rule that 2 + 2 = 4.

Then you observe it, would you claim it is a rule that the system as to follow, or would you say it is just something we merely observed?

I'm not saying us observing is not true, I'm just saying Duuuh yeah we observed it..

reply to post by oozyism


You are assuming a programmer without evidence of one. Merely because we observe something so much that we dub it a "law" of nature does not mean it needed to be programmed in and to leap to that conclusion and claim a God is what's called a God of the gaps argument. You are essentially saying "There's NO WAY nature could have come out like this without some sort of intelligent being" when really we just don't know why the Universe came out the way it did...not yet at least.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by oozyism

 

You are assuming a programmer without evidence of one. Merely because we observe something so much that we dub it a "law" of nature does not mean it needed to be programmed in and to leap to that conclusion and claim a God is what's called a God of the gaps argument. You are essentially saying "There's NO WAY nature could have come out like this without some sort of intelligent being" when really we just don't know why the Universe came out the way it did...not yet at least.

"There's NO WAY nature could have come out like this without some sort of intelligent being"

Really, did I really say that

I have never seen a man who is immortal, never had any instances of a man who is immortal, in that sense all men must be mortal, at least until an Atheist comes and proves there is a immortal man somewhere in this planet.

You know my point right There is no gap argument here, because we know of intelligent creatures, get it? As I put it in the three statements. We have evidence of intelligence, and intelligence creating the laws and rules/protocols.

Atheist makes me laugh in the sense that almost all of them have inherited this gap argument, and the dumb ones usually use it in the wrong time making themselves look like fouls.

If you don't understand an argument don't use it

Now I'm assuming you are an Atheist, I hope I didn't make that assumption, because it will come back to haunt me

reply to post by oozyism


Do you have evidence of an intelligent creator being created out of nothing?

~