Why I believe Creation is factually accurate – The Reality!

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Still not on the same page as to the defeinition of objective proof. The OP does not provide objective proof although you keep saying it does. All the things in your last post are just more correlation. You take something that is objective, like observations of things that exist in nature and then correlate them to scripture which is not objective and expect us to accept that as objective fact. I don't know about anyone else but I do not.

All that COPIER and Designer thing doesn't do anything but help you convince youself.

Also wanted to add that you have not debunked anything put up by Sigismundus.

edit on 14-5-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

Like i said already:

According to dictionary the definition of objective evidence is:

Information which can be proven true, based on facts that substantiate the change being made. The evidence must not be circumstantial but must be obtained through observation, measurement, test or other means.

www.everythingbio.com...

So in short Objective Evidence is based on “evidence...obtained through observation, measurement, test or other means”.

Thus “through observation, measurement, test or other means” the objective evidence that nature provides has ALL the Hallmark of intelligence.

Who is the source of such intelligence?

Of course to you it's from: nothing, chance, unguided process or accident.

But the objective evidence "obtained through observation, measurement, test or other means” points to without a doubt an Intelligent Being - a Creator.

Only someone who refuse to see the evidence (Scripturally/scientifically) will not accept it.

ty,
edmc2

Here's a Question to all:

Who Did It First?

So many of our inventions are merely copies of things that living creatures have been using for thousands of years.

Did it all evolve from necessity?

Or was the ability to do these things created in these creatures? If so, when and by whom?

Let's take ELECTRICITY:

Who did it first? Man or Nature?

The answer is obvious - Nature:

Consider:

Some 500 varieties of electric fish have batteries. The African catfish can produce 350 volts. The giant electric ray of the North Atlantic puts out 50-ampere pulses of 60 volts. Shocks from the South American electric eel have been measured as high as 886 volts. “Eleven different families of fishes are known to include species with electrical organs,” a chemist says.

www.aqua.org...

Did it all evolve from necessity?

If so who thought of it? The eel itself or an unguided process created it?

Or was the ability to do these things created in these creatures? If so, when and by whom?

Of course, the evidence shows that it had all the hallmark of intelligence in the design. No wonder we are still at a lost as to how we can succesfully copy it.

The Bible suggests: “Ask the very beasts, and they will teach you; ask the wild birds—they will tell you; crawling creatures will instruct you, fish in the sea will inform you.”—Job 12:7, 8, Moffatt


Objective Evidence indeed of a great Creator!

ty

reply to post by edmc^2

In other words it agrees with the Scripture that the evidence of the existence of a Creator are “perceived by the things made” by him.

Not unless you provide objective evidence proving that link exists...something you completely fail to do.

Thus “through observation, measurement, test or other means” the objective evidence that nature provides has ALL the Hallmark of intelligence. Or as one popular magazine whose biased against creation puts it a “feat of engineering”.

Complete and utter nonsense once again. You could call birds a "feat of engineering"...but given that we know how they evolved, there's no engineer required other than biological processes. The same goes for mountains, we know how they form as well. No magic required

And everyone knows and accept the fact (except you et-al of course) – that a “feat of engineering” requires intelligence.

If you're talking about stuff we humans made...sure. When it comes to nature, you fail at presenting any proof. Hell, there's so much we can explain through natural forces without the need for magic. How humans evolved, how the weather works, why the earth goes around the sun, why it's nonsense to claim the earth was created after the sun, and the list goes on....no magic required

Since I've already proven and provided objective evidence that “Life Comes Only from Life”, it's your turn to provide an Objective Evidence of your belief that “Life Comes Only from Non-life!

And once again you top it off with the argument from ignorance

"Scientists can't explain that, ergo god did it!!" is a hilariously faulty way of argumentation...and has never worked in the past. They claimed meteorites are a "sign of god", complete and utter nonsense. They claim the sun was created after the earth, complete and utter nonsense as well. They also claimed humans just popped up on their current form because they couldn't explain evolution...and they were wrong again with their "god did it" hypothesis.

People have told you numerous times that there are several hypotheses regarding abiogenesis, but the simple fact is, scientists don't know yet how life came to be. And you claiming "god did it" just because we don't have a rational/logical answer yet is an incredible sign of ignorance...and also kinda funny given how god awful the track record of "god did it" is

Objective Evidence indeed of a great Creator!

COMPLETE AND UTTER NONSENSE!! Especially considering that 99% of the species that have ever lived on earth are now dead

Originally posted by edmc^2
So in short Objective Evidence is based on “evidence...obtained through observation, measurement, test or other means”.

But the objective evidence "obtained through observation, measurement, test or other means” points to without a doubt an Intelligent Being - a Creator.

Started off fine but them you take your usuall leap of logic.

Let me see if I can break down what your doing.

1. Birds fly - Objective fact
2. Man can learn from the animals - Objective fact
3. Man writes book that says man can learn from the animals - Objective fact
4. The same book says god exists - Objective fact
5. Man builds a flying machine - Objective fact

Number 4 is true but, the fact that someone wrote that god exists doesn't mean that the subject matter of the texts is proven true by the other objective facts presented, only the fact that someone wrote it is. To prove that the contnent of what came to be (the bible) by number 4 is true you need to supply objective proof to support that proposition. You have not done this in the OP or in any of your other posts.

So man learns from nature but how did nature learn? The general answer is "we don't know". Of course science is discovering the "how" bit by bit. I know you don't accept it as the answer but that is what shows you're biased.

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by edmc^2
So in short Objective Evidence is based on “evidence...obtained through observation, measurement, test or other means”.

But the objective evidence "obtained through observation, measurement, test or other means” points to without a doubt an Intelligent Being - a Creator.

Started off fine but them you take your usuall leap of logic.

Let me see if I can break down what your doing.

1. Birds fly - Objective fact
2. Man can learn from the animals - Objective fact
3. Man writes book that says man can learn from the animals - Objective fact
4. The same book says god exists - Objective fact
5. Man builds a flying machine - Objective fact

Number 4 is true but, the fact that someone wrote that god exists doesn't mean that the subject matter of the texts is proven true by the other objective facts presented, only the fact that someone wrote it is. To prove that the contnent of what came to be (the bible) by number 4 is true you need to supply objective proof to support that proposition. You have not done this in the OP or in any of your other posts.

So man learns from nature but how did nature learn? The general answer is "we don't know". Of course science is discovering the "how" bit by bit. I know you don't accept it as the answer but that is what shows you're biased.

edit on 15-5-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

Daskakik – I don’t mean to question your intelligence but I find your objective analysis of the objective evidence wanting and very shallow.

From what I see, correct me please if I’m wrong but was your reply meant to ridicule?

If not then what was the intent of your conclusion?

If not to ridicule then pardon my saying this but I see them as either: (take your pick)

1. Condescending
2. Childish
3. Uninformed

OR:

4. Just plain ignorant



Let me show you what I mean:

Take 1 as an example.

You said:

“1. Birds fly - Objective fact”

This statement of yours is so childish. I hope that's not what you're trying to portray. But if that’s what you ONLY got from my post then the rest of the above list confirmed my conclusion.

Here’s what I said in my post:

→ AIRPLANES:

Copied from flight patterns and WINGS of Birds.

Here’s the link that I included. www.livescience.com...

What's so hard to understand from that statement and the link provided?

Here's a snippet:

An attempt to redesign the familiar tube-with-wings architecture of modern aircraft ended up taking a familiar, bird-like form. This image shows a redesigned glider.
CREDIT: RJ Huyssen, Diomedes Inc.
View full size image

An attempt to redesign the airplane resulted in a surprising craft, one that mimicked a familiar, if much smaller, flyer: a seagull.

In a bid to increase the energy efficiency of the familiar tube-with-wings architecture, Joachim Huyssen, of Northwest University in South Africa, began by thinking about the basic principles of aerodynamics, according to his collaborator, Geoffrey Spedding, of the University of Southern California.
The design they ultimately generated has crooked wings, a stubby body and, the key innovation, a short tail. While it is intended to increase fuel efficiency by reducing drag, it's not yet clear just how much of an effect the redesign will have, according to Spedding.

There are literally thousands of websites explaining the principles of flight.

May I suggest also to google search how the Wright brothers designed their airplane?

Now, if you don’t quite get the implication of the above, why the 'wing' is a "feat of engineering" here’s a simple summary of the principle of glider design. I hope this will help you why “birds” helped mankind tremendously in the design of flying machines.

Principles of Flight as They Affect Gliders

‘There are four forces that act on an airplane in flight:

(1) gravity (the natural force acting on its weight to pull it to the ground),
(2) lift (opposite of gravity and produced by the design of the wings or updrafts of air),
(3) drag (air resistance opposing forward movement),
(4) thrust (forward power to overcome drag and propel the airplane forward).

To get a glider off the ground, the initial thrust is provided by either towing it with a car or an airplane or pulling it with a winch and cable mounted at the far end of the runway. Once it is separated from this source of power, lift and the glider’s aerodynamic design counteract gravity and drag, keeping the glider in the air.

Lift is provided by:

(1) the curved design of the wings and
(2) the rising currents of air.

From studying the shape of birds’ wings man came to recognize that a curved shape would provide lift. Just what is involved in the design of the wing?

The bottom surface of the wing is flat and the top surface curved, tapering toward the back or trailing edge. When a glider is stationary, the air pressure on the top and the bottom of the wing is the same. But when it moves forward, only the air pressure on the bottom of the wing stays the same. The air across the top curved surface has to travel a greater distance in the same time that it takes the air to pass by the underside of the wing. Hence, the air passing over the top of the wing moves faster and is thinned out, causing the pressure to drop. As high-pressure air tries to fill the void in a low-pressure area, the air under the wing tries to force itself to the area of low pressure above the wing. But the wing is in the way and the result is a lifting force being applied to the underside of the wing.

Secondly, there are natural columns of air that the glider may ride. If the glider is lightweight and well designed, it does not take much updraft to keep it afloat. Wind that is deflected upward by hills or mountains can give lift, as can the waves of air produced on the leeward side of high mountains. If cool, heavy air moves into an area of warmer air, the warmer air is forced upward and these “shear lines” can be used for lift. Also, certain land surfaces, such as plowed fields or the asphalt and concrete of cities, absorb heat from the sun, causing warm air to rise. Sailplane pilots look for soaring birds or cumulous clouds, for these often indicate the presence of a “thermal.” By circling in the thermal, the sailplane pilot gains altitude, and then takes off in another direction, looking for another updraft.’

SO again if all you got from these studies is:

1. Birds fly - Objective fact

Then I can conclusively say that your conclusion is either:

1. Condescending
2. Childish
3. Meant to ridicule
4. Uninformed
5. Just plain ignorant

Take your pick (unless you want to backtrack and restate your objective analysis intelligently)


Here's a simple Q:

If it takes a team of intelligent engineers to design and build an airplane, what would it take to design and build a "simple hummingbird"?




Ty,
edmc2

reply to post by edmc^2


Well, the only thing you proved was that humans can copy nature

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Well, the only thing you proved was that humans can copy nature

Missed the point again MrXYZ - why I'm not surprised!


Here's the point:

If it requires intelligence to successfully copy nature's wonders and see them as "feat of engineering" then what would it take to design and build the real thing?


Blind chance, unguided process or an Intelligent Being?


Objective evidence say the latter.


ty,
edmc2

reply to post by MrXYZ


I'm still waiting for your proof to my Q below:

Since I've already proven and provided objective evidence that “Life Comes Only from Life”, it's your turn to provide an Objective Evidence of your belief that “Life Comes Only from Non-life!.

ty,
edmc2

reply to post by edmc^2

If it requires intelligence to successfully copy nature's wonders and see them as "feat of engineering" then what would it take to design and build the real thing?


Blind chance, unguided process or an Intelligent Being?

Again, no one's saying it was "blind chance"...which is why I'm starting to wonder if you can read, because it's been said before, multiple times

Scientists say natural forces are responsible...which makes total sense. We know natural forces were responsible for the evolution of humans, or for the creation of mountains, or for the creation of our sun. So no, unless you want to call biological processes or stuff like gravity "intelligent, there's no magic intelligence required. Even worse, we have zero objective evidence that would support the claim natural things were created by some intelligent deity.

Hell, we even know how the elements we're made of are formed! No magic required

Since I've already proven and provided objective evidence that “Life Comes Only from Life”, it's your turn to provide an Objective Evidence of your belief that “Life Comes Only from Non-life!.

Again, scientists don't know how life first came to be. So you'll have to wait for your answer. In the meantime, how about not filling a GAP IN KNOWLEDGE with magic? Your strategy is a losing one given that so many things previously claimed to be "god's work" have to be proven NOT to be god's work

I have to thank you though, thanks for providing so many examples of "god of the gaps" and the argument from ignorance

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by Astyanax
Ah, yes. Another God promotion from the indefatigable edmc^2, who will babble and ramble, distort logic and commonsense to the point of unrecognizability, and contemptuously ignore questions and criticisms in order to peddle his favourite line of tosh.

Guess what? I’m not playing this time.

And frankly, my sensible friends, neither should you. I say we stop feeding this creationist’s habit.

Astyanax - I hope I did not stumped you, but this is thread is a very simple response to all the ridicules launched by people who scoff at the Bible and Creation. It is also to show that Creation is The Reality - not a GAME.

But if you have no counter response to my questions, I understand because the evidence presented are facts, not as you say "babble and ramble, distort logic and commonsense to the point of unrecognizability". They are very simple truth.


Anyway- thanks for chiming in.

thx,
edmc2

Know what?

I like how you had a very nice, polite reply with out any snide comments or remarks at all. THIS is what we need more of in discussions such as these. I want to do another shameless plug for the book Is God a Delusion? because I think it presents a VERY well thought out, intelligent and easy-to-read- response to those who don't/refuse to believe in God.

reply to post by edmc^2

It wasn't an analyis it was an example of the logic that you are using and where it is wrong. I think it was simple but accurate.

I think this proves we don't agree on how Objective Facts work. Birds fly is actually an objective fact. It was in no way in reference or an analysis of your post. Actually I could have used any objective fact in nature like: water falls from the sky, spiders have eight legs, bees make honey, etc.

The argument that you seemed to have missed was that although all these are actually objective facts they are not objective facts in support of specific contents in the bible or in support of the existance of the creator depicted in the bible. This is why we continue saying that you have shown no objective proof in support of the OP.

reply to post by Sundowner


If the arguments in the book are along lines as edmc^2's reasoning in this thread, it might make for a fun comedic read

reply to post by daskakik




Back from a long hiatus...and continuing the conversation...

Daskakik you said:

It wasn't an analyis it was an example of the logic that you are using and where it is wrong. I think it was simple but accurate.

Sure, simple and accurate but I guess I was expecting more from you because as you can see believers of creation knows more scientific facts than so called evolutionist.

Case in point, the Scientific FACTS stated below:

“From studying the shape of birds’ wings man came to recognize that a curved shape would provide lift. Just what is involved in the design of the wing?

The bottom surface of the wing is flat and the top surface curved, tapering toward the back or trailing edge. When a glider is stationary, the air pressure on the top and the bottom of the wing is the same. But when it moves forward, only the air pressure on the bottom of the wing stays the same. The air across the top curved surface has to travel a greater distance in the same time that it takes the air to pass by the underside of the wing. Hence, the air passing over the top of the wing moves faster and is thinned out, causing the pressure to drop. As high-pressure air tries to fill the void in a low-pressure area, the air under the wing tries to force itself to the area of low pressure above the wing. But the wing is in the way and the result is a lifting force being applied to the underside of the wing.

Secondly, there are natural columns of air that the glider may ride. If the glider is lightweight and well designed, it does not take much updraft to keep it afloat. Wind that is deflected upward by hills or mountains can give lift, as can the waves of air produced on the leeward side of high mountains. If cool, heavy air moves into an area of warmer air, the warmer air is forced upward and these “shear lines” can be used for lift. Also, certain land surfaces, such as plowed fields or the asphalt and concrete of cities, absorb heat from the sun, causing warm air to rise. Sailplane pilots look for soaring birds or cumulous clouds, for these often indicate the presence of a “thermal.” By circling in the thermal, the sailplane pilot gains altitude, and then takes off in another direction, looking for another updraft.”

So if your ONLY intelligent reply to the above is:

”Birds Fly”

Then, sorry to say this but even kids of pre-kinder age knows this to be a fact – that birds fly. But hey, if that's all you know then so be it. May I suggest though, do some research because what you said next like I said – is so elementary – come on daskakik, I don't mean to question your knowledge but were talking E=mc2, space travel, quantum particles 'n such here and all you can say to the “Principles of Flight” is “Birds Fly”?

I think this proves we don't agree on how Objective Facts work. Birds fly is actually an objective fact. It was in no way in reference or an analysis of your post. Actually I could have used any objective fact in nature like: water falls from the sky, spiders have eight legs, bees make honey, etc.

So come on daskakik, I'm trying to elevate your knowledge here, but please enuff with the elementary stuff. Don't disappoint your fellow evolutionists/athiest here.

The argument that you seemed to have missed was that although all these are actually objective facts they are not objective facts in support of specific contents in the bible or in support of the existance of the creator depicted in the bible. This is why we continue saying that you have shown no objective proof in support of the OP

On the contrary!

Here's the point of the post:

If it requires intelligence to successfully copy nature's wonders and see them as "feat of engineering" then what would it take to design and build the real thing?


Blind chance, unguided process or an Intelligent Being?

Can you answer that intelligently? Objectively?

I hope you will not say what mrxyz said: “natural forces” – because that's the most ridiculous answer I've ever heard/ read so far.

Tx,
edmc2

reply to post by MrXYZ



SO if it requires intelligence to successfully copy nature's wonders and see them as "feat of engineering" then what would it take to design and build the real thing?


Blind chance, unguided process or an Intelligent Being?

Again, no one's saying it was "blind chance"...which is why I'm starting to wonder if you can read, because it's been said before, multiple times

Scientists say natural forces are responsible...which makes total sense....

I wonder why you left out “unguided process”. Does this mean then that “unguided process” is responsible for the existence of life?

But since you're convinced that “natural forces” created mountains and our sun - is it also responsible for the existence of life?

Are natural forces = unguided processes? Or are “natural forces” posses intelligence? If so where did the intelligence come from? If NOT, then how did your all powerful “natural forces” created mountains and our sun without guidance/intelligence?

From what I gather I think I'm safe to assume that intelligence is unnecessary in your world. Just random accidents, unguided proccesses - natural forces are the "creators" of intelligent beings, powerful stars and billions of galaxies.

Based on your resplies I guess so.

The Psalmist said:

“The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." Ps 14:1 ESV

Ty,
edmc2

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Sundowner

 

If the arguments in the book are along lines as edmc^2's reasoning in this thread, it might make for a fun comedic read

Of course since common sense and objective evidence based on logic and true scientific facts do not exist in your worldview (I assume) then I do understand why it's comedic to you.

Note again what the Psalmist said:

“The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." Ps 14:1 ESV

Ty,
edmc2

reply to post by edmc^2


You are creating a false dichotomy.

guided by personal intelligence, or completely random.

There are many shades of gray inbetween.

guided by personal intelligence (christian God), guided by inpersonal unsentient intelligent automaton (deist, or buddhist God concept), guided by unintelligent but non-random laws (such as physical laws), guided by unintelligent but non-random laws but unpredictable by us (mathematical deterministic chaos), unguided (truly random, in the quantum sense).

reply to post by edmc^2


Your missing the point. The elementary stuff is defining what constitutes an objective fact. Like I said my post in no way gets into the physics of flight. I was just using it to illustrate an objective fact.

The little list that I put together shows that although they are all objective facts they don't constitute proof that a particular part of the others is true so in the case of the bible getting a few facts straight doesn't make everything written in it true.

Seeing that this thread is pages upon pages of people asking for objective facts and you producing none leads me to believe that unless we get on the same page as to what constitutes an objective fact we are just going to keep going around in circles.

reply to post by daskakik


So what's your answer to my question:

If it requires intelligence to successfully copy nature's wonders and see them as "feat of engineering" then what would it take to design and build the real thing?


That is, objective evidence shows that it requires so much knowlwdge, intelligence, organization, team of brilliant men/women to design and build a wing of an aircraft - then what would it take to design and build the real thing?

ty

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by edmc^2

 

You are creating a false dichotomy.

guided by personal intelligence, or completely random.

There are many shades of gray inbetween.

guided by personal intelligence (christian God), guided by inpersonal unsentient intelligent automaton (deist, or buddhist God concept), guided by unintelligent but non-random laws (such as physical laws), guided by unintelligent but non-random laws but unpredictable by us (mathematical deterministic chaos), unguided (truly random, in the quantum sense).

edit on 24/6/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

edit on 24/6/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

Same Q to you Maslo:

If it requires intelligence to successfully copy nature's wonders and see them as "feat of engineering" then what would it take to design and build the real thing?

ty,
edmc2

reply to post by edmc^2

If it requires intelligence to successfully copy nature's wonders and see them as "feat of engineering" then what would it take to design and build the real thing?

Impersonal laws of physics. Before them, I dont know.

www.talkorigins.org...

You make an assumption that when some complex things are intelligently designed, then all, even natural complex things must be. This is an unfounded logical jump.

btw. I we can also reverse the question. We know all intelligent designers we know of (humans, higher animals), require existence of unpersonal complex things before, to even appear, and sustain themselves (first there was universe and natural world, then intelligent species).

If it requires whole complexity of natural world for imperfect human intelligence to arise, what would it take for perfect god intelligence to appear? What designed the designer?

If the infinitely complex and perfect designer does not need a designer to create it, why should other, less complex things (such as universe and life)?