creationists/IDists, admit your defeat

by melatonin
The point is, we can all make stuff up that has no basis in reality.

Agreed, and at this point it would seem atheists are 'making stuff up' about the beginning of life. The only thing they can say is 'We Know that it happened, Non-Life turned into Life'. Somehow a bunch of genetic code was lying around and 'poof', it decided it was time to get organized. I would ask the question, Which piece of the code took charge and what methods did it utilize to convince the others that it's plan was the best one? What's the old saying, It's like having an explosion in a print shop and coming out with Webster's Dictionary.


As far as the 'usefulness' of evolution, still don't find any practical uses for it. I get far more peace and satisfaction out of relationship with my Creator than a trillion articles on fossils will ever give me.

I've noticed that you like to shift focus to 'shamans' quite a bit. Fact is, a relationship with one's Creator does not require the involvement of anyone other than you and your Creator. Finding fault with Men is easy, we all have failings. But to use them as an excuse is a cop-out IMO.

Originally posted by RANT
No, the poster can't. At least not any more than one can scientifically prove Katie Holmes didn't create the universe.

Science and ID/creationism mix like oil and water. IDist are the ones that need to stop pretending they can prove Katie Holmes is the Alpha and Omega (metaphorically).

I think this is an important point.

Intelligent Design can be all things to all people, but whatever it is, it is not science.

ID creationism as proposed by Behe, Johnson, Dembski et al. makes specific claims that can be falsified. Thus we can show that flagella does have possible evolutionary pathways, we can show that irreducible complexity is not a real hurdle for evolutionary mechanisms and may, in fact, be a result of evolution. They can make specific testable claims, we can falsify. This was what happened with biblical YEC creationism, this intepretation of the bible makes specific claims, it has been falsified.

However, we cannot falsify that there is a tinkerer god playing with genomes who lives in the 9th dimension. We can't test it, we can't falsify it. Ockham just shaves it away. We also can't falsify that invisible pan-dimensional pixies are involved in intelligent falling. We can add ID to all kinds of holes in knowledge. Some obviously need certainties rather than accept things we don't yet know.

There will always be a place for intelligent design in the minds of some, but it will never be science. It's just a god of the gaps argument.

Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar
Agreed, and at this point it would seem atheists are 'making stuff up' about the beginning of life. The only thing they can say is 'We Know that it happened, Non-Life turned into Life'. Somehow a bunch of genetic code was lying around and 'poof', it decided it was time to get organized. I would ask the question, Which piece of the code took charge and what methods did it utilize to convince the others that it's plan was the best one? What's the old saying, It's like having an explosion in a print shop and coming out with Webster's Dictionary.

Well, not really, if you notice abiogenesis is accepted as something we do not have enough knowledge to claim we know how it happened. we just know it did. We have ideas and hypotheses, some basic evidence that organic chemicals do form in various atmospheres and are found throughout the cosmos.

You may prefer to place your god into a hole in knowledge, but history shows us it's a risky place for it to be

As far as the 'usefulness' of evolution, still don't find any practical uses for it. I get far more peace and satisfaction out of relationship with my Creator than a trillion articles on fossils will ever give me.

Cool. When these drug companies do make this new drug for protecting against cholesterol that is sourced from an evolutionary perspective, particularly beneficial mutation, don't use it. Also, you should never use a flu vaccine. Just pray to god like Gene Scott.

I've noticed that you like to shift focus to 'shamans' quite a bit. Fact is, a relationship with one's Creator does not require the involvement of anyone other than you and your Creator. Finding fault with Men is easy, we all have failings. But to use them as an excuse is a cop-out IMO.

I don't think I mentioned it first. I think you need to raise this with someone else. I used it to show how we can all just make up unfalsifiable claims that have no basis in objective reality, even a parrot can do it.

[edit on 21-1-2007 by melatonin]

But has science made any attempt to analyize the other side of the argument? No.

Just because we can't see "god" or measure it, science deems it not to exist...

Science also says telepathy and telekinesis are impossible, yet both have been demonstrated by many people on many different occasions. There are also many other people with bizzare talents which defy science.

Think of it this way, that we are participating in an experiment known as "life". Can one measure outside of that experiement if he is within that experiment?.. Do you not wonder why all mathematical and physics equations brake down and give illogical answers when trying to equate the big bang?

Science is not the answer because (so far) it has only attempted to observe whats on the outside of the human experience. More to the point, can you observe consciousness or measure it? No, but we all know it exists because we are infact conscious, we are self aware!

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
But has science made any attempt to analyize the other side of the argument? No.

Just because we can't see "god" or measure it, science deems it not to exist...

Trust me, science makes no such claim. It is agnostic on such issues. If we can't test it, it cannot be falsified.

Science also says telepathy and telekinesis are impossible, yet both have been demonstrated by many people on many different occasions. There are also many other people with bizzare talents which defy science.

I don't think science says any such thing. I think it is more a case that it has not been shown in testable and repeatable conditions.

James Randi is still waiting with a million pounds for someone who can show these things to be true.

Think of it this way, that we are participating in an experiment known as "life". Can one measure outside of that experiement if he is within that experiment?.. Do you not wonder why all mathematical and physics equations brake down and give illogical answers when trying to equate the big bang?

Science is not the answer because (so far) it has only attempted to observe whats on the outside of the human experience. More to the point, can you observe consciousness or measure it? No, but we all know it exists because we are infact conscious, we are self aware!

Yup, classical physics breaks down at a singularity. However, quantum mechanics may well give us the answers we are seeking. The LHC may push us on the way.

You seem to be talking a bit like the philosopher Chalmers (if you don't know him, you'll like his stuff - I tend to Dennett myself). He claims that matter itself is conscious, he is almost a panpsychist (but never defends this position). Maybe he is right, maybe not. Until we can test, it is all just speculation, like most philosophy.

Maybe science will answer the questions of consciousness. I think it will. Mysterian approaches are all well and good, but they have no success in giving real answers, just speculation.

[edit on 21-1-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

I don't think science says any such thing. I think it is more a case that it has not been shown in testable and repeatable conditions.

James Randi is still waiting with a million pounds for someone who can show these things to be true.

Yup, classical physics breaks down at a singularity. However, quantum mechanics may well give us the answers we are seeking. The LHC may push us on the way.

You seem to be talking a bit like the philosopher Chalmers (if you don't know him, you'll like his stuff - I tend to Dennett myself). He claims that the universe itself is conscious, he is almost a panpsychist (but never defends this position). Maybe he is right, maybe not. Until we can test, it is all just speculation, like most philosophy.

Maybe science will answer the questions of consciousness. I think it will. Mysterian approaches are all well and good, but they have no success in giving real answers, just speculation.

[edit on 21-1-2007 by melatonin]

Thats the problem though (repeating conditions to measure "god"). Take water for example, flowing down a surface. You can't predict the route it will take, nor can it really be repeated. Lightning strikes aswell, cant predict what route it will take, nor can it be repeated. Yet both happen (as to why they take the routes they do...things that make u go hmmm )

Quantum mechanics will probably give us the answers yes.

Havent heard of that guy before, thanks for mentioning, i will go look him up! His idea of the universe being conscious sounds very similar to my own conclusions about reality.

I don't think science will really answer the questions of consciousness, because i think the answer may be so simple it will seem to be so unlikely, if that makes sense.

I think science helps those in power keep us maintained within a materialistic world, and religion keeps people maintained within a world of fantasy so action isn't taken. IMO buddhism is probably the nearest to the truth, yet its flaw is that people will spend their entire lifes meditating, rather than creating action in the physical world.

Alas, the bigger questions are so interesting to think about, yet so confusing to deal with. Life is a mystery, death holds the answers.

by melatonin
we do not have enough knowledge to claim we know how it happened. we just know it did

Using an awful lot of Faith. Atheists and Faith, interesting........

Cool. When these drug companies do make this new drug for protecting against cholesterol that is sourced from an evolutionary perspective, particularly beneficial mutation, don't use it. Also, you should never use a flu vaccine. Just pray to god like Gene Scott.

Not sure Evolution plays a big role in pharm companies. I definitely don't mess with their drugs though. Look at the problems they're having with statins in their cholesterol drugs, just another pharm fad.

I don't think I mentioned it first. I think you need to raise this with someone else.

This isn't the first discussion where you've sited 'shamans'.

why would you make a thread like this? oh i know.... you're a troll.


defeat? no one views anything as a defeat or a victory... that's just people like you who likes to troll and only contributes to the message board for ''winning''
it's not about winning it's about infinite possibilities....


this thread is a waste of time and no one should even reply to it.

Evolution plays a huge role in pharmacy. Disease causing bacteria and viruses can evolve very rapidly to avoid being killed by the drugs. Say if you get a staph infection, evolution plays a very large role in what antibiotics they can put you on, as some strains have become resistant to pretty much everything we can throw at them.

Also I guess you could say that we rely on the fact that other mammals share a common ancestor somewhere down the line and are therefore biologically similar so we can do medical tests that then may later be applied to humans.

The whole of biology literally makes no sense without the theory of evolution. It is a very very valuable theory(a theory in the scientific sense that it is an explanation backed up by much evidence and is taken for fact). Also I'd like to restate that the theory of evolution doesn't cover the rise of life, from a bunch of pieces to a functioning cell. There are a few hypotheses, but it has proved to be a very difficult puzzle to solve.

But then again micro evolution of pathogens isn't really what ID disputes. Their main fighting points are the beginning of life (which as I think science is admittedly stuck on) and macroevolution. The notion that we share a common ancestor with chimps is apparently to insulting to their own significant existance apparently. Could the children of a god share their origin with a chimpanzee? ....well I've never known how you could not look at a chimp or a gorilla or even some lower primates and not look at those hands and the eyes and their face and not see a bit of yourself.
[edit on 21-1-2007 by zooeyglass14]

[edit on 21-1-2007 by zooeyglass14]

Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar
Using an awful lot of Faith. Atheists and Faith, interesting........

Well, no, not really. ID/creationism is also a form abiogenesis. So I'm sure you agree it happened.

At one point no life, then life. Abiogenesis occured.

Not sure Evolution plays a big role in pharm companies. I definitely don't mess with their drugs though. Look at the problems they're having with statins in their cholesterol drugs, just another pharm fad.

The one I'm talking about is from the APO milano mutation, it's not a statin. Of course, it is early in development.

This isn't the first discussion where you've sited 'shamans'.

Oh, OK. Didn't realise. Yeah, I find them quite interesting people and the methods are useful for psychological healing.

Not so sure about grand insights into the meaning of life. But entheogens do have uses

Originally posted by selfless
why would you make a thread like this? oh i know.... you're a troll.

personal attack much?

defeat? no one views anything as a defeat or a victory... that's just people like you who likes to troll and only contributes to the message board for ''winning''
it's not about winning it's about infinite possibilities....

actually, it's about one group realizing that they're arguing philosophy in science
if you play with the rules of philosophy in the realm of science, you can't win

this thread is a waste of time and no one should even reply to it.

why?

Originally posted by selfless
.... you're a troll.

While I personally lean toward creationism, and I must say that the original post does not uncover some new and shocking conspiracy, I must say that your comments are simply uncalled for.

If you are truly as superior as you appear to act, can you not find a way to post without resorting to kindergarten name calling? If you adhered to your screen name in the least tiny bit, I think you would find some sort of open minded compassion toward the OP.

Of course it's fine to disagree, but it can be done in an intelligent manner. Besides, last I heard courtesy is mandatory at ATS.

by zooeyglass14
Evolution plays a huge role in pharmacy. Disease causing bacteria and viruses can evolve very rapidly to avoid being killed by the drugs.

I would disagree with you here. Mutation is how I would say it. If the bacteria and viruses were actually 'evolving' they wouldn't be called bacteria and viruses anymore. Maybe FrankenFlu or something.

This brings up a point which has been on my mind. If a land creature evolved into a flying creature, wouldn't the useless appendages (wings) that weren't fully developed, cause the land bound creature to become extremely vulnerable to predators? Even to the point of Extinction?

by melatonin
At one point no life, then life. Abiogenesis occured.

Doesn't the 'A' stand for self? As in life created itself? ID would be 'Genesis', the Creation of Life & Non-Life, 1st Book of the Bible.

[edit on 21-1-2007 by HimWhoHathAnEar]

Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar
This brings up a point which has been on my mind. If a land creature evolved into a flying creature, wouldn't the useless appendages (wings) that weren't fully developed, cause the land bound creature to become extremely vulnerable to predators? Even to the point of Extinction?

Ostriches do quite well with a pretty much useless wing. So there is no reason to believe that a therapod with 'half a wing' would be at any extra threat.

by melatonin
Ostriches do quite well with a pretty much useless wing. So there is no reason to believe that a therapod with 'half a wing' would be at any extra threat.

Ostriches are quite large thus the extra defenses, running, kicking. In order to get airborne, the creature would need to be much smaller and lighter. Which would take away the extra defenses, leaving it somewhat vulnerable I would think.

Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar
Ostriches are quite large thus the extra defenses, running, kicking. In order to get airborne, the creature would need to be much smaller and lighter. Which would take away the extra defenses, leaving it somewhat vulnerable I would think.

Yup, ostriches and cassowaries are a bit like a velociraptor and other therapods but they have vestigal wings. Ostriches run fast and use their wings to balance and for display.

Small things tend to run fast as well, they also have the ability to hide easily, maybe small therapods also climbed trees...

Anyway, we are straying from the topic, open a thread if you fancy focusing on therapods and wings...

[edit on 21-1-2007 by melatonin]

Why do people love arguing about this topic?

Don't you see this is an argument that can never be won by either sides?

I mean this argument has been going on since the beginning of time. This argument has been OVERKILLED.

Let those who have faith go on having faith, and let the faithless go on being faithless.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by selfless
why would you make a thread like this? oh i know.... you're a troll.

personal attack much?

No i am simply stating a fact that a troll would make a thread like this.

And no science does not over rule anything else you are mistaken and one sided blinded.

I am open to everything and you are saying science wins all in a very trollish and childish way.

This thread should not even exist.

Ok so what is a Coelecanth ? supposedly 50 million years extinct then a whole conlony of them show up and they are anatomically identical to the fossils. So evolution stops in this one species ( and its far from a perfect animal ) and it remains unaltered from its decendants of 50 million years ?

Originally posted by wellwhatnow

Originally posted by selfless
.... you're a troll.

While I personally lean toward creationism, and I must say that the original post does not uncover some new and shocking conspiracy, I must say that your comments are simply uncalled for.

I never said that i was for creationist i was just calling out the op of this thread because it offers nothing but arguing and he obviously made this thread to get people to bite and cause a huge debate.... it's too obvious and that would make him a troll and a troll is not an insult it's a name that describes a person who posts on a message board for the purpose of offending people.

I simply called him out to make people realise this thread has no purpose other then to argue and bicker.