Points for a creator (Alaninnont and Subbie only)

quote:

---

As I said before, the validity of a point should not be determined by who or how many people believe it.

---

Yes, but in your OP you said:

quote:

---

11. In every culture there is a belief in spiritual beings.

---

That's the main reason I provided that line of argument. If you're willing to abandon your point 11, I'm happy to drop the issue.

quote:

---

I also agree that we have been getting off topic and I have found these last few exchanges unproductive in my search for new ideas. You seem to be interested in world religions. Would you be interested in changing the discussion to one in this field?

---

Not particularly.

quote:

---

I would still like to hear your reasons for coming to the conclusion that there is no creator if you'd be willing to discuss that.

---

I think I've provided my reasons at least twice in this thread. I'm not sure I can say it more plainly than I have.Try to approach it this way. Explain to me why you don't believe in Zeus. He's the god responsible for thunder and lightning, among other things.

---

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

quote:

---

The only reason that I remember is that you see no evidence for one. Is that all? Do you see evidence that one doesn't exist?

---

I'm most curious. Exactly what would constitute evidence that a creator doesn't exist?

quote:

---

Are you saying that creationists must come up with all the evidence for their position and make sure it is so convincing that there is absolutly no doubt but you do not have to supply any evidence for your beliefs?

---

No, but providing at least some evidence would be a start, and a rather refreshing change.

quote:

---

Who said I didn't believe in him? I think there is some evidence for the possibility of multiple creators. I'm not saying that I do but I'm trying to keep an open mind and investigate all the possibilities.

---

Sorry, I assumed you were rational. My mistake.

quote:

---

How are you coming with the lie analysis of the design matrix?

---

I haven't spent much time with it. But, I wouldn't classify it as a creationist site, either.

quote:

---

Re:quote - I see my friend the English teacher on Monday nights. I am going to ask his read on the use of the word.

---

I suggest he consult a dictionary.

---

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

quote:

---

Do you believe in the existence of the proton? No one has seen one. There is no hard empirical data that it exsit....

---

There is in fact a great deal of hard empirical evidence that protons exist.

quote:

---

I would think that evidence for your belief system would be an explanation of the universe as we see it without any external input.

---

That would be science.

quote:

---

Mike Gene is an ID proponent and thus qualifies in your mind as a creationist.

---

I'll probably end up having to plead ignorance and stand mute as far as Mike Gene is concerned. Much of what he writes is far outside of what I'm familiar with.It does appear that he is at least capable of understanding how science works and recognizing when ID gets it wrong. This post from a science blog discusses something that he said at another site that's now apparently shut down, where he acknowledges that the bacterial flagellum is an example of evolutionary co-option, and not evidence of intelligent design.

---

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

quote:

---

Mike Gene is in the first group. He talks a lot about front-loading.

---

Yes, he does talk a lot about it, doesn't he? Does he ever clearly define what he means by "front loading?" As far as I've been able to determine, he seems to be saying that all the genetic information was present from the beginning and simply unfolded from there. Is that accurate?If so, it seems to me that he'd have to explain what kept all of that genetic information present through billions of years so that it would be there when needed. Does he ever propose any kind of program to determine whether evidence of this genetic front loading can be found? Or is he content to simply assert without any evidential basis that it might have happened? In other words, is there any way that his suggestion can be tested?

quote:

---

Is this something you'd be willing to discuss?

---

Sure. I've started the discussion with a few questions, please answer them.

quote:

---

If you look back in his posts, you'll see he has some good evidence for his position.

---

I've little inclination to look back through months and months of posts, sifting for the bits that you think are relevant. Please find them for me, then quote the relevant portions and link me to those particular posts. Thanks.

quote:

---

I get the feeling you don't want to discuss your beliefs and evidence.

---

And I get the feeling that you're not reading what I've written. I've discussed my beliefs and what I perceive to be the evidence. Perhaps the reason you believe that atheists refuse to respond to your points is that you're simply not reading (or comprehending) the responses.

---

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

I wrote:

quote:

---

There is in fact a great deal of hard empirical evidence that protons exist.

---

You wrote:

quote:

---

That would depend on how you define hard empirical evidence. What is this evidence that you have found?

---

Start here. Also, this discusses how Rutherford discovered discovered the proton.Although it's not really my field, I believe that just about everything we know about the atom and probably most or all of physics would be completely wrong if the proton didn't exist.If this isn't sufficient to satisfy you, I'd suggest that we invite someone else to join this discussion, because I really don't think that I can make it any clearer.You wrote:

quote:

---

I would think that evidence for your belief system would be an explanation of the universe as we see it without any external input.

---

I wrote:

quote:

---

That would be science.

---

You wrote:

quote:

---

No. That would be atheism.

---

I'm very confused. You asked me for an explanation of the universe without any external input, I replied that I considered science to be that explanation. You then, rather cryptically, seemed to call science atheism.Perhaps we need to define terms. Atheism is a belief that there are no gods. Science is not a belief that there are no gods. Science is a method for gathering information about the real world. Science does not assume there is no god. Science simply looks for naturalistic explanations. Because most definitions of god include some element of what is commonly called the supernatural, science excludes god from the area into which it can delve. But this is far from saying there is no god.Think of it this way. The rules of baseball describe how a certain athletic competition is to be carried out. Nowhere in the rules of baseball will you see any reference to god. However, that doesn't make baseball an atheist game. It's the same thing with science.

---

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

quote:

---

I think that is a pretty good capsulation.

---

Glad to hear we're on the same page.

quote:

---

I agree with you that is seems highly unlikely that a cell set in motion could reach a designated result after so many years.

---

Glad to hear you see the problem.

quote:

---

Let me read some of his stuff and see what he says. If this is the area we are heading into, a may take me a while responding sometimes. My methods are rather methodical.

---

Please, feel free to take as long as you'd like. I'd much rather wait a week for a well-supported point than get a half-baked reply an hour later.

quote:

---

I've read back through the posts and your beliefs and your evidence for your beliefs is that (summarized) you don't believe in a creator because you don't see evidence for one. Is that it?

---

Pretty much.

quote:

---

Rutherford proposed the model of the proton because it answered the questions raised be what was observed in the characteristics of the atom. I propose the model of a creator for the same reasons

---

And all of physics and chemistry supports Rutherford's model. Can you point to similar support?

quote:

---

I agree with the first four sentences. Science looks for explanations. Science simply looks for explanations. Science is the current set of guidelines we are using for figuring out the answers to questions.

---

Then your statement "That is atheism" is even more cryptic.

quote:

---

It is a great system but not perfect as this particular raging debate demonstrates.

---

Not sure what "raging debate" you are referring to. But, if you mean the creationism vs. evolution debate, that doesn't demonstrate anything at all about science. Instead, it demonstrates how deeply the misunderstandings about science run in this country.I do agree that science isn't perfect. But it's the best system humans have ever devised.

quote:

---

It's interesting that an intelligent being created the rules for the game and the baseball diamond and other intelligent beings make sure that the rules are followed.

---

Well, if you think so, who am I to argue? Of course, that has no bearing whatsoever on the present discussion. In particular, it has nothing to do with whether science is atheism.

---

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

quote:

---

The earth is millions or billions of years old.

---

Billions, 4.54 billion, give or take.

quote:

---

Simple organisms appeared earliest in earth's history according to fossils and continued in a trend toward more complex organisms.

---

Well, as you've discovered in a different thread, where life begins is subject to debate, depending on how terms are defined. Most likely the first organisms were very simple ones, but they were preceded by organic molecules. And, while it's true that simple organisms became more complex, don't confuse evolution with gaining complexity.The earliest organisms were most likely simple because simple organisms were the most likely to appear. And, subsequent organisms became more complex because that was the only direction to move if it all began with simplest. However, there's nothing inherent in the theory of evolution that would necessarily favor the complex over the simple. Evolution is all about reproductive success. If, in a given environment, a more complex organism would have more success, then that organism would flourish. If a simpler organism would do better, then that organism would flourish. There are advantages to each type and disadvantages. But evolution doesn't require or predict a general trend in either direction.

quote:

---

The DNA/RNA process of replication is universal to all living things on earth.

---

As I alluded to above, the definition of living is up for grabs. However, I believe that your statement is generally accurate.

quote:

---

Within a species there can be many phenotypical differences.

---

Agreed.

quote:

---

There are cases of similarities in physiology between species. (the digits of the hand in humans as compared to the wings or birds, etc.)

---

Agreed. As long as we're starting at the beginning, let's begin with the correct terminology. These are referred to as homologous. And there are millions upon millions of such structural similarities found throughout the natural world at all levels.

quote:

---

The compounds common to life on earth are proteins, carbohydrates, nucleic acids, and lipids.

---

Well, I don't know that I'd agree that all of these compounds are found in all kinds of "life," but I'd agree that those are commonly found.

quote:

---

There is an incredible variety of life on earth.

---

I suppose if I were inclined to be pedantic, I might quarrel with the use of the word "incredible" as being rather imprecise. But I'm not, so we'll agree on that one.

---

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Let's start with dating methods. In his Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 thread, RADZ shows that many different dating methods all arrive at consistent results. So, even assuming there is a sufficient basis for doubting the methods, one also needs to explain how they can all arrive at the same results and still be suspect.I would ask you to take your doubts to that thread. RAZD's expertise in the area is so far beyond my level of knowledge that I couldn't even begin to answer your questions.

---

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

quote:

---

I don't think I'm going to agree with you here. Anything I've seen has indicated that the first organisms were highly complex.

---

Well, that's rather vague. Please cite me the sources you are referring to.Also, keep in mind that the term "complex" is a relative term. I'd certainly agree that any living organism is more complex than a single atom. But your statement was

quote:

---

Simple organisms appeared earliest in earth's history according to fossils and continued in a trend toward more complex organisms.

---

I took this statement to mean that the organisms that first appeared were simpler than organisms that appeared later. Now, you seem to be changing the context, arguing that the first organisms were "highly complex." Please clarify: do you mean to be comparing early organisms to later organisms, or are you comparing them to something else? If the latter, please explain what comparison you intend to discuss, and why you think such a discussion would be significant.

quote:

---

By saying "preceded" you seem to be suggesting that the organic molecules needed for a living cell self-assembled which also does not fit observable data.

---

Again, please cite me the sources that describe the "observable data" that contradicts the idea of organic molecules self-assembling.Actually, if you read my statement carefully, you'll see that I didn't say anything about how the organic molecules formed. I merely said that they must have preceded the organisms, since that's what the organisms were made of. It seems self-evident to me that the parts that came together to form the first organisms must have been there before the organisms themselves. If you have another idea how this might have happened, I'd be very curious to hear it.

---

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

quote:

---

What others are there?

---

I never said I thought there were others.

quote:

---

Are we not on the same page when we're talking about life? We should perhaps settle which things are alive and which are dead before we proceed.

---

I'm not sure such agreement is possible. What's more, I don't see why such an agreement would be necessary to move this discussion forward. Please explain why you do.

---

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

As fascinating as your story is, I'm afraid the point is lost on me. Organisms are complex. So what?As far as Pasteur is concerned, you are completely off base. Pasteur was disproving the notion that life spontaneously arises on an every day basis with experiments that took days to perform. He never even considered the question about how life might have began billions of years ago in processes that took tens of millions of years. If you disagree, you need to describe in detail what you think Pasteur's experiments consisted of and exactly why they are relevant to the beginning of life.

---

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

quote:

---

My point was that observable data, scientific models, and logic do not support these ideas.

---

So, you're saying that organisms appeared before the stuff they were made from?

quote:

---

Pasteur was working on spontaneous generation and he came to the conclusion that all life comes from other life. If you disagree with this hypothesis, please provide your evidence.

---

I did, in my last post.

---

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

I agree that the first organisms were likely complex. (There's no evidence to support an assumption that they were as complex as the simplest organisms now, but complex nonetheless.) I also agree that we don't know exactly how they formed (and perhaps never will).So what?

quote:

---

No, you didn't. Pasteur's conclusion still stands.

---

I'm not arguing against Pasteur's conclusion. I'm arguing against your misunderstanding of it. Please explain why you think that an experiment conducted over a period of days can say anything about a process that took millions or billions of years.

---

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

quote:

---

So how were the first complex living organism(s) created?

---

I'll repeat, we don't know for sure, and possibly never will.So what?If you'll read back, I previously dealt with this type of argument, the god of the gaps argument. The fact that we don't know something isn't evidence that goddidit. It's just evidence that we don't know something. That's all. Unanswered questions are not evidence that god exists. If you think they are, you need to spell that reasoning out, step by step, in detail.

---

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

quote:

---

I can't help but notice the similarities between your belief system...

---

What belief system is that? So far, the only thing that I've said about "belief" is that I don't believe in a creator.

quote:

---

...and that of some fundamentallist religious groups.

---

Petty insults and tu quoque fallacies don't make much impact on me.

quote:

---

Your belief is based of faith. When you encounter things you can't explain, you still believe and say you don't know and probably never will.

---

My belief is based on evidence. I see evidence of the incredible power of the scientific method to find truths about the world. I don't hold it against that method that it doesn't know all the answers. Instead, I give it credit for the ones that it does. Thus, I believe in science because it works, even though it hasn't yet figured it all out.

quote:

---

You claim that the opposing views tell lies and are inaccurate but you don't have any evidence. When asked for evidence for your beliefs you say that the evidence is that there's no evidence to the contrary.

---

This is such a gross mischaracterization of my statements in this thread, I can only conclude that you either lack the intellectual capacity to understand what I've said, you haven't bothered to read what I said, or you are deliberately mischaracterizing what I've said for some reason. None of these conclusions give me much motive for continuing in this thread. If you can provide an alternate reason for your mischaraterization, or a reason for me to continue, please do.This thread began as a challenge for me to answer what you claimed were "points for a creator." I've given several general lines of reasoning that apply variously to the points that you've raised. If there are any points that you feel I've not addressed, please let me know. I don't want you to think that I've shied away from your "points."

---

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat