Do you understand those on the other side?

[Jose Fly]

As I've pointed out many times (probably too many times), I grew up in a fundamentalist Christian environment. I was taught young-earth creationism from an early age, was told prayer and reading the Bible were the answer to most of life's problems and questions, and witnessed all sorts of "interesting" things such as speaking in tongues, faith healing, end times predictions, etc.

Yet despite being completely immersed in this culture, I can't recall a time in my life when I ever believed any of it. However, unlike some of my peers at the time I didn't really find it boring. In fact, I found a lot of it to be rather fascinating because.....very little of it made any sense to me. I just could not understand the people, their beliefs, their way of thinking, or much of anything that I saw and heard. When I saw them anointing with oil someone who had the flu and later saw the virus spread (of course), I could not understand what they were thinking. When I saw them make all sorts of failed predictions about the Soviet Union and the end times, yet never even acknowledge their errors while continuing to make more predictions, I was baffled. Speaking in tongues was of particular interest to me because it really made no sense to me.

In the years that I've been debating creationists it's the same thing. When I see them say "no transitional fossils" or "no new genetic information" only to ignore examples of those things when they're presented, I can't relate to that way of thinking at all. When I see them demand evidence for things only to ignore it after it's provided, I can't relate. When I see them quote mine a scientific paper and after someone points it out they completely ignore it, I can't relate.

Now to be clear, I think I "understand" some of what's behind these behaviors (i.e., the psychological factors), but what I don't understand is how the people engaging in them seem to be completely oblivious to it all. What goes on in their mind when they demand "show me the evidence", ignore everything that's provided in response, and then come back later and make the same demand all over again? Are they so blinded by the need to maintain their beliefs that they literally block out all memories of it? Again....I just don't get it.

So the point of discussion for this thread is....how about you? For the "evolutionists", can you relate to the creationists' way of thinking and behaviors? For the creationists, are there behaviors from the other side that baffle you, and you just don't understand? Do you look at folks like me and think to yourselves, "I just cannot relate to his way of thinking?"

Or is it just me?

[We_Are_VENOM]

When you say 'God', which god concept to you mean and how would mindless, blind and/or random processes not producing specified complexity lead you to that god concept?

It doesn't lead me to THAT god concept, it leads to me to A god concept.

With the argument from design alone, at the VERY least it leads me to an unidentified cosmic creator..which is deism at best. Nothing less or more than that.

It is like going to a homicide scene...you go to the scene and at the very least you are able to determine a homicide has been committed.

Now, as to who committed the crime...you got some digging to do.

Trying to follow your thought process from start to finish.

Well, here is my thought process...cumulative case...

1. Kalam Cosmological Argument: We have evidence that the universe began to exist (all physical reality), from nothing. So, we have a causal agent on our hands.

Since the universe began to exist at X time as opposed to Y time, that goes to show that this causal agent had/have a will to create, which suggests a causal agent with a mind.

So, we have...

A. A causal agent with the power to create from nothing.
B. A causal agent with a mind.

2. Argument from Design: The causal agent is an engineer, as the fine-tuned parameters of the universe is ASTRONOMICAL.

So, now we have...

A. A causal agent with the power to create from nothing (about as omnipotent you can get).
B. A causal agent with a mind
C. A causal agent that is very smart (educated).

3. Objective Morality: If there is objective moral values, this can only be grounded in a objective lawgiver...an objective source from where all objective morals are grounded.

So, now we have..

A. A causal agent with the power to create from nothing (about as omnipotent you can get).
B. A causal agent with a mind
C. A causal agent that is very smart (educated).
D. A causal agent that is the foundation of all objective moral values. A moral agent.

4. Modal Ontological Argument: The mere concept of this causal agent is logical, and its existence is possible.

So, now we have...

A. A causal agent with the power to create from nothing (about as omnipotent you can get).
B. A causal agent with a mind
C. A causal agent that is very smart (educated).
D. A causal agent that is the foundation of all objective moral values. A moral agent.
E. The concept of such a being (A-D) is possible, and with this possibility comes the actuality of its existence.

5. The Resurrection of Jesus Christ: We have historical evidence that Jesus of Nazareth lived, died, resurrected and was seen alive by his followers and a few skeptics. So, we (believers) conclude that the identity of A-E is that of Jesus of Nazareth, called Christ.

So, now we have...

A. A causal agent with the power to create from nothing (about as omnipotent you can get).
B. A causal agent with a mind
C. A causal agent that is very smart (educated).
D. A causal agent that is the foundation of all objective moral values. A moral agent.
E. The concept of such a being (A-D) is possible, and with this possibility comes the actuality of its existence.
F. The identity of A-E is identified as Jesus Christ.

6. The Bible: The Bible was written long before any classical arguments for the existence of God...and it just so happens that these arguments are supplementary to the Bible, and not on purpose.

This is no coincidence.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Is that your understanding of how evolution occurs?

Loaded question fallacy.

As evolution does not occur.

Second, the card thing had nothing to do with evolution, but entropy.

You truly think it's no different than tossing cards into the air and expecting houses to form?

Went over your head. Never mind.

You mean people, not gods.

The more complex a system is, the greater the mind needed to create it. And we are not talking creating/building a dirt bike.

We are talking the creation of the entire universe.

People do not create universes, but God does.

Extremely weak IMO. Kinda silly too.

You dodged the question. Do you believe the life cycle of the plasmodium parasite has "specified complexity"? If so, do you believe it came about via "design"?

First off, no one is dodging the question. Obviously, if I believe in God, I believe every living thing owes its existence to God.

That much should be obvious.

Second, when you reference a parasite, you are making reference to a living organism...which would obviously tie in to specified complexity, of which I am advocating.

So it does really seem that you think evolution occurs like tossing cards in the air or dropping paint. Where exactly did you get that from?

Missed the point. Never mind.

So can you name something in the biological realm that you believe to have been designed by God, explain how you reached that conclusion, and describe the process by which it was designed?

Every living thing.

[We_Are_VENOM]

You realize that you've actually reversed Dembski's argument from "specified complexity," right? The argument you're accepting isn't Dembski's redefinition of "specified complexity," but Paley's watchmaker analogy.

Call it what you want. The concept is what I am after.

You're inferring purpose and claiming that as evidence for design.

You catch on quick

Dembski recognized that as a failed argument (acknowledging that Darwin was a "destroyer" of Paley's watchmaker analogy on page 33 of No Free Lunch) and framed his argument as a mathematical one that doesn't rely on your inferences of functionality, purpose, or intent.

Strange.

Synopsis of "No Free Lunch" book by Dembski..


Darwin's greatest accomplishment was to show how life might be explained as the result of natural selection. But does Darwin's theory mean that life was unintended? William A. Dembski argues that it does not. In this book Dembski extends his theory of intelligent design. Building on his earlier work in The Design Inference (Cambridge, 1998), he defends that life must be the product of intelligent design. Critics of Dembski's work have argued that evolutionary algorithms show that life can be explained apart from intelligence. But by employing powerful recent results from the No Free Lunch Theory, Dembski addresses and decisively refutes such claims.

As the leading proponent of intelligent design, Dembski reveals a designer capable of originating the complexity and specificity found throughout the cosmos.

Don't know what you were attempting to prove there, but it sounds like Dembski is on my side of things.

There is no free lunch.

Gotcha moment; Failed.

In short, you don't understand the argument that you've challenged brunumb to refute. I'm going to paraphrase something you wrote a month ago:

That was all a little over my head, admittedly. I don't know who is right and who is wrong, but I'm rocking with [Paley].

Would you say that's an accurate representation of your position?

What??

Dude, first of all, you are WRONG.

The quote was actually...

That was all a little over my head, admittedly. I don't know who is right and who is wrong, but I'm rocking with Hovind.

I clearly said "I am rocking with Hovind", so why are you quoting me with "Paley" replacing "Hovind"?

Disingenuous.

Second, we weren't even TALKING ABOUT the argument from design or specified complexity in that post...we were talking about evolution as it pertains to human and primate DNA.

More to the point, what would brunumb (or I) have to show you to convince you that you, Paley, or Dembski are wrong?

There is nothing you can show me.

I showed you that Hovind was wrong, but your response was simply that you trusted Hovind over me. I offered to show you how to do the analysis yourself, but you declined my invitation. That's not a debate, but a single argument from authority in its purest form. If your position here is the same reasoning with a different authority attached to it, then there's not much point in pretending that we'll get any further by way of debate. Is there more to your argument than that?

I told you to hit up Hovind and do a live debate with him. Show him that he is wrong, not me.

Neither Paley's nor Dembski's arguments involve entropy. That's another argument altogether.

Wrong. You can't have function without entropy.

SMH.

And thinking that Hitler killed himself in his bunker is a slap in the face of the Inglourious Basterds.

Ok.

[Jose Fly]

Loaded question fallacy.

As evolution does not occur.

Oh come on....you can't be serious. Evolution occurs all the time, right before our eyes. We fight against it (antibiotic resistance) and exploit it (domestication). It's commonly demonstrated in lab experiments in college BIO 100 classes all across the country.

You may as well try and claim that erosion never occurs.

Second, the card thing had nothing to do with evolution

Okay.

The more complex a system is, the greater the mind needed to create it.

Empty assertion.

We are talking the creation of the entire universe.

People do not create universes, but God does.

Another empty assertion.

First off, no one is dodging the question. Obviously, if I believe in God, I believe every living thing owes its existence to God.

So every parasite, pathogen, and pest that haunts our existence and causes untold suffering and death was "designed" by the God you believe in.

That seems kinda sick and twisted to me. If a person did anything like that we wouldn't hesitate to call them a bio-terrorist.

Second, when you reference a parasite, you are making reference to a living organism...which would obviously tie in to specified complexity, of which I am advocating.

Yep, you believe in a God that deliberately "designed" plasmodium to infect and kill billions of people.

So can you name something in the biological realm that you believe to have been designed by God, explain how you reached that conclusion, and describe the process by which it was designed?

Every living thing.

I'll keep this in mind.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Oh come on....you can't be serious. Evolution occurs all the time, right before our eyes. We fight against it (antibiotic resistance) and exploit it (domestication). It's commonly demonstrated in lab experiments in. college BIO 100 classes all across the country.

You may as well try and claim that erosion never occurs.

In BIO classes across the country, no experiments are being conducted which gives reptile-to-bird results or land mammal to sea creature results.

Empty assertion.

So which requires more talent, skill, brain energy...the drawing of the Mona Lisa painting...or the drawing of a stick figure?

Another empty assertion.

Entropy is proven every day, fam.

So every parasite, pathogen, and pest that haunts our existence and causes untold suffering and death was "designed" by the God you believe in.

In a fallen world, things tend to fall.

That seems kinda sick and twisted to me. If a person did anything like that we wouldn't hesitate to call them a bio-terrorist.

Opinions.

Yep, you believe in a God that deliberately "designed" plasmodium to infect and kill billions of people.

Ever heard of The Flood?

[Jose Fly]

In BIO classes across the country, no experiments are being conducted which gives reptile-to-bird results or land mammal to sea creature results.

No one said they were. The fact remains, we directly observe the evolution of new traits, abilities, genetic sequences, and species.

So which requires more talent, skill, brain energy...the drawing of the Mona Lisa painting...or the drawing of a stick figure?

Irrelevant, since we're not discussing paintings and drawings.

In a fallen world, things tend to fall.

Opinions.

Ever heard of The Flood?

Hey, if you want to believe in a god that deliberately "designs" things to cause pain, suffering, and death, be my guest. I still think that's very sick and twisted, but you go right ahead.

[Difflugia]

You realize that you've actually reversed Dembski's argument from "specified complexity," right? The argument you're accepting isn't Dembski's redefinition of "specified complexity," but Paley's watchmaker analogy.

Call it what you want. The concept is what I am after.

Which concept? Specified complexity? The watchmaker analogy? That someone smart agrees with you, so there?

You're inferring purpose and claiming that as evidence for design.

You catch on quick

Quick enough to understand both of our arguments, anyway.

Dembski recognized that as a failed argument (acknowledging that Darwin was a "destroyer" of Paley's watchmaker analogy on page 33 of No Free Lunch) and framed his argument as a mathematical one that doesn't rely on your inferences of functionality, purpose, or intent.

Strange.

Synopsis of "No Free Lunch" book by Dembski..

Darwin's greatest accomplishment was to show how life might be explained as the result of natural selection. But does Darwin's theory mean that life was unintended? William A. Dembski argues that it does not. In this book Dembski extends his theory of intelligent design. Building on his earlier work in The Design Inference (Cambridge, 1998), he defends that life must be the product of intelligent design. Critics of Dembski's work have argued that evolutionary algorithms show that life can be explained apart from intelligence. But by employing powerful recent results from the No Free Lunch Theory, Dembski addresses and decisively refutes such claims.

As the leading proponent of intelligent design, Dembski reveals a designer capable of originating the complexity and specificity found throughout the cosmos.

Don't know what you were attempting to prove there,

I was proving that you don't know what "specified complexity" is despite your challenge to brunumb to refute it. I know what Dembski argues, which is how I knew you had it wrong. You were repeating a version of Paley's argument, which Dembski thinks is wrong.

but it sounds like Dembski is on my side of things.

Yes. Somebody smart agrees with your overall conclusion, so there.

There is no free lunch.

Gotcha moment; Failed.

Now that you've read Dembski's book, maybe you could explain "specified complexity" to us again. Do you still think the watchmaker analogy is valid?

In short, you don't understand the argument that you've challenged brunumb to refute. I'm going to paraphrase something you wrote a month ago:

That was all a little over my head, admittedly. I don't know who is right and who is wrong, but I'm rocking with [Paley].

Would you say that's an accurate representation of your position?

What??

Dude, first of all, you are WRONG.

The quote was actually...

That was all a little over my head, admittedly. I don't know who is right and who is wrong, but I'm rocking with Hovind.

I clearly said "I am rocking with Hovind", so why are you quoting me with "Paley" replacing "Hovind"?

That's why I said that I paraphrased it and put brackets around "Paley." I changed what you said slightly by replacing "Hovind" with "Paley" to make the point that this is a second time that you're agreeing with a person without actually understanding their argument.

Disingenuous.

No, I expected readers to understand exactly what I was writing. In your case, I apparently miscalculated.

Second, we weren't even TALKING ABOUT the argument from design or specified complexity in that post...we were talking about evolution as it pertains to human and primate DNA.

The connection is that you didn't understand that argument, either.

More to the point, what would brunumb (or I) have to show you to convince you that you, Paley, or Dembski are wrong?

There is nothing you can show me.

If you were actually debating with us, there would be.

I showed you that Hovind was wrong, but your response was simply that you trusted Hovind over me. I offered to show you how to do the analysis yourself, but you declined my invitation. That's not a debate, but a single argument from authority in its purest form. If your position here is the same reasoning with a different authority attached to it, then there's not much point in pretending that we'll get any further by way of debate. Is there more to your argument than that?

I told you to hit up Hovind and do a live debate with him. Show him that he is wrong, not me.

I'm debating with you. If your only argument is that someone else agrees with you, so there, then there's not much to debate.

Neither Paley's nor Dembski's arguments involve entropy. That's another argument altogether.

Wrong. You can't have function without entropy.

Whether that's true or not, it's not part of either argument, even implicitly.

SMH.

Because what else can one do, right?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #180]

Specifically, all of the built-in body systems that we have..

https://m.carolina.com/teacher-resource ... tr40003.tr

That is SPECIFIED complexity. That is also low entropy...and blind, mindless, random processes doesn't give you that...and it is a slap in the face of the creator for anyone to think otherwise.

How are the internal ograns (or "body systems") of a human low entropy? Snowflakes forming from H2O molecules (or any other crystal structure formation is analogous) is the result of unordered H2O molecules combining to form a lower entropy structure so the snowflake itself is more "ordered", but the net entropy of the system has increased (due to the heat released during the snowflake crystalization). Entropy is not the same is ordered. It is a measure of how many microstates correspond to a given macrostate for a system. Human organs don't represent low entropy.

And evolution is not a random process. It has inputs from the environment, predator/prey mix, availability of food sources and mates, sexual selection, etc. in addition to mutations and how they propogate and other genetic processes. It may be blind in that there is no predetermined goal, and mindless as no mind is involved, but it certainly isn't a random process. If you think it is, that may be why you don't appreciate or understand how it led to the diversity of life that we have on Earth.

[brunumb]

Not very good, because cards are not able to move or assemble themselves without an external agent. Chemicals, on the other hand, are able to react with each other and form new substances without the need for any chemist or external agent guiding them.

When you can provide an adequate response as to chemical reactions as it pertains to specified complexity, then you will get two of these..

---->

Until then, straw man.

Complex chemical reactions occur all the time with no need for any intelligent designer stirring the pot or directing the chemicals to do as they are told.

Show me spaceshuttle-level complexity involving chemicals with no intelligent external agent.

The self-replication of DNA in cells occurring constantly in living things should meet your somewhat vague criteria concerning specified or space-shuttle-level complexity. But such descriptions are very subjective anyway. In the universal scheme of things they are not necessarily complex at all. Simple minds just don't have the capacity to comprehend that.

[We_Are_VENOM]

No one said they were. The fact remains, we directly observe the evolution of new traits, abilities, genetic sequences, and species.

The point is continuously being missed.

Irrelevant, since we're not discussing paintings and drawings.

Same concept.

Hey, if you want to believe in a god that deliberately "designs" things to cause pain, suffering, and death, be my guest. I still think that's very sick and twisted, but you go right ahead.

A fallen world..