A Christian Plants His Flag? I Sincerely Doubt It?

[POI]

Well, tell ya what, I'll level with you..

1) Prove to me that sentient life can come from non sentient life...2) and that design can come from disorder..3) and that infinity can be traversed.

If you can do either of these 3 things, I'll abandon my "indoctrinated" belief.

Cool?

4) Until then, I'll continue professing that Christ is Lord, and the way to eternal life is through him, and him alone.

For debate:

1) I think he is asking to 'prove' abiogenesis? Well, being this topic is not scientifically theoretical, I'm not sure anyone can really do this? Which I think will offer one of the last bastions of hope, or safe havens for the Christian to retreat to, when it comes to the ever-shrinking gaps --- as it relates to the "god of the gaps" argument.

2) How does a creationist first determine what is intelligently designed, verses not? I mean, was the 'universe' itself intelligently designed? If so, how does one prove it? Further, if humans were supposed to be one of God's highlights, then why make a "universe" uninhabitable to these humans without major synthetic intervention? Or even more, only create a singular planet, (like Earth), where humans are unable to inhabit a vast majority of it? Or, how about the human itself? How intelligently was the human "designed"?

3) Is it possible 'matter' or 'something', in some form or another, has always existed? If not, why not? Otherwise, the term 'creationism' becomes an absurd assertion. Instead, one can only logically argue for an intelligent 'change agency' alone. And I doubt the aforementioned Christian, in this case, can fly with this concept.

4) Out of all the religions presented in history, why THIS one? Wouldn't a person, who is after truth, at least explore them all? And what happens when/if more than one collection of claims jives with them? Can multiple claims, of conflicting asserted premises, be true simultaneously? If not, but more than one presents with the same amount of evidence, then does one just flip a coin, or other, to discard one of more of them?

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #34]

Look at that. I must have stuck nerve

Nope, you just offered yet another prime example of a handwave.

[SiNcE_1985]

Yes, when believers are pressed/stressed/challenged, it usually just makes then bigger believers. It's a part of the belief preservation process at work.

Opinions.

I didn't mentioned "the fall". You did, after I had to keep asking you why the design is so objectively poor, and counterintuitive to 'well being'?

I didn't mean "you" specifically. I meant "you", in general.

My position is evidence-based, while addressing and/or referencing the theoretical science(s). Yours in not evidence-based, but instead 'faith' based.

Opinions.

I was not wrong. But even if I was, it's still irrelevant, and I explained why.

Were you correct about the Penrose equation?

It's not a red herring at all. You do understand such a 'designer' designs non-living things too, right? We have lab created gemstones and lab created crystals, which all have 1), 2), 3), along with purpose, etc.... They are confirmed to be 'designed'. And yet, we also have natural gemstones and crystals. Both the 'designed' stones, as well as the natural stones, possess the same properties. A matter of fact, it's really hard to tell the difference. These are just a couple of more examples of 'design coming from nature/disorder.'

ID can create a disorder pattern system. But nature can't create an ordered pattern system.

Ahh yes. My replies are beginning to be less, and less.

[POI]

Were you correct about the Penrose equation?

Yes.

ID can create a disorder pattern system.

Then I have to ask, what disordered pattern system do you think your god designed? And after you tell me, what criteria do you use?

It also boggles the mind that you are handwaving the demonstrated naturally 'designed' example(s) of the ordered ones alone....

And yes, ID can design/create both 1) ordered and 2) disordered systems, or any combination of 1) and 2).

But nature can't create an ordered pattern system.

False. Nature creates ordered pattern systems through natural processes alone, like the aforementioned natural crystal and natural gemstone formation(s). We humans like them so much, we figured out how to 'design/create' them too.

Based upon your own given rubric of ID (i.e.) 1 - purpose, 2 - function, 3 - information, as well as the proponents of ID themselves, (i.e.) 1) complexity, 2) order, 3) unique structure, the ID argument from theists is thoroughly debunked. And yet, this matters not. Why? Because, just like you, a mere pivot will take place. Both you, as well as the other IDers, will just move to another crappy apologetic argument. In essence, no "flag" was really planted. You have been completely exposed as being insincere and disingenuous. The title of this topic stands unattested.

Ahh yes. My replies are beginning to be less, and less.

Of course, when all your talking points get completely wrecked, and completely shot down, and you now have little left to say, 'less and less' tends to happen.

[SiNcE_1985]

You just appealed to the exact same attribute(s) I used for "design", while somehow rejecting my example(s). Weeee!

I rejected your examples for good reason(s).

If anyone were to ever claim a painting were ever not done by a human

If the painting requires ID, then it should explicitly follow that the painter requires ID.

To say otherwise is, of course, the taxicab fallacy.

, or maybe 'Coco the monkey', or some other 'primate', we would have to assess accordingly. Yes. I addressed this from the jump, paintings are done by humans.

Right, if the painting could not have originated from mindless/blind/disordered processes, then what would make you think that the painter could do so?

However, there exist many things in nature which possess 1), 2), 3) and purpose, while still not requiring a "designer" at all. Hence, topic #2 is debunked.

You've given no such examples of this, and no, snowflakes don't count.

This is clearly just another complete handwave. The theists lost, not due to politics. They lost because IC was thoroughly debunked.

Cool. You can have that one.

No thanks. Let's instead keep all your handwaving public.

Okey dokey.

Thanks. I got my answer. You would pivot.

You haven't said anything yet that would have me pivot.

[POI]

I rejected your examples for good reason(s).

Handwaving is not good reasoning.

If the painting requires ID, then it should explicitly follow that the painter requires ID. To say otherwise is, of course, the taxicab fallacy.

I've never said otherwise. If you ever want to assert that a painting is/was ever painted by anything other than human(s) <and/or> some select primates, <and/or> other more-so intelligent species, please bring that painting forward. As it stands, and as I stated, from the very beginning, we know painting are painted by humans, more-or-less. But no one, in their right mind, is claiming paintings are sometimes coming from nature. So please, drop this very bad apologetic. I trust you are not claiming some paintings are works of god, just as I do not assert that some paintings come from nature. I'm saying, and you have to agree, that other stuff, which possess the exact same attributes, do come from nature.

Right, if the painting could not have originated from mindless/blind/disordered processes, then what would make you think that the painter could do so?

Again, no one is claiming a painting came from nature. Please stop embarrassing yourself.

You've given no such examples of this, and no, snowflakes don't count.

Yes, I have. This is just more classic example(s) of ignoring and handwaving. Typical.

Cool. You can have that one.

Great. Since 'irreducible complexity' (IC) is a major component for the argument of ID, (which was completely dismantled), along with me also demonstrating that complex, ordered, and purposeful 'design' can come from nature alone, then topic 2) is destroyed. And yet, you'll still be a Christian when you wake up in the morning.

You haven't said anything yet that would have me pivot.

I already knew you will not pivot, no matter what. Hence, the title of this topic.

[SiNcE_1985]

I've never said otherwise.
If you ever want to assert that a painting is/was ever painted by anything other than human(s) <and/or> some select primates, <and/or> other more-so intelligent species, please bring that painting forward. As it stands, and as I stated, from the very beginning, we know painting are painted by humans, more-or-less. But no one, in their right mind, is claiming paintings are sometimes coming from nature. So please, drop this very bad apologetic. I trust you are not claiming some paintings are works of god, just as I do not assert that some paintings come from nature. I'm saying, and you have to agree, that other stuff, which possess the exact same attributes, do come from nature.

Reread what I said.

Again, no one is claiming a painting came from nature. Please stop embarrassing yourself.

Reading comprehension.

I said..

1. If the PAINTING requires intelligent design...

then..

2. The PAINTER requires intelligent design.

Get it?

Great. Since 'irreducible complexity' (IC) is a major component for the argument of ID, (which was completely dismantled), along with me also demonstrating that complex, ordered, and purposeful 'design' can come from nature alone, then topic 2) is destroyed. And yet, you'll still be a Christian when you wake up in the morning.

More irrelevant Dover trial stuff.

I already knew you will not pivot, no matter what. Hence, the title of this topic.

In order for me to pivot, that would mean that you're presenting good arguments.

I must not be pivoting then.

[POI]

1. If the PAINTING requires intelligent design...

then..

2. The PAINTER requires intelligent design.

Special pleading. You are still sticking to this fallacious statement because this is all you've got.

You also stated prior, that 'the more complex X is, the more a designer is required.' Well, I debunked this too.

More irrelevant Dover trial stuff.

More handwaving. IC is debunked. This, alone, is a major blow for ID.

The rest, I tackled myself. You've got nothing. Hence, the slow backpedaling.

[SiNcE_1985]

Special pleading. You are still sticking to this fallacious statement because this is all you've got.

It's all I need.

You also stated prior, that 'the more complex X is, the more a designer is required.'

Pretty much, yeah.

Which, even after our dialogue, still stands

Well, I debunked this too.

You did? Oh, I must have missed it.

More handwaving. IC is debunked. This, alone, is a major blow for ID.

The rest, I tackled myself. You've got nothing. Hence, the slow backpedaling.

It's been my pleasure.

[POI]

It's all I need.

No. Not only do you need (fallacious reasoning) abound to retain your position, but you also need (science denial), (faith), and to be (disingenuous). And you've presented all (4) in spades.

Pretty much, yeah. Which, even after our dialogue, still stands

Of course. When you are disingenuous, as the title topic states, I wouldn't expect anything less.

You did? Oh, I must have missed it.

Yup. I would point it out, yet again, but handwaving is your preferred forte.

It's been my pleasure.

Welp, this topic reinforced my prior hypothesis. (Indoctrination), followed by (belief preservation), is why you will never depart from this illogical religion:

Belief preservation is the psychological tendency to hold onto existing beliefs even when faced with evidence that contradicts them. It stems from a desire for consistency and a need to avoid cognitive dissonance, the mental discomfort caused by conflicting ideas. This phenomenon can lead to biases like confirmation bias, where individuals selectively seek out or interpret information that supports their views while ignoring contradictory evidence.

****************************

I'll leave you with some food for thought, even though I might as well be speaking to myself here....

Let us recall the comparison between (labbed vs. natural) diamonds, for example. The 'labbed' is a product of ID. The natural is a product of nature.

Natural diamonds are more complex in terms of their formation process, which occurs over millions of years under extreme and variable natural conditions.

The same goes for analyzing DNA. DNA provides evidence for millions of years of development through mutations, genetic similarity, and ancient DNA analysis. Mutations that accumulate in DNA over generations act as a record of an organism's history, while comparing the genetic similarities between different species allows scientists to estimate when they diverged from a common ancestor. Furthermore, scientists analyze extremely old DNA, sometimes millions of years old, to directly observe ancient organisms and ecosystems and reconstruct past evolutionary events.

If humans were "designed/created", DNA would resemble or identify with 'labbed' instead of the natural.