Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

There you go again, copying and pasting my post.

There are no teleological or cosmological arguments for materialism. A teleological argument for materialism doesn't make coherent sense. It is obvious you know nothing about this term. The teleological argument is the argument for a final cause, or a design, which necessarily precludes materialism. Nothing in materialism ever posits that there is a final cause. Therefore, again, you are making a categorical error. So, your lame tactic of copying and pasting my posts has backfired on you.

If a person can't examine something and see it is a product of design it's because they don't want to.

Intuition is not evidence for something. That fact that something looks designed is not evidence that it actually is, just like the fact that lightning sounds like the gods are bowling doesn't mean good 'ol Zeus is up there throwing strikes. Science has proven in almost every case, that human intuition is wrong when it comes to scientific realities, so, this is not even close to an argument.

If you are walking down a beach and find a watch is it rational to pick that watch up and assume over billions of years, it formed itself ?

 

[UltimateReality]

There you go again, copying and pasting my post.

There are no teleological or cosmological arguments for materialism. A teleological argument for materialism doesn't make coherent sense. It is obvious you know nothing about this term. The teleological argument is the argument for a final cause, or a design, which necessarily precludes materialism. Nothing in materialism ever posits that there is a final cause. Therefore, again, you are making a categorical error. So, your lame tactic of copying and pasting my posts has backfired on you.

If a person can't examine something and see it is a product of design it's because they don't want to.

...Science has proven in almost every case, that human intuition is wrong when it comes to scientific realities, ...

This is the lie of evolutionists and it has no basis in the truth. It might be for a small percentage of phenomena but not as a general rule.

 

[UltimateReality]

If you add functionality and specificity, then it is a sign of intelligence. I have asked you before but you remain silent on producing a functional, specifiable information in digital form that doesn't have an intelligent agent as its source.

Even if we have 100 examples, or even 1,000 examples of other functional, specifiable digital codes that were created by intelligence, we still wouldn't be able to conclude that DNA must also therefore be created by an intelligence. We have only two examples, as you claim, of such type of information: DNA and digital computer code. We know that one of these codes is produced by intelligence, because we have evidence: we created the code. (This is where the availability heuristic comes into play for IDers like Meyer) The fact that we know where one of these codes comes from, does not give us the freedom to say the other one also comes from an intelligence. You must make a logical leap to reach this conclusion, and this is a fallacy. Your inductive reasoning can never get you to the conclusion that DNA was created intelligently created because another code with similar attributes was. I realize this may seem intuitive to you, but as I have mentioned, intuition has nothing to do with science, and can not be counted as evidence, because it is completely subjective. As I mentioned before, you already possess the conclusion that an intelligent being exists, so you seem to think this inductive reasoning is valid, when it isn't. This is your bias.

Wrong!!! You still deny (or miss) the point that intelligence is the ONLY KNOWN SOURCE for complex, specifiable DIGITAL code or as Lyell put it, "causes presently in operation"!!! Meyers argument, just like the pseudoscience of evolution, has to be an inductive argument because it refers to an event that happened in the distant past. So no one is arguing that it is 100% absolute, like the foolish darwinists try to do, but unless new evidence comes to light, it is currently the best explanation for the source of digital code in dna.

 

[newpolitics]

If you add functionality and specificity, then it is a sign of intelligence. I have asked you before but you remain silent on producing a functional, specifiable information in digital form that doesn't have an intelligent agent as its source.

Even if we have 100 examples, or even 1,000 examples of other functional, specifiable digital codes that were created by intelligence, we still wouldn't be able to conclude that DNA must also therefore be created by an intelligence. We have only two examples, as you claim, of such type of information: DNA and digital computer code. We know that one of these codes is produced by intelligence, because we have evidence: we created the code. (This is where the availability heuristic comes into play for IDers like Meyer) The fact that we know where one of these codes comes from, does not give us the freedom to say the other one also comes from an intelligence. You must make a logical leap to reach this conclusion, and this is a fallacy. Your inductive reasoning can never get you to the conclusion that DNA was created intelligently created because another code with similar attributes was. I realize this may seem intuitive to you, but as I have mentioned, intuition has nothing to do with science, and can not be counted as evidence, because it is completely subjective. As I mentioned before, you already possess the conclusion that an intelligent being exists, so you seem to think this inductive reasoning is valid, when it isn't. This is your bias.

Wrong!!! You still deny (or miss) the point that intelligence is the ONLY KNOWN SOURCE for complex, specifiable DIGITAL code or as Lyell put it, "causes presently in operation"!!! Meyers argument, just like the pseudoscience of evolution, has to be an inductive argument because it refers to an event that happened in the distant past. So no one is arguing that it is 100% absolute, like the foolish darwinists try to do, but unless new evidence comes to light, it is currently the best explanation for the source of digital code in dna.

As I have shown, your first point is completely unimportant. You continually disregard this. I don't care what Lyell said. I barely know who he is, aside from him being Darwin's mentor, and it is not terribly important. You are making an appeal to authority and quote mining Lyell.

You obviously still don't understand what an inductive argument is, or inductive reasoning. The fact that something happened in the past doesn't mean you must only employ induction to make conclusions about it. In fact, the past has nothing to do with inductive reasoning. You can deductively ascertain conclusions about the past just as easily as you can about the present, or even the future. When forensics experts figure out who a killer was by using the evidence, they are not using inductive, but deductive reasoning. This obvious and common example falsifies your point that the past=induction. Evolution DOES NOT USE INDUCTION TO REACH ITS CONCLUSIONS, as ID does. This is the vital difference. You keep on maintaining this erroneously. Evolution has actual evidence, which shows this model or theory to be correct, and which has PREDICTIVE CAPABILITY, and these predictions have been shown again and again, to be true. Example: Ring Species. Time is irrelevant to as whether induction versus deduction is used, so try and get that out of your head.

As for your last point, ID is not the best explanation at all for the source of digital code. Here you commit another argument from ignorance. We don't know how DNA was created, so you make an assertion, and because it hasnt been proven false (because it is unfalsifiable, disqualifying ID from being science), you hold it to be true. What is it about being a creationist and using so many logical fallacies?

 

[newpolitics]

If a person can't examine something and see it is a product of design it's because they don't want to.

Intuition is not evidence for something. That fact that something looks designed is not evidence that it actually is, just like the fact that lightning sounds like the gods are bowling doesn't mean good 'ol Zeus is up there throwing strikes. Science has proven in almost every case, that human intuition is wrong when it comes to scientific realities, so, this is not even close to an argument.

If you are walking down a beach and find a watch is it rational to pick that watch up and assume over billions of years, it formed itself ?

The watchmaker analogy? Old school.


We recognize what a watch is, and know who makes it (we do). This is false inductive reasoning again. Because we know that watches are designed, doesn't mean we can conclude that anything else that isn't man-made, is designed, such as the beach, the ocean, trees, etc... That's an unsound assumption.

 

[newpolitics]

If a person can't examine something and see it is a product of design it's because they don't want to.

...Science has proven in almost every case, that human intuition is wrong when it comes to scientific realities, ...

This is the lie of evolutionists and it has no basis in the truth. It might be for a small percentage of phenomena but not as a general rule.

So, now you are going to make an argument to vindicate human intuition to try and claim that it has scientific validity?

This isn't a lie. The universe that we can't see doesn't "make sense," in either the quantum realm, or the very large, astronomical realm. The Theory of relativity is a perfect example of this, with which you are so fond of. Our intuition was wrong about literally everything about everything until science came along, and this isn't an "evolutionist claim." This is simply true. We attributed supernatural causation for every phenomena we witnessed until only 500 years ago. Now, because of science, we can attribute nothing to supernatural causation. In fact, metaphysical naturalism, for me, is using inductive reasoning to say that because we see naturalism in every facet of the universe for the last 13.7 Billion years, without ANY supernatural causes, it is likely naturalism can explain everything in the universe. I don't know this, for a fact, but given the amount of events since the beginning that have happened naturally, this seems highly probable. I would never state this as a fact, though, simply because it is an inductively reached conclusion.

On the other hand, all you have is ONE other instance of a code, aside from DNA. Not hundreds or thousdands, from which to make an argument that it is likely that DNA also came from a desinger. Inductive reasoning can only give you probabilities. It doesn't allow you to say that "DNA must also have a designer." Only deduction would allow that. You don't have induction, so you don't have science.

I know you are going to screw this up, btw. You will probably try to attack me for having "admitted" that metaphysical naturalism can only be concluded probabilistically, as if this were a weakness that is at all relevant to this discussion. It isn't.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Even if we have 100 examples, or even 1,000 examples of other functional, specifiable digital codes that were created by intelligence, we still wouldn't be able to conclude that DNA must also therefore be created by an intelligence. We have only two examples, as you claim, of such type of information: DNA and digital computer code. We know that one of these codes is produced by intelligence, because we have evidence: we created the code. (This is where the availability heuristic comes into play for IDers like Meyer) The fact that we know where one of these codes comes from, does not give us the freedom to say the other one also comes from an intelligence. You must make a logical leap to reach this conclusion, and this is a fallacy. Your inductive reasoning can never get you to the conclusion that DNA was created intelligently created because another code with similar attributes was. I realize this may seem intuitive to you, but as I have mentioned, intuition has nothing to do with science, and can not be counted as evidence, because it is completely subjective. As I mentioned before, you already possess the conclusion that an intelligent being exists, so you seem to think this inductive reasoning is valid, when it isn't. This is your bias.

Wrong!!! You still deny (or miss) the point that intelligence is the ONLY KNOWN SOURCE for complex, specifiable DIGITAL code or as Lyell put it, "causes presently in operation"!!! Meyers argument, just like the pseudoscience of evolution, has to be an inductive argument because it refers to an event that happened in the distant past. So no one is arguing that it is 100% absolute, like the foolish darwinists try to do, but unless new evidence comes to light, it is currently the best explanation for the source of digital code in dna.

As I have shown, your first point is completely unimportant. You continually disregard this. I don't care what Lyell said. I barely know who he is, aside from him being Darwin's mentor, and it is not terribly important. You are making an appeal to authority and quote mining Lyell.

You obviously still don't understand what an inductive argument is, or inductive reasoning. The fact that something happened in the past doesn't mean you must only employ induction to make conclusions about it. In fact, the past has nothing to do with inductive reasoning. You can deductively ascertain conclusions about the past just as easily as you can about the present, or even the future. When forensics experts figure out who a killer was by using the evidence, they are not using inductive, but deductive reasoning. This obvious and common example falsifies your point that the past=induction. Evolution DOES NOT USE INDUCTION TO REACH ITS CONCLUSIONS, as ID does. This is the vital difference. You keep on maintaining this erroneously. Evolution has actual evidence, which shows this model or theory to be correct, and which has PREDICTIVE CAPABILITY, and these predictions have been shown again and again, to be true. Example: Ring Species. Time is irrelevant to as whether induction versus deduction is used, so try and get that out of your head.

As for your last point, ID is not the best explanation at all for the source of digital code. Here you commit another argument from ignorance. We don't know how DNA was created, so you make an assertion, and because it hasnt been proven false (because it is unfalsifiable, disqualifying ID from being science), you hold it to be true. What is it about being a creationist and using so many logical fallacies?

Look it is this simple, there is no evidence of any kind of communication system that was designed abent of an intelligent agent.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Intuition is not evidence for something. That fact that something looks designed is not evidence that it actually is, just like the fact that lightning sounds like the gods are bowling doesn't mean good 'ol Zeus is up there throwing strikes. Science has proven in almost every case, that human intuition is wrong when it comes to scientific realities, so, this is not even close to an argument.

If you are walking down a beach and find a watch is it rational to pick that watch up and assume over billions of years, it formed itself ?

The watchmaker analogy? Old school.


We recognize what a watch is, and know who makes it (we do). This is false inductive reasoning again. Because we know that watches are designed, doesn't mean we can conclude that anything else that isn't man-made, is designed, such as the beach, the ocean, trees, etc... That's an unsound assumption.

It still holds true according to the evidence.

 

[Youwerecreated]

...Science has proven in almost every case, that human intuition is wrong when it comes to scientific realities, ...

This is the lie of evolutionists and it has no basis in the truth. It might be for a small percentage of phenomena but not as a general rule.

So, now you are going to make an argument to vindicate human intuition to try and claim that it has scientific validity?

This isn't a lie. The universe that we can't see doesn't "make sense," in either the quantum realm, or the very large, astronomical realm. The Theory of relativity is a perfect example of this, with which you are so fond of. Our intuition was wrong about literally everything about everything until science came along, and this isn't an "evolutionist claim." This is simply true. We attributed supernatural causation for every phenomena we witnessed until only 500 years ago. Now, because of science, we can attribute nothing to supernatural causation. In fact, metaphysical naturalism, for me, is using inductive reasoning to say that because we see naturalism in every facet of the universe for the last 13.7 Billion years, without ANY supernatural causes, it is likely naturalism can explain everything in the universe. I don't know this, for a fact, but given the amount of events since the beginning that have happened naturally, this seems highly probable. I would never state this as a fact, though, simply because it is an inductively reached conclusion.

On the other hand, all you have is ONE other instance of a code, aside from DNA. Not hundreds or thousdands, from which to make an argument that it is likely that DNA also came from a desinger. Inductive reasoning can only give you probabilities. It doesn't allow you to say that "DNA must also have a designer." Only deduction would allow that. You don't have induction, so you don't have science.

I know you are going to screw this up, btw. You will probably try to attack me for having "admitted" that metaphysical naturalism can only be concluded probabilistically, as if this were a weakness that is at all relevant to this discussion. It isn't.

Anykind of language or communication is the result of an intelligent agent unless you can show otherwise this argument is dead.

 

[ima]

Please show me some actual proof of your creator. Not things that you think it created. The actual dude or dudess.

 

[newpolitics]

If you are walking down a beach and find a watch is it rational to pick that watch up and assume over billions of years, it formed itself ?

The watchmaker analogy? Old school.


We recognize what a watch is, and know who makes it (we do). This is false inductive reasoning again. Because we know that watches are designed, doesn't mean we can conclude that anything else that isn't man-made, is designed, such as the beach, the ocean, trees, etc... That's an unsound assumption.

It still holds true according to the evidence.

You just ignore what you can't address. I just refuted the watchmaker analogy. It has nothing to do with evidence, but faulty reasoning and faulty conclusions. In other words, bad interpretations of the evidence.

 

[newpolitics]

This is the lie of evolutionists and it has no basis in the truth. It might be for a small percentage of phenomena but not as a general rule.

So, now you are going to make an argument to vindicate human intuition to try and claim that it has scientific validity?

This isn't a lie. The universe that we can't see doesn't "make sense," in either the quantum realm, or the very large, astronomical realm. The Theory of relativity is a perfect example of this, with which you are so fond of. Our intuition was wrong about literally everything about everything until science came along, and this isn't an "evolutionist claim." This is simply true. We attributed supernatural causation for every phenomena we witnessed until only 500 years ago. Now, because of science, we can attribute nothing to supernatural causation. In fact, metaphysical naturalism, for me, is using inductive reasoning to say that because we see naturalism in every facet of the universe for the last 13.7 Billion years, without ANY supernatural causes, it is likely naturalism can explain everything in the universe. I don't know this, for a fact, but given the amount of events since the beginning that have happened naturally, this seems highly probable. I would never state this as a fact, though, simply because it is an inductively reached conclusion.

On the other hand, all you have is ONE other instance of a code, aside from DNA. Not hundreds or thousdands, from which to make an argument that it is likely that DNA also came from a desinger. Inductive reasoning can only give you probabilities. It doesn't allow you to say that "DNA must also have a designer." Only deduction would allow that. You don't have induction, so you don't have science.

I know you are going to screw this up, btw. You will probably try to attack me for having "admitted" that metaphysical naturalism can only be concluded probabilistically, as if this were a weakness that is at all relevant to this discussion. It isn't.

Anykind of language or communication is the result of an intelligent agent unless you can show otherwise this argument is dead.

Now you are trying to switch the burden of proof to those not making the claim. You do this because you can not prove your own, unfalsifiable claim, because your agument relies on inductive reasoning, which is invalid in science when making definitive conclusions. You have one... ONE example of a code made by an intelligence (and that intelligence is US), and you think this allows you to generalize to all other codes???? That's just lazy, and strangely narcissistic.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Please show me some actual proof of your creator. Not things that you think it created. The actual dude or dudess.

Complexity is evidence of a designer. Foreknowledge from the bible is also evidence of this designer.

 

[ima]

Please show me some actual proof of your creator. Not things that you think it created. The actual dude or dudess.

Anyone? Anything?

 

[Youwerecreated]

The watchmaker analogy? Old school.


We recognize what a watch is, and know who makes it (we do). This is false inductive reasoning again. Because we know that watches are designed, doesn't mean we can conclude that anything else that isn't man-made, is designed, such as the beach, the ocean, trees, etc... That's an unsound assumption.

It still holds true according to the evidence.

You just ignore what you can't address. I just refuted the watchmaker analogy. It has nothing to do with evidence, but faulty reasoning and faulty conclusions. In other words, bad interpretations of the evidence.

The one using faulty reasoning is your side because you are doing exactly as the blind watch maker analogy suggests. You are saying chaos produced a lesser form of life then that lesser form of life produced even more complex life.

 

[Youwerecreated]

So, now you are going to make an argument to vindicate human intuition to try and claim that it has scientific validity?

This isn't a lie. The universe that we can't see doesn't "make sense," in either the quantum realm, or the very large, astronomical realm. The Theory of relativity is a perfect example of this, with which you are so fond of. Our intuition was wrong about literally everything about everything until science came along, and this isn't an "evolutionist claim." This is simply true. We attributed supernatural causation for every phenomena we witnessed until only 500 years ago. Now, because of science, we can attribute nothing to supernatural causation. In fact, metaphysical naturalism, for me, is using inductive reasoning to say that because we see naturalism in every facet of the universe for the last 13.7 Billion years, without ANY supernatural causes, it is likely naturalism can explain everything in the universe. I don't know this, for a fact, but given the amount of events since the beginning that have happened naturally, this seems highly probable. I would never state this as a fact, though, simply because it is an inductively reached conclusion.

On the other hand, all you have is ONE other instance of a code, aside from DNA. Not hundreds or thousdands, from which to make an argument that it is likely that DNA also came from a desinger. Inductive reasoning can only give you probabilities. It doesn't allow you to say that "DNA must also have a designer." Only deduction would allow that. You don't have induction, so you don't have science.

I know you are going to screw this up, btw. You will probably try to attack me for having "admitted" that metaphysical naturalism can only be concluded probabilistically, as if this were a weakness that is at all relevant to this discussion. It isn't.

Anykind of language or communication is the result of an intelligent agent unless you can show otherwise this argument is dead.

Now you are trying to switch the burden of proof to those not making the claim. You do this because you can not prove your own, unfalsifiable claim, because your agument relies on inductive reasoning, which is invalid in science when making definitive conclusions. You have one... ONE example of a code made by an intelligence (and that intelligence is US), and you think this allows you to generalize to all other codes???? That's just lazy, and strangely narcissistic.

Really, I just gave you the chance to show us wrong and the argument continues but you are dead in the water if you can't show otherwise. Your argument is based on a vivid imagination if you can't show otherwise. This is not even an argument at this point.

 

[Hollie]

Wrong!!! You still deny (or miss) the point that intelligence is the ONLY KNOWN SOURCE for complex, specifiable DIGITAL code or as Lyell put it, "causes presently in operation"!!! Meyers argument, just like the pseudoscience of evolution, has to be an inductive argument because it refers to an event that happened in the distant past. So no one is arguing that it is 100% absolute, like the foolish darwinists try to do, but unless new evidence comes to light, it is currently the best explanation for the source of digital code in dna.

As I have shown, your first point is completely unimportant. You continually disregard this. I don't care what Lyell said. I barely know who he is, aside from him being Darwin's mentor, and it is not terribly important. You are making an appeal to authority and quote mining Lyell.

You obviously still don't understand what an inductive argument is, or inductive reasoning. The fact that something happened in the past doesn't mean you must only employ induction to make conclusions about it. In fact, the past has nothing to do with inductive reasoning. You can deductively ascertain conclusions about the past just as easily as you can about the present, or even the future. When forensics experts figure out who a killer was by using the evidence, they are not using inductive, but deductive reasoning. This obvious and common example falsifies your point that the past=induction. Evolution DOES NOT USE INDUCTION TO REACH ITS CONCLUSIONS, as ID does. This is the vital difference. You keep on maintaining this erroneously. Evolution has actual evidence, which shows this model or theory to be correct, and which has PREDICTIVE CAPABILITY, and these predictions have been shown again and again, to be true. Example: Ring Species. Time is irrelevant to as whether induction versus deduction is used, so try and get that out of your head.

As for your last point, ID is not the best explanation at all for the source of digital code. Here you commit another argument from ignorance. We don't know how DNA was created, so you make an assertion, and because it hasnt been proven false (because it is unfalsifiable, disqualifying ID from being science), you hold it to be true. What is it about being a creationist and using so many logical fallacies?

Look it is this simple, there is no evidence of any kind of communication system that was designed abent of an intelligent agent.

Your statement is malforned as is so much of Christian creationist chatter. Communication can take many forms. Your insistence (unfounded and completely unsupported) is that your alleged gawds are somehow involved, yet you offer nothing more than the expected "because I say so".

 

[Youwerecreated]

Please show me some actual proof of your creator. Not things that you think it created. The actual dude or dudess.

Anyone? Anything?

If you have not been showed evidence then explain how complexity arised from chaos with evidence please ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

As I have shown, your first point is completely unimportant. You continually disregard this. I don't care what Lyell said. I barely know who he is, aside from him being Darwin's mentor, and it is not terribly important. You are making an appeal to authority and quote mining Lyell.

You obviously still don't understand what an inductive argument is, or inductive reasoning. The fact that something happened in the past doesn't mean you must only employ induction to make conclusions about it. In fact, the past has nothing to do with inductive reasoning. You can deductively ascertain conclusions about the past just as easily as you can about the present, or even the future. When forensics experts figure out who a killer was by using the evidence, they are not using inductive, but deductive reasoning. This obvious and common example falsifies your point that the past=induction. Evolution DOES NOT USE INDUCTION TO REACH ITS CONCLUSIONS, as ID does. This is the vital difference. You keep on maintaining this erroneously. Evolution has actual evidence, which shows this model or theory to be correct, and which has PREDICTIVE CAPABILITY, and these predictions have been shown again and again, to be true. Example: Ring Species. Time is irrelevant to as whether induction versus deduction is used, so try and get that out of your head.

As for your last point, ID is not the best explanation at all for the source of digital code. Here you commit another argument from ignorance. We don't know how DNA was created, so you make an assertion, and because it hasnt been proven false (because it is unfalsifiable, disqualifying ID from being science), you hold it to be true. What is it about being a creationist and using so many logical fallacies?

Look it is this simple, there is no evidence of any kind of communication system that was designed abent of an intelligent agent.

Your statement is malforned as is so much of Christian creationist chatter. Communication can take many forms. Your insistence (unfounded and completely unsupported) is that your alleged gawds are somehow involved, yet you offer nothing more than the expected "because I say so".

Sorry dear,it is a legitimate challenge.

 

[ima]

Please show me some actual proof of your creator. Not things that you think it created. The actual dude or dudess.

Anyone? Anything?

If you have not been showed evidence then explain how complexity arised from chaos with evidence please ?

That's not what I asked. I asked for proof of your guy, not some philosophical bs. So what if I can't show you that? It still doesn't prove anything that I can't explain your irrelevant question, because you have nothing to prove your guy anyways.