Is the existence of a Creator just more sensical?

Great Debates
281

Here are several. Knock yourself. In particular, I would suggest taking a look at the section on endogenous retroviral genes. None of the evidences on the page presented require a prior assumption that evolution is true, all necessitate an inference of common ancestry.

And to clarify what I was telling you before, I was saying the fact that living species evolve does not [necessarily prove that all observable species had a common ancestor. It happens to be the case on earth, but it’s still hypothetically possible for multiple evolutionary lines to arise from different ancestors.

282

He was trying to argue that the inference of universal common descent is predicated on the observation that evolution exists (i.e. that species adapt and speciate). I was trying to explain that the existence of evolution alone does not necessarily have to mean that all species came from a common ancestor, and that we infer common descent by other means.

283

That’s not the way science works. Science works by starting with a hypothesis, deriving a test for it, and then determining if the data falsifies or supports the hypothesis. In the case of evolution, they hypothesis is that if we are closely related to chimps, more closely than we are to gorillas, we should share more genetic material with chimps than we do with gorillas - and we do. Dio’s link gives specific examples.

284

I’m guessing bullshit. :smiley:

285

Science can easily detect the intelligent creator of some things - for instance the tools used by prehistoric man.

You said upthread that microprocessors can’t be explained by purely physical means. I do microprocessor design for a living, and I assure you there is nothing spiritual about it. Humans are physical, and what we create is physical also.

Now, for atoms. Your assertion about the complexity of atoms seems to ignore that some atoms are more complex than others. If there was evidence of many lead, iron, or uranium atoms in the early universe, then you’d have a point. But the theory of the Big Bang predicts an initial distribution of atoms that is predominantly hydrogen and some helium. That is what was discovered, which was one of the initial predictions that held true. Why would a creator create mostly hydrogen atoms? I trust you are aware that we know exactly how bigger, more complex, atoms are formed inside stars and expelled by novas and supernovas, right?

So, a non-creator hypothesis predicts a distribution that is found, while a creator hypothesis doesn’t really predict anything - or should predict a distribution like we see in the present universe. Making predictions is how you should do it, not making claims of personal incredulity.

286

That statement alone is enough to let most people understand the depth of your ignorance about science. Scientists do not “infer” that chimps and humans evolved from a common ancestor. Scientists find a wealth of evidence supporting the fact that chimps and humans have a recent common ancestor. The data includes such items as the fossil record, anatomical similarities, biogeographical distribution and an abundance of DNA evidence. I would provide links to cite each one of these for you, but you don’t appear to have read anything provided so far, thus I won’t waste my time. Feel free to dispute any of these facts and I will provide cites, in stark contrast to your inability to do so for any of your assertions.

ETA: I see that you are disputing the DNA evidence of a human/chimp common ancestor, and Diogenes has provided some. Here is further evidence addressing the chromosome difference between chimps and humans. Please feel free to respond if you surprise the holy hell out of me and possess the willingness to understand it.

Please note which of these statements you haven’t asserted:

  1. You don’t see how atoms can form naturally
  2. Atoms appear to you to be designed
  3. The designer would exist outside of space and time, hence “supernatural”

As you can see, not only have you made the argument from ignorance, you are even ignorant of your having done so. So congrats on the double dose of ignorance.

So you assert, but you need to back that up by investigating the links that I and others have provided detailing how atoms are formed by natural processes

Let’s leave aside your further display of ignorance that “sensical” isn’t even a word, or that you have provided no definition of “complexity” despite repeated requests, thereby rendering your statement above devoid of all meaning. Let’s put aside the fact that you have completely ignored the entire content of my post and replied with the equivalent of the childlike retort “No I didn’t” and the above gibberish. Let’s pretend that you will actually respond this time by indicating which items in the following list are “too complex” and therefore need a designer, and which items are simple enough that no designer is required:

  1. nothing; the empty void
  2. hydrogen atoms
  3. helium atoms
  4. stars
  5. planets
  6. caves
  7. plants
  8. snowflakes
  9. crystals

So far, I can only assume that you consider EVERYTHING to be designed, with nothing formed by natural processes, based on your statements in this thread. Of course, that does have the unenviable consequence of making the entirety of science nothing more than an illusion, with your wonderful designer fucking with our collective heads. However, instead of assuming, I would like to get the ignorance straight from the horse’s mouth, so to speak.

I know that it is a naive hope bordering on tragic farce that you will address these questions and take an actual position you have to defend. But I console myself with this fantasy that you will engage in a discussion with an open mind and the possibility of learning something, and you won’t pretend that plugging your ears and closing your eyes is progress.

287

I’ve just caught this one before I head off to work:

Please show the fossil record as it demonstrates the link back to the common ancestor between chimps and monkeys.

Anatomical similarities is not evidence of evolution as much it is evidence of exactly what it is - anatomical similarities. It makes as much sense (or non-sense) to say that anatomical similarities are evidence of a common designer.

“Biogeographical distribution” sounds impressive, but please explain how this is evidence that chimps and humans share a common ancestor, without assuming as your premise that evolution is true.

“An abundance of DNA evidence”. An “abundance” of it, hey? Please share some.

288

I already posted the DNA evidence. Read the links. You keep repeatedly asking for cites even after they’ve been given.

289

Do you realize what you’re doing here? You’re saying that ocean waves are caused by Poseidon, who happens to be a physicist so he makes them behave according to physical laws. You’re saying that birds don’t actually fly, but instead run on invisible stilts that also conveniently pass through everything. You’re saying that the dinosaurs didn’t go extinct and in fact still walk among us now, but they are in the 5th dimension and undetectable by any scientific instruments.

Tell me, since humans and chimps have anatomical similarities, geographical similarities, DNA similarities, and many fossil links, can you come up with an explanation for this that does not involve biological evolution? Bonus points if you can do it without invoking immaterial entitites or invisible pink unicorns or whatever non-physical magic you can think of.

290

We “assume” that no designer is required in much the same way that we “assume” that no Santa Claus is required to understand how kids get presents for Christmas.

I was indeed beginning with the assumption that no creator/designer was necessary for raccoons to come about. First of all, they don’t seem to be screwed, nailed or glued together and there is no obvious place for the batteries. :wink:

More seriously, I feel comfortable with that assumption because there is no logical/scientific reason to even begin to plan to prepare to start to grudgingly acquire even the smallest inkling that an intelligent being designed raccoons because we know (to the extent that we can know anything) that no other mammal has ever been created an intelligent being.

Just because some people put great stock in myths about dragons, pixies, and three-headed dogs doesn’t mean that we must consider that those myths have any material validity (although myths can have artistic or social validity). Ya know, science isn’t a popularity contest.

I was deliberately cheeky about my “raccoon” comments because humans should resort to freaky magic as an explanation for raccoons only if they have exhausted all the sensible, reality-based arguments. Which can never happen, of course, because humans can never “turn over every stone” in our search for knowledge. There are an infinite number of stones–there is always that next piece of previously unknown evidence that needs to be considered before we throw up our hands and say, “Well, that’s it then! It must have been leprechauns that fashioned those raccoons! We’ve considered everything else and nothing but the Wee Ones culd possibly have assembled the little raccoons!”

291

Unrebuttableium.

The whole gambit of positing a “non-physical world without space/time/matter”, where the usual “constraint may not exist” is designed to pre-empt all attempts to rebut the thing proposed using any known facts or logic.

The OP’s premise is rebutted by the OP in a highly effective way, but the rebuttal is dismissed by the OP simply stating that the OP’s deity exists in a world where, conveniently, this rebuttal isn’t a rebuttal.

292

There is no such thing as the supernatural. There is only 1. Understood natural phenomena, 2. Non-understood natural phenomena, and 3. Delusions, illusions, and bullshit made-up to fool the gullible.

If god actually existed, she would be natural. As is stands now, however, god looks more like category #3.

293

I have become convinced that you aren’t even trying to read our responses, instead playing some weird drinking game where you toss darts at random words and take a shot for each poster that tries to make sense of it. And I have just as much evidence for it as you do for your assertions – perhaps even a bit more.

Diogenes and I both posted links to DNA evidence, but I’m not certain you know how to spell DNA at this point. Please read a tutorial on how to follow internet hyperlinks.

I’ll demonstrate the fossil record evidence first with a picture nicely illustrating the gradations between chimps and humans, which you will no doubt conveniently ignore, then provide further detailed analysis which you will never read nor address.

Of course you can say that anatomical similarities are evidence of a common designer, because EVERYTHING IS EVIDENCE OF A DESIGNER when the designer is allowed to use magic. Nothing is ruled out when you posit a supernatural cause, which is exactly why it is worthless in the pursuit of knowledge.

Biogeographical distribution sounds impressive only because you don’t understand it. I would explain it to you, but it would involve more pictures you wouldn’t look at or words you wouldn’t read, so what’s the point? As a hint, I will mention the term “Out of Africa”, though I’m quite certain to you that only represents a boring as fuck, long-ass movie.

294

I meant to post this article instead for the detailed analysis of the human fossil record. You should enjoy it, there is a nice pretty picture type thingy for you to ignore at the bottom which illustrates the timeline.

295

Ok, why don’t you go ahead and give us the simple single version of how gravity works. Don’t forget to include how it works the same at all scales, from light years to Planck length. :rolleyes:

Also, if you would, please include explanations for why the universe is expanding faster than it should and, oh say, the Pioneer anomalies.

296

But it doesn’t matter when the plan gets done; since the designer exists outside of time, then there was never any point when the framework of the universe did not exist. The designer never has the opportunity to design anything, because those designs always existed in full already. They were never nonexistent or incomplete, so it is impossible for them to have been designed.

“An ever-unchanging state of creation and design” seems to be indistinguishable from an ever-changing state of doing nothing. All the “designs” existed for exactly as long as the “designer” did. There’s no cause-and-effect relationship.

297

Ooohhh…I know. A magic fairy did it. That’s the assumption that should be made for any question yet unanswered, right?

298

The scientific method is absolutely capable of detecting an intelligent creator. The fact that it has failed to do so should give you pause.

299

I’m sorry, I didn’t realize that by “observation alone” you meant for us also to pretend that we have no pre-existing knowledge about anything. In that case, if I consider the bicycle from the perspective of person with no knowledge of man-made objects (an infant, I guess) then I have to say no, there’d be no way for me to determine that it was a designed object.

If I’m a total blank slate then the bicycle is just some…thing…with no further inference being possible. If it’s only man-made objects that I’m unfamiliar with then, being unable to say “This sure looks like other designed objects I know about!”, I’d have to ignorantly and incorrectly conclude that it was either a natural phenomenon or a supernatural one. On the supernatural front, even “the gods must have designed this!” would be too far a conclusion to leap to if I wasn’t familiar with humans toolmaking. I’d probably assume it was some kind of magical creature.

Of course, even the earliest Homo sapiens humans were familiar with tools. Heck, Homo habilis was making simple stone tools more than 2 million years ago. Our species has always known about designed objects, so it’s not much of a stretch for us to imagine that the gods design objects too. It’s an easy explanation for a lot of things. But that’s just anthropomorphizing the natural world, like saying that lighting is the spear of Zeus or that thunder is the sound of Thor’s hammer. These are nice stories, but they are not literally true. They’re myths.

Myths seem “right” because they were created for humans by humans and reflect our own interests, feelings, and values. That’s why the idea of a creator is so appealing. Humans like the idea of a divine creator because we like to create things ourselves. It has nothing to do with being “more sensical”.

300

No. But that’s a nice hand wave/subject change.

You stated quite emphatically that there was there is nothing yet discovered in the universe which is too “complex” to be explained by ordinary physical processes

I provided a nice counter example which shows you are wrong. Besides my example, there is a multitude of stuff that can’t yet be explained by science. It may very well be in the future, but it isn’t currently.

So we’ll just move along now with the understanding that your basic assertion in this debate is false.