Creation can be tested, observed and measured?

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

anchorman
Student
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 1:46 pm
Location: Grand Rapids, Michigan

Creation can be tested, observed and measured?

Post #1

Post by anchorman »

Creation shows more ability to be tested, observed and measured than any macro-evolution combined with abiogenesis theory presently has demonstrated.

Forgive me for sounding simplistic but sometimes commonsense can make a powerful point.

Creationism is observed everytime a car rolls off an assembly line, any time a drug is manufactured any time a new life is brought into existence anytime a bridge is constructed. My point is that these are things of complexity that where created by an intelligence. Life forms are created after "their own kind" .

We have several engineering and operational management techniques in place to test and measure our creations based on design principles. and often they are predicted with enough precision that you trust your family to drive over the bridge that was designed/created.

The point is that generally speaking ,complexity is a sign of intelligence, and life forms are more complex than anything man has ever created.

Evolution is necessary for explaining the natural variety withing species. However it falls apart when used as a tool for explaining "molecules to Man". Evolution simply cannot explain how evolutionary mechanisms have created massive amounts of genetic information that we see in even our simplist live forms.

Evolution triumphs when showing how diversity is present within species.

I remember a line from a movie starring jody Foster called "Contact". When a signal from outer space was observed and analyised it was noticed that after a signal had beeped about 4 prime numbers in a row had been found and that was enough information for Foster to say" there is no way this is a natural phenomenon" We now see genetic information that is enough to blow our mind within the simplest life forms and somehow we feel that they must be a natural phenomenon. Im not buying it.

Complexity is and always has been a sign of intelligence.

jwu
Apprentice
Posts: 231
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2004 6:33 pm

Post #2

Post by jwu »

The point is that generally speaking ,complexity is a sign of intelligence, and life forms are more complex than anything man has ever created.

Evolution is necessary for explaining the natural variety withing species. However it falls apart when used as a tool for explaining "molecules to Man". Evolution simply cannot explain how evolutionary mechanisms have created massive amounts of genetic information that we see in even our simplist live forms.
You're repeating what you have said in your other thread.

Define "information". Define "complexity". What methods can be used to measure them?
Complexity is and always has been a sign of intelligence.
Please provide a proof. How complex does something have to be in order to cannot have occured by chance according to your assumptions?

jwu

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20499
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 335 times
Contact:

Post #3

Post by otseng »

jwu wrote:You're repeating what you have said in your other thread.

Since the posts were identical, I have deleted the other post. Please note that the rules prohibit duplicate posts.

10. Spamming (duplicate posts, advertisements, etc) is not allowed.

Also, I'd recommend explicitly putting the debate question in the first post, instead of just in the thread title. Thanks.

User avatar
Lotan
Guru
Posts: 2006
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 1:38 pm
Location: The Abyss

Post #4

Post by Lotan »

Is this the product of intelligence?

Image

User avatar
ST88
Site Supporter
Posts: 1785
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2004 11:38 pm
Location: San Diego

Post #5

Post by ST88 »

Lotan wrote:Is this the product of intelligence?
[pic of snowflake]
Why couldn't this be the product of intelligence? The pattern is radial, the structures are well-defined, and the exactness of the crystalline form implies the use of some tool. I could make this shape with a large enough sheet of paper and some scissors.

Is there an implication that the number of possible snowflake designs would be impossible for someone to create? I submit that a deity with infinite meticulousness could so such a thing.

The Hungry Atheist
Apprentice
Posts: 124
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2004 6:12 pm
Contact:

Post #6

Post by The Hungry Atheist »

I think Lotan's point was that snowflakes are generally considered to be naturally-occuring events. I'm sure an omnipotent creator could make all the pretty flakes he wanted, but they seem to be able to form this way on their own, the symmetry and pattern fitting together merely as a result of the natural laws of the world.

User avatar
ST88
Site Supporter
Posts: 1785
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2004 11:38 pm
Location: San Diego

Post #7

Post by ST88 »

As is true the complexity of the world could have been done either through natural means or through intelligent means. I don't think arguing that a snowflake could not be the product of design is the same as arguing that the world cannot be the product of design. Sure, we know that natural processes create the snowflake, but how were those natural laws set up? Such knowledge doesn't preclude the existence of a creator.

It's the same as pointing out that H20 molecules aggregate because of weak hydrogen bonds, so a rain drop in the air hangs in an aggregate quasi-spherical mass instead of a fine mist. We have the rules to tell us why this is so. But why are the rules set up this way?

User avatar
Corvus
Guru
Posts: 1140
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 10:59 pm
Location: Australia

Post #8

Post by Corvus »

Complexity is and always has been a sign of intelligence

I say that the complexity of life is not proof for, but proof against the existence of an intelligent designer. Allow me to explain:

A writer sets out to explain himself. In most cases, rather than pad out a novel with superfluous scenes and material, he will write an outline so that every word written is a necessary component of the story. There are writers who are minimalists, like Maupassant, who never embellish their prose at all, yet are capable of the most moving masterpieces of literature. "Ornament construction, do not construct ornament," the Victorian architects would say, and "What you leave out is more important than what you leave in," said someone famous enough to have slipped my mind, which is untrue, but does make a point. A writer friend of mine, although a novel-writer, believes that poetry is the highest form of literature as art, followed by the short story and then by the novel. Why? Because the poem can express in a few stanzas what it takes a novel 200 pages to reach. Grace and simplicity of form are the best indications of the intelligence of a designer who has a purpose. Unnecessary complexity points to a God who is a Parnassian, creating for the sake of creating, or it points to no God at all, because it points to no purpose at all.

What I am saying, in brief, is that it is not complexity addressing a need, as a bridge or car does, but merely a complication.

If the world was created by an intelligent being, and assuming it is all a part of some plan, I see around me evidence of ridiculous tangents and flights of fancy from the designer, not to mention numerous superfluities in design and pointless creations.

Unnecessary creation or creation that at first glance does not appear to be a part of any plan:
  • The thousands of different species of birds, frogs, snakes, lizards, etc, etc... I tried to google a rough number of each, but could not find anything except Tobago alone has 400 different species of birds. This seems like a terrible redundancy.
  • Birds that have feathers and wings yet cannot fly.
  • Creatures that have eyes and yet are blind.
  • The existence of creatures in the depths of the sea that have absolutely no effect on our existence and will never come into contact with us in our lifetimes. (What is the point of that new species of giant squid recently discovered? Why is that a part of God's plan?)
  • The existence of icy wastes and deserts, which cannot support much life, and some of which cannot support human life at all, making them useless.
  • The inefficiencies of the human body, eg, a small toe that has little use, when we could have just as easily possessed hooves. The constant need of expelling waste products from our bodies. The fact that we need to grow for 18 years before we are fully developed. Education is often considered a right, but for each child born, we must teach them anew, despite the fact that our understanding of the world continually improves.
And more. I am certain that we all could give examples of things in life that seem to have no purpose to humans or Gods other than existing.

I will also quote ST88 in a separate topic on the abundance of genetic material in lower life forms.
ST88 wrote:
anchorman wrote:I have been doing some research and I am unable to find an example where genetic information has been added to a life form due to the mechanisms that evolutionists use to explain how single cell organisms eventually evolved to higher more complex organisms such as man.
Firstly, don't confuse "more genetic material" with how evolution or natural selection works. The addition of genetic material does not imply a gradual arrow of time as organisms get larger. Humans, for example have less genetic material than most amphibians -- 3.3 billion vs. 10-100 billion DNA base pairs. The whisk fern, Psilotum Nudum, has 250 billion base pairs.

There is something called the C value paradox. The C value is the ratio of gamete genetic material (DNA base pairs) to the complexity of the organism (the number of expressed genes). This value is not constant over the animal and plant kingdoms -- that is, the amount of genetic material is not strictly related to the number of expressed genes in an organism. Humans have around 25,000-30,000 genes among the 3.3 billion base pairs, but the rice plant has around 60,000 genes among its 480 million base pairs.
Here is an interesting table of base pairs vs. number of genes in various organisms.

One explanation for this is possible malfunctions in meiosis. Non-disjunction is when gametes contain more than one copy of an entire chromosome, i.e., genetic material in the zygote is increased by 50%. Sometimes these malfunctions are harmful to the organism and sometimes they aren't (in humans, this is almost always harmful, but in certain varieties of corn, this is not). If this mutation is not harmful, it could be passed down from there, causing the increase in genetic material.
If there is such greater complexity in a lower life form than in a human, this leads me to believe that a system has been developed that is rather makeshift or inefficient.

The corporeal world is full of what I feel to be complications, not planned complexities, while what I imagine the spiritual world to be is filled with the purity of simplicity.
<i>'Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.'</i>
-John Keats, Ode on a Grecian Urn.

User avatar
ST88
Site Supporter
Posts: 1785
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2004 11:38 pm
Location: San Diego

Post #9

Post by ST88 »

Corvus wrote:
Complexity is and always has been a sign of intelligence
I say that the complexity of life is not proof for, but proof against the existence of an intelligent designer. Allow me to explain:

A writer sets out to explain himself. In most cases, rather than pad out a novel with superfluous scenes and material, he will write an outline so that every word written is a necessary component of the story. There are writers who are minimalists, like Maupassant, who never embellish their prose at all, yet are capable of the most moving masterpieces of literature. "Ornament construction, do not construct ornament," the Victorian architects would say, and "What you leave out is more important than what you leave in," said someone famous enough to have slipped my mind, which is untrue, but does make a point. A writer friend of mine, although a novel-writer, believes that poetry is the highest form of literature as art, followed by the short story and then by the novel. Why? Because the poem can express in a few stanzas what it takes a novel 200 pages to reach. Grace and simplicity of form are the best indications of the intelligence of a designer who has a purpose. Unnecessary complexity points to a God who is a Parnassian, creating for the sake of creating, or it points to no God at all, because it points to no purpose at all.
Are you suggesting that unless there is a specific purpose that you are able to perceive, that there is no purpose? That unless God is a poet, the story falls apart? Surely God does not adhere to the minimalism of modernist poetry or to Googie architecture (after all, when God was messing about, poetry was epic). That we have writing that ranges from transaction receipts to outrageously turgid novels suggests that there are other types of forms in this world that do not necessarily conform to our ideas of utility for utility's sake.

I'm all for form following function, but there is no reason to assume that God didn't ornament this world with "touches" here and there just to be pleasing to His eye or even man's eye. For what purpose? Who knows? Maybe the beauty of the Jesus Christ lizard would be enough for man to wonder at the wonder of God. Imagine seventeen thousand butterfly species -- and according to young-earthers like otseng, God didn't even create them all to begin with, there may have been only 2,000 that served as the prototypes for our current set of species to devolve from. There need not be any other reason but beauty.
Corvus wrote:[*]The existence of creatures in the depths of the sea that have absolutely no effect on our existence and will never come into contact with us in our lifetimes. (What is the point of that new species of giant squid recently discovered? Why is that a part of God's plan?)

[*]The existence of icy wastes and deserts, which cannot support much life, and some of which cannot support human life at all, making them useless.
It is really your position that if there is no utility, there is no reason? I do not think God is a minimalist. Far from it. Assume for the moment that God created all nine planets (or 8 or 10 or 11, depending on what a "planet" is). What reason would He have for doing so? Why create other planets at all? It only confuses us into thinking that these moving objects have psychological effects here on Earth. In fact, the very variety of life you are talking about only serves to confuse us. If a deity did exist that created all these things, would you think that He did so just to create confusion in us? Or would you think that He had a different purpose, that perhaps we were to categorize and document the differences, or that we were to merely marvel at the extreme possibilities of how a small set of life chemicals can make so many different things?
Corvus wrote:[*]The inefficiencies of the human body, eg, a small toe that has little use, when we could have just as easily possessed hooves. The constant need of expelling waste products from our bodies. The fact that we need to grow for 18 years before we are fully developed. Education is often considered a right, but for each child born, we must teach them anew, despite the fact that our understanding of the world continually improves.
Again, these may seem inefficient to the untrained eye, but I don't believe they are. Why are there waste products? Disgusting as it may sound, there is a whole world of life that depends on waste products in order to survive. What you are essentially asking by bringing this up is why didn't God just put vitamin pills on trees, why bother with all of the undigestible material? Well, think of it this way, even if we ingested exactly what we needed for life, there would always be something that the ingested material would displace (assuming we were fully grown at the time), and this displaced material needs to go somewhere. Otherwise we would continue to grow to gigantic proportions. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but the Plan says otherwise. We must stop growing at some point.

Education and history are always a problem & growing all the time (! - sorry). But not only do we teach when we teach, by trying to explain something to someone else, we ourselves learn it by necessity. Because we are destined to live in a world that has a history, we need to make sense of things that happened in the past. It makes perfect sense that in order to teach it to our little ones we must first learn it ourselves; and sometimes in the teaching comes our greatest revelations.

(snip... graciously utilized quote from me)
Corvus wrote:If there is such greater complexity in a lower life form than in a human, this leads me to believe that a system has been developed that is rather makeshift or inefficient.

The corporeal world is full of what I feel to be complications, not planned complexities, while what I imagine the spiritual world to be is filled with the purity of simplicity.
I also imagine that a spiritual world would be full of simplicity. But if this is so, why would we expect that the earthly world is full of the same kind of simplicity? Shouldn't we expect a certain amount, even the majority, of earthly material to be decidedly un-spiritual in this and other ways?

Sorry for so many question marks, I'm feeling a little questionable today. :confused2:

User avatar
Corvus
Guru
Posts: 1140
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 10:59 pm
Location: Australia

Post #10

Post by Corvus »

ST88 wrote:
Corvus wrote:
Complexity is and always has been a sign of intelligence
I say that the complexity of life is not proof for, but proof against the existence of an intelligent designer. Allow me to explain:

A writer sets out to explain himself. In most cases, rather than pad out a novel with superfluous scenes and material, he will write an outline so that every word written is a necessary component of the story. There are writers who are minimalists, like Maupassant, who never embellish their prose at all, yet are capable of the most moving masterpieces of literature. "Ornament construction, do not construct ornament," the Victorian architects would say, and "What you leave out is more important than what you leave in," said someone famous enough to have slipped my mind, which is untrue, but does make a point. A writer friend of mine, although a novel-writer, believes that poetry is the highest form of literature as art, followed by the short story and then by the novel. Why? Because the poem can express in a few stanzas what it takes a novel 200 pages to reach. Grace and simplicity of form are the best indications of the intelligence of a designer who has a purpose. Unnecessary complexity points to a God who is a Parnassian, creating for the sake of creating, or it points to no God at all, because it points to no purpose at all.
Are you suggesting that unless there is a specific purpose that you are able to perceive, that there is no purpose? That unless God is a poet, the story falls apart? Surely God does not adhere to the minimalism of modernist poetry or to Googie architecture (after all, when God was messing about, poetry was epic). That we have writing that ranges from transaction receipts to outrageously turgid novels suggests that there are other types of forms in this world that do not necessarily conform to our ideas of utility for utility's sake.
True, but a digression in a given work are surely not an example of perfection of form.
I'm all for form following function, but there is no reason to assume that God didn't ornament this world with "touches" here and there just to be pleasing to His eye or even man's eye. For what purpose? Who knows? Maybe the beauty of the Jesus Christ lizard would be enough for man to wonder at the wonder of God. Imagine seventeen thousand butterfly species -- and according to young-earthers like otseng, God didn't even create them all to begin with, there may have been only 2,000 that served as the prototypes for our current set of species to devolve from. There need not be any other reason but beauty.
But beauty is not a reason. Do you really believe beauty to be an objective quality, as Christians believe right and wrong to be? This raises an interesting question. God would be the ultimate art critic, and it would be curious to see where he stands and which artist he prefers. I hope he likes Rene Magritte as much as I do. But continuing with the discussion, I will quote Mr. Wilde in saying, "all art is quite useless". God is perfect, and God has a plan. I am certain he does not create useless things simply for the sake of having useless things to "enjoy", or create other things because he needs to rely on them for his own pleasure. I am certain he does not create pretty things for man either, since beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as they say - unless you believe in a metaphysical concept of aesthetics, of course (which I'd love to discuss with you, if you'd like, somwhere else, because it's a fascinating topic).

As for the butterflies; since the species may have evolved even with the presence of a creator, such speciation happens by his will, so it by no means lessens the perceived redundancy of their many species. Why do the butterflies evolve? To adapt. Why do they need to adapt? Because the world changes or their environment changes. Why does the world or environment change? ...
Corvus wrote:[*]The existence of creatures in the depths of the sea that have absolutely no effect on our existence and will never come into contact with us in our lifetimes. (What is the point of that new species of giant squid recently discovered? Why is that a part of God's plan?)

[*]The existence of icy wastes and deserts, which cannot support much life, and some of which cannot support human life at all, making them useless.
It is really your position that if there is no utility, there is no reason? I do not think God is a minimalist. Far from it. Assume for the moment that God created all nine planets (or 8 or 10 or 11, depending on what a "planet" is). What reason would He have for doing so? Why create other planets at all? It only confuses us into thinking that these moving objects have psychological effects here on Earth. In fact, the very variety of life you are talking about only serves to confuse us. If a deity did exist that created all these things, would you think that He did so just to create confusion in us? Or would you think that He had a different purpose, that perhaps we were to categorize and document the differences, or that we were to merely marvel at the extreme possibilities of how a small set of life chemicals can make so many different things?
I am not entirely sure that God wants us to be obsessive compulsive, or pedantic scholars of his creation - a study normally undertaken only by a very small minority of the human race - and he is quite capable of inspiring marvel through other means than by altering the environment. Insead of creating something vast and remote to facilitate a psychological effect, he could simply change the psychology and leave an empty sky.

Further redundancy is provided by the many objects in the sky we can't see, or are only just beginning to see, or the ones that exist that we will probably never see.

I am certain there are places in the world that are completely uninhabitable, with nary a thing to discover there.

Corvus wrote:[*]The inefficiencies of the human body, eg, a small toe that has little use, when we could have just as easily possessed hooves. The constant need of expelling waste products from our bodies. The fact that we need to grow for 18 years before we are fully developed. Education is often considered a right, but for each child born, we must teach them anew, despite the fact that our understanding of the world continually improves.
Again, these may seem inefficient to the untrained eye, but I don't believe they are. Why are there waste products? Disgusting as it may sound, there is a whole world of life that depends on waste products in order to survive. What you are essentially asking by bringing this up is why didn't God just put vitamin pills on trees, why bother with all of the undigestible material?
I think you miss the point. Why do we need 12 different essential vitamins in the first place? Why could we not just have one? Do you really believe that no redundancies whatsoever exist in the world, and that it is essentially perfect?
The corporeal world is full of what I feel to be complications, not planned complexities, while what I imagine the spiritual world to be is filled with the purity of simplicity.
I also imagine that a spiritual world would be full of simplicity. But if this is so, why would we expect that the earthly world is full of the same kind of simplicity? Shouldn't we expect a certain amount, even the majority, of earthly material to be decidedly un-spiritual in this and other ways?
Yes, I do expect to see some complexity in a material world in the interests of ... whatever tests or changes are supposed to be imposed on our souls through the ordeal. But I see no evidence of an intelligently planned efficiency, and no reason for such an overly mechanistic or mechanical functionality of the universe, especially when the bible shows that in numerous times throughout history its laws have been broken or bent. Jesus, through supernatural means, was able to transubstantiate water into wine. I, limited to entirely natural means, am only able to transubstantiate water into.... well, you know, I think we're rather at a disadvantage.
Sorry for so many question marks, I'm feeling a little questionable today. :confused2:
I do object to questions marks, but I thought you would be agreeing with me! And after so graciously using a quote from you! You must admit my ideas are, at least, singular.

Tell me, do you think we need a new topic to discuss this?
<i>'Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.'</i>
-John Keats, Ode on a Grecian Urn.

Post Reply