Re: Comparing Creationism against Darwinism

On Sat, 4 Apr 2009 16:33:25 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyramidial@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<6c4aae36-b429-487e-b800-1a78fc6f9b07@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> :

On Apr 3, 4:11 pm, Augray <aug...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 15:18:19 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<4c3a1ceb-f5af-4f0e-a2f2-0d6621007...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> :

On Apr 1, 1:30 pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ray Martinez wrote:
On Apr 1, 11:08 am, reddfr...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f10e2a8bb0630a9f

"For that matter, Ray, what about your "invisible designer"?    Any
evidence to support that claim" (Dana Tweedy, evolutionist)?

Appearance of design and organized complexity seen in every species
and in nature as a whole.

It's that "nature as a whole" that bothers me.

There is organized complexity in hurricanes and tornadoes and galaxies.
  Are you claiming each one of those was specially created by God too?

The **processes/mechanisms** of how they come to be----YES. Tornados
and hurricanes and galaxies are produced by mechanisms that were
devised and implemented by Divine Mind and power.

Let's get back to nature, though.

Are the above examples unnatural?

Supernatural or more natural.

Those are two different things. Keep in mind that you don't get to
redefine words.


FACTS:

1. Adaptation corresponds perfectly to the work of Mind, not unguided
mindless process.

That's an unsupported claim.

It's Paley's explanation of adaptation. This is 101 stuff.

But still unsupported. Paley can explain all he wants, but claims need
support if they're to be taken seriously.


2. Superfecundity or differential reproduction is not a force, much
less a creator.

Who claimed that it was?

Darwinism 101.

Then I'm sure that you'll have no problem justifying it. But I'm not
holding my breath.


3. Diverse species occupy, for the most part, a place in nature for
long periods of time. This diversity and duration (two things) can
only be accomplished by Mind and not unguided mindless process.

Another unsupported claim.

Two round earth facts followed by an explanation.

There's no explanation there, just, as I said, an unsupported claim.
The assertion that diversity and duration "can only be accomplished by
Mind and not unguided mindless process" assumes that the claimant has
complete and universal knowledge of all processes. Since we both know
that your knowledge in this area is wanting, you have no basis for
making it.


Mind
knows how many of each species will survive to reproduce and how many
will be devoured by other species and external conditions.

That's a claim with even less support than the previous ones.

It is an explanation of the two round earth facts. The explanation is
offered in the context of Divine causation (Mind; Creationism)
compared against unguided natural or material causation (mindlessness;
Darwinism).

No, it's just a fantasy on your part. But go ahead and prove me wrong.
How do you propose your position be tested? Outline the scientific
experiments you performed to arrive at your conclusion.


This
balance of diversity AND its duration corresponds to the genius of
Mind, not stupid unguided and mindless material process.

And the unsupported claims just keep on coming.

Your inability to recognize an explanation, existing in the context of
the OP, is fundamental error.

I never said that it wasn't an explanation, just that it was an
unsupported one. And everyone knows that it always will be, yourself
included.


Unguided
material processes are *asserted* to exist by stealing aspects and
facts of nature and calling them evidence of a mechanism (refer back
to #2 above).

Which is about as vague as it can get....

....or you don't like the fact and cannot refute.

What is there to refute? Since you don't specify which material
processes you're talking about, how is a refutation possible? But I'm
willing to give it a try: unguided material processes do indeed exist
because they're observed to occur in the natural world.


One could say that about *any*
process. In chemistry, for instance, chemical bonding is *asserted* to
exist by stealing aspects and facts of nature and calling them
evidence of a mechanism.

We are only talking on topic (origin of species).

So why does it apply to the origin of species, and not chemistry, or
gravity? Who decides that? You?


See how easy that was? See how bizarre it sounds? I hope your paper is
more lucid that this.

Your silence here is not encouraging.


Unless you can explain just what distinguishes organized complexity in
nonlife from organized complexity in life, then you're forced into a
kind of animism, attributing everything complex that had no human
designer to a supernatural force.

1. appearance of design = Designer = straightforward logic
(Creationism).

2. appearance of design = unguided material processes = illogic/
perverted logic (Darwinism).

Which of the two above makes the most sense?

If unguided material processes make no sense, then are you suggesting
that hurricanes and galaxies were created by supernatural forces too?
How do you KNOW they weren't designed?  They sure look beautifully
elegant enough:

http://tinyurl.com/dg4x3t

http://geology.com/nasa/universe-pictures/spiral-galaxy.jpg

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: empty feeling
    ... that I have that freedom. ... understanding of the human mind, by a person with respect to another. ... reason psychology can never be "objective" enough to be a science ... that the theoretical explanation of the effect we call gravity is badly ...
    (uk.people.support.depression)
  • Re: Does violating the laws of physics require intelligence?
    ... phenomenology of the mind. ... It is always possible to claim that whatever explanation one has is ... This is an error akin to mistaking the concept that "The law of gravity ... the inverse square law is *not* sufficient to explain gravity. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Does violating the laws of physics require intelligence?
    ... evidence that the brain is _necessary_ for the mind. ... provide a sufficient explanation for the mind. ... the phenomena for gravity. ... phenomena, and yet we're supposed to assume one is sufficient to cause ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Does violating the laws of physics require intelligence?
    ... consequence of 'mind', the 'mind' has been due to the action of a ... I know that if I destroy certain parts of a physical brain (or it can ... It is always possible to claim that whatever explanation one has is ... the inverse square law is *not* sufficient to explain gravity. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Comparing Creationism against Darwinism
    ... Then it's Paley's unsupported claim. ... only be accomplished by Mind and not unguided mindless process. ... Two round earth facts followed by an explanation. ... It is an explanation of the two round earth facts. ...
    (talk.origins)