Here's why Creatards might be right

[jenny1972]

im assuming that organization proceeds from intelligent design because thats what i observe to be true around me . i observe that intelligent beings create complex things and objects lacking intelligence do not create complex things  im just asking why you do not think that intelligence is responsible for organization . is it because you do not think it is organization or because intelligence is not necessary for organization or do you have a different belief and why ? the reason i believe the way i do is based on observation

I've already raised an objection to this idea that you observe intelligent design around you, only to be ignored three times: it's equally true that you do not ever observe intelligent beings creating realities, or laws of physics, or anything immaterial. In fact, the only thing you observe intelligent beings doing is rearranging pre-existing matter into new forms and inventions. You never see intelligent beings creating matter from nothing, and so by your own logic, if observation is sufficient to form a conclusion then one must also form the conclusion that intelligent beings cannot create matter, universes, or laws of physics... and yet you've come to the precise opposite conclusion.

Why is it that you'll trust your observations up to the point that they agree with what you already believe, but you'll discard your observations the moment they don't agree with you?

ok your opinion is understood just because i didnt personally observe God creating the universe before i came into existence doesnt mean that it did not happen its beyond my ability to observe such a thing but that does not mean that it cannot happen , so now what is your argument that an intelligent being did not create natural laws/organized processes and why do you think that ?

[Wyrd of Gawd]

---

In your experience do thinking beings create universes?

Why do you continue to just halt all your arguments at the most arbitrary, self serving points?

---

yes obviously i do think thinking beings create universes if the universes in question are organized and the elements within the universe are cooperative and orderly i dont think organization results from unintelligent random chaos

---

---

It has nothing to do with you disagreeing with me.  It has everything to do with you being consistently and demonstrably wrong.  

your making the claim that i am wrong so the burden of proof is on you to prove that i am wrong , prove there is not an intelligent creator id like to see your proof that there isnt . other than theories and opinions

---

How does the egg yolk get inside the egg shell?

[Esquilax]

ok your opinion is understood , so now what is your argument that an intelligent being did not create natural laws/organized processes and why do you think that ?

First of all, I don't need to prove you wrong before you should let go of an unevidenced idea. But the truth is, that complete lack of evidence for an intelligent designer is argument enough: we're learning new things about how the universe works every day, but for everything we learn, we never find a designer. We never find anything that requires a design, and we're wise enough to recognize that our current ignorance on a subject is not a reason to make up an answer. The time to form a conclusion is when there is sufficient evidence to do so, not based on leaps based on bits and pieces of arbitrarily stopped and started "logic."

Absence of evidence for a designer is exactly what you would expect in a universe that has no designer, and we have not a shred of evidence for one. That is sufficient.

[The Grand Nudger]

Perhaps, Jenny, you should observe Conways Game of Life, btw?  It's not even an open question, as to whether or not something complex requires an intelligence, let alone a vast intelligence, behind it.  You can watch, in real time, a few simple rules yield complex and organized patterns or behaviors wholly out of proportion with the simplicity of the initial condition.  The thing that you think can't or doesn't happen...has very literally been -proven- to happen, and it's available to you, for your enjoyment.

Meh.

http://pmav.eu/stuff/javascript-game-of-life-v3.1.1/

[jenny1972]

Oh, my bad..that's a much easier question than the process.  It came into existence because the chemistry of life on this planet allows for it, through multiple different pathways, and nothing prevents it.  If an organism contains any number of photo-reactive chemicals or structures, they can, for example, absorb a proton and shed an electron.  A mutation that affects one of these structures or chemicals can variously confer or remove this ability from that organism - as has demonstrably happened in both directions.  For example, the process used by plants comes from symbiosis between a protist and bacteria.  Since that time, most of those bacteria lost the ability to photosynthesize...and then, apparently through lateral transfer, regained it.  

Amazing, eh?

but if 'the chemistry for life on this planet allows for it and nothing prevents it'  and thats the reason why it happens then why dont humans use photosynthesis also ? we live on the same planet with the same chemistry . and what do you think started this process to begin with ?

[The Grand Nudger]

We don't have those structures or cells.  That's not the way we went. Even -within- species that question is meaningless. It's possible for human beings to be professional boxers...why aren't you a professional boxer? We do use photosynth, btw....all life on earth uses it as it's the basis of our entire food chain. Started the process of what; mutation, adaptation? Abiogenesis, ofc.

[Esquilax]

but if 'the chemistry for life on this planet allows for it and nothing prevents it'  and thats the reason why it happens then why dont humans use photosynthesis also ? we live on the same planet with the same chemistry .

Because the semi-random genetic mutations that constituted our evolution took us along a different path, supported by an ecological niche that was amenable to our current survival strategies.

and what do you think started this process to begin with ?

Chemicals working in energetically favorable ways in accordance with the laws of physics and chemistry. If you're just going to turn around and ask what started those, then I need to ask you why you think an "I don't know," answer would suddenly be evidence for intelligent design?

[jenny1972]

ok your opinion is understood , so now what is your argument that an intelligent being did not create natural laws/organized processes and why do you think that ?

First of all, I don't need to prove you wrong before you should let go of an unevidenced idea. But the truth is, that complete lack of evidence for an intelligent designer is argument enough: we're learning new things about how the universe works every day, but for everything we learn, we never find a designer. We never find anything that requires a design, and we're wise enough to recognize that our current ignorance on a subject is not a reason to make up an answer. The time to form a conclusion is when there is sufficient evidence to do so, not based on leaps based on bits and pieces of arbitrarily stopped and started "logic."

Absence of evidence for a designer is exactly what you would expect in a universe that has no designer, and we have not a shred of evidence for one. That is sufficient.

i see a lot of proof of intelligent design and you dont see any thats fine , moving on , so then you believe that the various different complex systems just developed based on random chance ?

[The Grand Nudger]

I have to add, to my last statement..that it would be awesome if human beings were autotrophs, btw.  That's the sort of thing I'd design, if I were a designer, making something like humans.  Very nearly all of the things we don't like about ourselves and our situation are, to some degree, rooted in the fact that we are not autotrophs, as is the venerable sunflower. Come to think of it, why are we so un-intelligently designed? Shouldn't it take more than one jumped up ape to imagine a better design paradigm for human beings?



-and no..you don't see any evidence of intelligent design, or...you're unwilling or unable to share that evidence. That means it isn't evidence, you realize? Evidence must be......evident. I can see why you'd like to move past that as quickly as possible, too bad....wrong crowd. Put up or shut up.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

but if 'the chemistry for life on this planet allows for it and nothing prevents it'  and thats the reason why it happens then why dont humans use photosynthesis also ? we live on the same planet with the same chemistry . and what do you think started this process to begin with ?

It doesn't mean it's a foregone conclusion.

But to answer your question, the reason is that photosynthesis turned up after life had already diverged into the types of bacteria that would become animals and that which would become plants, on the later earth.

Our ancestors absorbed and formed a symbiotic relationship with a type of Alpha-proteobacteria (sometimes this ancestor is referred to as "purple bacteria"), in which the cells gave it shelter in exchange for its by-product of metabolism, adenosine triphosphate (ATP). From then on, they were transferred as a symbiote, through cell division and later in the egg of each mother down to us-- which is what allows us to trace "Mitochondrial Eve" through the matrilineal inheritance of mtDNA, the separate genome found in our mitochondria.

On the other side, a similar relationship formed between cyanobacteria, a bit like algae, and larger cells, for a similar relationship-- shelter for better food. Descendants of these would become the seaweeds and the plants that would later colonize the surface, though it's the oxygen-producing effect they had in the oceans that led to the rise in O2 and thus O3 (ozone) which blocked enough UV light to allow plants and animals (having evolved separately, in the oceans) to both colonize the land.