Here's why Creatards might be right

[jenny1972]

I can give you -the- theory, but I couldn't claim credit for it.  That's not, btw...a law of nature.  See why it was important for me to know what you're talking about?  We aren't talking about laws of nature at all.  Do you still want an explanation, or would you rather hold out for an actual law of nature?

photosynthesis is a good example of an organized  behavior of an organism . why do you believe that photosynthesis developed outside of an intelligent design ? i dont want the theory about it i want your theory about how photosynthesis developed if not by intelligent design ( do you believe it created itself , always existed , exc.)

[Esquilax]

right the effect is going to be the same because the laws of nature are the same for both . if you throw two balls into the air one is not going to obey the laws of gravity while the other ball continues upward . there are organized laws that everything must equally exist within , chemicals have structure , DNA is also organized not unorganized at all. intelligent beings organize we see it all the time .

So why are you assuming that if those physical laws were not designed, they'd be completely random? That's the question I asked, and it's one you've failed to answer at least twice that I know of.

In fact, you seem to have a profoundly difficult time even understanding anything that's being said to you; I haven't managed to get a single relevant response to my points from you in all my time here. And it's not that we're just unclear, because I can get the intent of every single atheist question or response to you... it's just that your responses are so far off the mark. Why is that?

[jenny1972]

right the effect is going to be the same because the laws of nature are the same for both . if you throw two balls into the air one is not going to obey the laws of gravity while the other ball continues upward . there are organized laws that everything must equally exist within , chemicals have structure , DNA is also organized not unorganized at all. intelligent beings organize we see it all the time .

So why are you assuming that if those physical laws were not designed, they'd be completely random? That's the question I asked, and it's one you've failed to answer at least twice that I know of.

In fact, you seem to have a profoundly difficult time even understanding anything that's being said to you; I haven't managed to get a single relevant response to my points from you in all my time here. And it's not that we're just unclear, because I can get the intent of every single atheist question or response to you... it's just that your responses are so far off the mark. Why is that?

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

[The Grand Nudger]

Okay, we'll dive in...but full disclosure, photosynth is my living.  Firstly, again, this isn't a law of nature, so I won't be offering you any explanation as to a law of nature.  Secondly, it's not an example of organized behavior, it's not behavior at all.  It's the function of a specific type of cell - which a variety of behaviors are leveraged in support of (if you want an explanation of organized behaviors, it's all that stuff you're wondering about, not photosynthesis).  

Forget all that though....are we talking photosynthesis as in "what plants do", or the first ever? I'm afraid that any answer I give you, btw, isn't going to be my personal theory, is that going to be a problem?

I can answer these:

do you believe it created itself , always existed , exc.

Without any elaboration, though. No, I don't think that photosynthesis created itself, and no, I don't think that photosynthesis always existed.

[Esquilax]

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?

[Mystic]

We once had a good discussion about consciousness and whether evolution naturalism wise can account for it. Then a certain member came with spraying shooting a bunch of irrelevant facts and didn't really continue or give any meaningful discourse to the discussion and people seemed to like that response. It was like they didn't like where it was leading.

I don't know where the thread is but it was a good one. If I started it, perhaps I will find it, not sure if I did.

[The Grand Nudger]

Would it matter if naturalism actually -didn't-  have an explanation for consciousness?  No, not really. Just another thing for folks so inclined to wax on about rather than making their own case, rather than providing their own explanations.

"Haha! You can't explain -x-, therefore djinn"

[Mystic]

It wasn't a really discussion if there is any account for it as of now, and if there isn't, then naturalism doesn't account for it. It was a discussion of whether it was impossible to occur naturalism wise due a paradox due to the nature of consciousness.

I will try to find it.

[jenny1972]

Okay, we'll dive in...but full disclosure, photosynth is my living.  Firstly, again, this isn't a law of nature, so I won't be offering you any explanation as to a law of nature.  Secondly, it's not an example of organized behavior, it's not behavior at all.  It's the function of a specific type of cell - which a variety of behaviors are leveraged in support of (if you want an explanation of organized behaviors, it's all that stuff you're wondering about, not photosynthesis).  

Forget all that though....are we talking photosynthesis as in "what plants do", or the first ever?  I'm afraid that any answer I give you, btw, isn't going to be my personal theory, is that going to be a problem?

I can answer these:

do you believe it created itself , always existed , exc.

Without any elaboration, though.  No, I don't think that photosynthesis created itself, and no, I don't think that photosynthesis always existed.

if your knowledgeable about photosynthesis well just stick with that , the same principle can be applied to all complex behavior it doesnt matter what it is . were not looking for the explanation how it happens but the explanation how it came into existence , what created photosynthesis if not by intelligent design - not what the process involves .  the origin of it .

[The Grand Nudger]

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?