How is this not evidence supporting the assertion of creation?

Question

The only observed instances of functional entities or processes composed of multiple interdependent components actually coming into existence, it was the product of design and manufacture.

The material universe, and life is contains a large number of functional entities or processes composed of multiple interdependent components and therefore based on the sum of experience can only be explained in terms of design and manufacture.

Answer 1

Creation takes place everyday......and if people simply can't see that, it's because they REFUSE to.

Answer 2

Just because a watchmaker needs to make a watch doesn't mean a grand creator pieced together the molecules comprised in the watch. BIG DIFFERENCE.



But here is a question for you: Where does iron come from?



And if your creator is involved, which part of the process does he claim as his?



"Bear1: Red herring... The question is what most likely explains the existence of functional entities or processes composed of multiple interdependent components. You are asking Who - a completely different question. "



*facepalm*



Your entire premise is obtaining evidence for creation, ergo YOU are inserting your beliefs (i.e. "God") into the premise itself. Stating that you have not proven a creator is not a "completely different question" - it is actually extremely crucial to your original premise!



EDIT: Claiming "it was the product of design and manufacture" implies at least one individuals intent. Broadening that concept to encompass everything would keep the same implications.



Or are you going to try and tell me that something which lacks sentience, or even life, could "design and manufacture" (something we do observe in nature. For example: nebulae)? If so, that is not evidence for creation, and your premise is moot.



"STOP WITH THE NONSENSE -- Either you can give an example of a functional (performs some kind of work) entity or process that is composed of multiple (3 or more) interdependent components, that has actually been observed to come into existence that was NOT the product of design and manufacture or you can't. "



Ohhh, someone is getting a little on edge xD



"I guess that is an admission you cannot! Thanks."



Apparently you read nothing before that, so I guess this whole discussion is moot. I should no better than to have "discussions" with creationists.



"Alex - Sans the Mercy: I have read what you said. I have also pointed out correctly that changing the subject from what to who is an example of the red herring fallacy. Science is based on observation, what has been observed is no functional entity or process composed of multiple interdependent components has ever been observed to come into existence without design and manufacture... who the designer or manufacturer might have been is another question entirely. "



Ok - so where is your evidence for creation, then? Or did you forget about your premise?



Or do you think that creation itself just happens and things, like people, just magically appear?



I am sorry, but I am not seeing how claiming that " functional entities or processes composed of multiple interdependent components actually coming into existence, it was the product of design and manufacture" proves or disproves anything currently related to any scientific concept. Even the Big Bang doesn't say that things just "magically appeared". How you tie this back to creation, or creationism, is beyond me.

Answer 3

"The only observed instances of functional entities or processes composed of multiple interdependent components actually coming into existence, it was the product of design and manufacture."



No. The experiments are within laboratory conditions to simulate different environments to understand abiogenesis better and under what conditions it can work. "Man" didn't "design" the life form; it arose through time and evolved due to the pressure of the artificial environment.



http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/01/evolution-of-multicellularity/



In a sense, you can claim that we "designed" the environment to allow experimentation but we did not at all "design" the entities components nor what it became. In other words, it was "never" a product of design.



If complexity naturally requires a designer, then your deity requires one. This irreducible complexity argument always falls into infinity regression -- i.e., who designed your God. If you create a special case for your God, you have just committed special pleading.



"That experiment does not show anything that does not already exist coming into existence..."



Perhaps you should actually read it then. If you are changing the topic to "something coming from nothing" I would advise starting a new question so we can shoot that one down as well.



If you want "something coming from nothing" though, look up virtual particles and Zero Energy Universe.



"Yes self replicating RNA brought into existence as a product of design -- scientists who designed the experiment. You have just provided evidence for my claim!"



Wow. I am now convinced you are a troll. If you aren't trying to be one, actually READ the article. If you continue with your nonsense, then we are done here.



"Either you can give an example of a functional (performs some kind of work) entity or process that is composed of multiple"



I did you dummy. All the scientists did was mix together the ingredients that are known to be the building blocks of life. RNA arose from that non-life. If the early Earth had these ingredients and the proper environment to sustain them (as we know it did) then it is very possible for the environment to create the first RNA in the same way.



"IF YOU CAN'T: Then any assertion that it did happen"



We don't assert that it did happen -- only that it CAN happen as evidenced by the above. Your argument is thus invalidated and we are done here.



"Scientists have proven then can do something in the lab. They have not even come close to proving the conditions and processes that produced the lab results have ever existed in nature or are even possible in nature"



Well..its obviously possible in nature if it can be done in a lab. And there is a LOT of evidence for the early Earth despite your claim.



You have shown constant dishonesty and lack of care for the evidence presented, attempted shifting of the burden of proof and have provided absolutely nothing but attacks in supporting your argument.



Your argument is not only invalidated but the discussion is now over due to the above and the fact that you have absolutely no basis and no argument.

Answer 4

"The only observed instances of functional entities or processes composed of multiple interdependent components actually coming into existence, it was the product of design and manufacture. "



Such as...? See, just making a claim is not "evidence." And that's all you did.

Oh, and by the way, IF your statement were correct (and you presented no evidence it is), that would be evidence that the only observed instances of (blah blah blah) were the product of design and manufacture. That would not be evidence that ALL such things were the product of design and manufacture (since you don't know of any beyond what you've observed), and it wouldn't be evidence of any "supernatural creation." See, all the "design and manufacture" you claim is not "supernatural creation," it's human design and manufacture. So at best, you might have a VERY weak bit of evidence suggesting the possibility of non-supernatural, alien "design and manufacture" -- but really you don't even have that, since your premise is a bare assertion (and, as it turns out, a false one anyway).



Want to try again, or would you like to just realize that you haven't got a clue what you're talking about, and that your premises are fallacious and worthless, and go get some education?

Answer 5

Your first paragraph in its entirety is an assertion, and an easily falsified one at that, so your argument fails.



It might be correct if you said;



"The only observed instances of *man-made* functional entities or processes composed of multiple interdependent components actually coming into existence, it was the product of design and manufacture."



What about the thousands and thousand of symbiotic relationships in nature for which we have ample, irrefutable evidence of evolution by natutal slection?



They are composed of multiple interdependent components and arose entirely without design and manufacture.



Now, off you go to Paley's and buy a watch.



Edt;



Easy. The evolution of a bacteria that can eat nylon.



Kinoshita, S.; Kageyama, S., Iba, K., Yamada, Y. and Okada, H. (1975). "Utilization of a cyclic dimer and linear oligomers of e-aminocaproic acid by Achromobacter guttatus". Agricultural & Biological Chemistry 39 (6): 1219−23. doi:10.1271/bbb1961.39.1219. ISSN 0002-1369.



Three mutations in three different enzymes have occurred and must operate simultaneously to digest 6-aminohexanoate.



Anything else?



Edit #2.



Bullshit. You asked for (your words) "one example of a functional (performs some kind of work) entity or process composed of multiple interdependent components that has been OBSERVED to come into existence"



***process****. Get it?



The example I gave you meets your own criteria. Nylon did not exist before 1935, so a process that digests it could not have existed before then.



A process that digests it now must be a new process.



Maybe you cannot read and understand English properly, but I can.

Answer 6

There should be a bookstore down the street. You might want to look into textbooks there, especially the ones with "science" in the title. They'll probably have some information on this very new (only from the 1800's!) idea called "evolution" and that will explain everything.



P. S. So you're saying that when I dream, and that dream did not come directly from my prior thoughts, that said dream was designed and manufactured somewhere by someone? I'm guessing China again.

Answer 7

"The only observed instances"



So you're saying its never been seen by us so it didn't happen?



That's called argument from ignorance.



Evidence of fallacious logic, not creation.



"The argument from ignorance fallacy is when one makes a claim - negative or positive based on an absence of evidence"



Exactly.

Now read the four words you started your "claim" with.



You appear to have forgotten them.





"scientists who designed the experiment"



...to show how it happened naturally.



You gotta love the dishonesty in evolution deniers, they make it so easy to expose.



"STOP WITH THE NONSENSE.....etc"



Aah yes, the predicted attempt to shift the burden of proof, never gets old.



You made a claim, it was demonstrated to be nonsense.

If you can't deal with that, don't make nonsense claims.



"someone is getting a little on edge"



Says the one desperately resorting to caps lock.



I call troll.

Troll or not, still as much honesty as a snake oil salesman.



"I am saying...."

That's what you're saying NOW.

Shifting the burden again!



Who made the claim again?

That's right, you.

Answer 8

The watchmaker hypothesis is not 'evidence' of anything. It is simply an argument from ignorance: "I don't know how this could have happened without a creator: therefore a creator exists" This argument is a fallacy, because it is simply untrue. There can be OTHER reasons, other explanations for creation. Simply making the blunt statement does NOT make it true.

Answer 9

Yet another dishonest question asked in the hopes that the asker can spread his special brand of ignorance.



An honest person would ask this in the science section.



Thank you for proving once again that the religious are dishonest, that they fail to recognize how easily their ignorance is recognized and they have no idea how incredibly, magnificanly stupid posting nonsense like this makes them look.





Religion is doomed, jackassery like this is just speeding it along. The miller-urey experiment reproduced conditions as they were believed to have existed in nature. As such they served to prove that no designer is necessary.





ID has been so thouroughly short full of holes it's entirely air. I think in this case the best we can hope for is that you're killed before you can bring more of your stupid back into the gene pool.

Answer 10

So the Norse creation story is the true, or the Yoruba creation story by the all ruler Olorun, or Chronos father of Zeus, are the real answer... you believe that? Or you don't believer that?

At the moment you try to put supernatural in science you loose.... science look for natural explanation...

if you open the door for deities... why you think your creation fantasy is the real one why not the other thousand of stories... that you maybe don't believe.



Intelligent design is not intelligent or good designed is just the evolution of creationism to snake up in science class and guess what? it fail in that mission....



Your arguments are waisted.... all of them easily loose in court, maybe on a metaphysical realm you will win...not in reality

Answer 11

You are jumping the gun. The first step to proving creation is to prove a creator exists. You cannot just point to some random object and say that object exists therefore it must have been created by a creator. The first step if you want to prove creationist ideas is to prove a creator exists. Doing anything else is completely bypassing all of the scientific method.

Answer 12

You have not proved that your assertion is true.



Here is something for you to ponder, Error Checking and Correction (ECC). If life was designed, why did the designer not include ECC in the process of mitosis? No engineer on earth would create such an error-prone process. Why would a grand creator overlook something so basic?

Answer 13

No. The entire universe is a functional entity that can be explained with no need for a designer and manufacturer. Same for galaxies, solar systems, planets, and living things.

Answer 14

That's easy ... "was the product of design and manufacture" is simply not true.



Name any proof you can that points to creation in biology. Go for it.



I can likely elaborate, but you'll have to specify what you mean by "functional entity"



-edit-

Actually, that's not true. Bio-chemistry is what makes life. We can do it in the lab using just chemistry, but have yet to discover the natural process. If we can do it, nature can ... it's far more capable than a lab is.



Lab created RNA:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/



Lab created DNA:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/04/120419-xna-synthetic-dna-evolution-genetics-life-science/



As for your mention of irreducible complexity (that's what the concept you're arguing is called) Niall Shanks and Karl H. Joplin, both of East Tennessee State University, have shown that systems of irreducible biochemical complexity can arise naturally and spontaneously as the result of self-organizing chemical processes.



Here's the source, read it and weep:

Shanks, Niall; Joplin, Karl H. (1999). "Redundant Complexity: A Critical Analysis of Intelligent Design in Biochemistry". Philosophy of Science (The University of Chicago Press)



If you'd prefer a dumbed down version:

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html



More sources:

- Schneider, T.D. (2000), Evolution of biological information. Nucleic Acids Research 28: 2794-2799

- Adami, C., C. Ofria, and T. C. Collier, 2000. Evolution of biological complexity, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 97: 4463—4468

Answer 15

Products of design and manufacture do not reproduce nor do they pass on genes and DNA. Living cells do precisely that and, over time, modification of the DNA leads to different organisms. It's called evolution.

Answer 16

Basic Physics Ages 10 - 14.



Chaos.



Creation/ designer is for muppets.

Answer 17

One day, Ugg the caveman went into the bushes to poop. Just as he did, a flash of lightning crossed the sky, followed by a boom of thunder. He rushed back to his clan to tell them of his remarkable discovery....that pooping causes lightning.



Of course everyone wanted to try and it didn't work for them, so they tried to re-create the exact conditions...pooping in the same place, at the same time, after eating the same foods, thinking the same thoughts....etc.



And religion was born.

Answer 18

Ah, the watchmaker fallacy.



It's not evidence for creation, merely a variation on the appeal to incredulity. Your entire argument boils down to:



"I can't figure out how Nature done it, so ... Goddidit!"

Answer 19

The simple fact that people have more design and manufacturing mistakes in them than Ford pickup trucks do tells you that ID is nonsense

Answer 20

Study the fact of how you came into this physical existence, starting with your parents. Study it really good, from the sperm to the egg, all of it, and that my friend is something to build on into something bigger.

Answer 21

Argumentum ad ignorantiam is not "evidence".



It's not even a valid argument. It's a logical fallacy.

Answer 22

How is this evidence supporting the assertion of creation?





you seem to have Forgotten to support your claim with Valid evidence that a god exists to "Create" anything...

Please start there!

Answer 23

I guess that means God was created, because, of course, it's not possible for something to exist without being created.

Answer 24

So in other words, your argument is "Things that are obviously man-made are obviously man-made, therefore things that are obviously NOT man-made are also obviously man-made."



The consummate intellectual, you are.