@wiegraf

Good morning,

I don't think responding to your post is worth it cause it would imply that we will be going around in circles.

The discussion about God's existence did not start with us and surely will not end with us so there is nothing to be angry about. Unless you are the "Hulk" I will advice anger management.

Grab yourself a bear, do whatever makes you happy (as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others) and have a lovely day.

Thank you!

striktlymi: @wiegraf

Good morning,

I don't think responding to your post is worth it cause it would imply that we will be going around in circles.

The discussion about God's existence did not start with us and surely will not end with us so there is nothing to be angry about. Unless you are the "Hulk" I will advice anger management.

Grab yourself a bear, do whatever makes you happy (as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others) and have a lovely day.

Thank you!

This post is extremely eediotic.

Ah, I remember why I'm usually a pr1ck in these parts.

the search for the unsearchables is one of one of the acts of man's shortsightedness and derailed mentality.
the question of who created God and the origin of God are two parallel lines that can never meet.let assume you know who created God,the question people will ask again is, who created the creator of God,then again,who created the creator of the creator of God and d question will go on and on.
people should just accept some mysteries as mysteries which cannot be explained,else insanity can set in...

wiegraf:

The first bold, you live in 9ja? Hahahahaha. Yeah, but of course in this discussion, obviously no ones forcing anything on another

The second bold is the juicy bit, and we've already addressed that actually. Privately, you can hold onto any choice you wish, a matter of faith if you will. In the public sphere, or lets say morally, holding those positions is wrong. You should focus on the facts, or objectivity, once it's not a private issue anymore. The fact is: we have no evidence to support god(s). That does not require faith. If you choose to believe there is a god, you do that against reason. Anyways, I can see you're making your logical case for god, so I'll leave you to that.

The third bold, what do you mean?

My view is that God, an intelligent being, exists and is responsible for the beginning and sustenance of life/universe and I chose to hold that view privately and happily express it publicly too.

Why? Because the evidence supports it. The masterful design in the universe, of natural laws and constants and of living organisms provides overwhelming evidence supporting an intelligent Designer more than random sponteneity.

And thanks to science, we learn more and more about our amzing universe. In fact, the more we peer, the more orderliness, wisdom and evidence of design we see.

For now, there are two main options - either Something made it happen or Someone did. If the odds favour Someone making it happen, why would I believe it's Something, just because believing is Someone is deemed "unscientifc"?

Has it been irrefutablely proven that Someone is not required? Nope.

At best, this is what has been proven so far as it relates to Evolution ( I tend to use this term to lump all associated theories and "facts" relating to non-God explanation for origin of universe (Big B.ang), origing of life (Abiogenesis) and diversity in life (bio-Evolution):

Big B.ang: Universe is expanding, so must have started from a singularity. This does not disprove God. It might even be regarded as proof of need for a Starter (God).

Origin of Life: Amino acids ( building blocks of RNA and proteins) can be synthesized from other molecules. This does not disprove God. The most "basic' or "simple" lifeform is so so complex - definitely more than throwing in molecules together is required to make them come alive. If/when man successfully creates a living, even if non-replicating cell, then the theory of random origin of life will be thrown out because it will take painstaking effort and design to achieve that feat - it sure won't be random.

Diversity of Life:
1) Fossils: Over 94% of fossils found show little or no changes is species over time. Remaining % are arranged to support evolution, but are inconclusive - could be unknown extinct species and not link showing evolution from one to another species. Why should I accept an argument based on 6% of available evidence? Fossils overall show quick appearance and disappearance of species within a short time - not the expected slow changes as evolution would have us believe.

2) Mutation/Natural Selection: At best, what has been observed or expreiments (artificial mutation) prove that species can adapt to their environment, within boundaries. No evidence is provided that supports one "kind" of life changing to another. Does not disprove God creating different "kinds" of life forms.

3) Same building block: Yes all living things have cells with proteins, RNA and DNA. This does not disprove God. May even be taken as evidence of a Common Designer.

Those who take the non-God option are free to do so, just because they can't undertand the God concept, prove him in a experiment or are too proud and too certain of their limited knowledge. Evidence, though, strongly points to His existence.

TroGunn:

My view is that God, an intelligent being, exists and is responsible for the beginning and sustenance of life/universe and I chose to hold that view privately and happily express it publicly too.

Why? Because the evidence supports it. The masterful design in the universe, of natural laws and constants and of living organisms provides overwhelming evidence supporting an intelligent Designer more than random sponteneity.

And thanks to science, we learn more and more about our amzing universe. In fact, the more we peer, the more orderliness, wisdom and evidence of design we see.

For now, there are two main options - either Something made it happen or Someone did. If the odds favour Someone making it happen, why would I believe it's Something, just because believing is Someone is deemed "unscientifc"?

Has it been irrefutablely proven that Someone is not required? Nope.

At best, this is what has been proven so far as it relates to Evolution ( I tend to use this term to lump all associated theories and "facts" relating to non-God explanation for origin of universe (Big B.ang), origing of life (Abiogenesis) and diversity in life (bio-Evolution):

Big B.ang: Universe is expanding, so must have started from a singularity. This does not disprove God. It might even be regarded as proof of need for a Starter (God).

Origin of Life: Amino acids ( building blocks of RNA and proteins) can be synthesized from other molecules. This does not disprove God. The most "basic' or "simple" lifeform is so so complex - definitely more than throwing in molecules together is required to make them come alive. If/when man successfully creates a living, even if non-replicating cell, then the theory of random origin of life will be thrown out because it will take painstaking effort and design to achieve that feat - it sure won't be random.

Diversity of Life:
1) Fossils: Over 94% of fossils found show little or no changes is species over time. Remaining % are arranged to support evolution, but are inconclusive - could be unknown extinct species and not link showing evolution from one to another species. Why should I accept an argument based on 6% of available evidence? Fossils overall show quick appearance and disappearance of species within a short time - not the expected slow changes as evolution would have us believe.

2) Mutation/Natural Selection: At best, what has been observed or expreiments (artificial mutation) prove that species can adapt to their environment, within boundaries. No evidence is provided that supports one "kind" of life changing to another. Does not disprove God creating different "kinds" of life forms.

3) Same building block: Yes all living things have cells with proteins, RNA and DNA. This does not disprove God. May even be taken as evidence of a Common Designer.

Those who take the non-God option are free to do so, just because they can't undertand the God concept, prove him in a experiment or are too proud and too certain of their limited knowledge. Evidence, though, strongly points to His existence.

You do realise that you need to define you god?

- Evolution and the big bang debunk the God of the bible.
- Yaweh made the sun in 4 seconds (let there be light). The sun took millions of years to form
- Yaweh created man. Man actually evolved from other organisms.

azeezlateefah: GOD CREATED HEAVEN AND EARTH.....AND NO ONE CREATED HIM.

Do you actually understand that there are billions of planets and galaxies?

Logicboy03:



You do realise that you need to define you god?

- Evolution and the big bang debunk the God of the bible.
- Yaweh made the sun in 4 seconds (let there be light). The sun took millions of years to form
- Yaweh created man. Man actually evolved from other organisms.

Therein lies some of the problem - a misunderstanding of the Bible. A careful study of the Genesis account does not support your 4s theory. Neither does it support some Christians view of the 24-hr creation 'day'. The sun surely took millions of years to form and the Bible supports that. I posted an explanation on the Dinosaur thread. Will repost here

striktlymi:

Good evening, I can see that you have done your home work and it's really quite insightful. However bfore I comment on anything, I would just like to say this to your last comment:

God does not complicate things Humans do!

Now to your very insightful research: I have read a number of publications about the theory of Darwin and the big b.ang and really, to this very day not every scientist is convinced that, the theories are what actually happened. And when we think about it: the questions remain: what caused the big b.ang if there was one? The elements that acted to form the b.ang where did they come from? I am very sure you do not have answers to these. Even in the theory of evolution the same applies, there is no thought about what happened before evolution took place. Both postulations would remain at best: Theories!!! No one is in doubt about the order in science. This serves as the very basis of the principle that whatever has been set in motion was made so by some other force. This law has been tested and proving to be true for one, true for 2 upto the nth term and has been validated as true for all.

Science is not in disagreement with the of a first cause. If you allow me borrow your words: this is simple logic. If the world starts going back back in time, we would get to a point where it all began for which we can't move any further and at that point we would arrive at the first cause.

Actually time is not linear. 'Time' is circular. There is really no such thing as past, present and future. Everything is occurring at once. You see this when you step out of the artificial time matrix. Time is something that we need on this physical dimension to make sense of our journey here. In reality it doesn't exist. Hence the question who created God is a flawed question. The correct inquiry is Who creates God?

And the answer is 'ALL LIFE CREATES GOD' AND 'GOD CREATES ALL LIFE'.

Logicboy03:



You do realise that you need to define you god?

- Evolution and the big bang debunk the God of the bible.
- Yaweh made the sun in 4 seconds (let there be light). The sun took millions of years to form
- Yaweh created man. Man actually evolved from other organisms.

Obviously the material heavens including the sun and earth were created in the beginning (Gen 1:1). The earth being without life until the creative "days" began, leading to its transformation into the life-supporting planet it is.

Day
1 Light; division between day and night - Gen 1:3-5
2 Expanse, a division between waters beneath the expanse and waters above it - Gen 1:6-8
3 Dry land; vegetation - Gen 1:9-13
4 Heavenly luminaries become discernible from earth - Gen 1:14-19
5 Aquatic souls and flying creatures - Gen 1:20-23
6 Land animals; man - Gen 1:24-31

Each creative day could be any length of years- thousands or even millions as was required by God to complete each activity.

Here's how someone explained it:

"Quite logically, he begins the first day at Genesis 1:3. The universe and the earth were already in existence. Scientists generally agree that in its early years, the earth was a dark planet. They disagree as to the reason. The bible suggests that the thickness of the water vapor was the cause. As its surface cooled, the vapor would condense and fall, creating a globe-encircling ocean. The pressure of this water would generate tectonic forces, causing land to be pushed up. The bible suggests that these were controlled.

The details of what transpired in each creative day indicate to me that each involved considerable lengths of time. That first chapter of Genesis speaks of trees bearing seeds and foliage spreading all over the land surface, sea creatures reproducing to the point of swarming the seas, birds reproducing until they swarmed the sky and land animals reproducing to fill the earth (Genesis 1:22) clearly indicating to me that each “day” was much longer than 24 hours.
How long was each creative day? I really don’t know. The archeologists put the appearance of life starting within the first billion years. The fossil record shows a virtual explosion of life within the dawn of the Cambrian period, at a rate greater than one new species per year from 8 phyla in the first 6 million years of the Cambrian Era. Are their dates accurate? I really don’t know and it does not matter to me. The wording of Genesis 1 and 2 indicates long periods of time to me. It could be millions or hundreds of millions of years each. They could even be of unequal lengths each".

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978768516

TroGunn:

Obviously the material heavens including the sun and earth were created in the beginning (Gen 1:1). The earth being without life until the creative "days" began, leading to its transformation into the life-supporting planet it is.

Day
1 Light; division between day and night - Gen 1:3-5
2 Expanse, a division between waters beneath the expanse and waters above it - Gen 1:6-8
3 Dry land; vegetation - Gen 1:9-13
4 Heavenly luminaries become discernible from earth - Gen 1:14-19
5 Aquatic souls and flying creatures - Gen 1:20-23
6 Land animals; man - Gen 1:24-31

Each creative day could be any length of years- thousands or even millions as was required by God to complete each activity.

Here's how someone explained it:

"Quite logically, he begins the first day at Genesis 1:3. The universe and the earth were already in existence. Scientists generally agree that in its early years, the earth was a dark planet. They disagree as to the reason. The bible suggests that the thickness of the water vapor was the cause. As its surface cooled, the vapor would condense and fall, creating a globe-encircling ocean. The pressure of this water would generate tectonic forces, causing land to be pushed up. The bible suggests that these were controlled.

The details of what transpired in each creative day indicate to me that each involved considerable lengths of time. That first chapter of Genesis speaks of trees bearing seeds and foliage spreading all over the land surface, sea creatures reproducing to the point of swarming the seas, birds reproducing until they swarmed the sky and land animals reproducing to fill the earth (Genesis 1:22) clearly indicating to me that each “day” was much longer than 24 hours.
How long was each creative day? I really don’t know. The archeologists put the appearance of life starting within the first billion years. The fossil record shows a virtual explosion of life within the dawn of the Cambrian period, at a rate greater than one new species per year from 8 phyla in the first 6 million years of the Cambrian Era. Are their dates accurate? I really don’t know and it does not matter to me. The wording of Genesis 1 and 2 indicates long periods of time to me. It could be millions or hundreds of millions of years each. They could even be of unequal lengths each".

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978768516

How does that answer the question why the bible claims that the sen was created in 4 seconds when we know that it took millions of years

Logicboy03:








How does that answer the question why the bible claims that the sen was created in 4 seconds when we know that it took millions of years

Universe including sun and earth were created "in the beginning" (Gen 1:1). Nothing here shows how long it took to create these bodies or how old they are - it most certainly could have been millions or billions of years.

"Let there be light" does not refer to sun's creation, but visibility of sun's light and division into day and night.

TroGunn:

Universe including sun and earth were created "in the beginning" (Gen 1:1). Nothing here shows how long it took to create these bodies or how old they are - it most certainly could have been millions or billions of years.

"Let there be light" does not refer to sun's creation, but visibility of sun's light and division into day and night.

Nonsense.

This is in no way conclusive evidence for the existence of a god though. It is tainted particularly by the antrophic principle (if you've not come across it google it) and arguments from ignorance.

TroGunn:
Why? Because the evidence supports it. The masterful design in the universe, of natural laws and constants and of living organisms provides overwhelming evidence supporting an intelligent Designer more than random sponteneity.

And thanks to science, we learn more and more about our amzing universe. In fact, the more we peer, the more orderliness, wisdom and evidence of design we see.

Antrophic principle.

Even on this planet only a fraction of the land mass is available to most life, including us, the sometimes alleged magnum opus. Not to talk of this star system, galaxy or universe. Hundreds of billions of stars in hundreds of billions of galaxies, some claiming built just for us. How mind staggeringly wasteful to all life in general. Terrible design flaws in most species. If indeed we were the goal, 14 billion years to come up with a rather uncharitable sentient species brimming with hubris.

Our scientists have consciousness and intelligence, observe what they've accomplished in the last 400 years when they combine these traits with purposes. They are doing much better, as far caring for us and hopefully all life (if we mature) than nature is.

The evidence overwhelmingly points to nature not having have a goal, it just is. That would explains the chaos and randomness. There's little 'order' there, and what did show up as 'order' (I assume, you label anything that is beneficial to our sort of life as order, yes?) just happened by chance. There are a lot of things that could be improved on, like homo sapiens. How do you know there are no much better configurations of the constants to support life as we know it by the way? Or better forms of life than carbon based even? Wouldn't religious heaven qualify as one such universe for that matter? You cannot assume this is the optimal setting for whatever purpose you're pushing.

And yes, what is this purpose you think an ID had, and could you show that this universe has the best possible configuration to go about achieving it? If you can't, you're arguing from ignorance and making a needless assumption. And again, antrophic principle

TroGunn:
For now, there are two main options - either Something made it happen or Someone did. If the odds favour Someone making it happen, why would I believe it's Something, just because believing is Someone is deemed "unscientifc"?

True. But the odds don't support ID

TroGunn:
Has it been irrefutablely proven that Someone is not required? Nope.

True

TroGunn:
At best, this is what has been proven so far as it relates to Evolution ( I tend to use this term to lump all associated theories and "facts" relating to non-God explanation for origin of universe (Big B.ang), origing of life (Abiogenesis) and diversity in life (bio-Evolution):

Big B.ang: Universe is expanding, so must have started from a singularity. This does not disprove God. It might even be regarded as proof of need for a Starter (God).

True. Focus on might. But if you claim your starter god was conscious and intelligent, you arrive at the problem of how. Simple to complex is the default in nature and the logical way, like I've already stated on this thread. It's a needless and complicated assumption

TroGunn:
Origin of Life: Amino acids ( building blocks of RNA and proteins) can be synthesized from other molecules. This does not disprove God. The most "basic' or "simple" lifeform is so so complex - definitely more than throwing in molecules together is required to make them come alive. If/when man successfully creates a living, even if non-replicating cell, then the theory of random origin of life will be thrown out because it will take painstaking effort and design to achieve that feat - it sure won't be random.

Very sketchy for now, true. The tentative premise of low odds though could help explain shared ancestry. Though that could be more a result of the odds of single cell organisms jumping to multicell being fairly low as well. Also abiogenesis need not all have taken place at once, it might have progressed like evolution.
Regardless, I do not know != god did it. That's arguing from ignorance

TroGunn:
Diversity of Life:
1) Fossils: Over 94% of fossils found show little or no changes is species over time. Remaining % are arranged to support evolution, but are inconclusive - could be unknown extinct species and not link showing evolution from one to another species. Why should I accept an argument based on 6% of available evidence? Fossils overall show quick appearance and disappearance of species within a short time - not the expected slow changes as evolution would have us believe.

No animal is a different species than its parent, or grand parent, or even great grand parent. If the details are fuzzy, that doesn't invalidate evolution either ways, just means details are hazy for now. I've explained this via effective theories already.
Regardless, argument from ignorance
(Btw, a single fossil located in the wrong region would invalidate evolution, it's never happened.)

TroGunn:
2) Mutation/Natural Selection: At best, what has been observed or expreiments (artificial mutation) prove that species can adapt to their environment, within boundaries. No evidence is provided that supports one "kind" of life changing to another. Does not disprove God creating different "kinds" of life forms.

Microevolution is well documented, so I can't see the problem here. Evolution requires inordinate amounts of time and maybe geographic restrictions. Breeders with a purpose have managed hairless dogs from wolves in a few thousands years. Think of what could be achieved by geographic restrictions and millions of years, even by the haphazard nature

TroGunn:
3) Same building block: Yes all living things have cells with proteins, RNA and DNA. This does not disprove God. May even be taken as evidence of a Common Designer.

True. But if you support this does this mean you support evolution, which you've already argued against? Or do you mean god was focused on one species at one point, then went around later altering myriad organisms to form different species, why? Not to mention riddling said species with imperfections? Why didn't it just make various species rather than introducing the dangerous shared ancestry? This is just one of the many design choices an ID would have to explain.

TroGunn:
Those who take the non-God option are free to do so, just because they can't undertand the God concept, prove him in a experiment or are too proud and too certain of their limited knowledge. Evidence, though, strongly points to His existence.

Mistake being you assume they don't understand. If you're talking about the scientific community, that's unlikely. They do, and are very aware the situation is inconclusive, but clearly points away from the vast majority of IDs. Best one could hope for is a completely detached clock maker, but that would be needless and complicating (for instance, how was it formed?), and clearly AFI. And who do you think more arrogant, the one that tells you it is so just because he says so or one who provides evidence to back up his claims?


edits: you're rice @reyg, needs editing

Chose your words well because I'm watching. Kay is watching too.

Logicboy03:


Nonsense.

Of all the possible meanings of "Let there be light", only one you'll accept is creating the sun so that the Genesis account can be discredited, when it actually is about removing whatever (vapor or gasses) which made the earth dark thereby exposing light (diffused) to the surface of the earth. The moon, sun, stars, etc were already in existence as shown in Gen 1:1 - the beginning.

By creative "Day" 4, Heavenly luminaries (sources of light) become discernible to an earthly observer - Gen 1:14-19.

Of course all this is nonsense to you because it doesn't fit your preconceived negative view of the Bible, yet you claim to be objective.

TroGunn:

Of all the possible meanings of "Let there be light", only one you'll accept is creating the sun so that the Genesis account can be discredited, when it actually is about removing whatever (vapor or gasses) which made the earth dark thereby exposing light (diffused) to the surface of the earth. The moon, sun, stars, etc were already in existence as shown in Gen 1:1 - the beginning.

By creative "Day" 4, Heavenly luminaries (sources of light) become discernible to an earthly observer - Gen 1:14-19.

Of course all this is nonsense to you because it doesn't fit your preconceived negative view of the Bible, yet you claim to be objective.

Where did the light come from if not the sun?

Surely, when there is no sun, the earth is dark

Reyginus: Chose your words well because I'm watching. Kay is watching too.

LEtS alL HAs A brAWl...

GyyYYAaaARRRrrr

wiegraf: This is in no way conclusive evidence for the existence of a god though. It is tainted particularly by the antrophic principle (if you've not come across it google it) and arguments from ignorance.




Antrophic principle.

Even on this planet only a fraction of the land mass is available to most life, including us, the sometimes alleged magnum opus. Not to talk of this star system, galaxy or universe. Hundreds of billions of stars in hundreds of billions of galaxies, some claiming built just for us. How mind staggeringly wasteful to all life in general. Terrible design flaws in most species. If indeed we were the goal, 14 billion years to come up with a rather uncharitable sentient species brimming with hubris.

Our scientists have consciousness and intelligence, observe what they've accomplished in the last 400 years when they combine these traits with purposes. They are doing much better, as far caring for us and hopefully all life (if we mature) than nature is.

The evidence overwhelmingly points to nature not having have a goal, it just is. That would explains the chaos and randomness. There's little 'order' there, and what did show up as 'order' (I assume, you label anything that is beneficial to our sort of life as order, yes?) just happened by chance. There are a lot of things that could be improved on, like homo sapiens. How do you know there are no much better configurations of the constants to support life as we know it by the way? Or better forms of life than carbon based even? Wouldn't religious heaven qualify as one such universe for that matter? You cannot assume this is the optimal setting for whatever purpose you're pushing.

And yes, what is this purpose you think an ID had, and could you show that this universe has the best possible configuration to go about achieving it? If you can't, you're arguing from ignorance and making a needless assumption. And again, antrophic principle




True. But the odds don't support ID



True



True. Focus on might. But if you claim your stater god, was conscious and intelligent, you arrive at the problem of how. Simple to complex is the default in nature, and the logical way, like I've already stated on this thread. It's a needless and complicated assumption



Very sketchy for now, true. The tentative premise of low odds though could help explain shared ancestry. Though that could be more a result of the odds of single cell organisms jumping to multicell being fairly low as well. Also abiogenesis need not all have taken place at once, it might have progressed like evolution.
Regardless, I do not know != god did it. That's arguing from ignorance



No animal is a different species than its parent, or grand parent, or even great grand parent. If the details are fuzzy, that doesn't invalidate evolution either ways, just means details are hazy for now. I've explained this via effective theories already.
Regardless, argument from ignorance
(Btw, a single fossil located in the wrong region would invalidate evolution, it's never happened.)



Microevolution is well documented, so I can't see the problem here. Evolution requires inordinate amounts of time and maybe geographic restrictions. Breeders with a purpose have managed hairless dogs from wolves in a few thousands years. Think of what could be achieved by geographic restrictions and millions of years, even by the haphazard nature



True. But if you support this does this mean you support evolution, which you've already argued against? Or do you mean god was stringent at one point, then went around later altering myriad organisms to form different species, why? Not to mention riddling said species with imperfections? Why didn't it just make various species rather than introducing the dangerous shared ancestry?



Mistake being you assume they don't understand. If you're talking about the scientific community, that's unlikely. They do, and are very aware the situation is inconclusive, but clearly points away from the vast majority of IDs. Best one could hope for is a completely ambivalent clock maker, but that would be needless and complicating (for instance, how was it formed?), and clearly AFI. And who do you think more arrogant, the one that tells you it is so just because he says so or one who provides evidence to back up his claims?

I walk in the desert and come across an Ipad4 right there in the middle of the desert. Within the Ipad4 is an OS, dual core processors, 512Mb of memory chips, cameras, etc - obviously an intelligent device. I conclude that the Ipad4 must have somehow evolved from the sand ( in fact sand contains silicon!).

Because a belief that the Ipad4 was made by someone, that I can't see or prove in an experiment, is "unscientific". If someone made it, where's the person? Why is the Ipad4 in the desert? Who gave birth to the person? I can't say - so I conclude the person doesn't exist. Believing that he exists would be an "argument from ignorance".

And yes, the "anthrofunny" principle - the sand must be there so that the Ipad4 can evolve. I have to invoke it because i can't explain existence of a designer. As someone said "it tends to be invoked by theorists whenever they do not have a good enough theory to explain the observed facts."

In any case, I badmouth the Ipad4 for not supporting flash - evidence of poor design. More proof that it evolved from sand without a designer.

I log on to NL and tell my story and badmouth anyone who dare says the Ipad4 is the product of an intelligent designer.

(Note: the DNA is so complex that none of man's inventions comes close to it in design efficiency - it stores staggering amount of information about each organism, gives code that maintains the organism, reads itself, copies itself faultlessly, without leaving the nucleus of a cell ensures that it's instructions are carried out to the letter. And yet all the DNA information that defines the behavior, hair colour, eye colour, everything about all 7 billion humans alive would not fill a spoon And yet, according to some people, it was not designed by someone, just like that our hypothetical Ipad4).

TroGunn:

I walk in the desert and come across an Ipad2 right there in the middle of the desert. Within the Ipad4 is an OS, dual core processors, 512Mb of memory chips, cameras, etc - obviously an intelligent device. I conclude that the Ipad4 must have somehow evolved from the sand ( in fact sand is contains silicon!).

Because a belief that the Ipad4 was made by someone, that I can't see or prove in an experiment, is "unscientific". If someone made it, where's the person? Why is the Ipad4 in the desert? Who gave birth to the person? I can't say - so I conclude the person doesn't exist. Believing that he exists would be an "argument from ignorance".

And yes, the "anthrofunny" principle - the sand must be there so that the Ipad4 can evolve. I have to invoke it because i can't explain existence of a designer. As someone said "it tends to be invoked by theorists whenever they do not have a good enough theory to explain the observed facts."

In any case, I badmouth the Ipad4 for not supporting flash - evidence of poor design. More proof that it evolved from sand without a designer.

I log on to NL and tell my story and badmouth anyone who dare says the Ipad4 is the product of an intelligent designer.

(Note: the DNA is so complex that none of man's inventions comes close to it in design efficiency - it stores staggering amount of information about each organism, gives code that maintains the organism, reads itself, copies itself faultlessly, without leaving the nucleus of a cell ensures that it's instructions are carried out to the letter. [b] And yet all the DNA information that defines the behavior, hair colour, eye colour, everything about all 7 billion humans alive would not fill a spoon /b] And yet, according to some people, it was not designed by someone, just like that our hypothetical Ipad4).

Relax first. Whatever intelligent agent responsible for the Universe's complexity is definitely more complex and given that its life makes it a greater complexity which should invariably point at another GREATeR intelligent agent. Ridiculous when you think of it.

Kay 17:

Relax first. Whatever intelligent agent responsible for the Universe's complexity is definitely more complex and given that its life makes it a greater complexity which should invariably point at another GREATeR intelligent agent. Ridiculous when you think of it.

It all points to a Maker with much greater intelligence.

TroGunn:

I walk in the desert and come across an Ipad2 right there in the middle of the desert. Within the Ipad4 is an OS, dual core processors, 512Mb of memory chips, cameras, etc - obviously an intelligent device. I conclude that the Ipad4 must have somehow evolved from the sand ( in fact sand is contains silicon!).

Because a belief that the Ipad4 was made by someone, that I can't see or prove in an experiment, is "unscientific". If someone made it, where's the person? Why is the Ipad4 in the desert? Who gave birth to the person? I can't say - so I conclude the person doesn't exist. Believing that he exists would be an "argument from ignorance".

And yes, the "anthrofunny" principle - the sand must be there so that the Ipad4 can evolve. I have to invoke it because i can't explain existence of a designer. As someone said "it tends to be invoked by theorists whenever they do not have a good enough theory to explain the observed facts."

In any case, I badmouth the Ipad4 for not supporting flash - evidence of poor design. More proof that it evolved from sand without a designer.

I log on to NL and tell my story and badmouth anyone who dare says the Ipad4 is the product of an intelligent designer.

(Note: the DNA is so complex that none of man's inventions comes close to it in design efficiency - it stores staggering amount of information about each organism, gives code that maintains the organism, reads itself, copies itself faultlessly, without leaving the nucleus of a cell ensures that it's instructions are carried out to the letter. [b] And yet all the DNA information that defines the behavior, hair colour, eye colour, everything about all 7 billion humans alive would not fill a spoon /b] And yet, according to some people, it was not designed by someone, just like that our hypothetical Ipad4).

You sound mad.

Ignoring the rest of my post which highlights many other imperfections and focusing on the argument from design, there is no ipad in nature. The ipad is built overnight, with a clear purpose in mind, manipulating materials that are not readily available in nature. Not so with dna, it was created haphazardly over millions, or billions of years. Tempered by the elements without purpose or intelligence, thus resulting in many failures. Over 99% of all species that have ever been are extinct.

The galaxy is filled with many such complex constructs similar to dna. In fact, even atoms, once thought of as being simple, are not so simple at all once you consider quarks. Let's not even assume string theory (which yes, isn't a proper theory) is valid, if it were the amount of complexity in every single atom has sky rocketed, exponentially. But all these things can be explained simply. It's simple to complex, till you get very, very complex in some situations. Again, sometimes over billions of years.

For examples of simple to complex, if you haven't come across fractals and 'the game of life', google them.


And on other notes, you mention only humans as if this stupendously big and now complex universe were built just for us. The anthropic principle clearly still stands, the universe wasn't built to meet your needs, you were inadvertently built to meet the universes needs. In a purposeless and random manner no less. Your post is still an argument from ignorance. And all apple products are $hit

TroGunn:

It all points to a Maker with much greater intelligence.

Begged another question. And again, what made the much greater intelligence? Another much greater intelligence or you shouting LALALALALA.

wiegraf:

You sound mad.

Ignoring the rest of my post which highlights many other imperfections and focusing on the argument from design, there is no ipad in nature. The ipad is built overnight, with a clear purpose in mind, manipulating materials that are not readily available in nature. Not so with dna, it was created haphazardly over millions, or billions of years. Tempered by the elements without purpose or intelligence, thus resulting in many failures. Over 99% of all species that have ever been are extinct.

The galaxy is filled with many such complex constructs similar to dna. In fact, even atoms, once thought of as being simple, are not so simple at all once you consider quarks. Let's not even assume string theory (which yes, isn't a proper theory) is valid, if it were the amount of complexity in every single atom has sky rocketed, exponentially. But all these things can be explained simply. It's simple to complex, till you get very, very complex in some situations. Again, sometimes over billions of years.

For examples of simple to complex, if you haven't come across fractals and 'the game of life', google them.


And on other notes, you mention only humans as if this stupendously big and now complex universe were built just for us. The anthropic principle clearly still stands, the universe wasn't built to meet your needs, you were inadvertently built to meet the universes needs. In a purposeless and random manner no less. Your post is still an argument from ignorance. And all apple products are $hit

I'm quite sane. You, sir, are obviously without purpose. The Ipad4 was built over time actually and with "simple' building blocks. Because of that, surely it must have evolved. And assuming I don't know the purpose of the Ipad4 and because Ipad1, Ipad2 and Ipad3 are now "extinct" - surely it must have evolved. No way is a more complex intelligent designer involved.

wiegraf:

Begged another question. And again, what made the much greater intelligence? Another much greater intelligence or you shouting LALALALALA.

And so because we can't explain the greater intelligence, it must have happened as a result of random, purposeless process(es), just like our Ipad4. Great argument there.

TroGunn:

It all points to a Maker with much greater intelligence.

Like your ipad example, we use our inductive experience to find God, but God contradicts the experience. We believe all structural complexities are the result of an intelligent agent however God being such an agent is the ultimate structural complexity!

So we can limit our ipad and car examples to man only. To explain structural complexities of Nature we have to look else where.

TroGunn:

I'm quite sane. You, sir, are obviously without purpose. The Ipad4 was built over time actually and with "simple' building blocks. Because of that, surely it must have evolved. And assuming I don't know the purpose of the Ipad4 and because Ipad1, Ipad2 and Ipad3 are now "extinct" - surely it must have evolved. No way is a more complex intelligent designer involved.

You still sound mad. But you're maybe not cognizant of the way I use the word 'mad' in situations like this. Mad = angry. I am not purposeless because I am conscious and intelligent, I can create a purpose for myself. Don't need a book of fairy tales with questionable morals (as far as natural evil is concerned) to help me with that.

The ipad wasn't built overtime, it was designed over time. Bits assembled at some plant, probably overnight. Logistics of getting the bits together could take time, true.

Anyways, dna was not designed, at all. Put together without any purpose or intelligence, else the many imperfections in life could surely been have addressed, no? It also wouldn't have taken millions or billions of years for an intelligent super being to put together, yes? Puny humans have mapped dna in how many years now? If you come across something that looks to have been put together aimlessly that could be explained by natural means, then it probably was put together aimlessly by nature over millenia. Simple. God? Where? Who created this god? Don't ignore simple to complex, like I've already indicated. You do know how ockhams razor works as well I hope. And if details aren't clear yet, remember, effective theories. They will be more accurate with time. Don't invoke 'god of the gaps' or argue from ignorance. It was once thought the earth was on top of a giant turtle god. In fact, story is when someone was asked what's under the turtle, she replied "it's turtles all the way down". This is basically what you are now doing.

You don't seem to have much more to add. You are now just shouting LALALA. I suppose your next question would be to ask me if I am descended from monkeys? And they say atheists are arrogant, because we accept this unimaginably large universe was not put together just for us. Yet theists are not arrogant, despite most believing they have a special friend in the sky reading their mind who built this vast universe just for them. Maybe he waited 14 billion years so he could watch big brother? It's baffling....

TroGunn:

And so because we can't explain the greater intelligence, it must have happened as a result of random, purposeless process(es), just like our Ipad4. Great argument there.

This is all roughly correct except for the ipad part. And not 'must', but much more likely.

edit: oh yes, I nearly forget, there are also other reasons it likely isn't a greater intelligence as well. I've mentioned a few maybe but you choose to ignore them.

wiegraf:

You still sound mad. But you're maybe not cognizant of the way I use the word 'mad' in situations like this. Mad = angry. I am not purposeless because I am conscious and intelligent, I can create a purpose for myself. Don't need a book of fairy tales with questionable morals (as far as natural evil is concerned) to help me with that.

The ipad wasn't built overtime, it was designed over time. Bits assembled at some plant, probably overnight. Logistics of getting the bits together could take time, true.

Anyways, dna was not designed, at all. Put together without any purpose or intelligence, else the many imperfections in life could surely been have addressed, no? It also wouldn't have taken millions or billions of years for an intelligent super being to put together, yes? Puny humans have mapped dna in how many years now? If you come across something that looks to have been put together aimlessly that could be explained by natural means, then it probably was put together aimlessly by nature over millenia. Simple. God? Where? Who created this god? Don't ignore simple to complex, like I've already indicated. You do know how ockhams razor works as well I hope. And if details aren't clear yet, remember, effective theories. They will be more accurate with time. Don't invoke 'god of the gaps' or argue from ignorance. It was once thought the earth was on top of a giant turtle god. In fact, story is when someone was asked what's under the turtle, she replied "it's turtles all the way down". This is basically what you are now doing.

You don't seem to have much more to add. You are now just shouting LALALA. I suppose your next question would be to ask me if I am descended from monkeys? And they say atheists are arrogant, because we accept this unimaginably large universe was not put together just for us. Yet theists are not arrogant, despite most believing they have a special friend in the sky reading their mind who built this vast universe just for them. Maybe he waited 14 billion years so he could watch big brother? It's baffling....

Yes, I misunderstood your usage of mad - my bad. And no, I'm far from mad - have no reason to be. The more I think about it the more convinced I am that an intelligent super being did put it together.

Our Ipad4 example illustrates the point, though it's an insult to nature to compare the much more and efficient design in nature to the Ipad. And the Ipad was built over time, even though overnight might not be a billion years it is still time. Assuming we didn't know for a FACT that it was put together by some humans or robots putting long hours in some Chinese factory, evolutionists would just have whipped up billions of years as the time required for it to evolve from sand.

Puny humans have mapped the DNA and have been awestruck by it's design. Only an ignorant mind would think the DNA is "simple". Hear Scientific American, which generally tows an evolutionist tone:

"Even the simpler molecules are produced only in small amounts in realistic experiments simulating possible primitive earth conditions. What is worse, these molecules are generally minor constituents of tars: It remains problematical how they could have been separated and purified through geochemical processes whose normal effects are to make organic mixtures more and more of a jumble. With somewhat more complex molecules these difficulties rapidly increase. In particular a purely geochemical origin of nucleotides presents great difficulties".

Most evolutionist stick to the "Ipad evolved" story and brandish it as if it's true because of bias against belief in a Creator they don't understand.

And because they don't or won't understand the Creator, his motives or the purpose of his creation - just like we can't grasp why the Ipad is in the desert and can't answer questions about it's obviously intelligent designer - they have to take the "scientific" fairytale that it evolved.

The book, "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" summarizes it:

"To the skeptic, the proposition that the genetic programmes of higher organisms, consisting of something close to a thousand million bits of information, equivalent to the sequence of letters in a small library of 1,000 volumes, containing in encoded form countless thousands of intricate algorithms controlling, specifying, and ordering the growth and development of billions and billions of cells into the form of a complex organism, were composed by a purely random process is simply an affront to reason . But to the Darwinist, the idea is accepted without a ripple of doubt - the paradigm takes precedence!".

When a fossil is found that purports to provide the "missing link" between Man and apes, for instance, it's all in the media and in our faces. When further research discredits it like the Neanderthal man or "Lucy", hardly a wimper is heard. BIAS.

You are right, I don't have much to add. Like @striktlymi said earlier, it getting cyclic now.

In any case, nice debate. I did learn a thing or two - including the "anthrofunny" principle. My faith in the believe in a Creator has surely grown as a result.

TroGunn:

Universe including sun and earth were created "in the beginning" (Gen 1:1). Nothing here shows how long it took to create these bodies or how old they are - it most certainly could have been millions or billions of years.

"Let there be light" does not refer to sun's creation, but visibility of sun's light and division into day and night.

So the six days of creation and resting on the seventh day is all nonsense?

TroGunn:
My faith in the believe in a Creator has surely grown as a result.

Good for you. Though I'm weary of faith, but meh.
I don't think the picture you paint is accurate, but meh again.
I hope you're one capable of being able to say separate church from state, that's all I ask. From what I can tell it would seem so, or at least you're not standard sheeple and have actually given it some thought. But regardless, as long as you're not infringing on anyone's rights, that's your prerogative.
Kudos

plaetton:

So the six days of creation and resting on the seventh day is all nonsense?

Hebrews 4:1 shows 7th day rest is still ongoing, supporting a non-24hr "creative" day.

wiegraf:

Good for you. Though I'm weary of faith, but meh.
I don't think the picture you paint is accurate, but meh again.
I hope you're one capable of being able to say separate church from state, that's all I ask. From what I can tell it would seem so, or at least you're not standard sheeple and have actually given it some thought. But regardless, as long as you're not infringing on anyone's rights, that's your prerogative.
Kudos

Church should stay separate from state - any mix justs messes up with people's right to have their own views, which while it may even still be religious, could be contrary to the "official" view.