Ah, yes, here it is indeed. It is the first line that informed my memory, and yes, I state that it is still a nonsensical line. Such nonsense is not even theoretically possible. For him to -

1. Conceive it as theoretically possible

2. Then admit it impossible in practical terms, and then

3. String out the same idea simply interpolating extended time as the pacifier -

Is eminently nonsensical.

Let me ask you - what does it mean to assert anything to be "theoretically" possible?

I say to you that the bold in red in his quote below is NOT even theoretically possible. What follows it in blue bold is nothing but an admission that such would require intelligent programming.

For instance, it is theoretically possible for an eye to spring into being, in a single lucky step, from nothing: from bare skin, let's say. It is theoretically possible in the sense that a recipe could be written out in the form of a large number of mutations. If all these mutations happened simultaneously, a complete eye could, indeed, spring from nothing. But although it is theoretically possible, it is in practice inconceivable. The quantity of luck involved is much too large. The "correct" recipe involves changes in a huge number of genes simultaneously. The correct recipe is one particular combination of changes out of trillions of equally probable combinations of chances. We can certainly rule out such a miraculous coincidence. But it is perfectly plausible that the modern eye could have sprung from something almost the same as the modern eye but not quite: a very slightly less elaborate eye. By the same argument, this slightly less elaborate eye sprang from a slightly less elaborate eye still, and so on. If you assume a sufficiently large number of sufficiently small differences between each evolutionary stage and its predecessor, you are bound to be able to derive a full, complex, working eye from bare skin. How many intermediate stages are we allowed to postulate? That depends on how much time we have to play with. Has there been enough time for eyes to evolve by little steps from nothing?

And so yes, i retain my position.

Deep Sight:
Ah, yes, here it is indeed. It is the first line that informed my memory, and yes, I state that it is still a nonsensical line. Such nonsense is not even theoretically possible. For him to -

1. Conceive it as theoretically possible

2. Then admit it impossible in practical terms, and then

3. String out the same idea simply interpolating extended time as the pacifier -

Is eminently nonsensical.

Let me ask you - what does it mean to assert anything to be "theoretically" possible?

I say to you that the bold in red in his quote below is NOT even theoretically possible. What follows it in blue bold is nothing but an admission that such would require intelligent programming.



And so yes, i retain my position.

You wont get away that easily. Remember that you remembered just one line. This in spite of the fact that he said more than that putting his comments in proper perspective.
Admit it. You took him out of context. If anyone was passing by and did not know how to access the full article, that your comment would have misled them.

is theoretically possible for an eye to spring into being, in a single lucky step, from nothing:

Jayriginal,

Please look at this statement again. Now I ask you to tell me what it means for something to be theoretically possible.

I say to you that it means that under current accepted theories of applicable science, such a thing could happen, even if it is an unlikely thing.

Not so?

Now, tell me, is it possible for an eye to spring into existence in a single lucky step under currently accepted science?

TELL ME THAT IS NOT BALDERDASH, ADMIT THAT I DID NOT LIE, AND BE OBJECTIVE IN THIS PLEASE!

I am somehwat confused about where deepsight and mr annoy stand. Let me try to summarize.
Both of you believe or accept the evolution of the universe and organic life as facts, but under the guidance of a conscious being, right?
Am I right?
If so, then we arguing over nothing.
The notion of a conscious intelligent being overseeing the evolution is somewhat palatable for the purpose of this thread,though I can challange it at any time.

plaetton: and mr annoy stand.

I AM LAUGHING AND STRUGGLING TO BELIEVE THAT THE BOLD IS NOT DELIBERATE!

Deep Sight:

I AM LAUGHING AND STRUGGLING TO BELIEVE THAT THE BOLD IS NOT DELIBERATE!

It is not deliberate o. Its a mistake. It mr anony.
My appologies.

catch you guys later.

plaetton:
Yes, ofcourse, the numbers are mind-boggling and the odds are incredible, but, in the same vein pls take time to imagine , on any given second of time, how many collisions of matter occur in the universe. Can you even put a number to it? Can you even imagine how many stars are in the universe?
If particles of matter are colliding at zillions and zillions of any given second, just stretch your imagination a bit and consider that zillions and zillions of collisions or energy interactions per second over a period of 14 billion or more years can can greatly increase the odds of any type of complex configuration of matter occuring.

This almost like saying: "yeah I have written an intelligible comment but do you know the number of random thoughts that go on in my head?" (that's if the thoughts themselves are indeed random)

You are missing the point entirely, it is not that matter is colliding but that there is an observable order. Even the so called "random collisions" themselves must adhere to laws of motion; action and reaction.

In fact the event called "collision" is impossible and meaningless in a universe of absolute disorder.

plaetton:

Your answer is somewhat acceptable.

But you are you speaking for all the bible huggers?
It is this biblical perspectives, the ones about eternal sin and redemption that I wish to challange and refute.

Lol, Now you have finally stated your true purposes for starting this thread......you wanted to have yourself a good ol' bible-bashing but apparently it isn't working out as you had hoped.

Anyway, if you are interested in going further, then let us move forward. Let us look at the Bible

Premise 1: First this: God created the Heavens and Earth—all you see, all you don't see. Genesis 1:1 (MSG)

Considering recent developments on this thread, do you agree that this premise is true?

Mr_Anony:

The universe is ordered relative to disorder.

What do I consider orderly? Well, let me see...........
The fact that we are having an intelligible conversation.
let's do a little maths, working from absolute disorder.

It is estimated that if you weigh 70kg, then you are made up of 7x10^27 atoms (not counting electrons, protons, neutrons etc) that is 7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms. The probability that they come together to form your body is 7x10^27! (seven billion billion billion factorial - you can type that into google and see what result it gives you)

That's just your body, it says nothing of your intelligence and your mind. Now that probability happens 7 billion times(approximate number of people in the universe)
Note I have only accounted for human bodies hanging in empty space. I have not accounted for all the processes that must be in place for you to actually be alive and communicate with me via the internet.

It is infinitely impossible for you and I to exist let alone have an intelligible conversation in a universe of absolute disorder.

Argument from improbability.
Read the links if you want
http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/intro_text/Chapter%203%20Religion/Teleological.htm

Deep Sight:

Jayriginal,

Please look at this statement again. Now I ask you to tell me what it means for something to be theoretically possible.

I say to you that it means that under current accepted theories of applicable science, such a thing could happen, even if it is an unlikely thing.

Not so?

Now, tell me, is it possible for an eye to spring into existence in a single lucky step under currently accepted science?

TELL ME THAT IS NOT BALDERDASH, ADMIT THAT I DID NOT LIE, AND BE OBJECTIVE IN THIS PLEASE!

The issue here is context.

I said you were taking liberties with the truth, not that you were lying. You took that one line and ignored the other sentences that put what he was saying into perspective.
Its that simple. Notice also, when I quoted the full paragraph, the line you previously quoted was left in it.

Deep Sight:

I AM LAUGHING AND STRUGGLING TO BELIEVE THAT THE BOLD IS NOT DELIBERATE!

LOOOOLLL!!! I think that's what they call a Fruedian slip (I must have really pissed of somebody)

@Plaetton, No offense taken. We're cool.....by the way I'm a christian so I believe the truth of the bible.....just to be clear sha.

Martian:

Argument from improbability.
Read the link if you want.
http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Argument_from_Improbability

Lol, you make me laugh. Now read my post again carefully this time, notice the context of my argument.
.....Then explain to me exactly how I have committed the fallacy of improbability according to your "freethoughtpedia"

Deepsight is here with his oneness of infinity delusion. . . . . .

Interesting thread. Haven't exactly been following, more like taking a peep every now and again. But I'm on now, but watching from the sides.

mazaje: Deepsight is here with his oneness of infinity delusion. . . . . .

lol! my chairman sir, i hail oooo! long time, how you dey na?

Mr_Anony:
Lol, you make me laugh. Now read my post again carefully this time, notice the context of my argument.
.....Then explain to me exactly how I have committed the fallacy of improbability according to your "freethoughtpedia"

Your argument is that it's improbable that the universe exists as it is because of the complexity, therefore it was created by a god. If something this complex has to come from a designer, can we same the same for the designer?

Design also connotes purpose, so can you tell say what the purpose is?

Mr_Anony:
It is infinitely impossible for you and I to exist let alone have an intelligible conversation in a universe of absolute disorder.

As usual, you are arguing against a straw msn. Who said the universe is "absolute disorder"? You are the only one who keeps saying it.

Martian:

As usual, you are arguing against a straw msn. Who said the universe is "absolute disorder"? You are the only one who keeps saying it.

Please read through the thread from the beginning so that you can understand what my argument is about. Don't just jump in, counter a claim that you don't fully understand and then start complaining about strawmen once you are refuted.

Mr_Anony:
The universe is ordered relative to disorder.

Give an example of what you consider orderly about the universe and how the opposite would be considered "disordered"

Mr_Anony:
Please read through the thread from the beginning so that you can understand what my argument is about. Don't just jump in, counter a claim that you don't understand and then start complaining about strawmen.

Well I never mentioned absolute disorder, so why argue against it with me? The claim I countered is the one about how the universe is orderly and I said you are ignoring the the part that we can term disorderly. It doesn't have to be either/or when it can be seen that it has characteristics of order and disorder as far as we are concerned.

Martian:

Give an example of what you consider orderly about the universe and how the opposite would be considered "disordered"

Please try to read the thread from the beginning and then ask appropriate questions

Martian:

Well I never mentioned absolute disorder, so why argue against it with me?

because you jumped into an argument where I was arguing against absolute disorder....You should have looked before leaping

Mr_Anony:
because you jumped into an argument where I was arguing against absolute disorder....You should have looked before leaping

Yea............now, is the universe "absolutely ordered"?

Martian:

Yea............now, is the universe "absolutely ordered"?

You weary me. Have you now read the thread from the beginning? If you have, you'll understand my argument and you won't really need to ask these questions of yours. If you can't be bothered to do that then I don't really have to answer your questions

Mr_Anony:
You weary me. Have you now read the thread from the beginning? If you have, you'll understand my argument and you won't really need to ask these questions of yours. If you can't be bothered to do that then I don't really have to answer your questions

no one asked you if you hold the opinion that the universe is absolutely ordered or what the purpose of the universe is if it is indeed ordered according to the whims of an intelligent designer.

What do you mean "the world is damaged" and what would an undamaged world look like?

Martian:

no one asked you if you hold the opinion that the universe is absolutely ordered or what the purpose of the universe is if it is indeed ordered according to the whims of an intelligent designer.

What do you mean "the world is damaged" and what would an undamaged world look like?

Ok now that you have read my argument, I will come to your questions a little later but first, do you agree that at least there exists some order in the universe?

Mr. Annoy, your attention is needed here -

https://www.nairaland.com/1009338/succinctly-anony

Mr_Anony:
Ok now that you have read my argument, I will come to your questions a little later but first, do you agree that at least there exists some order in the universe?

I think that parts of the universe can be termed orderly according to human standards, and some of it can be termed disorderly according to the same standards.

Martian:

I think that parts of the universe can be termed orderly according to human standards, and some of it can be termed disorderly according to the same standards.

How are you my friend? My leader needs to see you.

Deep Sight:
Mr. Annoy, your attention is needed here -

https://www.nairaland.com/1009338/succinctly-anony

Lol @annoy (I am really beginning to get a bad reputation on this forum)
I've seen the thread, I'll give you answers as much as I understand in a bit.

Martian:

I think that parts of the universe can be termed orderly according to human standards, and some of it can be termed disorderly according to the same standards.

You have just described a damaged universe!

How else would you describe a damaged universe other than the way you have just described the universe here? i.e. some parts are in order while other parts are not functioning properly.

Mr_Anony:
You have just described a damaged universe!

How else would you describe a damaged universe other than the way you have just described the universe here? i.e. some parts are in order while other parts are not functioning properly.

I didn't say anything about proper function or damaged universe. You asked about if I consider the universe ordered and you are just misrepresented it.

If this is a "damaged" universe, why is do you consider it damaged? What would an undamaged universe look like?........................and you still avoid answering any questions, but try not to avoid these ones.