UyiIredia:


Once again, the links I posted make nonsense of your claims of bad design. Furthermore, there's no way God could work around such constraints, these constraints are pre-requisites for design. For example, the physical laws of the natural world God made which are necessary for life to exist but would constrain the design of living things.

One thing I say is that perfection is a state of mind. One wonders what a perfect design would have to be like.

Why did God create these constraints?

Kay17:

Why did God create these constraints?

Any design must work within a given set of parameters.

UyiIredia:


Any design must work within a given set of parameters.

So why did you find it strange when I was saying physical laws set parameters/constraints and do not have a direct causal link? Was it deceptive?

UyiIredia:


This is circular reasoning. 'the conformation of the enzymes' is what L amino acids are, that usage requires an explanation.

No, the conformation of the enzymes is the three dimensional shape of its amino acid sequence.

UyiIredia:

That's your opinion. You have failed to show why it's true.

You're the one proposing the existence of the entity so it is up to you to show that it exists.

UyiIredia:

There are similarities in structure. The said intelligence is inferred from facts I've explained earlier; I can't reveal its existence but I certainly can explain how its existence is inferred.

What is the structural similarity between a heart and a pumping machine? What I'm asking for is whether or not intelligence can exist without a material substrate. If it cannot, then your inference automatically fails.

UyiIredia:

Post the definition of 'argument from ignorance' on Wikipedia and show that what I've done fits it.

This is ridiculous. Couldn't you look it up yourself? Or do I have to explain how to use language too?

Wikipedia:
Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary", is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa).

You seem to think that your proposition is true because it hasn't been proven false.

UyiIredia:

The same applies even moreso to your stance, should we just assume that the universe exists uncaused ?

My position is that your God isn't needed. In fact you've not shown that your God exists.

UyiIredia:


A body.

What do legs support in a whale?

UyiIredia:

2 questions. What is this 'greater structure of things' ?

Essentially other living things.

UyiIredia:

Why must the similarity coherent with this 'greater structure of things' suggest evolution of all life from a common ancestor ?

The similarity is a fact. Because that is how inheritance works.

UyiIredia:

Once again, the links I posted make nonsense of your claims of bad design. Furthermore, there's no way God could work around such constraints, these constraints are pre-requisites for design. For example, the physical laws of the natural world God made which are necessary for life to exist but would constrain the design of living things.

Which quote from which particular link does this? So God is limited by constraints he himself set up? That is absurd.

UyiIredia:

One thing I say is that perfection is a state of mind. One wonders what a perfect design would have to be like.

We don't need to know perfect design to recognize bad design and what you've attributed to your God is bad design.

UyiIredia:

That's the best response you have Maybe it's because you don't have a case at all.

That is an appropriate response because I simply don't see what your point is.

UyiIredia:

There's no evidence for this. The so-called overwhelming evidence amount to nothing when their premises are analysed.

No, you're denying the evidence for this. That is why there's a full article on evidence for evolution on Wikipedia. You can read that and refute the premises but you don't have the required expertise to even begin to critique what is written there.

thehomer:


No, the conformation of the enzymes is the three dimensional shape of its amino acid sequence

.

The enzymes are made of those L-amino acids, pointing to its conformation does not explain what mechanism ensures L amino acids are used over D amino acids. And by the way, it's circular logic.

thehomer:

You're the one proposing the existence of the entity so it is up to you to show that it exists.

Again, you have failed to show why your statement is true.

thehomer:

What is the structural similarity between a heart and a pumping machine? What I'm asking for is whether or not intelligence can exist without a material substrate. If it cannot, then your inference automatically fails.

Both require electricity, both have chambers through which fluid is pumped in and out. Artificial hearts are structured in a manner quite similar to human hearts.

thehomer:

This is ridiculous. Couldn't you look it up yourself? Or do I have to explain how to use language too?

It isn't. State the definition of 'argument from ignorance', show how it applies to my arguments. If you won't, then maybe your accusation is empty.

thehomer:

You seem to think that your proposition is true because it hasn't been proven false.

No, I'm saying you can't say I'm wrong when you haven't shown how so.

thehomer:

My position is that your God isn't needed. In fact you've not shown that your God exists.

I can't show God to you. But I have presented good arguments as to why God does exist.

thehomer:


What do legs support in a whale?

Whales don't have legs.

thehomer:

Essentially other living things.



The similarity is a fact. Because that is how inheritance works.

I agree with the similarity but it's important to note there are differences as well. Simply saying 'that's how inheritance' works tells nothing about why you infer evolution from certain similarities. Inheritance as far as has been seen only involves variation within a species.

thehomer:

Which quote from which particular link does this? So God is limited by constraints he himself set up? That is absurd.

All the links. It isn't absurd to be limited by constraints one sets up: any person can set a rule, and apply himself to that rule.

thehomer:

We don't need to know perfect design to recognize bad design and what you've attributed to your God is bad design.

Is there good design in living things ?

thehomer:

That is an appropriate response because I simply don't see what your point is.

It's a poor response, precisely because it ignores the problem consciousness poses given constraints on physical laws (esp that of chemistry).

thehomer:

No, you're denying the evidence for this. That is why there's a full article on evidence for evolution on Wikipedia. You can read that and refute the premises but you don't have the required expertise to even begin to critique what is written there.

Nonsense. Darwin wasn't a naturalist when he wrote 'Origin Of The Species'. As it happens you've presented the best evidence, in your opinion, for evolution. On further questioning, the evidence is shown to rest on poor reasoning.

UyiIredia:
.

The enzymes are made of those L-amino acids, pointing to its conformation does not explain what mechanism ensures L amino acids are used over D amino acids. And by the way, it's circular logic.

That is the mechanism. Again, I'm not making an argument so talking about circular logic is useless. I'm giving you the factual answer. Your next best bet would be to look up the answer yourself.

UyiIredia:

Again, you have failed to show why your statement is true.

Why which statement is true? Aren't you the one saying that there is a God out there?

UyiIredia:

Both require electricity, both have chambers through which fluid is pumped in and out. Artificial hearts are structured in a manner quite similar to human hearts.

Are they both made of cells? Do electric pumps grow? What you're talking about are functional similarities not structural.

UyiIredia:

It isn't. State the definition of 'argument from ignorance', show how it applies to my arguments. If you won't, then maybe your accusation is empty.

Did you miss the quote from Wikipedia in my response? I even put the relevant part in bold for you. This sort of ridiculousness is sad.

UyiIredia:

No, I'm saying you can't say I'm wrong when you haven't shown how so.

What haven't I shown you to be wrong about?
And I'm telling you that such a statement is fallacious. It commits the argument from ignorance fallacy. It is up to you to show that you're correct whether or not I have shown you're wrong.

UyiIredia:

I can't show God to you. But I have presented good arguments as to why God does exist.

But your arguments have all failed so far and it looks like you're relying a lot on a fallacious argument from ignorance.

UyiIredia:


Whales don't have legs.

They have leg bones. What do those support?

UyiIredia:

I agree with the similarity but it's important to note there are differences as well. Simply saying 'that's how inheritance' works tells nothing about why you infer evolution from certain similarities. Inheritance as far as has been seen only involves variation within a species.

That is why we infer evolution because the organisms are descendants of related ancestors. If you understand the concept of inheritance, then my point should be clear. But with evolution, we know about the process of speciation.

UyiIredia:

All the links. It isn't absurd to be limited by constraints one sets up: any person can set a rule, and apply himself to that rule.

Pick the best three and provide the relevant quotes. It is absurd when the constraints lead to bad design of things one cares about.

UyiIredia:

Is there good design in living things ?

Living things evolved by natural processes so weren't designed. I'd rather use design in this context to refer to artifacts and artificial objects to avoid confusion.

UyiIredia:

It's a poor response, precisely because it ignores the problem consciousness poses given constraints on physical laws (esp that of chemistry).

I still don't see what your point is.

UyiIredia:

Nonsense. Darwin wasn't a naturalist when he wrote 'Origin Of The Species'. As it happens you've presented the best evidence, in your opinion, for evolution. On further questioning, the evidence is shown to rest on poor reasoning.

I presented a few broad lines of evidence. As I said, there's a full article and there are books on this topic so simply denying the evidence doesn't help you. Whatever Darwin was is also irrelevant. You've not shown the evidence rests on poor reasoning especially when you're not even qualified to start assessing the evidence.

thehomer:


That is the mechanism. Again, I'm not making an argument so talking about circular logic is useless. I'm giving you the factual answer. Your next best bet would be to look up the answer yourself.

It isn't the mechanism.

thehomer:

Why which statement is true? Aren't you the one saying that there is a God out there?

The statement you made before this one, and the one before that; both are baseless.

thehomer:

Are they both made of cells? Do electric pumps grow? What you're talking about are functional similarities not structural.

Thank you. If both hearts and pumping machine have functional similarities there is a basis on which they can be compared, a basis for my inference to design.

thehomer:

Did you miss the quote from Wikipedia in my response? I even put the relevant part in bold for you. This sort of ridiculousness is sad.

I didn't see any Wikipedia quote. Kindly repost it.

thehomer:

What haven't I shown you to be wrong about?

And I'm telling you that such a statement is fallacious. It commits the argument from ignorance fallacy. It is up to you to show that you're correct whether or not I have shown you're wrong.

Just state how it commits the said fallacy or shut up.

thehomer:

But your arguments have all failed so far and it looks like you're relying a lot on a fallacious argument from ignorance.

See above.

thehomer:


They have leg bones. What do those support?

Actual leg bones like the ones seen on land animals ?

thehomer:

That is why we infer evolution because the organisms are descendants of related ancestors. If you understand the concept of inheritance, then my point should be clear. But with evolution, we know about the process of speciation.

The inference is a poor one since observation shows species vary within limits. Your inference to universal common ancestry contradicts this observation and so it requires a good supporting argument or fact, otherwise it's baseless.

thehomer:

Pick the best three and provide the relevant quotes. It is absurd when the constraints lead to bad design of things one cares about.

I won't, simply answer my question of whether there's good design in living things.

thehomer:

Living things evolved by natural processes so weren't designed. I'd rather use design in this context to refer to artifacts and artificial objects to avoid confusion.

That's your poor position. In any case, I will indulge you, let design mean an arrangement of parts performing a given function.

thehomer:

I still don't see what your point is.

I wrote in English not Chinese. I wonder if you are feigning ignorance because you have no rebuttal here.

thehomer:

I presented a few broad lines of evidence. As I said, there's a full article and there are books on this topic so simply denying the evidence doesn't help you. Whatever Darwin was is also irrelevant. You've not shown the evidence rests on poor reasoning especially when you're not even qualified to start assessing the evidence.

And when I inquired as to the reasoning behind the evidence it turns out to be a baseless assumption. Simply put, evolution from a common ancestor inferred from embryological and anatomical similarities and supposedly evidenced by assumed to have little or no function. If a failed theologian's theory became widely accepted as science then I certainly have every basis to assess the theory.

@Uyi Iredia,

Now that you think parameters are pivotal in creating designs, why would God necessarily create these parameters?

Kay17:
@Uyi Iredia,

Now that you think parameters are pivotal in creating designs, why would God necessarily create these parameters?

Na wa oo ! The questions you ask though , man has god-like abilities e.g creation . Now ask yourself those questions as regards to man's abilities to create and what parameters he sets before you throw them at someone .

thehomer:


Can you use a dictionary or google? If you can, why have you asked me that pointless question?

You've been asking me pretty pointless questions

thehomer:


Lots of these questions are vague and useless. Others you can look up. Reincarnation has not been verified so could you please verify that?

So why have you been asking me questions you too can look up ?

thehomer:


And what is his body made of?

so this is deemed as a reasonable question ? Cant you look up this one too ?

thehomer:


Well what are they made of?

"Can you use a dictionary or google? If you can, why have you asked me that pointless question?"

KingEbukasBlog:


Na wa oo ! The questions you ask though , man has god-like abilities e.g creation . Now ask yourself those questions as regards to man's abilities to create and what parameters he sets before you throw them at someone .

But if you had read my posts carefully, you would see that was my point all along. The parameters and in my words, the physical laws are responsible for the design. And for an omnipotent being such as God, he can easily do away with these parameters. Just in the case of miracles.

Kay17:


But if you had read my posts carefully, you would see that was my point all along. The parameters and in my words, the physical laws are responsible for the design. And for an omnipotent being such as God, he can easily do away with these parameters. Just in the case of miracles.

No . The design (natural not man-made but if man made design then yes ) is responsible for the physical laws . It depends on what you see as a design though . Remember , science basically is the study of nature . These laws were gotten from repeated observations for a long time. Nature has always been present , while science just studies it to predict , to ascertain , to verify etc .

Miracles , the use of Supernatural powers , defies the laws of nature e.g crippled walking , blind seeing , etc

This definition I gave is man made because the defiance suggests the introduction of the non present . We as humans see miracles as some sort of supernatural intervention because of the alteration but does God see it that way , is he actually doing away with these parameters? ( I hope you are seeing the point I'm making) . Even the bible says the grace of God is always with us, blessings , favour , divine protection and health etc (things you see as supernatural ) are always with us, so how do they manifest in our lives ?


So @ bolded , its just your human perception of what the supernatural is that's why you said that .

UyiIredia:


It isn't the mechanism.

Then what is the mechanism?

UyiIredia:

The statement you made before this one, and the one before that; both are baseless.

Which statement are you referring to? Again aren't you the one saying there is a God out there?

UyiIredia:

Thank you. If both hearts and pumping machine have functional similarities there is a basis on which they can be compared, a basis for my inference to design.

You're welcome. On that basis, river banks, blood vessels and pipes have functional similarities thus they're all designed.

UyiIredia:

I didn't see any Wikipedia quote. Kindly repost it.

Here it is again. Don't miss it this time.

Wikipedia:
Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"wink, is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa).

UyiIredia:

Just state how it commits the said fallacy or shut up.

I've stated it and shown you on Wikipedia so simply read or Bleep off.

UyiIredia:

See above.

See above.

UyiIredia:


Actual leg bones like the ones seen on land animals ?

Actual leg bones. What do they support?

UyiIredia:

The inference is a poor one since observation shows species vary within limits. Your inference to universal common ancestry contradicts this observation and so it requires a good supporting argument or fact, otherwise it's baseless.

What is the contradiction?

UyiIredia:

I won't, simply answer my question of whether there's good design in living things.

Living things aren't designed. It is interesting that you're unable to actually provide quotes from your own references. Is this fear, laziness or what?

UyiIredia:

That's your poor position. In any case, I will indulge you, let design mean an arrangement of parts performing a given function.

Living things aren't designed, they evolved.

UyiIredia:

I wrote in English not Chinese. I wonder if you are feigning ignorance because you have no rebuttal here.

I'm not feigning ignorance, I'm asking what your point is. Or is it the case that you don't know how to make a point?

UyiIredia:

And when I inquired as to the reasoning behind the evidence it turns out to be a baseless assumption. Simply put, evolution from a common ancestor inferred from embryological and anatomical similarities and supposedly evidenced by assumed to have little or no function. If a failed theologian's theory became widely accepted as science then I certainly have every basis to assess the theory.

Your reference to Darwin's theory as "a failed theologian's theory" actually commits the genetic fallacy. The fact that Darwin was one of the first people to propose the theory doesn't make the theory wrong. I notice that for some reason, you're afraid of reading the proper article on Wikipedia. Here's a link to start you off. You'll notice that there are more lines of evidence than embryological and anatomical similarities. There are books too if you want.

KingEbukasBlog:


You've been asking me pretty pointless questions

Which question was pointless?

KingEbukasBlog:


So why have you been asking me questions you too can look up ?

Which ones did I ask that can be looked up that aren't simply religious opinions? Can you verify reincarnation?

KingEbukasBlog:


so this is deemed as a reasonable question ? Cant you look up this one too ?

Yes it is a reasonable question. You said your God has a body. Where can I look the answer to this one up? Do you have a link?

KingEbukasBlog:


"Can you use a dictionary or google? If you can, why have you asked me that pointless question?"

You said your God has hands that aren't made of flesh and bone. What are they made of? The answer isn't in a dictionary and google won't give me your particular answer since it isn't even established that your God exists.

Why don't you answer the simple question? Are you afraid? Or do you have a link that answers it? If you do, please post it here and highlight the relevant answer.

thehomer:


Yes it is a reasonable question. You said your God has a body. Where can I look the answer to this one up? Do you have a link?

How about google.com , then in the search box you type " Does God have a body " ... that should do the trick at least you brought up the looking up stuff on google

thehomer:


Which ones did I ask that can be looked up that aren't simply religious opinions? Can you verify reincarnation?

Lets be pragmatic

Read these stories : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3005489/Meet-son-10-Baptist-parents-baffled-experts-vivid-accurate-accounts-past-life-danced-Broadway-acted-opposite-Mae-West.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2943568/Five-year-old-boy-convinced-reincarnated-black-woman-Chicago-called-Pam-died-fire-1993.html

and tell me what you think + read the comments in the articles before you refute the proposition

thehomer:


You said your God has hands that aren't made of flesh and bone. What are they made of? The answer isn't in a dictionary and google won't give me your particular answer since it isn't even established that your God exists.

Why don't you answer the simple question? Are you afraid? Or do you have a link that answers it? If you do, please post it here and highlight the relevant answer.

I'm not afraid in any way . I asked you questions and you regarded mine as "vague and pointless " but sought for me to reply yours? You answer mine , I answer yours

It isnt established ? There are 6 .5 billion people who believe in the supernatural and why should the opinion of <500 million count ?

So you believe in evolution , complex life coming from one simple cell(common ancestor) , life coming from in organic matter and the big bang ? Can you explain the initial conditions of the big bang ? So inanimate objects now in 200-800 million years will be living and then evolve into new animals ? Why haven't other inorganic matter that were in existence millions of years ago brought forth life ? Denial of the existence of God (supernatural ) indeed is outright hypocrisy

thehomer:


Then what is the mechanism?

I'm the one asking you that. This argument started from my claim that natural factors cannot make biochemicals, you pointed out naturally-occurring amino acids and I noted there were two types while life uses just one type. You are yet to account for how natural factors used ju
st that type.

thehomer:
Which statement are you referring to? Again aren't you the one saying there is a God out there?

Feel free to go back to your earlier statement or leave things at that.

thehomer:
You're welcome. On that basis, river banks, blood vessels and pipes have functional similarities thus they're all designed.

Not bad, though river banks aren't enclosed the way pipes and blood vessels are.

thehomer:
Here it is again. Don't miss it this time.

And where did I ever say my argument was true because you didn't show it's false. I consistently said you can't say it's false without reason.

thehomer:
I've stated it and shown you on Wikipedia so simply read or Bleep off.



See above.

Look above.

thehomer:


Actual leg bones. What do they support?

You'll have to provide evidence. I don't think whales have actual leg bones.

thehomer:

What is the contradiction?

Species vary within limits while your theory requires that there's no limit to how they can vary, which is why bacteria could evolve over time to become mammals.

thehomer:

Living things aren't designed. It is interesting that you're unable to actually provide quotes from your own references. Is this fear, laziness or what?

Aren't you lazy by not reading even one of the links ?

thehomer:

Living things aren't designed, they evolved.

The definition of design I posted doesn't contradict evolution. Though, it's a pity evolutionists must deny the fact of design in living things and the obvious and right inference to an intelligent agent.

thehomer:

I'm not feigning ignorance, I'm asking what your point is. Or is it the case that you don't know how to make a point?

What my point is ?

"If consciousness is neither one of them (ie chemical compounds or energy) it's clear that
the chemical processes in the brain aren't sufficient to
account for consciousness, since as anyone knows
chemical reactions usually limited to producing chemical
compounds and a release/use of energy."

There. That's my point.

thehomer:
Your reference to Darwin's theory as "a failed theologian's theory" actually commits the genetic fallacy. The fact that Darwin was one of the first people to propose the theory doesn't make the theory wrong. I notice that for some reason, you're afraid of reading the proper article on Wikipedia. Here's a link to start you off. You'll notice that there are more lines of evidence than embryological and anatomical similarities. There are books too if you want.

You keep making inane claims of fallacy with poor reasoning. I didn't use the fact that Darwin was a failed theologian to dismiss his theory, I used the fact that a failed theologian's theory was deemed acceptable to show that I ABSOLUTELY DO NOT have to be a scientist to assess, accept or dismiss scientific claims.

As I said earlier I've read the evidence presented for evolution and saw that it is based on poor reasoning, typically a given fact about lifeforms is pointed out (eg similarities in genes) and it is simply asserted that this supports common descent.

KingEbukasBlog:


No . The design (natural not man-made but if man made design then yes ) is responsible for the physical laws . It depends on what you see as a design though . Remember , science basically is the study of nature . These laws were gotten from repeated observations for a long time. Nature has always been present , while science just studies it to predict , to ascertain , to verify etc .

Miracles , the use of Supernatural powers , defies the laws of nature e.g crippled walking , blind seeing , etc

This definition I gave is man made because the defiance suggests the introduction of the non present . We as humans see miracles as some sort of supernatural intervention because of the alteration but does God see it that way , is he actually doing away with these parameters? ( I hope you are seeing the point I'm making) . Even the bible says the grace of God is always with us, blessings , favour , divine protection and health etc (things you see as supernatural ) are always with us, so how do they manifest in our lives ?


So @ bolded , its just your human perception of what the supernatural is that's why you said that .

This is sad

TheHomer,

I am going to create a thread soon. I would like to have your input soon