Teempakguy:
you seem to be forgetting something.

this subaru is a product of gradual improvement. human intelligence didn't just pop it into existence. there have been other cars in the world before this and it is a product of improvement on them.


in the same way, Life is a product of gradual improvement. not formed by random processes but pseudo random Processes. the thing is, these processes built upon each other. life did not . . . spring out . . . like the bible claims. it formed. painstakingly . . . over billions of years under just the right processes. and had time to develop into what it is today.

You missed my analogy completely.
The Subaru simply tells you that such complexity can't possibly be due to chance. The Subaru screams design and this is why you will not entertain any natural random process such as volcanicity forming such a beau

I agree that the Subaru WRX is a product of 5000 years say since Mesopotamia developed the wheel.

When I say the probability of life is 1/10^55000, am not talking about human intelligence or a primate as yourself but the SIMPLEST unicellular organism from which we supposedly developed over billions of years.

Such probability in anything else would be called ZERO but sadly, you believe it for a fact and actively propagate it.

a superintelligent being popping things into existence however, is questionable because one must immediately ask, where does the intelligent being come from? who or what created it? and saying it is eternal doesn't solve the problem! it only makes it harder. why would eternity possess intelligence? even eternity is not eternal. for every time, you can always go back in time further. so there must be a time when this superintelligent being did not exist. so what brought it into existence?
random processes, right? not?

What do you mean eternity is not eternal?

Now, no religion claims to fully comprehend their deity. As a Christian, I readily concede, 'I don't know'. What am doing is examining two worldviews where one is debunked by simple probability whereas the other one is fully supported by probabilities. How so?

1. Naturalism: such incredibly complex organisms owe their existence to CHANCE (1/1^55000)
2. Christianity: such incredibly complex organisms owe their existence to a superintelligent being

What is the probability of a superintelligent being eternal or not forming such a complex organism?
I only need to look to human intelligence at work to see how intelligence turns impossibility to possibility!

As I said earlier, intelligence is the antithesis of chance

davien:
I'll sum it up for you then...
Words like "complex" do not give reason for design as natural systems also tend to become complex irrespective of any detectable intelligence...

When you are talking of design , you look at realms - supernatural (God realm ) , natural (material realm ) and artificial ( man made realm )

The artificial (man made realm ) is controlled by man . Man tends to emulate the natural systems in his realm birthing the artificial realm . The product of this emulation is described as intelligent - natural ecosystems , natural interaction between the inhabitants in an ecosystem e.g interactions in an ant colony system is replicated in AIs and is used in solving problems .

So ANY system that exist in nature is a DESIGN because it TENDS TO BE REPLICATED when EMULATED . If an artificial copy of a natural system - simple or complex - is described as a DESIGN why shouldn't the natural system be called a DESIGN?

vooks:


Now, no religion claims to fully comprehend their deity. As a Christian, I readily concede, 'I don't know'. What am doing is examining two worldviews where one is debunked by simple probability whereas the other one is fully supported by probabilities. How so?

1. Naturalism: such incredibly complex organisms owe their existence to CHANCE (1/1^55000)
2. Christianity: such incredibly complex organisms owe their existence to a superintelligent being

That's what they keep missing . Because they can't fathom the reality of an always existing entity then we should be skeptical about His existence . Or resort to agreeing that something came from Void . Or agree that by chance we got the existence of the universe , by chance we got life and a planet that TOTALLY supports life and by chance humans got intelligence .

Chance-of-the-gaps ? We can't explain why so we resort to the fragility of probability .

1feness:


It is well know that reproducing animals come from a single celled ancestor called Eukaryote species that can both carry out sexual and asexual reproduction. And for humans, [size=15pt]IT IS POSSIBLE [/size]to lose this unique abilities due to the vicious nature of we respond to our environment.

Here we go . Someone upholding uncertainty as truth and is described as science

sonOfLucifer:

True story. So what makes your 'PERSONAL' experience better than mine? Notice how the seeds of fanaticism are sown.

You are a skidding away from the point . I had my experience , you had yours .

A fair amount of skepticism is a healthy way to live.

Your unbelief is precarious and you overlook the inanities , so am not sure how that is healthy

if this earthly life is the best god can make, how omnimpotent is he.

plaetton:


There is a 1 in 50 million chances of winning the super jackpot lottery.
Statistically, this means that if a person plays it 50 million times one after the other, the person has a chance of getting it right.

But yet, one person always seem to beat the odds to get it right?
How come?

Can your tiny brain figure out why ?

So, same with the rubic cube.

1% in billion years maybe, assuming one move per second.

But, but my little brain-athrophied friend, what if , rather than one sequential move after another every second, one, in this case nature, makes 13 billion simultaneous moves per second?

What would be the new odds?



You get my drift?

Unfortunately, I know you wouldn't.

I knew you would quickly Google and throw in this lame rebuttal. This at least shows you agree with me on the probabilities of life being low but somewhat since other low probability events do occur, then life by chance however low the chance should not surprise, right?

Do you understand how lotteries work?

In lottery there has to be outcomes and somebody has to win. With jackpots when nobody wins, the digits to try your luck are ADJUSTED to follow the number of tickets bought or likely to be bought to ensure frequent winners especially of less-than-full digits guesses. With life processes, there are NO outcomes. Think through that.

Besides, arguments against life by chance is not merely a matter of overarching complexity but ORDER that just defies natural explanation.

For your puny brains I will use a simple example. Books. When last did you read a book?
Books keep information. But WHERE exactly is this information? The information is not in the ink nor letters but in the highly complex arrangement of
0. letters~~~~~>Nucleic acid bases
1. letters into words, ~~~~~>codons
2. words into sentences, ~~~~~>genes
3. sentences into paragraphs~~~~~>operons
4. Paragraphs into chapters~~~~~>chromosomes
5. Chapter which make up the book~~~~~>Genome

This is your genetic make up. Note the order, and remember it is totally INDEPENDENT of the chemicals involved.

Does science acknowledge design as evidence of intelligent agency?
Of course they do whenever it suits them. For instance forensic science determines whether a past event was an accident or one designed and 'purposed'. If you think this is farfetched,how about SETI (Search for Extra-terrestrial Intelligence)? They are basically listening out for audio signals from outer space. How do they distinguish noise from ET communication? ORDER and pattern

^^^^ what's your point?

AlfaSeltzer:
^^^^ what's your point?

I have just given a generous measure of your IQ at 44(+/-1)

plaetton:


Simple question.
Have you spotted your half-Think or not?

I want to give you a chance to extend your thoughts beyond your asxxs.

Make my day

vooks:

You missed my analogy completely.
The Subaru simply tells you that such complexity can't possibly be due to chance. The Subaru screams design and this is why you will not entertain any natural random process such as volcanicity forming such a beau

I agree that the Subaru WRX is a product of 5000 years say since Mesopotamia developed the wheel.

When I say the probability of life is 1/10^55000, am not talking about human intelligence or a primate as yourself but the SIMPLEST unicellular organism from which we supposedly developed over billions of years.

Such probability in anything else would be called ZERO but sadly, you believe it for a fact and actively propagate it.

What do you mean eternity is not eternal?

Now, no religion claims to fully comprehend their deity. As a Christian, I readily concede, 'I don't know'. What am doing is examining two worldviews where one is debunked by simple probability whereas the other one is fully supported by probabilities. How so?

1. Naturalism: such incredibly complex organisms owe their existence to CHANCE (1/1^55000)
2. Christianity: such incredibly complex organisms owe their existence to a superintelligent being

What is the probability of a superintelligent being eternal or not forming such a complex organism?
I only need to look to human intelligence at work to see how intelligence turns impossibility to possibility!

As I said earlier, intelligence is the antithesis of chance

Another inchoate Babble.

davien:
I'll sum it up for you then...
1. You choose to ignore a basis for your original claim I. e "everything in the universe is designed"

2. How one knows artificially designed objects is due to the fact that there is evidence supporting it being produced by non-natural intelligences...

3. Words like "painting, writing, etc" that you often use to ask questions about design already infer design from the very definition...

4. You cannot then equate items that are already known to be designed(like paintings) to things which aren't(like the cell)

5. Words like "complex" do not give reason for design as natural systems also tend to become complex irrespective of any detectable intelligence...

Thank you davien, you are almost there.
#1 I was explaining fine tuning for a layman. I did not stop at 'designed' but 'designed for life'. By deliberately ignoring that , you quote me out of context for your devious reasons. Wikipedia can give you a better definition of fine tuning. Go there if you are ready for that.

#2. This is partly true. Like I said, you need not know all artificial processes are capable of to identify design, you can arrive at the same conclusion by understanding the LIMITS of a natural process. Take the Subaru, you damn well know there is not a chance in hell of random magma and rocks ordering such a beau as a WRX. This is sufficient to conclude the machine as designed by intelligence without any knowledge of manufacturing. Had I for instance instead of the writing made a pentagram or a perfect square with a circle inside it, you'd have arrived at the same conclusion seeing you know too well the waves can't do that. In short, you employ elimination to be left with intelligence. You simply say, ' chance can't possibly do this, so there MUST have been some intelligence behind it'

#3. I used them to explain my sandy beach writing. I could have left it blank and aksd you for your interpretation. The point is, we can tell limits of chance when we see complexity

#4. Am not equating them sir, it was an analogy. The simplest cell is a gazillion times more complex than writing on a beach or a WRX. Point is if such simple items scram design, how much more the overly complex and highly ordered living organisms!

#5. Very true but there is complexity that defies the 'natural systems tend to become complex'. At this point, a relevant example would suffice. You may also want to define complexity and distinguish it from complicated.

plaetton:


Another inchoate Babble.

Am no prophet but I know overheated puny brains when I run into any. You are way out of your depth. One day a billion years for. Today, your brain will evolve bigger enough to stomach and digest my post

AlfaSeltzer:
if this earthly life is the best god can make, how omnimpotent is he.

Who told you it is the best?

Presumption will kill you again seeing you are already brain dead

1feness:


You boasted about something you cannot back up. I don't talk about material stuff,check my threads you won't will see 1. Perhaps its the useless Ipad you are showing off that makes you think some of us are beneath you?

Stop envying my iPad, it's the least of my toys, cost just over $430 last year and no Negro brags about a $430 gadget.

I will not go public just to prove a point. You should engage your fellow ret@rds with such hollow dares

vooks:

You missed my analogy completely.
The Subaru simply tells you that such complexity can't possibly be due to chance. The Subaru screams design and this is why you will not entertain any natural random process such as volcanicity forming such a beau

I agree that the Subaru WRX is a product of 5000 years say since Mesopotamia developed the wheel.

When I say the probability of life is 1/10^55000, am not talking about human intelligence or a primate as yourself but the SIMPLEST unicellular organism from which we supposedly developed over billions of years.

Such probability in anything else would be called ZERO but sadly, you believe it for a fact and actively propagate it.

What do you mean eternity is not eternal?

Now, no religion claims to fully comprehend their deity. As a Christian, I readily concede, 'I don't know'. What am doing is examining two worldviews where one is debunked by simple probability whereas the other one is fully supported by probabilities. How so?

1. Naturalism: such incredibly complex organisms owe their existence to CHANCE (1/1^55000)
2. Christianity: such incredibly complex organisms owe their existence to a superintelligent being

What is the probability of a superintelligent being eternal or not forming such a complex organism?
I only need to look to human intelligence at work to see how intelligence turns impossibility to possibility!

As I said earlier, intelligence is the antithesis of chance

Another inchoate Babble.

Snowflakes also scream of design.

What is the probability of a beautiful, aesthetically perfect, symmetrical, mathematically exact, 5th dimension geometric snowflakes forming by simple random environmental flux ?
Answer?
1/1.

If nature can whip up snowflakes in just few hours of environmental flux, then 14 billion years of ceaseless celestial flux can whip up just about anything.

plaetton:


Another inchoate Babble.

Snowflakes also scream of design.

What is the probability of a beautiful, aesthetically perfect, symmetrical, mathematically exact, 5th dimension geometric snowflakes forming by simple random environmental flux ?
Answer?
1/1.

If nature can whip up snowflakes in just few hours of environmental flux, then 14 billion years of ceaseless celestial flux can whip up just about anything.

You are quite predictable.
To bluf off probabilities you cough up lottery, snowflake and let me guess what next you are busy summarizing
3. Arrangement of cards in a deck after shuffling
4. People walking across a busy street
5. Arrangement of sand grains in a pile of sand
6. Salt crystals

On to your snowflakes trump card
Has it occurred to you that water forming snow(flake) is doing what NATURALLY it can only do?
The properties of water molecules and atmospheric conditions are all that is needed for the snowflake patterns.

Formation of snowflake is inevitable. But since when did you see small organic molecules form themselves into
longer sequences of molecules carrying information you find in living organisms.

Young man, think about the snowflake pattern on a mat. Does it not scream design? Why would it scream design on a woolen mat and not a snowflake? The answer is simple; 'information' required to form the pattern is already built into water molecules while the same is not built I to wool.

vooks:


You are quite predictable.
To bluf off probabilities you cough up lottery, snowflake and let me guess what next you are busy summarizing
3. Arrangement of cards in a deck after shuffling
4. People walking across a busy street
5. Arrangement of sand grains in a pile of sand

Is this a rebuttal?

plaetton:


Is this a rebuttal?

Am sorry I hit 'submit' before I was done. Please read up the post

vooks:

Stop envying my iPad, it's the least of my toys, cost just over $430 last year and no Negro brags about a $430 gadget.

I will not go public just to prove a point. You should engage your fellow ret@rds with such hollow dares

You started it and I am curious to see what it is you have that is so special. Reasons I asked you to list them. The Ipad seem very dear to you though. I dare you to smash it on the wall.

1feness:


You started it and I am curious to see what it is you have that is so special. Reasons I asked you to list them. The Ipad seem very dear to you though. I dare you to smash it on the wall.

You are a worthless primate and I would never sacrifice my privacy to quench your curiosity

I will do smash it as soon as I master using a single neuron like yourself. Hard work suspending thinking.


PS
it is iPad not Ipad

vooks:

You are a worthless primate and I would never sacrifice my privacy to quench your curiosity

I will do smash it as soon as I master using a single neuron like yourself. Hard work suspending thinking.

Very well and thanks for that. Obviously a sign of frustration. Be man enough to prove what you said you are.

1feness:


Very well and thanks for that. Obviously a sign of frustration. Be man enough to prove what you said you are.

Prove am better than you by smashing my iPad?
Weed is bad for your lone and extremely idle neuron

vooks:

Prove am better than you by smashing my iPad?

Apart from the ipad what else have you got,show me. Don't change the subject.

1feness:


Apart from the ipad what else have you got,show me. Don't change the subject.

You can do better than this. Try again

PS
it s iPad not ipad

vooks:

You can do better than this. Try again

That means you brag while you have nothing. I will back what ever I say up.

1feness:


That means you brag while you have nothing. I will back what ever I say up.

Good for you. Try again

vooks:

Good for you. Try again

You ain't worth it.

1feness:


You ain't worth it.

Only a two-bit primate takes this long to figure it out

vooks:
This is a strawman.

I wouldn't blame him really. People often use me for the sake of winning arguments...

Strawman:


I wouldn't blame him really. People often use me for the sake of winning arguments...

Funny Negro

Strawman:


I wouldn't blame him really. People often use me for the sake of winning arguments...

Nice one