vooks:

My posts are all here. Pick specific bits you wish to be taught on

Is the universe designed?

vooks:

Nope, am arguing against CHANCE and you are busy deflecting. You are all shying away from this. CHANCE has limits. Chance can't manufacture a Subaru in a gazillion years.


CHANCE can't produce a Subaru in a trillion trillion years


I will gladly teach you eternity some day. For now, focus on CHANCE



Negro,
You said God is equally governed by quantum mechanics. Pretty horrible logic if you ask around.

Again, focus on the limits of CHANCE

Chance has NO limits. sir. NONE.

CHANCE will manufacture whatever Can be manufactured at it's own time.

Think about the Idea of the subaru, someone designed it, right? But where did the Idea come from? his brain, And how does the brain work? Well, you might be shocked to find out that the brain works on chance. The brain doesn't work on predetermined programming. but by using pseudorandom neural connections and firings to generate Ideas.

If the most intelligence system on the planet, the human brain, is Governed by chance, then how do you expect to convince me that it wasn't CREATED by chance?

Teempakguy:
The first time I saw a living cell, I had no Idea of what it was. It didn't make any sense to me. it was actually the most random thing I'd ever seen.

It was later, when I learned about it, that i started associating design with it.

Why did you assiciate design with it ?

Teempakguy:
Chance has NO limits. sir. NONE.

Ok

CHANCE will manufacture whatever Can be manufactured at it's own time.

Glad you injected time.
How much time do we need for CHANCE/random natural processes to generate a Subaru?

Think about the Idea of the subaru, someone designed it, right? But where did the Idea come from? his brain, And how does the brain work? Well, you might be shocked to find out that the brain works on chance. The brain doesn't work on predetermined programming. but by using pseudorandom neural connections and firings to generate Ideas.

Circular thinking.
You set out to prove chance can produce a Subaru and you end up arguing that CHANCE first kills CHANCE and injects order and complexity

If the most intelligence system on the planet, the human brain, is Governed by chance, then how do you expect to convince me that it wasn't CREATED by chance?

More circular argument and totally deflecting.
What is the probability of a Subaru or its equivalent forming on Mars?

dalaman:


Is the universe designed?

Quote me

lepasharon:


Why did you assiciate design with it ?

why else?
the ubiquitous religious indoctrination everywhere.

Look, a Cell.



A Motherboard.



I find it hard to believe that the entity who designed the former is smarter than the entity who designed the latter now.

Teempakguy:
why else?
the ubiquitous religious indoctrination everywhere.

Look, a Cell.



A Motherboard.



I find it hard to believe that the entity who designed the former is smarter than the entity who designed the latter now.

I'm being nosy....
But hypothetically the entity that designed the former also designed the entity that designed the latter.

And the cell is infintly more complicated than that computer chip or whatever , it just doesn't look as interesting

vooks:

Quote me

It's a question.

dalaman:


It's a question.

Ok. It has shifted from a quote to a question...hmmm

Start a fresh thread and invite me.

For now, respond to the OP

vooks:

Ok


Glad you injected time.
How much time do we need for CHANCE/random natural processes to generate a Subaru?


Circular thinking.
You set out to prove chance can produce a Subaru and you end up arguing that CHANCE first kills CHANCE and injects order and complexity


More circular argument and totally deflecting.
What is the probability of a Subaru or its equivalent forming on Mars?

we already have a subaru. so . . . 13.7 billion years.

You don't even understand the concept of chance.
by character, chance is self inhibiting. random things create order as time goes on. this is how stars are formed, this is how planets and solar systems are formed. everything here is formed from random things that become orderly as time goes on. so yes, chance kills chance and injects order and complexity as time goes on. get that intuition into your mind.
There are countless proofs of this anyway.

Teempakguy:
why else?
the ubiquitous religious indoctrination everywhere.

Look, a Cell.

A Motherboard.


I find it hard to believe that the entity who designed the former is smarter than the entity who designed the latter now.

The reason you have a hard time is your ignorance.

Explain how one is better than the other.

Teempakguy:
we already have a subaru. so . . . 13.7 billion years.

You don't even understand the concept of chance.
by character, chance is self inhibiting. random things create order as time goes on.

This is affirming the consequent fallacy.
Claiming it does not make it so. Give EVIDENCE

this is how stars are formed, this is how planets and solar systems are formed. everything here is formed from random things that become orderly as time goes on. so yes, chance kills chance and injects order and complexity as time goes on. get that intuition into your mind.
There are countless proofs of this anyway.

You don't know how stars are formed, there are just WILD theories You don't know how NOTHING is formed.

CHANCE does not make Subaru, human intelligence and information does. How much more Mycoplasma genitalium with 452 genes and over 500,000 bases!

MrsPhyno:

I'm being nosy....
But hypothetically the entity that designed the former also designed the entity that designed the latter.

And the cell is infintly more complicated than that computer chip or whatever , it just doesn't look as interesting

Lol, you spelled infinity wrong.

anyway, my point is, The CELL is obviously functionally impressive. Not physically so. if it were designed, it would and should incorporate both characteristics, shouldn't it?
The evidence points here that the cell wasn't designed by an intelligence of any kind. it simply wanted to do something and didn't care about how it looked like while doing it. This is like stumbling upon Einstein's energy/mass equation on a beach. and it was written in Chinese. at that point, you have every logical right to claim it came by chance. The only way to prove you wrong is for the person who wrote the equation, to come and explain what it means to you while claiming credit for it. so far, God has not been found anywhere. hence our first hypothesis holds.

Also, yeah, hypothetically, the entity that designed the former also designed the entity that designed the latter. that is one hypothesis. an hypothesis which can be tested by evaluating the claims of this super entity against his actual characteristics.
the experiments for this have proved him to be unreal. for instance, he didn't create the world in six days like he claimed. and water didn't come before the sun, like he claimed.

The second Hypothesis is that The entity that designed the latter was designed not by an entity, but by a process.
and all tests for this hypothesis have been proving it true lately. for instance, We have observed similar stars and planets being formed by processes. robots, artificial intelligence, are being developed using artificial evolution, and it's working quite well. and the elements, are being formed using the same processes earlier hypothesized, and it's working.


the only thing we haven't been able to simulate yet is life itself. and that is why these arguments are still taking place. a God of the Gaps issue.

Teempakguy:
Lol, you spelled infinity wrong.

anyway, my point is, The CELL is obviously functionally impressive. Not physically so. if it were designed, it would and should incorporate both characteristics, shouldn't it?

Physically? To whom? What makes you think aesthetics is a primary ingredient for DESIGN? And who judges its ugliness?

The evidence points here that the cell wasn't designed by an intelligence of any kind.

What 'evidence'? You made up rules of what design should be and you conclude absence of that as CHANCE? They call that strawmen

it simply wanted to do something and didn't care about how it looked like while doing it.

You are losing it. Do Subarus think they are ugly?

This is like stumbling upon Einstein's energy/mass equation on a beach. and it was written in Chinese. at that point, you have every logical right to claim it came by chance. The only way to prove you wrong is for the person who wrote the equation, to come and explain what it means to you while claiming credit for it. so far, God has not been found anywhere. hence our first hypothesis holds.

You don't need a Subaru manufacturer to explain how they did it, the product itself screams design which in turn points to a designer

Also, yeah, hypothetically, the entity that designed the former also designed the entity that designed the latter. that is one hypothesis. an hypothesis which can be tested by evaluating the claims of this super entity against his actual characteristics.
the experiments for this have proved him to be unreal. for instance, he didn't create the world in six days like he claimed. and water didn't come before the sun, like he claimed.

That's your opinion

The second Hypothesis is that The entity that designed the latter was designed not by an entity, but by a process.
and all tests for this hypothesis have been proving it true lately.

By what process what information added to DNA?

for instance, We have observed similar stars and planets being formed by processes.

Nobody has ever seen a star form, they just THINK they do. On the contrary stars dying are so common, it is no longer news

robots, artificial intelligence, are being developed using artificial evolution, and it's working quite well. and the elements, are being formed using the same processes earlier hypothesized, and it's working.

Robots, artificial intelligence...they point to INTELLIGENCE not random processes
'Artificial evolution' whatever that is entails INTELLIGENCE tinkering with DNA under conditions that can't POSSIBLY exist in nature

the only thing we haven't been able to simulate yet is life itself. and that is why these arguments are still taking place. a God of the Gaps issue.

Scientific endeavors constantly prove ID inadervently; INTELLIGENCE/EXTERNAL INFORMATION are prerequisites for complexity and order

vooks:

This is affirming the consequent fallacy.
Claiming it does not make it so. Give EVIDENCE


You don't know how stars are formed, there are just WILD theories You don't know how NOTHING is formed.

CHANCE does not make Subaru, human intelligence and information does. How much more Mycoplasma genitalium with 452 genes and over 500,000 bases!

You are becoming restless.

I Think it's quite mundane though, that you're demanding evidence for things we see in everyday life.

if a block of Gold and a block of silver are placed together side by side in space, eventually they will fuse. and form a Gold - silver mixture which is uniform. clouds of dust rotate around stars. they eventually form planets. If you pour garri inside water, you will get a random suspension. as time goes on, it will settle into the bottom of the water. as even more time goes on, the water will evaporate, leaving a cake. isn't that orderly?
this is how crystals are made by the way. they are based on the principle that random things must eventually create order. this is why you can't stand a pencil on it's tip, if a piece of paper with stuff written on it is left, after a long enough time, the ink will migrate such that the color of the paper becomes uniform.. so many examples.


Who told you I don't know how stars are formed? of course I do. they're not wild theories. if they were we wouldn't be able to use them technologically. which is what is going on at ITER.

again, both the human brain, and information, are subject to chance. so i really don't see your point here. mycoplasma genitalium as well is a product of the same process. just because we haven't been able to prove that in a lab, shouldn't mean you guys should claim it was constructed. because we will eventually create life in the lab. and you had better be practicing what you will say then.


I'm going to leave you with one interesting question though.
if a cereal bowl, the size of CANIS MAJORIS, the largest star in the world, was left in space as soon as it was created, what do you think will eventually happen to it? hint, it is a very interesting answer.

vooks:

Physically? To whom? What makes you think aesthetics is a primary ingredient for DESIGN? And who judges its ugliness?


What 'evidence'? You made up rules of what design should be and you conclude absence of that as CHANCE? They call that strawmen


You are losing it. Do Subarus think they are ugly?


You don't need a Subaru manufacturer to explain how they did it, the product itself screams design which in turn points to a designer


That's your opinion


By what process what information added to DNA?

quote] for instance, We have observed similar stars and planets being formed by processes.
Nobody has ever seen a star form, they just THINK they do. On the contrary stars dying are so common, it is no longer news

robots, artificial intelligence, are being developed using artificial evolution, and it's working quite well. and the elements, are being formed using the same processes earlier hypothesized, and it's working.
Robots, artificial intelligence...they point to INTELLIGENCE not random processes
'Artificial evolution' whatever that is entails INTELLIGENCE tinkering with DNA under conditions that can't POSSIBLY exist in nature

the only thing we haven't been able to simulate yet is life itself. and that is why these arguments are still taking place. a God of the Gaps issue.
Scientific endeavors constantly prove ID inadervently; INTELLIGENCE/EXTERNAL INFORMATION are prerequisites for complexity and order

your last point is total fallacy.. intelligence is not required for complexity and/or order.

the scene below wasn't designed at all.

Teempakguy:
You are becoming restless.

I Think it's quite mundane though, that you're demanding evidence for things we see in everyday life.

if a block of Gold and a block of silver are placed together side by side in space, eventually they will fuse. and form a Gold - silver mixture which is uniform.

Are you serious?

clouds of dust rotate around stars. they eventually form planets.

This is a THEORY called thus with very intelligent reasons namely it is full of holes

If you pour garri inside water, you will get a random suspension. as time goes on, it will settle into the bottom of the water. as even more time goes on, the water will evaporate, leaving a cake. isn't that orderly?

A sorry silly example.

this is how crystals are made by the way. they are based on the principle that random things must eventually create order. this is why you can't stand a pencil on it's tip, if a piece of paper with stuff written on it is left, after a long enough time, the ink will migrate such that the color of the paper becomes uniform.. so many examples.

Right on cue just like plaetton you googled snowflakes. Why did you forget crystallization?
I have responded to him on why snowflakes are the lamest example of order out of chaos and I won't repeat myself.

Who told you I don't know how stars are formed? of course I do. they're not wild theories. if they were we wouldn't be able to use them technologically. which is what is going on at ITER.

They are called theories with good reasons. Let that sink

again, both the human brain, and information, are subject to chance. so i really don't see your point here. mycoplasma genitalium as well is a product of the same process. just because we haven't been able to prove that in a lab, shouldn't mean you guys should claim it was constructed. because we will eventually create life in the lab. and you had better be practicing what you will say then.

REPLICATING life processes are not the problem, it is imagining that just because you did it, this is what happened. Study logic my friend. Affirming the consequent won't fool,nobody.

Put it this way
1. We believe Big Bang produced or was caused by Higgs Boson
2. We generate Higgs Boson in the Collider

Conclusion
Big Bang is proven!

I'm going to leave you with one interesting question though.
if a cereal bowl, the size of CANIS MAJORIS, the largest star in the world, was left in space as soon as it was created, what do you think will eventually happen to it? hint, it is a very interesting answer.

You have attempted to dither and philosophize your way out of a simple point; DESIGN~~~~~>DESIGNER

vooks:


The reason you have a hard time is your ignorance.

Explain how one is better than the other.

you were arguing about order?
go figure.

Teempakguy:



your last point is total fallacy.. intelligence is not required for complexity and/or order.

the scene below wasn't designed at all.

You are almost there
COMPLEXITY and ORDER
I can't find none of that in a beautiful photo.


If you can give me intelligent examples of complexity and high order out of random processes, you'd have a snowball's chance in hell of winning me over. But you keep on throwing up silly snowflakes and crystals. These are tired arguments from 50s. Don't you guys ever innovate?

Teempakguy:
you were arguing about order?
go figure.

You claims one is better and more intelligently designed. Prove it

vooks:

Are you serious?


This is a THEORY called thus with very intelligent reasons namely it is full of holes


A sorry silly example.


Right on cue just like plaetton you googled snowflakes. Why did you forget crystallization?
I have responded to him on why snowflakes are the lamest example of order out of chaos and I won't repeat myself.


They are called theories with good reasons. Let that sink



REPLICATING life processes are not the problem, it is imagining that just because you did it, this is what happened. Study logic my friend. Affirming the consequent won't fool,nobody.

Put it this way
1. We believe Big Bang produced or was caused by Higgs Boson
2. We generate Higgs Boson in the Collider

Conclusion
Big Bang is proven!


You have attempted to dither and philosophize your way out of a simple point; DESIGN~~~~~>DESIGNER

Dude, what . . . is your problem?
you keep saying "just a theory."
really? a theory is not an hypothesis. a theory is not a guess. a theory is a VERY VERY good explanation. in the history of science, very few theories have been proved wrong. and those theories were never blatantly discarded, rather, revised. A theory is not a theory because it is full of holes who is your science teacher?
the theory of relativity is what enables your phone to function. it has never been proved wrong since it was postulated and in fact has always been proved right. it's still called a theory because science is not dogmatic like religion. everything is still open to question.
stop degrading the level of theories to make your self right..

also, I've never argued the simple point, design------designer.

what i have argued is, designer------------------intelligent. that is a very dumb and contradicting conclusion..

deal with it.

Teempakguy:
Dude, what . . . is your problem?
you keep saying "just a theory."

Because that is the truth. Even the lame Wikipedia would tell you as much. Your problem? Theories are rammed down your throat so forcefully you mistake the. For facts. That is not my fault

really? a theory is not an hypothesis. a theory is not a guess. a theory is a VERY VERY good explanation. in the history of science, very few theories have been proved wrong. and those theories were never blatantly discarded, rather, revised. A theory is not a theory because it is full of holes who is your science teacher?

You can do better than semantics

the theory of relativity is what enables your phone to function. it has never been proved wrong since it was postulated and in fact has always been proved right. it's still called a theory because science is not dogmatic like religion. everything is still open to question.
stop degrading the level of theories to make your self right..

You can do better

also, I've never argued the simple point, design------designer.

what i have argued is, designer------------------intelligent. that is a very dumb and contradicting conclusion..

deal with it.

You haven't argued yet, am yet to see any argument in your posts just shallow posturing.
Now, you'd need to redefine DESIGN (equating a WRX with a crystal/picture) as you are desperately trying to get away with it. As it were, am yet to get any intelligent example of complexity and high order with no intelligence behind it. The reason is because there is none so am not waiting. You may want to throw up stalactites and salt crystals together with the classic snowflakes.

Back to the OP
Ever heard of multiverse or did you google it upon opening this thread just so you may appear informed? This is not a crime
Tell me about multiverse

vooks:

You are almost there
COMPLEXITY and ORDER
I can't find none of that in a beautiful photo.


If you can give me intelligent examples of complexity and high order out of random processes, you'd have a snowball's chance in hell of winning me over. But you keep on throwing up silly snowflakes and crystals. These are tired arguments from 50s. Don't you guys ever innovate?

You've got to be kidding me.

Well, I already gave you an example of complexity and high order arising out of random processes. I asked you what would happen to a cereal bowl the size of canis majoris if it were left in space. you refused to answer.

anyway, here is another example.

amino acid



peptide



the latter can be formed from the former by completely random process.

vooks:

Because that is the truth. Even the lame Wikipedia would tell you as much. Your problem? Theories are rammed down your throat so forcefully you mistake the. For facts. That is not my fault


You can do better than semantics


You can do better


You haven't argued yet, am yet to see any argument in your posts just shallow posturing.
Now, you'd need to redefine DESIGN (equating a WRX with a crystal/picture) as you are desperately trying to get away with it. As it were, am yet to get any intelligent example of complexity and high order with no intelligence behind it. The reason is because there is none so am not waiting. You may want to throw up stalactites and salt crystals together with the classic snowflakes.

Back to the OP
Ever heard of multiverse or did you google it upon opening this thread just so you may appear informed? This is not a crime
Tell me about multiverse

That point when Wikipedia tells you so much truth that goes against your beliefs that you start calling it lame.


Theories were never rammed into my throat. religion was. and i mistook it for fact for years.
now i know better. you don't. you still think that a book written by misguided sun beaten Israelites is superior to theories established by constant experiments and testing and you expect me to take you seriously? you must be joking.

vooks:
You claims one is better and more intelligently designed. Prove it

One is claiimed to be designed by a superintelligent being. the other is claimed to be designed by a race of limited intelligence.

the one designed by the race of limited intelligence looks better, has more order, performs more useful work for the designers, and it lives far longer.
it is also very younger than the latter.

vooks:


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.

Leaving out the intent of a proposed design doesn't change much, but I'll take your terms either-way...
Now the claim is everything(the universe) is designed for life, let's examine and give the critical analysis of our universe in regard to life as we know it(earth life)

#1 The universe is mostly empty space, riddled with life threatening radiation...

#2 The space that is not empty is occupied by millions and millions of celestial bodies like planets, moons, suns, asteroids, etc which converge along supermassive blackholes to form galaxies....

#3 Among all known galaxies,only one is known that harbours life,the milky way.... the life in the milky way is harbored by only one solar system,and on only planet...

#4 On this planet that supports life, 2/3 of it is inhospitable to life...

#5 Of the regions that are hospitable, the requirements for survival like water, more precisely freshwater are only 2.5% while salt water is 97.5%

This is quite disappointing for a universe that's "designed for life"..

#2. This is partly true.

Completely, not partly

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.

Nobody knows the limits of natural processes, it would be foolhardy to say so being the astounding track-record of how we keep finding natural processes that redefine previous beliefs.. .

What we do instead is look for ways that an object could have developed naturally or if it is indicative of artificial origins... if evidence and experimentation doesn't swing one way over the other then the object is unknown.. it would be an argument from ignorance to swing one way "a priori" before investigating..

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.

Nobody is claiming a WRX is made from magma,and this is the problem I keep pointing out.... you keep listing already known human designed objects then later on try to equivocate it to things which aren't known to be designed...

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.

And how we know well about that is because we know how ocean waves operate, and how water shapes the shores...so it'll be dumb to say ocean waves make pentagrams when evidence doesn't support it, but instead shows otherwise...

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'

Good, so can you give me an extract of all the possible undesigned universes(for life) that you crossed out?

#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

Really?
And what is the limit of complexity itself for designed objects and undesigned ones?

Is there a yardstick for designed complexity? or is complexity an argument from ignorance where because one doesn't know how a thing acquired it's component parts to become functional it is assumed to be a design?

#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!

Sorry but analogies compare two similar objects to each other, not equate them together based on those properties... the equivocation you've done is based on you mistaking the fact that writing, WRX and the likes are well-known human designed objects and then comparing their sophistication to living organisms which aren't known to be designed and thus needs evidence for that to be justified or at least an understanding of what a non-designed organism would be like

#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.

I believe that would fall on you, since you're using the term as a basis for design.

Teempakguy:
why else?
the ubiquitous religious indoctrination everywhere.

Look, a Cell.



A Motherboard.



I find it hard to believe that the entity who designed the former is smarter than the entity who designed the latter now.

. You are an idiot for saying this . What do you expect when a kid reasons like one

vooks:

You are almost there
COMPLEXITY and ORDER
I can't find none of that in a beautiful photo.


If you can give me intelligent examples of complexity and high order out of random processes, you'd have a snowball's chance in hell of winning me over. But you keep on throwing up silly snowflakes and crystals. These are tired arguments from 50s. Don't you guys ever innovate?

Even in ID arguments in other sites they bring up the snowflakes and crystals thingy . Its like a disease . The Nigerian atheist is mentally inert so he just picks up the same thing from there and spews here .

Teempakguy:
You've got to be kidding me.

Well, I already gave you an example of complexity and high order arising out of random processes. I asked you what would happen to a cereal bowl the size of canis majoris if it were left in space. you refused to answer.

anyway, here is another example.

amino acid



peptide



the latter can be formed from the former by completely random process.

Define 'random' in your own words .

KingEbukasBlog:



. You are an idiot for saying this . What do you expect when a kid reasons like one

Insults?

ok.

KingEbukasBlog:


Define 'random' in your own words .

Who has time to explain simple concepts concepts to a full grown adult?

dude, free me abeg.