Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Have complex human-made things been designed?
dokukaeru
Member (Idle past 4615 days)
Posts: 129
From: ohio
Joined: 06-27-2008


Message 16 of 85 (480425)
09-03-2008 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by AlphaOmegakid
09-03-2008 12:19 PM


The burden of Proof is on you AOKid
AOKid writes:
Can you show that it did?
Can you show that God didn't create the universe and all the living things?
The evidence for evolution is abundant and overwhelming. The evidence for abiogenesis is mounting.
Can you show me one single piece of scientific evidence for the existence of God?
Can you show me one biological component that was wihtout a doubt designed by said God?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-03-2008 12:19 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 17 of 85 (480431)
09-03-2008 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by andorg
09-03-2008 9:59 AM


Hi, Andorg.
I'm going to have to say something that is very difficult for me to say, so bear with it:
I agree with AlphaOmegakid.
That hurt almost as much as that time when I had to agree with Tesla.
Anyway, this is where I agree with the Kid:
Andorg writes:
The word design infers both a planning process and a production process as you are using it.
The thing that you are forgetting in your analogy is that, in biological evolution, the new form springs directly from the old form. In your technological evolution, the new form is produced independently, even though it may incorporate components of the old form, or may even be based on the old form.
But, when you talk only of technological concepts, as opposed to objects, it is easy to see how, e.g., the idea of the switch "evolved" into the idea of the transistor. In this, I agree that technological concepts have "evolved" over time. But, the switch itself did not become a transistor, nor was the transistor made by the switch or from the switch.
andorg writes:
Can you design something that would not resemble anything existing? Something much more complex than other existing things? No.
The first time a primate used a rock to smash a nut open was quite unlike anything that had ever come before it.
But, aside from that, you're still arguing ideas, not objects. The reason I can't make something that doesn't resemble something else is because our intellect doesn't work by punctuated equilibrium: I can't go directly from designing the spear to designing indoor plumbing, not because I couldn't make the spear into a workable pipe, but because there is a disconnect between the two ideas.
Ideas don't just crop up out of nowhere: the first plumbing pipe was probably designed after examining an intermittent stream; the light bulb was designed after electricity was found to be capable of making some filaments glow; etc.
On the other hand, novel objects can just come "from nowhere." Most of the time, we call it "modern art."
-----
P.S. I've grown accustomed to putting quotation marks around words that are not being used in exactly their proper manner on threads where AlphaOmegakid is present: it might just save me a lot of trouble. He insists that challenging an existing definition (or just using one he doesn't like) is "equivocation."
P.P.S. I didn't even notice that you were new here. Welcome to EvC! At the very bottom of this message, you can see a "Peek" button: that will show you the codes used to make quote boxes and other formatting changes. Also, while you're writing a response, you can check the circle next to "Peek Mode" below your "Submit Reply" button, and it shows you the same codes. And, finally, still on the reply screen, the left-hand column has a "help" link to a comprehensive list of dBCodes (message-formatting codes).

-Bluejay
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by andorg, posted 09-03-2008 9:59 AM andorg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-03-2008 3:14 PM Blue Jay has not replied
 Message 30 by RickJB, posted 09-04-2008 3:54 AM Blue Jay has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 18 of 85 (480434)
09-03-2008 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by AlphaOmegakid
09-03-2008 11:43 AM


Re: many errors in your comments
AOkid writes,
All created by the code within the organisms DNA.
Right, but where did the DNA come from?
I've read your arguments before, you seem to suggest that DNA cannot be broken down into several components that naturally came to be, through a natural process, what we now call DNA.
Can DNA arrise from natural causes? From pre-existing natural chemicals? From pre-existing enviromental conditions? etc, etc..
Or can it only be explained through design?
A design that would have to come to be from nothingness mind you. In other words God, or the Designer(since that is the new bullshit euphemism for God), would have to have made DNA appear spontaniously, because if He/She used natural chemicals and brought them together, and took the enviromental conditions into consideration, then basically you are saying that God used natural processes and natural components to organize DNA.
At that point you are just invoking God because of pre-existing belief in a God.
As suggested by the OP, nothing comes from nothing, I think thats what andorg meant. So are all of the components for DNA found before DNA is known to have appeared?
If ALL of the components for it are available before DNA is known to have appeared, then a normal natural process can, and should be, assumed...unless you can prove otherwise.

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-03-2008 11:43 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-03-2008 4:37 PM onifre has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 19 of 85 (480440)
09-03-2008 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by andorg
09-03-2008 12:34 PM


Re: many errors in your comments
andorg writes:
AlphaOmegakid write: "The word design infers both a planning process and a production process as you are using it. Both require intelligence".
Sorry, production doesn't require. A completely automatic and not intelligent plant may produce very complex things.
I assume you are saying that "production does not require design". If that is what you are claiming then you need to present evidence for your claim. I will present evidence for mine....
wiki writes:
Design, usually considered in the context of applied arts, engineering, architecture, and other creative endeavors, is used both as a noun and a verb. As a verb, "to design" refers to the process of originating and developing a plan for a product, structure, system, or component. As a noun, "a design" is used for either the final (solution) plan (e.g. proposal, drawing, model, description) or the result of implementing that plan (e.g. object produced, result of the process). More recently, processes (in general) have also been treated as products of design, giving new meaning to the term "process design".
Designing normally requires a designer to consider the aesthetic, functional, and many other aspects of an object or a process, which usually requires considerable research, thought, modeling, interactive adjustment, and re-design.-Design-
Now I think the definition presented refutes your claim. The manufacturing process is integral to most designs. It certainly is to an architect. And it is to software people. You can "design" a program logic on a white board, but a significant part of the design of the software happens during the "manufaturing" process where you type the logic into a compiling and debugging language program. You must structure your typing a certain way, put comments in, and debug according to the logic of the compiler. That is how programming works as you well know. It doesn't happen by you creating a random character generator and sitting back in your chair for a million years. It happens by intelligence.
andorg writes:
You may call it as you like: "emerge", "appear" or whatever. Any thing appears from somewhere. That's what I meant by "emerge". Perhaps this is not the best word.
You are making an argument. Arguments are made, "created", "designed", with the use of words. Words mean something by their definition and context. Imagine if you could just arbitrarily interchange words in your programming language. You can't. That's because these words have a particular meaning which you are morphing them as synonyms. That's a fallacy. The argument you build on this fallacy is a house built on sand. It has no logical foundation.
andorg writes:
You miss one point. When you (or other intelligent person) designs something, you do not know in advance that the product of your design will be good. This knowledge you may get only after your product is completed and subjected to the environment. Design alone is blind. Without actual information. The information always comes from the environment. Design is always prediction.
The most important part of the process of (emerging, appearing or call it as you like) of objects in our world is checking them by the environment. It has nothing to do with design.
The market (environment)has everything to do with design. No one designs something without considering his market place. Even a child creating an imaginative drawing does it for the audience of his parents or at least the enjoyment of himself.
According to your argument you are arbitrarily creating/designing software and then just submitting it to the market place. If you do you will be extinct soon. No. You know your market in advance of the design. The design is for the market. The market then decides which design is successful if there are competing designs. Many good designs have been rejected by the marketplace. If you go to most foreign countries they have coins for their paper currencies. In the US the design of the Susan B. Anthony dollar was excellent, but the market rejected it.
Design is never blind as you claim. Design always tries to see into the furture and anticipate the market(environment). It is not always successful. Evolution, and emmergence is blind. That is why you are so confused. Design is the opposite of evolution and emergence.
andorg writes:
And please do not attack my education: I have M.Sc. in applied mathematics of a known university and I was educated in a way lots of people are educated. I did not study science in church, i admit it.
My education level is much higher than yours, but that is irrelevant. It is not the school you went to, it is the way your mind works. You are equivocating the meaning of design with the meaning of emergence, evolution, and appearing. You can't do that in a computer logic sequence, what makes you think that you can do it in mental logic?
andorg writes:
And I know what I want to explain here: design is just one of many possible ways to create things.
I think you are correct here. Things are created by evolution, and things are created by emergence, and things are created by design. The first two require no intelligence and randomness. The last one requires intelligence. That intelligence can be inferred from the evidence.
andorg writes:
By the way: the word "design" is modern. Did ancient Greeks design?
Ummmm, yes they did. Have you seen the Parthenon? Here are the greek words for design....
‘, ‘‘, ‘

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by andorg, posted 09-03-2008 12:34 PM andorg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Blue Jay, posted 09-03-2008 3:36 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 20 of 85 (480442)
09-03-2008 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Blue Jay
09-03-2008 1:32 PM


bluejay writes:
I'm going to have to say something that is very difficult for me to say, so bear with it:
I agree with AlphaOmegakid.
That hurt...
Darwin writes:
Natural selection will never produce in a being anything injurious to itself, for natural selection acts solely by and for the good of each. -from OoS
Now I know this was quotemined, but I couldn't resist. I'm sorry that agreeing with me every now and then hurts. But pain is something we learn from......Anyway, if you post your address, I'll send you some aspirin.
ps. I happen to agree with you also in your post for the most part. And I didn't feel any pain at all. Maybe I have an adaptation that you do not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Blue Jay, posted 09-03-2008 1:32 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 21 of 85 (480445)
09-03-2008 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by AlphaOmegakid
09-03-2008 2:58 PM


Maybe off-topic, but an important aside
Hi, AlphaOmegakid.
It looks like we're going to be arguing rather on the same side for this one. But, I still have one bone to pick. You wrote this:
AlphaOmegakid writes:
Words mean something by their definition and context.
While this is true, you should realize that the English language is not constructed completely out of precise, technical terms. It's possible that his word choice was wrong, but you should have figured out what he meant by his context. Andorg clearly chose the word "emergence" so as to avoid using either "evolution" or "creation." If he chose the wrong word, I'm sure you can get over it.
But, if you can't, why don't you suggest an alternative instead of claiming that his entire argument is fallacious because he chose a word you don't like? Then, we could all get on to using words you approve of to show why his idea is wrong.

-Bluejay
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-03-2008 2:58 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-03-2008 5:55 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 22 of 85 (480451)
09-03-2008 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by onifre
09-03-2008 1:58 PM


Re: many errors in your comments
onifre writes:
Right, but where did the DNA come from?
It came from the design of God as well as a myriad of other things did.
onifre writes:
I've read your arguments before, you seem to suggest that DNA cannot be broken down into several components that naturally came to be, through a natural process, what we now call DNA.
No, this is a strawman. DNA can be broken down into smaller chemical components that do naturally occur. The delicate DNA molecule , however, does not occur naturally outside of living or once living creatures. There is no naturally occurring process to create DNA. That is the reality of known science.
onifre writes:
Can DNA arrise from natural causes? From pre-existing natural chemicals? From pre-existing enviromental conditions? etc, etc..
Or can it only be explained through design?
There is no naturally occurring process to create DNA. That is the reality of known science. I don't know if it can "only" be explained through design, but it can be explained through design.
onifre writes:
A design that would have to come to be from nothingness mind you.
I think you have my faith confused with yours. You believe that everything we see came from nothing. I do not.
onifre writes:
In other words God, or the Designer(snipped...), would have to have made DNA appear spontaniously, because if He/She used natural chemicals and brought them together, and took the enviromental conditions into consideration, then basically you are saying that God used natural processes and natural components to organize DNA.
It's amazing to me how evo's don't know their own scientific language. Spontaneous natural chemical reactions is what you believe in. Spontaneous means "self generating". A spontaneous chemical reaction might be a self replicating molecule.
The designing and creating from God is not spontaneous. Designed things don't spontaneously occur. Designed things are planned and made. The planning and making may use preexisting items that you may label as natural. That is the picture that the bible presents.
onifre writes:
At that point you are just invoking God because of pre-existing belief in a God
Absolutely! It is called faith. Your belief that there is no God is also a faith and also pre-existing.
onifre writes:
As suggested by the OP, nothing comes from nothing, I think thats what andorg meant. So are all of the components for DNA found before DNA is known to have appeared?
According to the Bible, all of the components of DNA were present before God used them to create organisms.
onifre writes:
If ALL of the components for it are available before DNA is known to have appeared, then a normal natural process can, and should be, assumed...unless you can prove otherwise.
Why should a natural process be assumed, when I believe according to the scripture that God is involved with every natural process. If we discover that rain is caused by the condensation of water vapor while a cold air mass hits up against a warmer air mass that does not exclude God from the process. Where did the infinite gravity source for the Big Bang come from? "Nothing comes from nothing". Right? That infinite gravitation source (infinite power) has already been revealed to you by science. There was something in the beginning. Science says so. Not me. Now I may not agree with the BBT from a scientific standpoint, but both of us must agree that the universe didn't come from nothing.
I believe that what it did come from designed the universe, the earth, and life within it. The anthropic priciples reek of design inference.
Why must I choose a naturalistic scientific explanation when through the years science has been shown over and over again to be wrong. Do you want me to list the concepts that science was wrong on? It is ever changing and ever correcting. That is a good thing. That alone is evidence that I don't want to put my trust in science, because the probability of error is so high.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by onifre, posted 09-03-2008 1:58 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by bluescat48, posted 09-03-2008 5:07 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 24 by onifre, posted 09-03-2008 5:49 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 23 of 85 (480456)
09-03-2008 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by AlphaOmegakid
09-03-2008 4:37 PM


Re: many errors in your comments
According to the Bible, all of the components of DNA were present before God used them to create organisms.
Chapter & verse please.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-03-2008 4:37 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-03-2008 9:01 PM bluescat48 has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 24 of 85 (480460)
09-03-2008 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by AlphaOmegakid
09-03-2008 4:37 PM


Re: many errors in your comments
AOkid writes,
It came from the design of God as well as a myriad of other things did.
Prove it.
There is no naturally occurring process to create DNA.
I did not say that there IS, I said that you seem to suggest that there CANNOT be, a natural process...
What is known science is that there are NO supernatural processes ever found thru experiments and/or observations. Note that im not saying that there AREN'T any, im saying that none have been shown to exist using the scientific method.
There is no naturally occurring process to create DNA.
Again, I did NOT say there IS, however, you have absolutely NO evidence to support that statement. You have no idea if there are or aren't, you assume there aren't. I don't want to get into the details of abiogen since it is not the topic so lets stay focused. Pre-existing conditions for a natural process...thats what I am saying there IS.
but it can be explained through design.
Anything can be explained if your explanation is 'God-did-it', but you will fail when you attempt to show HOW 'God-did-it'.
If we have pre-existing chemical components, then we have what we need for a natural process to take place.
I think you have my faith confused with yours. You believe that everything we see came from nothing. I do not.
I think it came from nothing? WHAT??? I said the pre-existing components are there for a natural process, you said..
AOkid writes,
It came from the design of God as well as a myriad of other things did.
First, define 'a myraid of other things', cause that sounds like 'I don't know how God-did-it'.
Second, where did God get all of the components? Did He make the components first, then came back a few million years later to reorganize the components to create DNA, or what? Give me some kind of specifics here...
Spontaneous natural chemical reactions is what you believe in.
Are you suggesting that there are NO spontaneous chemical reactions???
Spontaneous process - Wikipedia
How about these,
Spontaneous abortion
Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis
Spontaneous combustion
Spontaneous emission
Spontaneous fission
Spontaneous generation
Spontaneous human combustion
Spontaneous Music Ensemble
Spontaneous order
Spontaneous process
Spontaneous remission
Spontaneous symmetry breaking
The planning and making may use preexisting items that you may label as natural.
Ok, then where did the pre-existing 'items' come from? And don't you dare say God spontaneously made them
According to the Bible, all of the components of DNA were present before God used them to create organisms.
Ok, so where did the pre-existing crap come from...other pre-existing crap? Come on man, don't give me this circular bullshit, explain what you mean.
You are saying God made DNA from pre-existing components that He 'planned' to put together as DNA. Ok, where did those pre-existing components come from? At some point something had to magically appear from nothing, or a magic hat, or some other demention, something. Explain that 'something'. Where does God get the components?
Why should a natural process be assumed, when I believe according to the scripture that God is involved with every natural process.
Because its wrong to think that. Just as it was wrong to think that God caused eclipses.
Now I may not agree with the BBT from a scientific standpoint, but both of us must agree that the universe didn't come from nothing.
Agreed.
I believe that what it did come from designed the universe, the earth, and life within it.
Yes, all the physical laws of the universe are required for life, Earth, galaxies etc, etc...Where does God come in?
Do you want me to list the concepts that science was wrong on?
Yes, and then give me a list of who discovered that certain things in science were wrong...I BET IT WAS A FUCKIN SCIENTIST
It is ever changing and ever correcting.
Yes by scientist.
That is a good thing.
Yes, it is a good thing when scientist can correct their mistakes. That way we continue to progress in our knowledge of nature.
That alone is evidence that I don't want to put my trust in science, because the probability of error is so high.
So let me see if I follow your reasoning.
1. You believe science makes mistakes.
2. You are happy to see when those mistakes are corrected using the scientific method.
3. You believe that it is a good thing to correct those scientific errors and get the right answers to problems that scientist work on.
4. You don't trust science.
Im sorry but im having trouble understanding your logic here. Who do you think makes the corrections to the scientifc problems?

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-03-2008 4:37 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-03-2008 10:31 PM onifre has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 25 of 85 (480461)
09-03-2008 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Blue Jay
09-03-2008 3:36 PM


Re: Maybe off-topic, but an important aside
bluejay writes:
While this is true, you should realize that the English language is not constructed completely out of precise, technical terms. It's possible that his word choice was wrong, but you should have figured out what he meant by his context. Andorg clearly chose the word "emergence" so as to avoid using either "evolution" or "creation." If he chose the wrong word, I'm sure you can get over it.
Awwww... I knew it wouldn't last.
I can get over misuse of terms with no problem. I do it all the time. I have a hard time with an argument being built on the misuse of terms.
andorg is arguing that products aren't designed. They evolve, emerge, etc. They don't. That is an indefensible argument, as most of you have identified. The reason he associates this logic is because of his use of terms. That needs to be corrected. Instead he continued to argue it. So I responded.
The fact that his argument is fallacious is just a matter of argumentation. That is the purpose of this forum. To express ideas and have those ideas challenged. No one is more familliar with that than I am with you guys responding to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Blue Jay, posted 09-03-2008 3:36 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 26 of 85 (480479)
09-03-2008 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by bluescat48
09-03-2008 5:07 PM


chapter and verse
bluescat48 writes:
According to the Bible, all of the components of DNA were present before God used them to create organisms.
Chapter & verse please.
Genesis 1:1-11 days 1 through 4 of creation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by bluescat48, posted 09-03-2008 5:07 PM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by bluescat48, posted 09-03-2008 11:16 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 27 of 85 (480484)
09-03-2008 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by onifre
09-03-2008 5:49 PM


Spontaneous response
onifre writes:
Prove it.
Prove He didn't.
I did not say that there IS, I said that you seem to suggest that there CANNOT be, a natural process...
I don't suggest this. Science suggests this. The evidence suggests this. The law of biogenesis suggests this. The presence of oxygen suggests this. Hydrolysis suggests this. Thermodynamic processes suggest this. All of these processes tear apart DNA, but no processes are known which put it together.
What is known science is that there are NO supernatural processes ever found thru experiments and/or observations.
You don't realize this, but you are making a tautology. By the current definition of nature, all the power in the universe is natural. It is an impossibility by definition to be more powerful than nature. There is no supernatural possibility by definition.
Anything can be explained if your explanation is 'God-did-it', but you will fail when you attempt to show HOW 'God-did-it'.
What is the difference between 'God did it' and 'Nature did it'? If God controls nature, then aren't they equal statements. Discovering truths of nature is the same as discovering the truths of God.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made (natural), even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse:
Rom 1:21 because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks(they called Him nature); but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened.
(parenthetical statements mine.)
If we have pre-existing chemical components, then we have what we need for a natural process to take place.
Possibly. We also have everything for God to design something new.
First, define 'a myraid of other things', cause that sounds like 'I don't know how God-did-it'.
Second, where did God get all of the components? Did He make the components first, then came back a few million years later to reorganize the components to create DNA, or what? Give me some kind of specifics here...
Read Genesis 1. He did it all in 6 days. There is a very specific sequence of events. Trust me, I don't know how God did it. And you don't know how nature did it. We can only theorize based on the evidence. My theory is the components (matter) were made by converting some of God's energy to matter. That's scientific. The same physics fall within the BBT. Then God used that matter and designed the universe, the earth, and all the life within it. That's intelligent design. IT IS NOT SPONTANEOUS. NOTHING in the scriptures suggest spontanaety with God's creation. Spontaneous formations are your scientific natural explanations. My explanations are the intelligent use and design of created elements.
Are you suggesting that there are NO spontaneous chemical reactions???
No. I am suggesting exactly what I said. Scientific explanations require spontaneous reactions. Intelligent design is the opposite of spontaneous reactions and creative forces. You use the term spontaneous with God and creation. This is wrong. God did not spontaneously create anything. He intelligently designed it all.
To be continued....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by onifre, posted 09-03-2008 5:49 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by RickJB, posted 09-04-2008 3:50 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 31 by Mylakovich, posted 09-04-2008 4:00 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 37 by onifre, posted 09-04-2008 3:08 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 28 of 85 (480485)
09-03-2008 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by AlphaOmegakid
09-03-2008 9:01 PM


Re: chapter and verse
Where does it mention phosphate ions, ribose, deoxyribose, uracil etc?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-03-2008 9:01 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 29 of 85 (480495)
09-04-2008 3:50 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by AlphaOmegakid
09-03-2008 10:31 PM


Re: Spontaneous response
AOKid writes:
Read Genesis 1. He did it all in 6 days. There is a very specific sequence of events. Trust me, I don't know how God did it.
So tell us then, how did God do it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-03-2008 10:31 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 30 of 85 (480498)
09-04-2008 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Blue Jay
09-03-2008 1:32 PM


As I said in an earlier message:
RickJB writes:
I would argue that it is necessary to separate the evolution of a design concept from its produced design.
Design concepts can be said to evolve, whereas as the produced design is designed outright.
In this sense each produced design is a "hard copy" of a design concept made at a particular point in its evolution.
Ideas can be said to evolve, produced designs can be regarded as "hard copies" made along the way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Blue Jay, posted 09-03-2008 1:32 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024