Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 82 (8871 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-16-2018 6:24 AM
210 online now:
AZPaul3, Pressie, Son of Man (3 members, 207 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Son of Man
Post Volume:
Total: 842,039 Year: 16,862/29,783 Month: 850/1,956 Week: 353/331 Day: 12/69 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
456Next
Author Topic:   Have complex human-made things been designed?
Mylakovich
Junior Member (Idle past 3634 days)
Posts: 20
From: Cambridgeshire, UK
Joined: 08-29-2008


Message 31 of 85 (480499)
09-04-2008 4:00 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by AlphaOmegakid
09-03-2008 10:31 PM


Re: Spontaneous response
quote:
Prove He didn't.

That's not how this works. If you assert something, the burden of proof lies upon yourself. If you assert something improvable and outside the realm of falcafiablility, it's your own fault.

quote:
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.

It most certainly isn't scientific. It might sound that way to you, because you co-op and misuse the language of physics to sound 'scientific'. However, "Science" isn't a collection of buzzwords. It is a philosophy for methodically and systematically collecting and analyzing evidence to discover and understand the natural world. It is disciplined enough to exclude unsupported and unsubstantiated claims, despite our preconceived desires to believe them.
But that is exactly the fundamental error of Intelligent Design; you begin with the unproven (indeed, unprovable) assertion that there is a god. Perhaps this is due to a religious upbringing, an emotional experience, or a deep desire for purpose. But these individual bias must be excluded if you wish to claim that your thinking is "Scientific".

This is why you make meaningless statements like:

quote:
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.

If your unsupported, un evidenced god is conveniently identical to the evidence we have to understand nature, then this logically makes him irrelevant to our understanding of nature (i.e. Science). Why assert thing unnecessarily?

I won't even comment on your quoting the bible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-03-2008 10:31 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-04-2008 10:00 AM Mylakovich has responded

    
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 826 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 32 of 85 (480541)
09-04-2008 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Mylakovich
09-04-2008 4:00 AM


Re: Spontaneous response
Mylakovich writes:

That's not how this works. If you assert something, the burden of proof lies upon yourself. If you assert something improvable and outside the realm of falcafiablility, it's your own fault.

Oh it's not? I'm sorry mr. science "know it all". Please do tell me how you would like me to prove this scientifically? I was under the apparently false assumption that NOTHING was provable in science. I was just going by what scientist themselves say, but of course, you may know better. This is what some of them say....

talkorigins writes:

"... in science there is no 'knowledge', in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. ... This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory."

Sir Karl Popper, The Problem of Induction, 1953

"If you thought that science was certain — well, that is just an error on your part."

Richard Feynman (1918-1988).

"A religious creed differs from a scientific theory in claiming to embody eternal and absolutely certain truth, whereas science is always tentative, expecting that modification in its present theories will sooner or later be found necessary, and aware that its method is one which is logically incapable of arriving at a complete and final demonstration."

Bertrand Russell, Grounds of Conflict, Religion and Science, 1953.

"It is the aim of science to establish general rules which determine the reciprocal connection of objects and events in time and space. For these rules, or laws of nature, absolutely general validity is required — not proven."

Albert Einstein, in Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, 1941."Proof"

Here is some more info from the same source...

talkorigins writes:

What is meant by scientific evidence and scientific proof? In truth, science can never establish 'truth' or 'fact' in the sense that a scientific statement can be made that is formally beyond question. All scientific statements and concepts are open to re-evaluation as new data is acquired and novel technologies emerge. Proof, then, is solely the realm of logic and mathematics (and whiskey). That said, we often hear 'proof' mentioned in a scientific context, and there is a sense in which it denotes "strongly supported by scientific means". Even though one may hear 'proof' used like this, it is a careless and inaccurate handling of the term.

So please do tell, can you prove anything in science?

Mylakovich writes:

It most certainly isn't scientific. It might sound that way to you, because you co-op and misuse the language of physics to sound 'scientific'. However, "Science" isn't a collection of buzzwords. It is a philosophy for methodically and systematically collecting and analyzing evidence to discover and understand the natural world. It is disciplined enough to exclude unsupported and unsubstantiated claims, despite our preconceived desires to believe them.

But that is exactly the fundamental error of Intelligent Design; you begin with the unproven (indeed, unprovable) assertion that there is a god. Perhaps this is due to a religious upbringing, an emotional experience, or a deep desire for purpose. But these individual bias must be excluded if you wish to claim that your thinking is "Scientific".

Who claimed that "God created" is scientific. I certainly didn't. You have created a giant strawman. "God created" is definitely not scientific by definition. It is a faith. That faith has been proven to over 2 billion people (argumentum ad populum). I repeat it is not scientific. It is faith based. The faith is founded on evidence. Some of that evidence is historical documents, prophecies fulfilled, miracles performed and documented, testimonies of eyewitnesses, archeology, and much of the evidence is also scientific.

What makes you think that this forum is only for science discussions? Claims do not just have to be scientific claims. This forum is entitled "Intelligent Design". That may or may not be "scientific" by definition. Discussion of God is certainly not scientific.

Proof happens every day in the courtrooms. That proof goes way beyond the realm of science. But science is often part of that proof. That's where my faith lay. It's a combination of all those evidences above. I've not limited myself to just natural knowlege like you have. There is much more knowledge in this world that is not scientific. You may want to try and learn some sometime.

Mylakovich writes:

If your unsupported, un evidenced god is conveniently identical to the evidence we have to understand nature, then this logically makes him irrelevant to our understanding of nature (i.e. Science). Why assert thing unnecessarily?

I thought science was supposed to be unbiased. I would think that an equally logical conclusion would be that nature was irrelevant. Why must God be irrelevant?

wiki writes:

According to the strict materialist view, if something "supernatural" exists, it is by definition not supernatural. -Supernatural-

The definitions of nature and science have changed over the years. Todays definition of nature elliminates the supernatural. That just makes Nature equal to God. I like simple math.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Mylakovich, posted 09-04-2008 4:00 AM Mylakovich has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by cavediver, posted 09-04-2008 10:19 AM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded
 Message 34 by AdminNosy, posted 09-04-2008 10:37 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded
 Message 36 by Mylakovich, posted 09-04-2008 11:14 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1594 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 33 of 85 (480545)
09-04-2008 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by AlphaOmegakid
09-04-2008 10:00 AM


Re: Spontaneous response
The stupidity inherent in your post makes my head hurt.

Mylakovich writes:

That's not how this works. If you assert something, the burden of proof lies upon yourself.

To which you reply:

Oh it's not? I'm sorry mr. science "know it all". Please do tell me how you would like me to prove this scientifically? I was under the apparently false assumption that NOTHING was provable in science.

I mean, WTF??? What the hell does this have to do with what he said? Where did he mention scientific proof? "Burden of proof" is a well known English expression and does not contradict in any way the evidence-based nature of science. If the "burden of proof" is upon you, then it is up to you to bring forth evidence. Only soneone utterly unaquainted to the English language, or a dribbling idiot would misconstrue this to claim that scientific "proof" was being demanded. I'm assuming you fall into the former?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-04-2008 10:00 AM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-04-2008 10:37 AM cavediver has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 34 of 85 (480549)
09-04-2008 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by AlphaOmegakid
09-04-2008 10:00 AM


Some notes on your tactics
AOk, you are giving the impression that you do not intend to debate in good faith. This may be because of you lack of knowledge of the areas under discussion. Perhaps this will improve but if it doesn't it may be that you don't belong in the science threads at all.

Oh it's not? I'm sorry mr. science "know it all". Please do tell me how you would like me to prove this scientifically? I was under the apparently false assumption that NOTHING was provable in science. I was just going by what scientist themselves say, but of course, you may know better. This is what some of them say....

The expression "burden of proof" is a common phrase. It refers to proof in the logical sense not the sense applied in the example you gave. This is an example of where you go off track because you have such limited understanding of the context in which you are working.

Who claimed that "God created" is scientific. I certainly didn't.

Then do not bring God into a science thread.

It is faith based. The faith is founded on evidence. Some of that evidence is historical documents, prophecies fulfilled, miracles performed and documented, testimonies of eyewitnesses, archeology, and much of the evidence is also scientific.

Perhaps you should supply a clear definition of how you are using the word "faith" since it appears you have a non-standard definition here.

What makes you think that this forum is only for science discussions? Claims do not just have to be scientific claims. This forum is entitled "Intelligent Design". That may or may not be "scientific" by definition. Discussion of God is certainly not scientific.

Here is another example of where you don't understand the context in which you are working. The whole reason that "Intelligent Design" was invented was to show that it was scientific. It's proponents specifically claim that it is not about God. It has suddenly become less popular because it was shown that they have been lying.

The forum you are in is explicitly to be about scientific discussions. If you don't like that then stay in the other side of EvCforum.

I thought science was supposed to be unbiased. I would think that an equally logical conclusion would be that nature was irrelevant. Why must God be irrelevant?

Could you explain the logic in this statement. You compare something that we have evidence for the existence of to something we don't.

The definitions of nature and science have changed over the years. Todays definition of nature elliminates the supernatural. That just makes Nature equal to God. I like simple math.

Silly, childish little statements like this are another example of where you don't appear to intend to carry on an honest discussion. If that is the case you should stop posting to the science forums.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-04-2008 10:00 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-05-2008 1:02 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 85 (480550)
09-04-2008 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by cavediver
09-04-2008 10:19 AM


Re: Spontaneous response
I mean, WTF???

Obviously, he's trolling.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by cavediver, posted 09-04-2008 10:19 AM cavediver has not yet responded

  
Mylakovich
Junior Member (Idle past 3634 days)
Posts: 20
From: Cambridgeshire, UK
Joined: 08-29-2008


Message 36 of 85 (480554)
09-04-2008 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by AlphaOmegakid
09-04-2008 10:00 AM


Re: Spontaneous response
Who claimed that "God created" is scientific. I certainly didn't. You have created a giant strawman.

You absolutely did, you liar. In message 22 you reply:

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.

But the most hilarious bit comes from this:

"God created" is definitely not scientific by definition. It is a faith. That faith has been proven to over 2 billion people (argumentum ad populum). I repeat it is not scientific. It is faith based.

So you repeat MY OWN POINT back to me, and quote the name of a LOGICAL FALLACY to support MY OWN POINT!? You are the worst debater I've ever seen.

You are also deeply misinformed about the nature of evidence and faith.

The faith is founded on evidence. Some of that evidence is historical documents, prophecies fulfilled, miracles performed and documented, testimonies of eyewitnesses, archeology, and much of the evidence is also scientific.

Proof happens every day in the courtrooms. That proof goes way beyond the realm of science. But science is often part of that proof. That's where my faith lay. It's a combination of all those evidences above. I've not limited myself to just natural knowlege like you have. There is much more knowledge in this world that is not scientific. You may want to try and learn some sometime.

I don't think that you are trolling, because I'm quite accustomed to the level of ignorance of fundamental aspects of science that ID proponents display. I find it funny that you add in little jabs at my understanding, as though they would faze me.

Edited by Mylakovich, : formatting

Edited by Mylakovich, : spelling


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-04-2008 10:00 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-08-2008 12:30 PM Mylakovich has not yet responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 901 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 37 of 85 (480577)
09-04-2008 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by AlphaOmegakid
09-03-2008 10:31 PM


Re: Spontaneous response
AOkid writes,

All of these processes tear apart DNA, but no processes are known which put it together.

You'll have to explain how, with evidence to support it because this statement doesn't make much sense when spouted out undetailed.

*You write,

1. Science suggests this.

Yet,

quote:
From wiki,
Scientific research theorizes that abiogenesis occurred sometime between 4.4 and 2.7 billion years ago, when the ratio of stable isotopes of carbon (12C and 13C), iron (56Fe, 57Fe, and 58Fe) and sulfur (32S, 33S, 34S, and 36S) points to a biogenic origin of minerals and sediments and molecular biomarkers indicate photosynthesis.

-SCIENCE SUPPORTS IT-

*You write,

2. The evidence suggests this.

Yet

quote:
From wiki,
Evidence of the early appearance of life comes from the Isua supercrustal belt in Western Greenland and from similar formations in the nearby Akilia Islands. Carbon entering into rock formations has a concentration of elemental δ13C of about −5.5, where because of a preferential biotic uptake of 12C, biomass has a δ13C of between −20 and −30. These isotopic fingerprints are preserved in the sediments, and Mojzis has used this technique to suggest that life existed on the planet already by 3.85 billion years ago.[24] Lazcano and Miller (1994) suggest that the rapidity of the evolution of life is dictated by the rate of recirculating water through mid-ocean submarine vents. Complete recirculation takes 10 million years, thus any organic compounds produced by then would be altered or destroyed by temperatures exceeding 300 °C. They estimate that the development of a 100 kilobase genome of a DNA/protein primitive heterotroph into a 7000 gene filamentous cyanobacterium would have required only 7 million years

-THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS IT-

*You write,

3. The law of biogenesis suggests this.

(This is not even an issue since we are discussing Abiogenesis, and not biogenesis.)

-THE LAW OF BIOGENESIS DOES NOT APPLY HERE-

*You write,

4. The presence of oxygen suggest this.

Yet,

quote:
From wiki,
The basic chemicals from which life is thought to have formed are:

Methane (CH4),
Ammonia (NH3),
Water (H2O),
Hydrogen sulfide (H2S),
Carbon dioxide (CO2) or carbon monoxide (CO), and
Phosphate (PO43-).
Molecular oxygen (O2) and ozone (O3) were either RARE OR ABSENT.


-OXYGEN IS NOT THOUGHT TO BE PRESENT-

*You write,

4. Hydrolysis suggest this.

Yet,

quote:
From wiki,
In polymer chemistry, hydrolysis of polymers can occur during high-temperature processing such as injection moulding leading to chain degradation and loss of product integrity. Polymers most at risk include PET, polycarbonate, nylon and other polymers made by step-growth polymerization.

NOT protiens!

-PROTIENS ARE NOT AT RISK-

You write,

5. Thermodynamic processes suggest this.

Yet,

quote:
From wiki,
The problem with most scenarios of abiogenesis is that the thermodynamic equilibrium of amino acid versus peptides is in the direction of separate amino acids. What has been missing is some force that drives polymerization. The resolution of this problem may well be in the properties of polyphosphates. Polyphosphates are formed by polymerization of ordinary monophosphate ions PO4−3. Several mechanisms for such polymerization have been suggested. Polyphosphates cause polymerization of amino acids into peptides. They are also logical precursors in the synthesis of such key biochemical compounds as ATP. A key issue seems to be that calcium reacts with soluble phosphate to form insoluble calcium phosphate (apatite), so some plausible mechanism must be found to keep calcium ions from causing precipitation of phosphate.

Without entertaining the rest of your post your original argument that "Science suggests that abiogenesis cannot accure through a natural process" seems to be completely unsupported by SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to the contrary.

Edited by onifre, : shits and giggles


"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 27 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-03-2008 10:31 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

    
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 826 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 38 of 85 (480658)
09-05-2008 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by AdminNosy
09-04-2008 10:37 AM


Re: Some notes on your tactics
adminnosy writes:

AOk, you are giving the impression that you do not intend to debate in good faith. This may be because of you lack of knowledge of the areas under discussion. Perhaps this will improve but if it doesn't it may be that you don't belong in the science threads at all.

Upon what basis do you claim that "I don't intend to debate in good faith"? My posts are more lengthy and detailed and factually supported with outside evidence than anyone in this thread including yourself so far. If you don't think I have scientific knowledge then challenge my claims and assertions. Don't make an ad hominen suggestion that I am lacking in the area of scientific knowledge. My whole career has been in the scientific field, and now I have built a successful business from it. At least I have subscriptions to Science and Nature and can quote directly from them. I have seen almost zilch of such scientific citations from my opponents.

In fact you promoted this thread which had no basis in science or logic. Fortunately, I and others have shown the fallacies of andorg in his logic. After andorg dropped out, others started asking me direct questions which I answered in good faith.

adminnosy writes:

The expression "burden of proof" is a common phrase. It refers to proof in the logical sense not the sense applied in the example you gave. This is an example of where you go off track because you have such limited understanding of the context in which you are working.

cavediver writes:

I mean, WTF??? What the hell does this have to do with what he said? Where did he mention scientific proof? "Burden of proof" is a well known English expression and does not contradict in any way the evidence-based nature of science. If the "burden of proof" is upon you, then it is up to you to bring forth evidence. Only soneone utterly unaquainted to the English language, or a dribbling idiot would misconstrue this to claim that scientific "proof" was being demanded. I'm assuming you fall into the former?

I would argue that both of the above statements are not made in good faith. Mylakovich was conveniently quote mined by both of you. Out of context words can mean anything by definition, but context clarifies the definition. Here is what he said....

adminnosy writes:

That's not how this works. If you assert something, the burden of proof lies upon yourself. If you assert something improvable and outside the realm of falcafiablility, it's your own fault.

The "realm of falcafiablility" (Falsifiability) was conveniently left out by you and cavediver. That is a scientific term. It certainly is not a legal term or a debating logic term. Mylokovich was clearly challenging a strawman to "Prove God" in a scientific manner. His next paragraph emphasized scientific proof even more. That cannot be done, nor can anything in science be proven. It's all a matter of probability and certainty.

Now this is a science forum, and that was a science answer.

adminnosy writes:

Then do not bring God into a science thread.

Then who pray tell is the intelligent designer? God or god? I cannot think of another metaphysical entity. Isn't this the argument of science against ID? I am in agreement with science here! Maybe that's why you think I am being dishonest. I am agreeing with you. Maybe you've never seen that phenomenon before.

There is no question in my mind that ID is not scientific according to its current definition of methodological naturalism. ID is pseudo science under this definition.

The argument is not whether ID is science or not, the argument is whether science is just methodological naturalism or whether science is methodological metaphysical naturalism. That's where I stand.

adminnosy writes:

Perhaps you should supply a clear definition of how you are using the word "faith" since it appears you have a non-standard definition here.

Here's your answer...

wiki writes:

Faith is a belief in the trustworthiness of an idea.

At its root, faith is trust. There are two types of trust and faith. One is blind and the other is not. Evos often have the false understanding that all faith is blind where actually most faith is not blind, but is built over time with evidentiary support. Note: not all evidence is empirical.

A child's trust/faith in their parents is based on evidence. A spouse's trust/faith is based on evidence. A religious person's trust/faith is based on evidence. Evangelism is an argument. It is a logical process of demonstrable evidence. Usually that evidence is not scientific or empirical, but sometimes it is. It certainly was with me.

Blind faith is trust without evidence. That certainly is not the Christian faith. Hebrews 11:1 says:

Hebrews 11:1 writes:

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

The greek word for evidence is also often translated "conviction" or "proof". The word is a legal term meaning "evidentiary proof that brings about conviction."

That is what I mean by faith.

adminnosy writes:

Here is another example of where you don't understand the context in which you are working. The whole reason that "Intelligent Design" was invented was to show that it was scientific. It's proponents specifically claim that it is not about God. It has suddenly become less popular because it was shown that they have been lying.

The forum you are in is explicitly to be about scientific discussions. If you don't like that then stay in the other side of EvCforum.

And you can't even see that I am agreeing with you. Saying "Discussion of God is certainly not scientific" is a very scientific statement. I am not arguing for ID. I think the approach is wrong. So does AIG and many other Christian organizations.

However, I do not think it is wise to eliminate the metaphysical from methodological naturalism. That is a very limited paradigm. It is the current paradigm of science. However, the more we discover about the anthropic priciples regarding the organization of the universe and our planet, the complexity of life, and the infinite smallness of fundamental particles in quantum physics, and the multidimensional aspect of the universe, I just think intelligence is evident. It smacks you in the face. That intelligence would be metaphysical, and that metaphysical entity would be God/god.

adminnosy writes:

Could you explain the logic in this statement. You compare something that we have evidence for the existence of to something we don't.

Certainly. Science has discovered gravity. There is evidence for it. It is either an elementary force or the summation of elementary particles. We're not sure, but we know it exists, and we know for the most part how it behaves. Now gravity is just one small part of something we call nature. I hope we can agree on the above statements. Gravity is everywhere. It is omnipresent in the universe. According to BBT, gravity existed before time. Gravity existed outside of time. Gravity was also infinite in the singularity of the BB. All of these are biblical descriptions of God. In fact the scripture says that God "holds" all things together both visible and invisible. To me the discovery of gravity as one part of "nature" is nothing short of the discovery of one part of God.

Light is the same way. Is it a wave or a particle? We don't know for sure, but we do believe that photons are elementary particles. Light like gravity is massless. And light is related to time. And time can dialate relative to the speed of light and gravity. Light is an elemental part of what is called nature. The scripture says, "God is light". To me, our understanding of light is nothing short of the discovery of one part of God.

Now another elemental part of the universe is intelligence and the conscious mind. The mind is identifiable, but not easily quantifiable. The mind is a massless entity. Elemental things in the universe have mostly been discovered/quantified by physics. However, the mind will be left to biology. Biology is emcumberred with materialism which does not consider the possibility of forces or elemental particles that might explain life and the mind. If Biologists did look for such metaphysical things like a life force, and maybe a mental force then I believe we would discover more massless things in nature that would have similar attributes as are normally described as God.

adminnosy writes:

Silly, childish little statements like this are another example of where you don't appear to intend to carry on an honest discussion. If that is the case you should stop posting to the science forums.

There is nothing silly about what I said. And there is no indication that I am being deceptive. What I said is absolutely true.

wiki writes:

According to the strict materialist view, if something "supernatural" exists, it is by definition not supernatural. Are there forces beyond the natural forces studied by physics? Are there ways of sensing that go beyond our biological senses and instruments? Certainly there may always be things outside of the realm of human understanding, as of yet unconfirmed and dubious in existence, and some might term these "supernatural". - Supenatural-

Current science and materialistic naturalism have defined the impossibility of the supernatural. But they haven't defined away God. All of the attributes that are used to define God are found within Nature. Most of these "natural" entities are elemental or foundational. When you reach the foundations which you still can't explain, but they have all the attributes of God, then I say you have just discovered God as the scriptures declare.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by AdminNosy, posted 09-04-2008 10:37 AM AdminNosy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by dokukaeru, posted 09-05-2008 3:18 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded
 Message 40 by bluescat48, posted 09-05-2008 5:40 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
dokukaeru
Member (Idle past 2565 days)
Posts: 129
From: ohio
Joined: 06-27-2008


Message 39 of 85 (480681)
09-05-2008 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by AlphaOmegakid
09-05-2008 1:02 PM


Re: Some notes on your tactics
AOKid writes:

To me the discovery of gravity as one part of "nature" is nothing short of the discovery of one part of God.
-
To me, our understanding of light is nothing short of the discovery of one part of God.


Nice equivocations. So now we have the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, Gravity, and Light?

Now another elemental part of the universe is intelligence and the conscious mind.

This is a fallacy.

Then who pray tell is the intelligent designer? God or god? I cannot think of another metaphysical entity.

As was brought up in another thread:
RickJB writes:

No, because we could have been created by accident by intergalactic robots.


-
AOKid writes:

All of the attributes that are used to define God are found within Nature


Really? So can you point out to me vengefulness and jealousy in nature?

Edited by dokukaeru, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-05-2008 1:02 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by bluegenes, posted 09-05-2008 6:48 PM dokukaeru has not yet responded

    
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2140 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 40 of 85 (480715)
09-05-2008 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by AlphaOmegakid
09-05-2008 1:02 PM


Re: Some notes on your tactics
Then who pray tell is the intelligent designer?

As of now I fail to see any evidence of a designer.

At its root, faith is trust. There are two types of trust and faith. One is blind and the other is not. Evos often have the false understanding that all faith is blind where actually most faith is not blind, but is built over time with evidentiary support. Note: not all evidence is empirical.

is built over time with evidentiary support

such as?


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 38 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-05-2008 1:02 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

    
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 427 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 41 of 85 (480720)
09-05-2008 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by dokukaeru
09-05-2008 3:18 PM


dokukaeru writes:

AOkid writes:

All of the attributes that are used to define God are found within Nature

Really? So can you point out to me vengefulness and jealousy in nature?

Natural human traits, both of them. And as it's us who invents Gods, it's hardly surprising if they share our traits. :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by dokukaeru, posted 09-05-2008 3:18 PM dokukaeru has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-07-2008 5:28 PM bluegenes has responded
 Message 43 by Coyote, posted 09-07-2008 8:51 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 826 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 42 of 85 (480907)
09-07-2008 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by bluegenes
09-05-2008 6:48 PM


Vengeance and Jealousy....

bluegenes writes:

Natural human traits, both of them. And as it's us who invents Gods, it's hardly surprising if they share our traits.

Actually there is no evidence of a natural origin of vengeance. It is an attribute of God and an attribute of man designed in His image. Vengeance is not condemned in man in the scriptures. Vengeance is not evil. Vengeance is a part of any legal system which requires intelligence.

There is some evidence of the natural evolution of jealousy. But again, animals had the same designer according to ID.

You assume that we invented God. That is intelligent design. Quite intelligent and uniquely designed according to the scriptures.

I assume that God invented us. That is intelligent design. Quite intelligent and uniquely designed according to the scientific evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by bluegenes, posted 09-05-2008 6:48 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by bluegenes, posted 09-08-2008 3:37 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 56 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 43 of 85 (480938)
09-07-2008 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by bluegenes
09-05-2008 6:48 PM


That brings to mind...
And as it's us who invents Gods, it's hardly surprising if they share our traits.

    Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child.

    Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by bluegenes, posted 09-05-2008 6:48 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-08-2008 12:36 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 826 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 44 of 85 (481000)
09-08-2008 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Mylakovich
09-04-2008 11:14 AM


Re: Spontaneous response
Mylakovich writes:

Who claimed that "God created" is scientific. I certainly didn't. You have created a giant strawman.

You absolutely did, you liar. In message 22 you reply:
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.

So you call me a liar. Then quote me. So wherein my statements do you see anything that can be interpreted that "God created" is scientific.

This is a clear example of how pre-conceived ideas can lead to pre-conceived conclusions.

Mylakovich writes:

So you repeat MY OWN POINT back to me, and quote the name of a LOGICAL FALLACY to support MY OWN POINT!? You are the worst debater I've ever seen.

Actually you are the worst reader I have ever seen. Yes, I proved your point, because as I have said from the beginning ID is not science under its current definition.

Mylakovich writes:

I don't think that you are trolling, because I'm quite accustomed to the level of ignorance of fundamental aspects of science that ID proponents display. I find it funny that you add in little jabs at my understanding, as though they would faze me.

No, there is much that could faze you at your current reading skill. But keep working at it and you may get fazed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Mylakovich, posted 09-04-2008 11:14 AM Mylakovich has not yet responded

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 826 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 45 of 85 (481001)
09-08-2008 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Coyote
09-07-2008 8:51 PM


Re: That brings to mind...
coyote writes:

Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream up a god superior to themselves.

Yes I guess you could call Christianity and Judaism rare as compared to the vast number of man made religions in this world including humanism, pantheism, and materialistic naturalism.

The whole basis of Judeao Christian scriptures is that God is vastly superior to humans. But a coyote couldn't invent that could he?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Coyote, posted 09-07-2008 8:51 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Prev12
3
456Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018