Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,208 Year: 5,465/9,624 Month: 490/323 Week: 130/204 Day: 4/26 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   If complexity requires design, where did the Deity come from?
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4303 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 16 of 111 (562538)
05-30-2010 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by dennis780
05-29-2010 10:15 PM


Re: Here goes nothing...
Also anything invented by man had a beginning, such as titanium.
When, pray tell, did man invent titanium? Titanium is a natural, non radioactive chemical element found as the major costituent of the mineral rutile. For that matter when did man actually "invent" any chemical element?

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
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by dennis780, posted 05-29-2010 10:15 PM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by dennis780, posted 06-06-2010 2:24 PM bluescat48 has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 91 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 17 of 111 (562541)
05-30-2010 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by dennis780
05-29-2010 10:15 PM


Re: Here goes nothing...
the same is true with evolution, with many different theories, sometimes conflicting,
What are these conflicting viewpoints?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by dennis780, posted 05-29-2010 10:15 PM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by dennis780, posted 06-06-2010 2:28 PM Larni has replied

  
dennis780
Member (Idle past 4889 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 18 of 111 (563687)
06-06-2010 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Theodoric
05-29-2010 10:55 PM


Re: Are you just lazy
quote:
As you may have noticed EVERYONE else follows this format. It makes reading a post much easier.
Do you think you are special? Since you have been shown many times how to use the db codes and you continue to not use all I can figure is that you are just refusing to. This makes you look like an ass.
So because I choose not to use the format you would like, you see me as unacceptable? This could possibly explain why you don't accept other views and opinions on other subjects. Difference is not wrong, but to put a big smile on your face, this reply was just for you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Theodoric, posted 05-29-2010 10:55 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Theodoric, posted 06-06-2010 3:18 PM dennis780 has not replied

  
dennis780
Member (Idle past 4889 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 19 of 111 (563688)
06-06-2010 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by bluescat48
05-30-2010 7:47 AM


Re: Here goes nothing...
"When, pray tell, did man invent titanium?"
In 1932, by William Kroll.
Patent # 2,205,854

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by bluescat48, posted 05-30-2010 7:47 AM bluescat48 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Theodoric, posted 06-06-2010 3:03 PM dennis780 has not replied

  
dennis780
Member (Idle past 4889 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 20 of 111 (563690)
06-06-2010 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Larni
05-30-2010 11:45 AM


Re: Here goes nothing...
"What are these conflicting viewpoints?"
Archeopteryx is younger than fully formed bird fossils (150 myo), and is only considered transitional. Great debate among evolutionary scientists over whether archeopteryx was the beginning of bird lines or if previous fossil evidence was properly dated.
There are other examples, but this is irrelevant to this forum. Make a new thread, and I will gladly post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Larni, posted 05-30-2010 11:45 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by DC85, posted 06-06-2010 3:24 PM dennis780 has not replied
 Message 24 by Larni, posted 06-06-2010 3:27 PM dennis780 has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9362
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 21 of 111 (563698)
06-06-2010 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by dennis780
06-06-2010 2:24 PM


Are you right about anything?
Titanium was not invented in 1932. It is a naturally occurring element.
quote:
Titanium is a chemical element with the symbol Ti and atomic number 22...
The element occurs within a number of mineral deposits, principally rutile and ilmenite, which are widely distributed in the Earth's crust and lithosphere, and it is found in almost all living things, rocks, water bodies, and soils. The metal is extracted from its principal mineral ores via the Kroll process[3] or the Hunter process.
Source
Mr. Kroll invented a way to process titanium, he did not invent titanium.
You do not even have the correct year for his patent.
Kroll Patent

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by dennis780, posted 06-06-2010 2:24 PM dennis780 has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9362
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 22 of 111 (563705)
06-06-2010 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by dennis780
06-06-2010 2:19 PM


Re: Are you just lazy
So because I choose not to use the format you would like, you see me as unacceptable?
When did I say anything about unacceptable? It just shows your being an ass.
This could possibly explain why you don't accept other views and opinions on other subjects.
I accept different views and opinions that are evidenced.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by dennis780, posted 06-06-2010 2:19 PM dennis780 has not replied

  
DC85
Member (Idle past 109 days)
Posts: 876
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 23 of 111 (563706)
06-06-2010 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by dennis780
06-06-2010 2:28 PM


Re: Here goes nothing...
Archeopteryx is younger than fully formed bird fossils (150 myo)
You're talking about protoavis.... Protoavis is not a bird

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by dennis780, posted 06-06-2010 2:28 PM dennis780 has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 91 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 24 of 111 (563708)
06-06-2010 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by dennis780
06-06-2010 2:28 PM


Re: Here goes nothing...
That's not what you implied when you wrote
the same is true with evolution, with many different theories, sometimes conflicting,
Your point
Archeopteryx is younger than fully formed bird fossils (150 myo), and is only considered transitional. Great debate among evolutionary scientists over whether archeopteryx was the beginning of bird lines or if previous fossil evidence was properly dated.
Is untrue.
So, you have not substantiated your point that there are conflicting theories of evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by dennis780, posted 06-06-2010 2:28 PM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by dennis780, posted 06-19-2010 7:58 AM Larni has replied

  
Jzyehoshua
Member (Idle past 874 days)
Posts: 153
Joined: 06-10-2010


Message 25 of 111 (564958)
06-14-2010 3:25 AM


Physiologically, everything must have a beginning. The 2nd law of thermodynamics illustrates principles of decay. The law of abiogenesis says life cannot come from non-life.
Nonetheless, the Bible at least does not claim a God who is of physiological basis or subject to the laws of a material plane. Rather:
quote:
John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
I.e. while physical beings cannot come from an eternal physical being, it is possible a being from another plane may not be bound by such temporal limitations, either in terms of power, self-existence, or longevity.
Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.
Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Theodoric, posted 06-14-2010 9:25 AM Jzyehoshua has replied
 Message 36 by Larni, posted 06-20-2010 5:58 AM Jzyehoshua has not replied

  
Jzyehoshua
Member (Idle past 874 days)
Posts: 153
Joined: 06-10-2010


Message 26 of 111 (564959)
06-14-2010 3:31 AM


This concept is illustrated Biblically.
quote:
2 Corinthians 4:18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.
With a physical beginning, you're left to constantly wonder, 'but where did that come from'? Physical things require a beginning and an end. They are of necessity temporal, fleeting, and subject to the laws of time.
Nothing of true value is to be found in the purely material, thus it is ironic that one would bind oneself to believing in only that which is subject to such laws. You decide for yourself you will never find anything of true value.

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 06-14-2010 4:27 AM Jzyehoshua has replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 5055 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 27 of 111 (564967)
06-14-2010 4:27 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Jzyehoshua
06-14-2010 3:31 AM


Jzyehoshua says:
This concept is illustrated Biblically.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Corinthians 4:18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only way in which the above passage illustrates the concept [where a deity comes from] is by suggesting it is in the imagination. I don't see how that makes it in any way real, valuable or eternal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-14-2010 3:31 AM Jzyehoshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-14-2010 4:43 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

  
Jzyehoshua
Member (Idle past 874 days)
Posts: 153
Joined: 06-10-2010


Message 28 of 111 (564970)
06-14-2010 4:43 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
06-14-2010 4:27 AM


It illustrates that anything physical is temporary while the unseen is eternal. As this pertains to a potential Creator:
quote:
Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
1 Timothy 1:17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
Therefore, God is not temporary as the physical is. He is described as 'eternal, immortal, invisible', a 'Spirit' and thus not subject to the same laws of physics which require a material beginning.
To my knowledge, the laws of science have yet to fully investigate the realm of spirit, what makes a person a person, or is responsible for morality. In dealing only with the physically testable and observable is neglected much of what's most important.
Love, honor, justice - as Romans 1:20 stated, even the most hardened atheists would recognize those acting in violation of such concepts are doing something 'wrong', whether they want to admit it or not. These concepts are not subject to the material realm or physically observable, we can't prove when they began or from what, yet are there all the same.
I stand by my point. A spiritual realm, and the concepts and beings which are part of it may not be subject to the same limitations which require a beginning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 06-14-2010 4:27 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 06-14-2010 6:01 AM Jzyehoshua has not replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 5055 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


(1)
Message 29 of 111 (564974)
06-14-2010 6:01 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Jzyehoshua
06-14-2010 4:43 AM


Therefore, God is not temporary as the physical is. He is described as 'eternal, immortal, invisible', a 'Spirit' and thus not subject to the same laws of physics which require a material beginning.
Simply quoting something someone once wrote, does not in any way add weight to your argument. It doesn't provide any evidence whatsoever for the existence of a god, let alone any evidence for it being eternal.
To my knowledge, the laws of science have yet to fully investigate the realm of spirit, what makes a person a person, or is responsible for morality. In dealing only with the physically testable and observable is neglected much of what's most important.
"the realm of spirit" - what is that?
"what makes a person a person" - how about a body and a mind?
"morality" - there have been studies on this (and I'll try and find some references). It is also a subject we've discussed quite a lot here.
Love, honor, justice - as Romans 1:20 stated, even the most hardened atheists would recognize those acting in violation of such concepts are doing something 'wrong'
I entirely agree. But it is very simply explained by the fact that we have evolved to follow behaviour that is beneficial to us (as have all other species). When we feel something is "wrong" it is an automatic emotional response to something we recognise as generally being harmful. If we were to feel good about things that were harmful to us, we would be attracted to doing harmful things, and would soon become extinct.
The fact that we understand why things are wrong, and more importantly have an emotional response to things that are right and wrong, which drives our behaviour, is logically compatible with a characteristic that has evolved. It is not logically compatible with "right" and "wrong" being a purely arbitrary notion that has been thrown at us by some other entity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-14-2010 4:43 AM Jzyehoshua has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9362
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 30 of 111 (564997)
06-14-2010 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Jzyehoshua
06-14-2010 3:25 AM


The law of abiogenesis says life cannot come from non-life.
There is no such scientific law. If you want to present evidence of such a thing please go ahead. Also, what does the 2nd law of thermo have to do with this discussion.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-14-2010 3:25 AM Jzyehoshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-14-2010 2:13 PM Theodoric has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024