Jump to content

a teeny-weeny detail


Guest Guest

Recommended Posts

Guest Guest

So the god-babblers insist that the eye couldn't evolve by natural processes, even though we know it does; the universe couldn't form as a result of the Big Bang, even though that's what all the mathematical models tell us based on the universe's size and rate of expansion; etc. Those things are evidence. The god-babblers insist that science has no evidence, even though it does.

Meanwhile, they say "God did it." That's their explanation.

Apart from the fact that it doesn't explain anything, since it's just a story someone thought up a long time ago, there's one teeny-weeny problem with it. All the evidence shows that consciousness resides within living organisms that have a brain. And even if you want to do some science fiction and imagine that computers or robots may one day become conscious, they still need at least something like a computer chip to house the information that forms the basis for their processes. So how is it possible for a super-intelligent, super-powerful, conscious and purposeful being to exist independent of time and matter, indeed without a universe to Be in?

You want evidence, science has evidence. In fact, science is all about evidence, and about using proven methods to work with evidence and draw conclusions. Where is your evidence?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 2smart4u

So the god-babblers insist that the eye couldn't evolve by natural processes, even though we know it does; the universe couldn't form as a result of the Big Bang, even though that's what all the mathematical models tell us based on the universe's size and rate of expansion; etc. Those things are evidence. The god-babblers insist that science has no evidence, even though it does.

Meanwhile, they say "God did it." That's their explanation.

Apart from the fact that it doesn't explain anything, since it's just a story someone thought up a long time ago, there's one teeny-weeny problem with it. All the evidence shows that consciousness resides within living organisms that have a brain. And even if you want to do some science fiction and imagine that computers or robots may one day become conscious, they still need at least something like a computer chip to house the information that forms the basis for their processes. So how is it possible for a super-intelligent, super-powerful, conscious and purposeful being to exist independent of time and matter, indeed without a universe to Be in?

You want evidence, science has evidence. In fact, science is all about evidence, and about using proven methods to work with evidence and draw conclusions. Where is your evidence?

Well, since God didn't leave a receipt for his work, we'll have to use our intelligence to recognize I.D. Science (atheists) assign serendipity to the Big Bang Theory when there's no evidence to support that claim. Logic dictates that there's more than serendipity to the universe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 2smart4u

So the god-babblers insist that the eye couldn't evolve by natural processes, even though we know it does; the universe couldn't form as a result of the Big Bang, even though that's what all the mathematical models tell us based on the universe's size and rate of expansion; etc. Those things are evidence. The god-babblers insist that science has no evidence, even though it does.

Meanwhile, they say "God did it." That's their explanation.

Apart from the fact that it doesn't explain anything, since it's just a story someone thought up a long time ago, there's one teeny-weeny problem with it. All the evidence shows that consciousness resides within living organisms that have a brain. And even if you want to do some science fiction and imagine that computers or robots may one day become conscious, they still need at least something like a computer chip to house the information that forms the basis for their processes. So how is it possible for a super-intelligent, super-powerful, conscious and purposeful being to exist independent of time and matter, indeed without a universe to Be in?

You want evidence, science has evidence. In fact, science is all about evidence, and about using proven methods to work with evidence and draw conclusions. Where is your evidence?

No, you don't know that the eye evolved through NATURAL PROCESS. You keep dismissing I.D. when there's no evidence to dismiss it. The fossil record indicates evolution only, not the how or why of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

2dim, you are an ignorant moron and obviously determined to remain so. You keep saying things over and over that simply are not true. Why don't you read the book Evolution's Witness: How Eyes Evolved by Schwab, et. al., then come back and discuss the matter with some knowledge.

The argument you're making has been discredited time and time again. People don't understand something, and assume "God must have done it," only to have science give them the true explanation as it progresses.

There isn't a shred of evidence for the existence of a god. What do you claim the evidence is: your say-so, apparently.

And how is God even possible? You just assume it to be true, for the sole reason that you wish to believe it.

Edited by KOTW
Modified link.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

No, you don't know that the eye evolved through NATURAL PROCESS. You keep dismissing I.D. when there's no evidence to dismiss it. The fossil record indicates evolution only, not the how or why of it.

Now you're just being ridiculous. In the first few decades after Darwin published his Origin of Species, scientists were quite certain that the eye had evolved but did not yet have definitive proof. Since then, they have found the definitive proof. The eye evolved. No purposeful design is needed to explain it. There is no doubt about it. This argument is over. You guys lost.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kearny Christian

Now you're just being ridiculous. In the first few decades after Darwin published his Origin of Species, scientists were quite certain that the eye had evolved but did not yet have definitive proof. Since then, they have found the definitive proof. The eye evolved. No purposeful design is needed to explain it. There is no doubt about it. This argument is over. You guys lost.

Now you're just being ridiculous. In the first few decades after Darwin published his Origin of Species, scientists were quite certain that the eye had evolved but did not yet have definitive proof. Since then, they have found the definitive proof. The eye evolved. No purposeful design is needed to explain it. There is no doubt about it. This argument is over. You guys lost.

Reading comprehension really is a problem for atheists. 2smart4u has said evolution is valid and is the process God designed for life to evolve and grow

on the planet earth. Using the human brain as an example, atheists think the human brain evolved without Intelligent Design, that a mysterious "dumb" force

somehow "engineered" the human brain. Atheists call this dumb force "natural selection", that somehow this dumb force can select the positive and weed out the negative aspects of the brain, keeping in mind this is all done without a conscious thought. Wow !! Having a bridge to sell comes to mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

Reading comprehension really is a problem for atheists. 2smart4u has said evolution is valid and is the process God designed for life to evolve and grow

on the planet earth. Using the human brain as an example, atheists think the human brain evolved without Intelligent Design, that a mysterious "dumb" force

somehow "engineered" the human brain. Atheists call this dumb force "natural selection", that somehow this dumb force can select the positive and weed out the negative aspects of the brain, keeping in mind this is all done without a conscious thought. Wow !! Having a bridge to sell comes to mind.

Which of the leading works on evolutionary theory have you read? Why, none of them, of course.

What makes you think 2Stupid4Words is an authority on this or any other subject? Which of the leading works on evolutionary theory has he read? Again, none of them.

Oh, who created God?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

Reading comprehension really is a problem for atheists. 2smart4u has said evolution is valid and is the process God designed for life to evolve and grow

on the planet earth. Using the human brain as an example, atheists think the human brain evolved without Intelligent Design, that a mysterious "dumb" force

somehow "engineered" the human brain. Atheists call this dumb force "natural selection", that somehow this dumb force can select the positive and weed out the negative aspects of the brain, keeping in mind this is all done without a conscious thought. Wow !! Having a bridge to sell comes to mind.

You're such a joke. Do you really believe that a few sentences from one as uninformed as you (including your alter ego) in a town forum can begin to match the collected work of the world's scientists?

Start reading. This one is more than forty years old but still instructive on the kind of work scientists are doing in this field.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

Reading comprehension really is a problem for atheists. 2smart4u has said evolution is valid and is the process God designed for life to evolve and grow

on the planet earth. Using the human brain as an example, atheists think the human brain evolved without Intelligent Design, that a mysterious "dumb" force

somehow "engineered" the human brain. Atheists call this dumb force "natural selection", that somehow this dumb force can select the positive and weed out the negative aspects of the brain, keeping in mind this is all done without a conscious thought. Wow !! Having a bridge to sell comes to mind.

Well, natural selection is a negative selection process, after all. But, hey, I'm sure pretending the laws of logic are dumb will convince everyone!
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

One more thing-why would anyone try to disprove ID? There is no evidence for it. (Argument from incredulity doesn't count-in fact that is a logical fallacy) That would be like trying to disprove Bigfoot or UFOs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 2smart4u

One more thing-why would anyone try to disprove ID? There is no evidence for it. (Argument from incredulity doesn't count-in fact that is a logical fallacy) That would be like trying to disprove Bigfoot or UFOs.

Or like trying to disprove serendipity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

Or like trying to disprove serendipity.

You're so stupid and reflexive that you think you're being clever by merely parroting back your adversaries' words. You're the one who keeps insisting that people who disagree with you should be required to prove a negative.

Scientific naturalists don't think like that. We are the ones with all the evidence on our side. The laws of nature are not so easily reduced to "serendipity" as you seem to think but you can call them that if you insist on displaying your ignorance.

The point is that you have no evidence for a god; and furthermore, a fair parallel to the argument you're making is the simple question you refuse even to acknowledge: "Who created God?"

The points aren't in parallel. When you try to use a snappy one-liner that implies that they are, you only display your own ignorance and intellectual dishonesty, coupled with an attitude of "I'm never wrong."

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

Or like trying to disprove serendipity.

No, that's easy. Natural Selection is a negative selection process, serendipity has nothing to do with it. Do you need me to explain it like I do to my kids? I will if that's what it takes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 2smart4u

You're so stupid and reflexive that you think you're being clever by merely parroting back your adversaries' words. You're the one who keeps insisting that people who disagree with you should be required to prove a negative.

Scientific naturalists don't think like that. We are the ones with all the evidence on our side. The laws of nature are not so easily reduced to "serendipity" as you seem to think but you can call them that if you insist on displaying your ignorance.

The point is that you have no evidence for a god; and furthermore, a fair parallel to the argument you're making is the simple question you refuse even to acknowledge: "Who created God?"

The points aren't in parallel. When you try to use a snappy one-liner that implies that they are, you only display your own ignorance and intellectual dishonesty, coupled with an attitude of "I'm never wrong."

I'll simplify this so that even a Kool-Aid swigging atheist can understand it. First of all, "natural selection" is a term coined by atheists, but we'll use it. Natural selection doesn't explain the creation of the universe, natural selection doesn't cover it. I.D is a more likely explanation. Next, natural selection (blind and dumb) hardly explains the human brain, among many other things. Imagine blind and dumb trying to build something when you don't know what you're building, how to build it or what you want it to do. I'll go with I.D. over blind and dumb on this one too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

It was coined by Charles Darwin I believe. Why would natural selection say anything about the creation of the universe? That doesn't even make sense! As far as the rest-still a negative selection process. If you would just look up fractals you could stop making such a stupid argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

2dim, now that you've shown us that you do not understand what natural selection is (a biological process), perhaps you could explain to us why this wonderfully designed phenomenon we call life involves so many wrong turns - mutations that result in no meaningful life (genetic wastage), and every organism dies, many of them by being eaten by other organisms who need their nutrients to survive. Does that make sense? If you could make a world, is that how you would make it? Is that how any decent person, let alone a morally superior being, would do it? Perhaps you could explain that for us, since we're so dense and you're so smart.

Then perhaps you would be so kind to explain why the existence of a god as the first cause for all things makes, if unexplained complexity makes no sense. In other words, why should reality start in the most organized possible state, and degenerate into the relative disorder we see today, if an omnipotent and conscious creator designed the whole thing?

P.S. You'll probably need more than a sentence or two.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 2smart4u

2dim, now that you've shown us that you do not understand what natural selection is (a biological process), perhaps you could explain to us why this wonderfully designed phenomenon we call life involves so many wrong turns - mutations that result in no meaningful life (genetic wastage), and every organism dies, many of them by being eaten by other organisms who need their nutrients to survive. Does that make sense? If you could make a world, is that how you would make it? Is that how any decent person, let alone a morally superior being, would do it? Perhaps you could explain that for us, since we're so dense and you're so smart.

Then perhaps you would be so kind to explain why the existence of a god as the first cause for all things makes, if unexplained complexity makes no sense. In other words, why should reality start in the most organized possible state, and degenerate into the relative disorder we see today, if an omnipotent and conscious creator designed the whole thing?

P.S. You'll probably need more than a sentence or two.

Oh, but I do understand that natural selection is a biological process. What you don't understand is that biological processes are part of God's grand plan for Earth. When God created Earth he placed early forms of life on the planet and blessed this life with the ability to evolve, thrive and spread throughout the world. God also created the vast natural resources that sustain Earth's population. Blind and dumb would have a tough time with that one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

We understand that you keep writing that, 2dim, but there is no reason or basis to think that it's true.

In the first place, there is no basis for believing that any god exists. You admit you can't prove it. No one can.

Second, if "God" created life as part of a "grand plan," then why is there so much suffering, including sentient creatures doubling as food? You keep ignoring this question but it's fatal to your claim.

Third, you claim that "blind and dumb" could not account for life as we know it. On the contrary, it's the only thing that can account for it. Randomness is the only sensible explanation for all the false starts along the evolutionary path. Your argument is called "God of the gaps," another point you insist on ignoring. All you're left with is an ever-shrinking pocket of ignorance, as science answers question after question that you and your forebears claimed could never be answered.

Fourth, your argument explains nothing because (among other things) it ignores the question: "Who created God?" You can't just ignore these fatal problems with your claim, and pretend to have explained anything.

Not to mention that if you understood that natural selection is a biological process, you wouldn't have written that it doesn't explain the beginning of the universe. Or perhaps you can explain your highly sophisticated chain of reasoning, which no doubt escapes us lesser mortals.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

Riiiiiiiight. That would explain why you tried to make the point that natural selection says nothing about the creation of the universe! As for the rest-we totally understand what you believe, we just think it is stupid because you cannot make a logical argument for it. In fact the only argument you've made is a logical fallacy-argument from incredulity, to be exact.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

Maybe God didn't want to make it that easy to figure him out. If it was too easy, he wouldn't be God. You have to believe to figure it all out.

Oh come on. What a ridiculous excuse. You can believe anything by that standard.

Having raised two children, I can see absolutely no reason why a god, if there was one, would want to hide his existence. You can believe any nonsense you like but that just doesn't make any sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

Maybe God didn't want to make it that easy to figure him out. If it was too easy, he wouldn't be God. You have to believe to figure it all out.

How convenient. The organizing principle for truth is that you choose what to believe, then "figure out" that you're right.

Do you see a problem here, Mr./Ms. Believer? You should.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kearny Christian

How convenient. The organizing principle for truth is that you choose what to believe, then "figure out" that you're right.

Do you see a problem here, Mr./Ms. Believer? You should.

How convenient. The organizing principle for truth is that you choose what to believe, then "figure out" that you're right.

Do you see a problem here, Mr./Ms. Believer? You should.

Mr. Guest, I want to recommend a book for you to read that may cause you to step out of the darkness and into the light. The book is "The Answer" by Marius Forte and Sam Sorbo. This may be just the nudge you need to save your soul. Good luck.

Edited by KOTW
Added Link to Book.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...