Intelligent Design?

Wladyslaw
atheist
Wladyslaw's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2012-10-21
User is offlineOffline
Intelligent Design?

 When it comes to the Evolution v Creationism debate, I have wondered for a while now... what  sort of intelligent designer would make us in such a manner that we have to do so many bodily functions... Such as eating... excrementing waste.

For example there are animals out there that can produce vitamin C... we cannot, and must get our daily vitamin C from food. If we were designed intelligently, what sort of sense does it make to give some (un?)intelligently designed creatures this ability, and then keep it from the Pièce de résistance so to speak. Or going further to plants... they get most of what they need from the Sun, and then other random nutrients in water that can even be given via a mist. (Aeroponics) Why can't we, as intelligently designed creatures utilize the same process as plants when it comes to aeroponics? .-. It doesn't make sense.

"Your sins are not redeemed, by swearing perjury." ~ Mathias Blad

"Change how you look at all things and what you see will change" ~ Per Nilsson/Henrik Ohlsson
"As the need for knowledge flows through the catharsis of thought, ask a question and the answer will be born."


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
BEHE Watch . .

  To: 0p  Nu 1

  The Irreducibility of the component parts of the whip-like tails  flagella, topic by ID's Behe:

   It naturally follows some have made strides to get us all out the dark ages, on this. Not everyone is the same, dont label!! Good wonderful young women, such as yourself, could help more often to lite the proverbial (so to speak) funeral pyre on this ID movements' worst offenders. Glad to know. Keep the interest. I bring up the best known example used by some of the IDers to begin with.  Out of fairness, Now, anyone can make mistakes, even people reasonably well-educated people are not above presumption. Undoubtedly one of the most committed ID promoters anywhere – doesn’t know what he is talking about when it comes to the “icon of ID”, the bacterial flagellum. As a example of ignorance and presumption at work, this is the typical I know more than I actually know type. The worst offenders have turned themselves into the advocates for Intelligent Design via the route of the unwise dogmatic propagandists (as has come out in News Papers and in court-trials). Unwise!! I am reminded of a better known fellow and guy by the name of Behe. Due to his example, given on BookTv back then,. Non-scientist, he talks about it anyway, basically, he just unblinkingly repeats, working off as little knowledge as is imaginable. Their motives are more than a bit questionable!! To their real shame, however, they have proven to be mere 'CREATION', re-mythologizing text 'interpretation' or (almost re-interpretation) so is the impression given. And they are more than a bit conceited, allthewhile. You might not know him. But, As Jcgadfly (a member) went out of his way to point out, they are not interested in answers. Saying as much. TheologyWeb has a much larger following of this topic, even with some from a real passion from many of those Users on their forum. People purposed in exposing errors and keeping track of this (I found out briefly when the servers were down on this site one time),. I don't keep up on their site much of ever, but worth checking into, with so much activity surrounded around this debated topic. Mainly, There are christians decidedly not in the anti-evolution/YEC/Creationists/Intelligent Design~ers categories! Well, Why didn't they say so; Alright then (smile). This debate has little followers on this site because, being more science oriented. The topic comes up in news, that is where the topic comes up, if so, then not all that often.  
 
 At least with their immediate predecessors, the creationists; they privately feel scientific advancement is a negative, especially when it comes to the origin's of our species. I know, back in 2005 and 2006.  Mr. Behe's, the non-scientist, authored a book entitled something like "Darwin's Black Box" (unsure of that was the title or not)! I think it was the title, I don't know. It was one of the more noted popular works advocating Intelligent Design. Behe was very serious at the time, in his serious claim that all flagella are irreducible, (a word he kept using in these talks he was giving). Some flagellum's tails are more irreducible than others, apparently. Listen to the couple of talks I heard he basically was admitting that he is proposing thousands or millions of instances of miraculous special creation of flagella, all in such a way that phylogenetic trees themselves were affected. The whole it was 'created' perfect and good; or again generally being a nuance by advocating a ID 'process' by the Intelligence. Scientific American Frontiers and Dr Eugeneie Scott are rolling in their graves, as we speak (tehe). Time marches on and this becomes more and more 'a game' with these propagandists, if we fast forward to the last two years especially. In the end, the shame is much greater if errors are stubbornly defended. The victim in all of this? Some have gone so far as to say the victim is all of humanity,  all of humanity. Knowledge is never to be either avoided or shunned, IMO.

 
 Presumptiously, Then quoting his “trusted authorities”  the small group of academics on his side apparently. He hasn't checked to see if they actually know what they are talking about. There is something more than a little pompous and egoistical and pig ignorant about each and everyone of these guys!! Michael Behe claims, "Intelligent Design is very falsifiable, Intelligent Design can be falsified, he writes, I said that the Bacteria's flagellum 'could not' be produced by Natural Selection; all a Scientist would have to do is prove me wrong'". There is nothing like a little knowledge, coupled with a more than healthy ego; capped off with some false postulate and for lack of a better term scenario ? How about the innumerable examples that lend complete credence to natural selection is all you need. Bacterial colonies of all things (it is to laugh) Plus, You cannot even suspect that you do not know as much as you think you do !?

 


Quote:
(End) Notes

* There are other flagellum-ATPase homologies that I proposed but which I stated were more speculative. Mike Gene’s criticisms have more merit here; see the Update for which homologies I have surrendured and which I still propose. In any event, none of the speculative proposed flagellum-ATPase homologies are in the NRM table, only FliI/F1-alpha-beta (long accepted) and FliH/Fo-b (demonstrated by Pallen et al.), so Behe's and then Luskin’s citation of Mike Gene is still irrelevant, in the end notes.

** As I have mentioned before, some proteins were determined to be inessential because they are not found in genome searches. It is conceivable that a few of these will turn out to be universally present (FliH perhaps), but not all that likely, and even if this did happen, the protein in question would have to have very low sequence conservation and thus “low specifity/information” according to IDists.

*** In a statistically significant way, if not exactly. I believe both Nguyen et al. 2000 and Gophna et al. 2003 reached this conclusion although I don’t have the papers handy at the moment.

 p.s. -- Different by much, the last of the top  hominids would not have internet access, language or the intellectual sophistication to appreciate the wonder of it all!!


Wladyslaw
atheist
Wladyslaw's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2012-10-21
User is offlineOffline
 My God! That was lengthy,

 My God!

 

That was lengthy, and I think you called me a woman. lol.

To be honest, a lot of that looked like rambling ( something I'm frequently guilty of.) though I did manage to piece together a site recommendation, a reason it's not followed too much on this site, the name of a book ( which was right, by the way) against evolution " through biochemical means " a couple examples of people just rambling on about things they don't know, and an essay about flagellum. 

Did I miss something? 

~Thanks for the response.

Post Script: Alas, I didn't understand your post-script note.

"Your sins are not redeemed, by swearing perjury." ~ Mathias Blad

"Change how you look at all things and what you see will change" ~ Per Nilsson/Henrik Ohlsson
"As the need for knowledge flows through the catharsis of thought, ask a question and the answer will be born."


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Wladyslaw wrote: My

Wladyslaw wrote:

 My God!

 

That was lengthy, and I think you called me a woman. lol.

To be honest, a lot of that looked like rambling ( something I'm frequently guilty of.) though I did manage to piece together a site recommendation, a reason it's not followed too much on this site, the name of a book ( which was right, by the way) against evolution " through biochemical means " a couple examples of people just rambling on about things they don't know, and an essay about flagellum. 

Did I miss something? 

~Thanks for the response.

Post Script: Alas, I didn't understand your post-script note.

you don't talk to dana much, do you?

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Peggotty
atheist
Peggotty's picture
Posts: 116
Joined: 2012-08-07
User is offlineOffline
Wladyslaw wrote: When it

Wladyslaw wrote:

 When it comes to the Evolution v Creationism debate, I have wondered for a while now... what  sort of intelligent designer would make us in such a manner that we have to do so many bodily functions... Such as eating... excrementing waste.

For example there are animals out there that can produce vitamin C... we cannot, and must get our daily vitamin C from food. If we were designed intelligently, what sort of sense does it make to give some (un?)intelligently designed creatures this ability, and then keep it from the Pièce de résistance so to speak. Or going further to plants... they get most of what they need from the Sun, and then other random nutrients in water that can even be given via a mist. (Aeroponics) Why can't we, as intelligently designed creatures utilize the same process as plants when it comes to aeroponics? .-. It doesn't make sense.

Good point.  IDers state the universe is too harmonious, beautiful and complex to be just chance, it must have an ordering intelligence. But what of the dysfunction, horror and disorder – the malignant tumour the earthquake and tornado – does this prove that cataclysms and tumours are still part of a benevolent intelligent design or does it weaken the ‘proof’.

 

Oh, but Peggotty, you haven't given Mr. Barkis his proper answer, you know.
Charles Dickens


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
"God" created us in its

"God" created us in its image. It's why we have sub-par eyes and ears, etc.

That means that "god" is a second rate creator. Maybe we got the short end of the stick. Maybe the creator is actually the worst of the creators and isn't very good at creating? Maybe it is a child of two adult creators and we are just a toy in its sandbox?

 

 


Wladyslaw
atheist
Wladyslaw's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2012-10-21
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:"God"

digitalbeachbum wrote:

"God" created us in its image. It's why we have sub-par eyes and ears, etc.

That means that "god" is a second rate creator. Maybe we got the short end of the stick. Maybe the creator is actually the worst of the creators and isn't very good at creating? Maybe it is a child of two adult creators and we are just a toy in its sandbox?

 

 

 

This reminded me a bit about the Greek/Roman creation story. (Same stories, different names more or less.)

 

How, we're the product of a lot of incest and what not, with the firs few gods being messed up and whatnot.

(Link: http://www.greekmythology.com/Myths/The_Myths/The_Creation/the_creation.html if someone isn't familiar)

 

Peggotty wrote:

Good point.  IDers state the universe is too harmonious, beautiful and complex to be just chance, it must have an ordering intelligence. But what of the dysfunction, horror and disorder – the malignant tumour the earthquake and tornado – does this prove that cataclysms and tumours are still part of a benevolent intelligent design or does it weaken the ‘proof’.

 

 

To be honest, I didn't even consider natural disasters when I was thinking about this.I think those only further my point. However, a lot of ID'ers will consider those acts of God to "punish/warn the sinners." Should a church fall in an Earthquake, well then it's only a test by God himself. (That defence, writing it out now, doesn't make sense either, why would an omniscient being need to test anything, he should know the outcome long before it is even set into motion.) Infact I've heard that " test" defence quite a bit lately, with all of the tornadoes here in Oklahoma, which is in the center of the Bible Belt. When I was out helping people clean up there was all kind of talk that I heard of how people were trusting God and whatnot to keep them safe, when the people literally one street down had everything they owned destroyed. .-.

 

"Your sins are not redeemed, by swearing perjury." ~ Mathias Blad

"Change how you look at all things and what you see will change" ~ Per Nilsson/Henrik Ohlsson
"As the need for knowledge flows through the catharsis of thought, ask a question and the answer will be born."


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I had the fortune of

I had the fortune of approaching this from a much larger viewpoint when I first started debating religion online: the supposed perfection of the Earth and the universe for the existence of life as we know it. It was easy to win because the Earth is far from perfection (and indeed is only hospitable at all because of the life that has made it so over billions of years, much of which could not survive current conditions), and the universe is literally the opposite of hospitable. Even ridiculous theists can be shut up on that count, as the very variables they use to suggest perfection are demonstrably false at best.
It gets harder with evolution because every single theist you'll find arguing for ID is so completely ignorant as to what evolution is that you have to teach them what it is just to begin discussing why we know it works. It's not quite as simple as showing Sol's habitable zone stretches from Venus to Mars.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Wladyslaw
atheist
Wladyslaw's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2012-10-21
User is offlineOffline
@Vastet

 So you're telling me that the easiest way to get around the Intelligent Design irrationality is to skip evolution for the most part as a counter, but go to the universe and how, well, violent it is inherently? 

"Your sins are not redeemed, by swearing perjury." ~ Mathias Blad

"Change how you look at all things and what you see will change" ~ Per Nilsson/Henrik Ohlsson
"As the need for knowledge flows through the catharsis of thought, ask a question and the answer will be born."


rogersherrer
Theist
rogersherrer's picture
Posts: 39
Joined: 2009-09-22
User is offlineOffline
I don't think design flaws

I don't think design flaws are an issue whatsoever. As a Christian, my first question to this objection is to always ask if these flaws are actually flaws. One of the most common examples is the blind spot. According to biochemist Michael Denton:

"Rather than being a case of maladaptation, the inverted retina is probably an essential element in the overall design of the vertebrate visual system"
 

Time and time again do we see alleged "flaws" that turn out not to be flaws at all. Even if they were for the sake of argument, it doesn't pose much of a problem for those who believe in an Intelligent Designer. For a believer in Christ who accepts macro-evolution, these "flaws" are only natural to happen. Even some creationists concede that the "kinds" created in Genesis 1 were on the biological level of the order or family, and that evolution took over from there. With this presupposition, these design flaws are merely tip-offs to common ancestry.

"Part of the broader task of Christian scholarship is to help create and sustain a cultural milieu in which the gospel can be heard as an intellectually viable option for thinking men and women."
-~William Lane Craig~-


Peggotty
atheist
Peggotty's picture
Posts: 116
Joined: 2012-08-07
User is offlineOffline
Rogersherrer wrote: I don't

 

rogersherrer wrote:
I don't think design flaws are an issue whatsoever. As a Christian, my first question to this objection is to always ask if these flaws are actually flaws. One of the most common examples is the blind spot. According to biochemist Michael Denton:
"Rather than being a case of maladaptation, the inverted retina is probably an essential element in the overall design of the vertebrate visual system"


A verted retina in our natural environment could not give adequate protection from light-induced damage and that’s the main reason for the inverted retina so this isn’t a flaw but needed. Nevertheless the theory of ID which can be traced back over the last twenty-five centuries dating back to Plato has been weakened by scientific progress. This model also advanced by Voltaire is out of date:


 ‘The universe impresses me; I cannot help but balk to think that there should be no clockmaker for such a clock’.


The clock model, like eighteenth century physics is mechanical and modern science has far more to do with dynamics and randomness - because Nature plays dice and this is what distinguishes it from God.
 

rogersherrer wrote:
Time and time again do we see alleged "flaws" that turn out not to be flaws at all. Even if they were for the sake of argument, it doesn't pose much of a problem for those who believe in an Intelligent Designer. For a believer in Christ who accepts macro-evolution, these "flaws" are only natural to happen. Even some creationists concede that the "kinds" created in Genesis 1 were on the biological level of the order or family, and that evolution took over from there. With this presupposition, these design flaws are merely tip-offs to common ancestry.
   
  

Mutation, gene flow, genetic drift, natural selection + 3.8 billion years = Macroevolution.

If randomness of mutations leads to order through natural selection then God is no longer needed to explain the appearance of human beings.  Nature is enough.  This isn’t proof that the Goddess does not exist but it does take an argument away from believers.

 

Oh, but Peggotty, you haven't given Mr. Barkis his proper answer, you know.
Charles Dickens


Wladyslaw
atheist
Wladyslaw's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2012-10-21
User is offlineOffline
@ Roger

 Dear Roger, okay, lets do assume that kinds were created on the bio level of order or family, had they been perfect (ie, adaptable to any environment, no waste, self-sustaining, etc) or at least made in the image of a perfect being, why would they, well, devolve to how we are now? Sure mutations and such would occur, but natural selection would get rid of those mutants, as they wouldn't be fit for surviving. The first person that had to eat, rather than being self-sustaining would have had a very hard time in a group that didn't need to eat.

Also, as far as creationism is concerned enough time hasn't been alloted (as far as the creation of the Earth and Universe) for macro evolution to occur on really any scale, let alone enough for us to get how we are now. (6k years is no where near long enough, due to our frequency of reproduction, if we were unicellular the story might be different.)

"Your sins are not redeemed, by swearing perjury." ~ Mathias Blad

"Change how you look at all things and what you see will change" ~ Per Nilsson/Henrik Ohlsson
"As the need for knowledge flows through the catharsis of thought, ask a question and the answer will be born."


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Wladyslaw wrote: So you're

Wladyslaw wrote:

 So you're telling me that the easiest way to get around the Intelligent Design irrationality is to skip evolution for the most part as a counter, but go to the universe and how, well, violent it is inherently? 

If you can, yes.
Generally it is difficult to switch the subject from biological evolution to universal evolution, but not impossible. And I do prefer it, because it's a simpler argument that more people are capable of understanding without prior education.
Evolution is ridiculously complex. The concept is simple enough, but English is a horrible language to try and explain it with. Too many terms have too many definitions. Or worse, incomplete definitions. Life, for example, is not well defined at all. People think it is, but it really isn't. There are too many things that fit the definition of life but aren't alive, and too many things that don't fit the definition that are alive.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
rogersherrer wrote:One of

rogersherrer wrote:
One of the most common examples is the blind spot. According to biochemist Michael Denton:

"Rather than being a case of maladaptation, the inverted retina is probably an essential element in the overall design of the vertebrate visual system"

That argument supports a natural course of evolution, NOT an omnipotent designer. Unless you want to admit your god isn't omnipotent, flaws are always flaws.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Wladyslaw
atheist
Wladyslaw's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2012-10-21
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:rogersherrer

Vastet wrote:
rogersherrer wrote:
One of the most common examples is the blind spot. According to biochemist Michael Denton: "Rather than being a case of maladaptation, the inverted retina is probably an essential element in the overall design of the vertebrate visual system"
That argument supports a natural course of evolution, NOT an omnipotent designer. Unless you want to admit your god isn't omnipotent, flaws are always flaws.

 

Because there wouldn't be a blind spot there AND we'd still be protected if we were intelligently designed. Eye-wink

 

Yeah, I understand what you mean Vastet, about things like life, as you used, being poorly defined. A virus for example isn't really alive, but that's a hard concept alone to explain to people. 

 

Slightly OT: Do you think that we could terraform other planets via extremophilic organisms, who would then alter the planet's atmosphere and create an ecosystem?(Of course not within our life times, lest cyrogenically frozen...) 

P.S. Maybe it isn't off topic... we'd be playing the role of an Intelligent? creator in that case hahaha. :3

"Your sins are not redeemed, by swearing perjury." ~ Mathias Blad

"Change how you look at all things and what you see will change" ~ Per Nilsson/Henrik Ohlsson
"As the need for knowledge flows through the catharsis of thought, ask a question and the answer will be born."


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I don't think there's any

I don't think there's any better way than using life. You can do something fast, cheap, or effectively. Pick two.
Micro organisms are a slow, but very effective and very cheap, way to teraform a planet. Low maintenance too.

Interestingly, I consider virii to be alive. But my personal definition of life is far more broad than the classical definition, so take that with a grain of salt.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


RobbyPants
atheist
RobbyPants's picture
Posts: 148
Joined: 2011-11-30
User is offlineOffline
rogersherrer wrote:I don't

rogersherrer wrote:

I don't think design flaws are an issue whatsoever. As a Christian, my first question to this objection is to always ask if these flaws are actually flaws. One of the most common examples is the blind spot. According to biochemist Michael Denton:

"Rather than being a case of maladaptation, the inverted retina is probably an essential element in the overall design of the vertebrate visual system"
 

What about flaws like having the genetic marker for Tay Sachs? That's certainly a flaw that has no benefit other than giving God a way to kill children that he hand picks. Do you believe it was intelligently designed with a divine purpose in mind, or just the result of random mutations and we're sort of stuck dealing with it?


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
I.D. Fallacies

Intelligent Design has many logical fallacies. First of all, while this Creator is said to be the creator of the design, we do not know if this Creator is an it, she, or he. We don't know if it, she, or he has a personality. So the god of I.D. could be the god of any religion around the world.

In fact, buddhism would fit this in the it category, witchcraft for the she. Though personality is never justified so why does this matter.

Also, we do not know the nature and character of this god.

I.D. uses the same Tomistic empirical arguments for the existence of God that has been refuted so many times hell has been flooding over. Obama is thinking of sending financial relief to hell.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Wladyslaw
atheist
Wladyslaw's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2012-10-21
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Intelligent Design has many logical fallacies. First of all, while this Creator is said to be the creator of the design, we do not know if this Creator is an it, she, or he. We don't know if it, she, or he has a personality. So the god of I.D. could be the god of any religion around the world.

In fact, buddhism would fit this in the it category, witchcraft for the she. Though personality is never justified so why does this matter.

Also, we do not know the nature and character of this god.

I.D. uses the same Tomistic empirical arguments for the existence of God that has been refuted so many times hell has been flooding over. Obama is thinking of sending financial relief to hell.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

You are aware that there are no deities in (original) Buddhism? Also it doesn't really matter, because, for the most part it is only the Abrahamic God that claims to be an intelligent creator. The gods of Asatru for example don't claim to have created humans in any specific way... They just *metaphorically* (as their doctrine says that the stories aren't to be looked at literally) created the universe and what happend happened.

To reiterate, almost any kind of intelligent design talk is in reference to the Abrahamic God. (Yahweh/God/Allah) Who is said to be a male. (Littered throughout scripture) and the first alleged human was said to be a male, females coming later.

"Your sins are not redeemed, by swearing perjury." ~ Mathias Blad

"Change how you look at all things and what you see will change" ~ Per Nilsson/Henrik Ohlsson
"As the need for knowledge flows through the catharsis of thought, ask a question and the answer will be born."


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:we do not

Jean Chauvin wrote:

we do not know if this Creator is an it, she, or he. We don't know if it, she, or he has a personality. So the god of I.D. could be the god of any religion around the world.

In fact, buddhism would fit this in the it category

no, it wouldn't, because there is no creator in buddhism.  there is no creation, either, so there certainly is no "intelligent design"--there's no design at all.  your ignorance is showing again.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Buddhism

You're thinking of the northern buddhish which is atheistic. Southern Buddhism does have a god of sorts via the neuter. Their god is nothingness as is there heaven.

BUt we can all agree that ID is weak sauce via logical argument and analysis. The teleological argument is also used for ID which is Tomistic.

The ID argument is a stealth Tomistic argument despite Aquinas being nailed to the wall with refutation.

How convenient Phillip Johnson.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
rogersherrer wrote:I don't

rogersherrer wrote:

I don't think design flaws are an issue whatsoever. As a Christian, my first question to this objection is to always ask if these flaws are actually flaws. One of the most common examples is the blind spot. According to biochemist Michael Denton:

"Rather than being a case of maladaptation, the inverted retina is probably an essential element in the overall design of the vertebrate visual system"
 

Time and time again do we see alleged "flaws" that turn out not to be flaws at all. Even if they were for the sake of argument, it doesn't pose much of a problem for those who believe in an Intelligent Designer. For a believer in Christ who accepts macro-evolution, these "flaws" are only natural to happen. Even some creationists concede that the "kinds" created in Genesis 1 were on the biological level of the order or family, and that evolution took over from there. With this presupposition, these design flaws are merely tip-offs to common ancestry.

Based on the environment we live in, our bodies get by. We don't have the best of any thing in the attribute department except the size of our brain. We are on the top of the food chain because we made tools. The only thing we do really well is destroy, abuse, greed and over populate a planet which, if that is "god's image" then you are all fucked.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
ROFLMAO (No Subject) See :: Image

(No Subject)


Yes Virginia That would be a Scorpion (See:: pic)


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
BTK (US)Guess Again!! You're not off the hook !! Where We agree:

danatemporary wrote:
Article a MUST view, the actual , article written (sorry all):

RE :: I know your works, and the fruit you bear

Guess Again!! You're not off the hook !!

Jean Chauvin wrote:

BUt we can all agree that

What agreement, what agreement could there be ?


Nu. 20

At what point do you ever hope to be conformed to the likeness of 'His' 'Son'? Granted though not the best action for me to take, nevertheless it needs repeating!


danatemporary wrote:

Article a MUST view, the actual , article written (sorry all):

Brian37 wrote:
[ ..I could have sworn people who read the article will noticed what these accused women 'earned' IN TERMS OF 'CONCEQUENCES':]

http://www.theglobalmail.org/feature/its-2013-and-theyre-burning-witches/558/


{Peggotty wrote}
Peggotty wrote:

These barbaric savages violent, hateful mercenaries of the void that have no ideals, creed, code or ideology not unlike the other barbarian - a fanatic full of certainty and dogma mistaking their faith for ‘knowledge’ who is prepared to mutilate and kill in it’s name.


Peggotty wrote:

Section 365 of the Criminal Code of Canada. This is the section which deals with the practice of witchcraft. It reads as follows:

365. Every one who fraudulently

(a) pretends to exercise or to use any kind of witchcraft, sorcery, enchantment or conjuration,

(b) undertakes, for a consideration, to tell fortunes, or

(c) pretends from his skill in or knowledge of an occult or crafty science to discover where or in what manner anything that is supposed to have been stolen or lost may be found,
is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 323.

Of course relativism has always allowed the Catholic to get charges dropped by claiming what he does is religion and not pretend-witchcraft - as he later dons his scapular and cilice whilst lighting the candle blessed by his high priest the bishop.
 

{Jeano wrote}

Jean Chauvin wrote:

The Law is the law. For a witch to understand the law and consequence, and yet continue nevertheless, the burden is on the shoulder of the Witch and not the State .. the burden rests on them nevertheless.

Disrespectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Earned Consequences according to two World Religions:


(Hinduism) Sons of Surya
In Centuries past people had less knowledge available to them as compared to today. One of the Sons of Surya (the Solar deity) is a deity called Shani he is said to give folks the results of one's deeds through one's life through appropriate punishments, during one's life-time. And the anger and hurt you will feel by the betrayal will be with you for a very long time. Hindus often spend part of a Saturday to entreat Hanuman for fear of the 'consequences', of what their misdeeds have earned them.

Excerpts or No a christian passage:





Excerpts
Jo Chandler wrote, in the first third of the article, -- woman blamed and accused of sorcery and ... -- with horrific consequences a 'gang' of 'merciless' inquisitors .. stripped her naked (eye-brow raises) .. slashed her with machetes .. the pictures of others who had missing hands or similarly mutiliated as a result of the proceedings.

As in one person featured (See: Article). Do all the accused of being the cause of a few men's death by 'means of' hexes and sorcery; earn the right to machete inquisitors ? This image is of a woman accused of sorcery after the DEATH of a young man back in 2003:
See: Image



I know your works, and the fruit you bear



2_Sam wrote:
2 Sam 12 : Then the Prophet Nathan said to King David, "You are the man! And he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing and because he had no pity.


(Matthew 7:2)


To: Those labeled Trolls hoping to have it both ways:

Greetings. Listen, Surely contemptibly despicable, as EVER, frankly closely bordering on this wholely proto¬sociopathic personality disorder you present to all, especially in your own choice to take joyful glee and enjoyment of the worst descriptions of punishment ... Don't forget the woman pictured with the mutilation, this cell, had 'escaped' these jokers. The only thing we, in the greatest sense of the term :we, 'agree' on is you are a disgrace, and invite abuse. These accused shouldnt be publicly ostrichsized or have wage garnishment for a couple of years. No!! By your own words, you were suggesting something tantamount to condoning both the mutilation of accused 'criminals', and CONDEMNING them to a sadistic death, under the Law !! That's not reading in, I have the original link to the thread. And all one needs to do is compare the reactions of all the others to this, to highlight the difference. Anyone prone to begin to think headcase ? With the overtly misogynistic stance or squirt's find(ing) the feminine form repugnant, but doing unusually well with the gratuitous sadistic violence angle. Yeah trending poorly. I dont care for nudes either but on wholy wholesome issues or terms, & not repugnance at the form. With Jeano's: seemingly 'Disgustingly' twisted take & view of christian practice AND faith (cultist). Peachy!! Glad to take a moment to briefly share.

Determined,

DT (D a n a)


Post-Script -- Sorry for the intrusion.
F i n


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level Moderator
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1710
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
One of the worst designs is

One of the worst designs is out of the same hole we drink, eat, talk and breathe. The same guy who had no problem with redundancy elsewhere (eyes, lungs, arms, legs) suddenly goes cheap in this vital area. Maybe he started to run out of time, 6 days and all. Everytime I choke I say bad design. Many people have died because of this one design flaw.

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
ex-minister wrote:One of the

ex-minister wrote:

One of the worst designs is out of the same hole we drink, eat, talk and breathe. The same guy who had no problem with redundancy elsewhere (eyes, lungs, arms, legs) suddenly goes cheap in this vital area. Maybe he started to run out of time, 6 days and all. Everytime I choke I say bad design. Many people have died because of this one design flaw.

I always like the "made in god's image". I wonder if that is 10%, 50% or 100%?


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2446
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
ex-minister wrote:One of the

ex-minister wrote:

One of the worst designs is out of the same hole we drink, eat, talk and breathe. The same guy who had no problem with redundancy elsewhere (eyes, lungs, arms, legs) suddenly goes cheap in this vital area. Maybe he started to run out of time, 6 days and all. Every time I choke I say bad design. Many people have died because of this one design flaw.

 

 

                        The craziest part is that humans are not even born that way.  The larynx moves Up into the throat at around age 5 months, that coinsides with a high rate of SIDS (sudden Infant death syndrome) and human eyes have a 90% failure rate, what kind of a goddamn engineer designed that? No intelligence in that design.

 

 

       

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Wladyslaw
atheist
Wladyslaw's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2012-10-21
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick wrote:ex-minister

Jeffrick wrote:

ex-minister wrote:

One of the worst designs is out of the same hole we drink, eat, talk and breathe. The same guy who had no problem with redundancy elsewhere (eyes, lungs, arms, legs) suddenly goes cheap in this vital area. Maybe he started to run out of time, 6 days and all. Every time I choke I say bad design. Many people have died because of this one design flaw.

 

 

                        The craziest part is that humans are not even born that way.  The larynx moves Up into the throat at around age 5 months, that coinsides with a high rate of SIDS (sudden Infant death syndrome) and human eyes have a 90% failure rate, what kind of a goddamn engineer designed that? No intelligence in that design.

 

 

       

 

I don't know, it sounds a bit like an Apple product, it works for a little while and then you have to get a new one. :3

"Your sins are not redeemed, by swearing perjury." ~ Mathias Blad

"Change how you look at all things and what you see will change" ~ Per Nilsson/Henrik Ohlsson
"As the need for knowledge flows through the catharsis of thought, ask a question and the answer will be born."


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
That's pretty well all

That's pretty well all electronics these days, lol.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:You're

Jean Chauvin wrote:

You're thinking of the northern buddhish which is atheistic. Southern Buddhism does have a god of sorts via the neuter. Their god is nothingness as is there heaven.

what are you talking about???  why do you keep saying things that are patently untrue?  why can't you just admit when you don't know something?

first of all, for those (almost always westerners) who try to argue that buddhism is not atheistic, their qualification is usually that "southern Buddhism" (i.e. Theravada definitively can be called atheistic.  in Theravada, there is nothing awaiting the arahant after death.  nothing.  even the Buddha has effectively ceased to exist.  his image is venerated purely as a remembrance.  why do you continue to flippantly spew nonsense?

as for "northern" (i.e. Mahayana) Buddhism, there is no god, at all.  if there is, name it for me.  for the yogacarins and their ideological successors, most of whom are east Asian, there is something that can arguably be called a positive ground of being, but there is no god, there is no creation, there is no creator, there is no eternal heaven.

if there are, name them.  if you can't, I would just simply save face by walking away.  I know i'll never in a million years get an "i'm sorry, you're right" out of you, nor would it be worth anything to me coming from you anyway. 

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
Rather than ask for things,

Rather than ask for things, that seem not intelligently designed, lets look at the alternatives.

What alternatives do we have to explain the existing world, and the physical universe as a whole? i would say, only 3. Intelligent design, Chance, and physical necessity. Having that on hand, we can make a simple sillogy:

1.The universe exists because of intelligent design, chance, of physical necessity.

2.Chance or physical necessity are not good explanations for the existence of the natural world

3.Therefore intelligent design is the best answer to explain reality.

 

Let me explain, why i made point no.2.

How could we explain the origin of the universe ?

i see four possibilities :

1. All reality is just a illusion.

2. Our universe has had a beginning, but no cause. It came out of absolutely nothing. It created itself.

3. The universe exists without a beginning, eternally.

4. The universe had a beginning, and its cause is necessary being , existing above the physical world, in a higher dimension.

In my view , point number 1, 2, and 3, are bad explanations for our existence, therefore no.4 makes most sense.

How could you explain the fine tuning of the universe ?

1. Either it was a result of luck

or

2. a Tuner created the physical laws, and finetuned the physical constants, to make the creation of the universe, and its hability to create and host life, possible.

pick which answer you think fits best reality.

How could you explain the origin of life ?

1. Either it was a result of chance, or

2. It was the result of a intelligent creator.

Science has no clue, how life could have its origin in random chance. This, despite of over 50 years of tremendous scientific efforts to find out a explanation. Scientists arrive just at a wall, which seems to be unsurpassable.

Dr. Monty White wrote:

1. There is no proof that the earth ever had an atmosphere composed of the gases used by Miller in his experiment.

2. The next problem is that in Miller’s experiment he was careful to make sure there was no oxygen present. If oxygen was present, then the amino acids would not form. However, if oxygen was absent from the earth, then there would be no ozone layer, and if there was no ozone layer the ultraviolet radiation would penetrate the atmosphere and would destroy the amino acids as soon as they were formed. So the dilemma can be summed up this way: amino acids would not form in an atmosphere with oxygen and amino acids would be destroyed in an atmosphere without oxygen.

3. The next problem concerns the so-called handedness of the amino acids. Because of the way that carbon atoms join up with other atoms, amino acids exist in two forms—the right-handed form and the left-handed form. Just as your right hand and left hand are identical in all respects except for their handedness, so the two forms of amino acids are identical except for their handedness. In all living systems only left-handed amino acids are found. Yet Miller’s experiment produced a mixture of right-handed and left-handed amino acids in identical proportions. As only the left-handed ones are used in living systems, this mixture is useless for the evolution of living systems.

4. Another major problem for the chemical evolutionist is the origin of the information that is found in living systems. There are various claims about the amount of information that is found in the human genome, but it can be conservatively estimated as being equivalent to a few thousand books, each several hundred pages long. Where did this information come from?

And here, some things, evolution cannot explain :

- the echo location of bats and whales.

- consciousness

- [email protected]

- morality

- the hability of speech

- bombarier beetle mechanism

- the first living cell

- the beginning of the universe

- the cosmos

- the fine tuning of the cosmos

- chemicals

- wings of birds

- the eye

- blood ( its irreducible complex )

- the flagellum

So that are a few reasons, why i thing a intelligent designer is the best explanation for reality. Its not based on lack of knowledge , or ignorance, but BECAUSE we know a lot about reality, we can rationally and logically deduce God as the best explanation for our existence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:I

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I always like the "made in god's image". I wonder if that is 10%, 50% or 100%?

That is something which must be interpreted. I think, that referes to humans hability to reason, to think, to have will, feelings, and understanding. Free will, and undestanding, the hability to think, is something restrict to human kind.


Wladyslaw
atheist
Wladyslaw's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2012-10-21
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:Rather

angelobrazil wrote:

Rather than ask for things, that seem not intelligently designed, lets look at the alternatives.

What alternatives do we have to explain the existing world, and the physical universe as a whole? i would say, only 3. Intelligent design, Chance, and physical necessity. Having that on hand, we can make a simple sillogy:

1.The universe exists because of intelligent design, chance, of physical necessity.

2.Chance or physical necessity are not good explanations for the existence of the natural world

3.Therefore intelligent design is the best answer to explain reality.

 

Let me explain, why i made point no.2.

How could we explain the origin of the universe ?

i see four possibilities :

1. All reality is just a illusion.

2. Our universe has had a beginning, but no cause. It came out of absolutely nothing. It created itself.

3. The universe exists without a beginning, eternally.

4. The universe had a beginning, and its cause is necessary being , existing above the physical world, in a higher dimension.

In my view , point number 1, 2, and 3, are bad explanations for our existence, therefore no.4 makes most sense.

How could you explain the fine tuning of the universe ?

1. Either it was a result of luck

or

2. a Tuner created the physical laws, and finetuned the physical constants, to make the creation of the universe, and its hability to create and host life, possible.

pick which answer you think fits best reality.

How could you explain the origin of life ?

1. Either it was a result of chance, or

2. It was the result of a intelligent creator.

Science has no clue, how life could have its origin in random chance. This, despite of over 50 years of tremendous scientific efforts to find out a explanation. Scientists arrive just at a wall, which seems to be unsurpassable.

Dr. Monty White wrote:

1. There is no proof that the earth ever had an atmosphere composed of the gases used by Miller in his experiment.

2. The next problem is that in Miller’s experiment he was careful to make sure there was no oxygen present. If oxygen was present, then the amino acids would not form. However, if oxygen was absent from the earth, then there would be no ozone layer, and if there was no ozone layer the ultraviolet radiation would penetrate the atmosphere and would destroy the amino acids as soon as they were formed. So the dilemma can be summed up this way: amino acids would not form in an atmosphere with oxygen and amino acids would be destroyed in an atmosphere without oxygen.

3. The next problem concerns the so-called handedness of the amino acids. Because of the way that carbon atoms join up with other atoms, amino acids exist in two forms—the right-handed form and the left-handed form. Just as your right hand and left hand are identical in all respects except for their handedness, so the two forms of amino acids are identical except for their handedness. In all living systems only left-handed amino acids are found. Yet Miller’s experiment produced a mixture of right-handed and left-handed amino acids in identical proportions. As only the left-handed ones are used in living systems, this mixture is useless for the evolution of living systems.

4. Another major problem for the chemical evolutionist is the origin of the information that is found in living systems. There are various claims about the amount of information that is found in the human genome, but it can be conservatively estimated as being equivalent to a few thousand books, each several hundred pages long. Where did this information come from?

And here, some things, evolution cannot explain :

- the echo location of bats and whales.

- consciousness

- [email protected]

- morality

- the hability of speech

- bombarier beetle mechanism

- the first living cell

- the beginning of the universe

- the cosmos

- the fine tuning of the cosmos

- chemicals

- wings of birds

- the eye

- blood ( its irreducible complex )

- the flagellum

So that are a few reasons, why i thing a intelligent designer is the best explanation for reality. Its not based on lack of knowledge , or ignorance, but BECAUSE we know a lot about reality, we can rationally and logically deduce God as the best explanation for our existence. 

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum_background.html

Flagellum ↑

You mentioned we don't know how the big-bang came about; well there is a theory about that. (One that has yet to be tested, for a multitude of reasons.

The idea is that, due to the way matter distorts space-time ( even atoms cause slight torsions on the " threads" of spacetime) black holes, places of infinite density (at least as previously defined, this theory changes that) pool matter in to an extremely dense area, hence it being black, because photons cannot escape, though rather than being a singularity at the very center, which is something infathomable to the human brain, it is thought that those torsions create a sort of " tornado" akin to the way that if you spin liquid in a bottle it will swirl, and if it is leading into another bottle it will turn to a tiny funnel and then spew into the bottle, that spews into and creates a new universe on the other end. I do realize that this does creates an infinite chain of universes, and this is where other theories pull in more dimensions. This funnel created by black holes could be looked at as a fourth dimensional door.

 

Evolution doesn't explain chemicals for a good reason, it has nothing to do with evolution nor does it explain the first living cell for a good reason, evolution describes the CHANGE in a living organisim, not the complete origin of life. The origin of life is more of a matter of organic chemistry, which does propose something that makes logical sense. Hydrocyanic bacteria have been looked at as the precursor to amino acids. This can be read in full at: 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17191459 

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_cyanide#HCN_and_the_origin_of_life

 

and Hell I can explain morality. Morality came from people's wants and don't wants. People want other people's things, but they also don't want to have their things stolen. Hence theft is bad. However morals aren't set either, sure, theft is bad, but what if someone is stealing from people who attained their wealth through screwing over everyone they meet, and then the thief proceeds to share that wealth with the under class of society? Then "bad" part of theft is over-looked. Or a less convoluted example, most people don't want to be killed, thus killing is " bad."  Well lets say you notice someone in a room and you suddenly have the urge to kill them, then proceed to do so. That is "evil" or "bad" but if that room was in your home and they're there without your permission, suddenly that very same act becomes perfectly fine.

 

Also it is not evolution's place to explain morality...

 

Also let's assume that we and the universe WAS intelligently designed... 

 

Why does evolution exist at all then? Why have we evolved. If we were designed in the image of a perfect being, then we should therefore, be perfect. Only needing to adapt to a change environment, rather than having some of us die off because they couldn't adapt as fast as others making their DNA leave the gene pool, eventually resulting in evolution.

"Your sins are not redeemed, by swearing perjury." ~ Mathias Blad

"Change how you look at all things and what you see will change" ~ Per Nilsson/Henrik Ohlsson
"As the need for knowledge flows through the catharsis of thought, ask a question and the answer will be born."


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:What

angelobrazil wrote:
What alternatives do we have to explain the existing world, and the physical universe as a whole? i would say, only 3. Intelligent design, Chance, and physical necessity. Having that on hand, we can make a simple sillogy:

False trichotomy.
First off, ID isn't even an option. The actual scientific hypothesis behind ID; irreducible complexity, has been proven false.
Physical necessity is impossible without pre existing life.
And chance has nothing to do with anything, which makes your entire post irrelevant and ignorant.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
Wladyslaw wrote:I do realize

Wladyslaw wrote:
I do realize that this does creates an infinite chain of universes,

http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html

One cannot form an actually infinite collection of things by successively adding one member after another. Since one can always add one more before arriving at infinity, it is impossible to reach actual infinity. Sometimes this is called the impossibility of "counting to infinity" or "traversing the infinite." It is important to understand that this impossibility has nothing to do with the amount of time available: it belongs to the nature of infinity that it cannot be so formed.

 

Wladyslaw wrote:

Evolution doesn't explain chemicals for a good reason, it has nothing to do with evolution nor does it explain the first living cell for a good reason, evolution describes the CHANGE in a living organisim, not the complete origin of life. The origin of life is more of a matter of organic chemistry, which does propose something that makes logical sense. Hydrocyanic bacteria have been looked at as the precursor to amino acids. This can be read in full at: 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17191459 

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_cyanide#HCN_and_the_origin_of_life

Even lets say that it explains the existence of amino acids. How do you explain, how these amino acids encode to the genetic code, and translate into proteins. The key point is, information, as we can see in a book, or in a computer code, or in a partiture, or in DNA, has always a mind as origin, which is evidence of a intellignet designer. 

 

Wladyslaw wrote:

and Hell I can explain morality. Morality came from people's wants and don't wants. People want other people's things, but they also don't want to have their things stolen. Hence theft is bad. However morals aren't set either, sure, theft is bad, but what if someone is stealing from people who attained their wealth through screwing over everyone they meet, and then the thief proceeds to share that wealth with the under class of society? Then "bad" part of theft is over-looked. Or a less convoluted example, most people don't want to be killed, thus killing is " bad."  Well lets say you notice someone in a room and you suddenly have the urge to kill them, then proceed to do so. That is "evil" or "bad" but if that room was in your home and they're there without your permission, suddenly that very same act becomes perfectly fine.

First you might need to explain, is will the property of matter, or is it the result of a mind ? which then is evidence of dualism. If dualism explains better our reality, then we have one more argument for Gods existence.

But the real point is : If humans are the last instance of morals, everything is permitted. It depends only of each ones individual standpoint and opinion.that is called moral relativism.
There are only two possibilities :

1. Either morals are grounded in ourselfs, that leads to moral relativism, or
2. Morals are absolute, prescriptive, and grounded in God, outside of our opinion, and do exist, independently if we agree with  them or not.

I believe there are some moral absolutes - you shall not rape, torture, burn and kill babies for fun. Anyone that saw this guy from nigeria slaugthering this english soldier will agree that it was a crude, horrible , uncivilized act of barbarism. Its hard to imagine that someone could  justify such acts, independently if you were from the civilized world, or from a jungle tribe, or aboriginee.

So you have basically two oposing view points : absolutism, and relativism. Both cannot be true. If relativism were true, you could not argue against the reasons of the nigeria guy. It was simply his oposing point of view, that it was legitimate to kill the english solidier, based on the argument, that westerners kill many muslims - completely ignoring that most muslims are killed by muslims themselfs. But that simply doesn't work.

So if you hold that there are some moral rules and absolutes, outside of your opinion, like not killing and rape little babies, than i can tell you : you do believe much more than you actually think you do.

I might ask you : what kind of thing is it , that you believe ? Its not a physical thing - morals are not physical - they have no physical properties, its a immaterial thing . You know it exists, but you cannot specify it with touching, smelling, seeing, hearing. So you believe something, but you cannot test or verify it empirically. That has further implications : it proves materialism is false. So lets say you agree that torture,rape, and kill babies is wrong, this moral rule is out there somewhere, independently on your opinion, if you agree on it , or not, the question arises : where did this moral rule come from ? You have two choices : either

1. it came from nowhere, than why should it have any moral force ?

2. it is a moral law that was made by someone that lives in a immaterial realm. Thats the option that makes most sense to me.

 

Quote:

Why does evolution exist at all then? Why have we evolved. If we were designed in the image of a perfect being, then we should therefore, be perfect. Only needing to adapt to a change environment, rather than having some of us die off because they couldn't adapt as fast as others making their DNA leave the gene pool, eventually resulting in evolution.

Evolution is basically the adaptation to the environment. This is a fact. Evolution overe species and neo-darwinism is however speculation, without scientific evidence whatsoever.


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: False

Vastet wrote:
False trichotomy. First off, ID isn't even an option. The actual scientific hypothesis behind ID; irreducible complexity

not only.

acording to institute of creation research, ID means  "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

 

Vastet wrote:

has been proven false.

then you should certainly have a answer on hand, what came first, the chicken, or the egg ?

 

Vastet wrote:

Physical necessity is impossible without pre existing life.

Why ?

Vastet wrote:

And chance has nothing to do with anything, which makes your entire post irrelevant and ignorant.

Then you should have a answer on hand, what explanations we do have for the existence of our universe. What are the alternatives of mechanisms ? And why should chance not play a possible role ? Then, we would have as alternatives only physical necessity, and design.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Always nice when someone

Always nice when someone demonstrates the very things you've laid out. This guy doesn't even know what evolution is. It'd take years to debrainwash him, and months more to educate him. It just isn't worth the effort. Fact is that the vast majority of children know evolution better than he does. Arguing with him merely allows him his soapbox to spout the lies he's been coerced into believing. It is as much a waste of time as talking to someone who believes the Earth is flat or that gravity isn't a force based on attraction.
Really the only value in communication is for observers. Blasting the foolishness for what it is can be a great spectator sport.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:not

angelobrazil wrote:
not only.

Please try to make sense. It's hard enough trying to read your bs without laughing hysterically. Not only what?

angelobrazil wrote:
acording to institute of creation research,

Professional liars.

angelobrazil wrote:
D means  "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

No feature of the universe is at all explainable via a creator. Quite the opposite.
Natural selection is not responsible for life or the universe.

angelobrazil wrote:
then you should certainly have a answer on hand, what came first, the chicken, or the egg ?

The egg. Because eggs were used in reproduction long before any species similar to any birds existed.

angelobrazil wrote:
Why ?

It's self explanatory. Only life has physical necessities.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:Then you

angelobrazil wrote:
Then you should have a answer on hand, what explanations we do have for the existence of our universe.

There are dozens of possible explanations. Until we can recreate the event we won't know for sure which was responsible. We may not even know for sure even after we've recreated the event.

angelobrazil wrote:
What are the alternatives of mechanisms ?

What?

angelobrazil wrote:
And why should chance not play a possible role ?

Why should it have a role?

angelobrazil wrote:
Then, we would have as alternatives only physical necessity, and design.

Lol

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote: No feature of the

Quote:
No feature of the universe is at all explainable via a creator.,

 

That is not only a baseless assertion, but : what does it have to do with the quest what intelligent design is ?

Quote:

Quite the opposite. Natural selection is not responsible for life or the universe.

 

Where did i make this assertion ?

Quote:
The egg. Because eggs were used in reproduction long before any species similar to any birds existed.

Sure. And how and what did leg the egg ?

 

Quote:
It's self explanatory. Only life has physical necessities.

It seems you do not understand the term physical necessity in philosophy. May you check what necessitatirsm means, then you will find out in what context in used the term.

 

 


Wladyslaw
atheist
Wladyslaw's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2012-10-21
User is offlineOffline
# Angelo

 "I believe there are some moral absolutes - you shall not rape, torture, burn and kill babies for fun." 

 

Have you ever read the verses seventeen and eighteen of chapter thirty-one of the bible? 

 

Numbers 31:17-18

King James Version (KJV)

17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

 

I don't know about you but that sounds pretty much like raping small children after killing and, presumably (though not necessarily) torturing, their parents until they've been killed, and fire is something that could very likely have been helpful in this role. 

Also which came first chicken or the egg? Well I have the answer to that too. The egg came LONG before the chicken... you see animals that lived before the chicken also laid eggs... which makes this question rather moot. 

 

You asked what would "leg" the egg, I assume you mean lay the egg, well dinosaurs, for one, laid eggs...

 Oh, and when I said that there will be an infinite chain of universes, I mean that, if you ask where this universe came from and I say a black hole in another universe... then you can ask the same question about that universe, and I'd reply the same, this process would continue ad infinitum, and somewhere along the line one of these universes has to come into existence without a previous universe.  

 

P.S. Vastet you're wrong when you say "No feature of the universe is at all explainable via a creator"    Sure it is, whose to say that this creator didn't simply use natural means that obeys nature and law... Granted... this creator would be indistinguishable from no creator, and therefore it'd be moot to believe in them, but, what the Hel (sic) It's perfectly possible.

 

"Your sins are not redeemed, by swearing perjury." ~ Mathias Blad

"Change how you look at all things and what you see will change" ~ Per Nilsson/Henrik Ohlsson
"As the need for knowledge flows through the catharsis of thought, ask a question and the answer will be born."


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:That is

angelobrazil wrote:
That is not only a baseless assertion, but : what does it have to do with the quest what intelligent design is ?

It is fact, not assertion. You're the one making baseless assertions. And contradicting basic logic and making things up to boot.
Though I suppose, in your defence, you're just parroting the lies people made up centuries ago. Too bad for you that science has advanced beyond your archaic arguments.

angelobrazil wrote:
Where did i make this assertion ?

Right here:

angelobrazil wrote:
acording to institute of creation research, ID means  "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

Next!

angelobrazil wrote:
Sure. And how and what did leg the egg ?

I don't know, wasn't there. So what?

angelobrazil wrote:
It seems you do not understand the term physical necessity in philosophy.

Philosophy is irrelevant.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
Wladyslaw wrote: "I believe

Wladyslaw wrote:

 "I believe there are some moral absolutes - you shall not rape, torture, burn and kill babies for fun." 

 

Have you ever read the verses seventeen and eighteen of chapter thirty-one of the bible? 

 

Numbers 31:17-18

King James Version (KJV)

17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

 

 There was a specific reason why God commanded the jews to proceed in this manner : We read in numberics chapter 25:

“The LORD said to Moses,  17 “Treat the Midianites as enemies and kill them,  18 because they treated you as enemies when they deceived you in the affair of Peor and their sister Cozbi, the daughter of a Midianite leader, the woman who was killed when the plague came as a result of Peor.”

The reasons are stated in this passage as (1) hostilities taken by the Midianites; and (2) deception of Israel by them, in the ‘affair of Peor’

 

 

 So you cannot use this passage  to justify killing generally.

 

Wladyslaw wrote:

Also which came first chicken or the egg? Well I have the answer to that too. The egg came LONG before the chicken... you see animals that lived before the chicken also laid eggs... which makes this question rather moot.

You actually do not solve the problem, but just push it back further. I could ask more generally : What came first, the Egg, or the egg laying animal ( or dinossaur )?

 

Wladyslaw wrote:

 Oh, and when I said that there will be an infinite chain of universes, I mean that, if you ask where this universe came from and I say a black hole in another universe... then you can ask the same question about that universe, and I'd reply the same, this process would continue ad infinitum, and somewhere along the line one of these universes has to come into existence without a previous universe. 

http://www.gradresources.org/worldview_articles/evidence_for_god.shtml

Why can't the past be infinite? The answer is that it is impossible to complete an infinite series by addition. The series of past events is complete. Think of this mathematical fact. Why is it impossible to count to infinity? It is impossible because, no matter how long you count, you will always be at a finite number. It is impossible to complete an actual infinite by successive addition.

The past is complete. This claim means that the entire series of past events ends now. It ends today. Tomorrow is not part of the series of past events. The series of past events does not extend into the future. It is complete at the present. If it is impossible to complete an infinite series by successive addition (as it is impossible to count to infinity) the past cannot be infinite. If the past is finite., that is, if it had a beginning, then the universe had a beginning. We have strong philosophical reason to reject the claim that the universe has always existed.

 

 

 


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:angelobrazil

Vastet wrote:
angelobrazil wrote:
That is not only a baseless assertion, but : what does it have to do with the quest what intelligent design is ?
It is fact, not assertion. You're the one making baseless assertions. And contradicting basic logic and making things up to boot. Though I suppose, in your defence, you're just parroting the lies people made up centuries ago. Too bad for you that science has advanced beyond your archaic arguments.
angelobrazil wrote:
Where did i make this assertion ?
Right here:
angelobrazil wrote:
acording to institute of creation research, ID means  "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
Next!
angelobrazil wrote:
Sure. And how and what did leg the egg ?
I don't know, wasn't there. So what?
angelobrazil wrote:
It seems you do not understand the term physical necessity in philosophy.
Philosophy is irrelevant.

basic logic is a feature of philosophy. So is philosophy relevant , or not ?


Wladyslaw
atheist
Wladyslaw's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2012-10-21
User is offlineOffline

angelobrazil wrote:

Wladyslaw wrote:

 "I believe there are some moral absolutes - you shall not rape, torture, burn and kill babies for fun." 

 

Have you ever read the verses seventeen and eighteen of chapter thirty-one of the bible? 

 

Numbers 31:17-18

King James Version (KJV)

17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

 

 There was a specific reason why God commanded the jews to proceed in this manner : We read in numberics chapter 25:

“The LORD said to Moses,  17 “Treat the Midianites as enemies and kill them,  18 because they treated you as enemies when they deceived you in the affair of Peor and their sister Cozbi, the daughter of a Midianite leader, the woman who was killed when the plague came as a result of Peor.”

The reasons are stated in this passage as (1) hostilities taken by the Midianites; and (2) deception of Israel by them, in the ‘affair of Peor’

 

 

 So you cannot use this passage  to justify killing generally.

 

Wladyslaw wrote:

Also which came first chicken or the egg? Well I have the answer to that too. The egg came LONG before the chicken... you see animals that lived before the chicken also laid eggs... which makes this question rather moot.

You actually do not solve the problem, but just push it back further. I could ask more generally : What came first, the Egg, or the egg laying animal ( or dinossaur )?

 

Wladyslaw wrote:

 Oh, and when I said that there will be an infinite chain of universes, I mean that, if you ask where this universe came from and I say a black hole in another universe... then you can ask the same question about that universe, and I'd reply the same, this process would continue ad infinitum, and somewhere along the line one of these universes has to come into existence without a previous universe. 

http://www.gradresources.org/worldview_articles/evidence_for_god.shtml

Why can't the past be infinite? The answer is that it is impossible to complete an infinite series by addition. The series of past events is complete. Think of this mathematical fact. Why is it impossible to count to infinity? It is impossible because, no matter how long you count, you will always be at a finite number. It is impossible to complete an actual infinite by successive addition.

The past is complete. This claim means that the entire series of past events ends now. It ends today. Tomorrow is not part of the series of past events. The series of past events does not extend into the future. It is complete at the present. If it is impossible to complete an infinite series by successive addition (as it is impossible to count to infinity) the past cannot be infinite. If the past is finite., that is, if it had a beginning, then the universe had a beginning. We have strong philosophical reason to reject the claim that the universe has always existed.

 

 

 

 

1. I know that you cannot count to infinity, because infinity is a concept, it means that it goes on forever. The problem with that universe genesis theory is that it is circular, why does the universe exist? Because a previous one exists, which exists because a previous one exists, because the previous one exists. Hell I can even write it in Sigma Notation for you:

Σ (n*from a black hole in a previous universe.) Where n is the number of times that the question; " Where does this universe come from?" 

n=1

Better? 

2. But you said that that is an absolute moral, something that is wrong under any circumstance, or is there another way to define absolute? 

Also, I wasn't justifying murder with that passage, actually, you are. You're saying that in context it is okay to kill those people for (insert reason here)

3. Want the answer to the question: which came first the egg or the creature laying the eggs? It was the creature, that mechanism was likely mutated into a creature, and it happened to work better than the previous reproductive method, which is why nothing reproduces like that anymore, bar microorganisms.

4. The past can't be infinite, right now, I challenge you to define " time." If you can you'll realize time is only relative to humans, before humans time didn't really mean anything.

"Your sins are not redeemed, by swearing perjury." ~ Mathias Blad

"Change how you look at all things and what you see will change" ~ Per Nilsson/Henrik Ohlsson
"As the need for knowledge flows through the catharsis of thought, ask a question and the answer will be born."


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:basic

angelobrazil wrote:
basic logic is a feature of philosophy. So is philosophy relevant , or not ?

Basic logic is the only component of philosophy which has any value whatsoever.
Logic having value does not equate to all philosophy having value, as per basic logic.

Thank you come again.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:angelobrazil

Vastet wrote:
angelobrazil wrote:
basic logic is a feature of philosophy. So is philosophy relevant , or not ?
Basic logic is the only component of philosophy which has any value whatsoever. Logic having value does not equate to all philosophy having value, as per basic logic. Thank you come again.

 

The whole sentence of yours is a philosophic one. Does your sentence by your means  have any value or validness, or not ?


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
Wladyslaw wrote:It was the

Wladyslaw wrote:
It was the creature, that mechanism was likely mutated into a creature, and it happened to work better than the previous reproductive method,

Do you have any evidence for this ?


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:Vastet

angelobrazil wrote:

Vastet wrote:
angelobrazil wrote:
basic logic is a feature of philosophy. So is philosophy relevant , or not ?
Basic logic is the only component of philosophy which has any value whatsoever. Logic having value does not equate to all philosophy having value, as per basic logic. Thank you come again.

 

The whole sentence of yours is a philosophic one. Does your sentence by your means  have any value or validness, or not ?

So in other words you can't respond to facts and have to attempt to derail the discussion in order to save face.

Victorious again. Far too easy.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:angelobrazil

Vastet wrote:
angelobrazil wrote:

Vastet wrote:
angelobrazil wrote:
basic logic is a feature of philosophy. So is philosophy relevant , or not ?
Basic logic is the only component of philosophy which has any value whatsoever. Logic having value does not equate to all philosophy having value, as per basic logic. Thank you come again.

 

The whole sentence of yours is a philosophic one. Does your sentence by your means  have any value or validness, or not ?

So in other words you can't respond to facts and have to attempt to derail the discussion in order to save face. Victorious again. Far too easy.

 

Well, who is actually derailing from my question, is you, to save your face......but the remarkable nonsense of your sentences is being exposed.


Wladyslaw
atheist
Wladyslaw's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2012-10-21
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:Wladyslaw

angelobrazil wrote:

Wladyslaw wrote:
It was the creature, that mechanism was likely mutated into a creature, and it happened to work better than the previous reproductive method,

Do you have any evidence for this ?

 

I said likely, do you have physical evidence to the contrary?

 

Also, you ignored literally everything else I said.

"Your sins are not redeemed, by swearing perjury." ~ Mathias Blad

"Change how you look at all things and what you see will change" ~ Per Nilsson/Henrik Ohlsson
"As the need for knowledge flows through the catharsis of thought, ask a question and the answer will be born."