U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-06-2011, 08:31 AM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 11,073,181 times
Reputation: 3717

Advertisements

First off, squall, it's VERY hard to respond to your posts when they come up with all the formatting showing (as in: try to leave the words in their native black color & font please!).

Nope: I just tried, but it didn't show up that ay in it's final form. Just try going to "Edit" mode on your own work before posting, and realize that when I call up your work to comment, I also see all that formatting, color & font info. I have to remove it or struggle through it. This is just a technical editing help note! We'll know it's your work even without the purple color!)

Now then: given that, I'll try to answer some of your questions with this comment: realizing there is a complete and logical explanation of all the points I make.

Quote:
Originally Posted by squall-lionheart View Post
I do not deny that DNA works on it's own ...
The question is does the fact that something is able to work on it's own denies the existence of a maker ?
This is the contention point here .

(rflmn: Re: Lego

Very good example ... I agree ...but you forgot that we can not make a Pillow from alloys, rivets, screws, washers, pins !!!!

No, but then, all the man-made things, the human inventions on this planet like pillows, cars, aircraft and toasters do not share a universal biochemical background, do they? There's a complete and universal commonality to all known life here: it's all based on DNA's capabilities and expansion. We regularly see it functioning, doing it's thing without any assistance from the lab scientist or, obviously, some etherial God.

As well, a living thing, presented with, for example, an unusable nutrient in it's environment, is at a disadvantage, and remains so until, by chance (but based on uncountable numbers of trial test mutations over millions, or even billions, of years), it can then possibly utilize that nutrient. The offspring that can utilize it will, of course, and a new sub-species begins to emerge, no designer request or enginering paper required. Right?

Now, on the other hand, the designer of the 747, en-route to designing the improved 787, lays out some mission engineering statements, some improvement goals that many not necessarily be implied, intuitive or outright sensible. Let's say he wants to utilize more "unobtanium" because, politically, it's more available in his country, and it replaces the "inaffordabilium" that they have previously (in the 747...) been forced to buy from the country of "Unstabilavia".

Or, following their version of design trial and error, they have learned that a revision to the cast-in bracing on an engine mount would result in less vibration and thus less noise, so they incorporate it. The engineers (and by association, their DNA, BTW...) are the 747's DNA in this process, but not that's driven by the plane's self-addressed ability to try it again. If 747s could self-replicate, can you imagine the chaos? Herds of free-ranging 747s crossing the landscape near Everett, Washignton State? Lord!


This is a wonderful explanation of how DNA works ..etc , I really thank you for that & I have no objection exept for the following :

An improved version yes ... another .... No .



If we all came from one simple cell then how can a random process of an unconscious solitary mitochondria that found a nice warm home inside our cells was able to produce that massive number of different organisms each operate according to a different system with a high precision arrangements ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rifle
Again, think it through, squall! IF a lonely but self-sufficient mitochondrium were to accidentally become incorporated into a simple cell, the simple cell engulfing the mitochondrium thinking it was potentially food. But then it discovered, by the results alone, that it's "food" was very capable, since the mitochondria is the most effective energy-producing cell organelle here, and carries it's own special surprise gifts. It's like you inviting an unknown guest into your house, only to happily discover he/she brought warm bread and good wine! So.. would you then automatically carve that guest up for "dinner", or welcome her in with a hug?)
The problem is that you only look from one eye ( Science ) I look from two ( Religion & science ) .. The first till me how life began & who design the system & the laws .. The second explain to me how it works .
You see .. you are explaining how it works & that is great but still we have alot of things missing ... we still have alot of question marks that only can be answerd from the other eye ( Creater ) .

Nope. I truly want to know how and why things work (however, it is why, with my particular mindset, I consciously chose to educate myself beyond the unthinking chanting and blindered apologism of Christianity, to become an accomplished & practicing scientist). In fact, it's Religion which is very easily shown to be operating with but one eye, leaving the other one that looks for reason and logic, to be almost permanently closed. And happily so!

So far, to my happiness, I have been very satisfied. You, however, seem to NEED an additional element, some sort of mystical entity involved where NONE IS REQUIRED.

If some imagined proto-rival of the DNA molecule, perhaps some less capable but "almost there" predecessors, were all that was required to kick it all off, then so be it. The final (or current, let's say...) version of DNA is what's operating out there now. FACT: British scientists have now witnessed the formation of the necessary amino acids out of it's REALLY simple organo-chemical base constituents, and now they are about to publish their findings that, in fact, DNA's amino acids can and do occur in a natural setting.

Next step? Part of a DNA molecule simply bumps up into another part and quickly links up. Why you may well ask? Well, because they "fit" together biochemically. Just like those LEGO blocks can and do link up with a i of pressure from a kid's hands. But then DBA has inter-molecular forces to "help", another fact we can easily see in the lab.

As well, Dr. Craig Venter, (The Human Genome Project's designer and innovator...) down in San Diego, has inserted some DNA chains into a dead lipid balloon, and it sealed itself up and formed up into the right formations and BINGO, began to replicate itself! Gol-Dang It, just like REAL LIFE (but itout God's Holy Hand...)!

LIFE, in essence, all on it's own! What DO you have to say about that, squall?

*Mosquitoes lay their eggs in the swamp .. each egg comes with a buoyancy bag ..till me where did it learne the laws of Archimedes to supply their eggs with bags to float ?

Does it think ?
*Those predatory plants that artifact trap to hunt & strange insect's how did it learn those tricks ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rflmn
You make the mistake that these things happened after the fact, that they sit around, those seeds, and "think": "Hmmm... why can't I learn to fly over there? Oh yeah; I forgot: I would need "seed wings"... Tough luck!"

Nope. No thinking required. These modifications, such as the apprearance of prototype early wings on smaller dinos as (probably) small decorative protrusions also, "Hey look mom! I can leap really good!", provided some limited and simple improved ability to quasi-fly when they ran and leaped. Over the following millions and millions of years, such a huge advantage would be strongly "selected for" (the key phrase you need to learn).

Such significant modifications do not happen, all at once, into some "final form" we see now, as Creationist like to (stupidly and without justification...) laugh about. Appearing overnight, as in their impossible Insta-Poof versions they cling to as "how it really happened!". Nope. It's all incremental, but then tested out in that real-life envirnment. Most changes obviously don't make it, but some do.

As in: It's not some profound internal decision on the part of so,e sentient but less-advantaged organism It's a simple mutation-caused change in it's offspring as to color, size, adaptability, functionality, etc., including the inclusion (I'm just reasonably speculating here, but...) of some lightly excess skin covering that accidentally provides some minor or improved "air-bag type floatation" to an insect that used to breed, with a lot of dangerous exposure, on land, right beside the water it needs to drink.

So it falls in, but "finds" (without thinking of course,) that it now floats out there and is thus no longer exposed to walking, predatory birds or rodents. And therefore, the ultimate survival of that particular "version" is hugely improved. And so all it's offspring, from then on,ating version and the land-locked version is gobbled up. And goes exctinct.

What's hard to grasp about this concept, pray tell?

And then later, another slight modification might occur that leads to an eventual significant modification and improved functionality in som other key area. FACT: Any complex biological ability and functionality can be rather easily explained in terms of individual incremental improvements. And so it goes.

Remember, squall, we have lots of time here, especially when the subject trial organism reproduces by the uncountable quin-trillions. Per month. Every year. For millions [or even billions...] of years. Each admittedly tiny improvement may well build on previous ones, via relentless mathematical exponential growth rates. (Please: look that critical element up if you don't understand exponential growth...)

Meanwhile, on so many other fronts, with all the vastly different environmental challenges and opportunities placed before that basic original cell structure, and with all the other organisms specializing in their unique areas, a virtual blizzard of new designs rose up for environmental testing in the old days. And obviously, sometimes these unique specialists co-mingled, purely by chance, and combined their specific interesting mods into a (possibly bizzarre) new organism ready to test itself out against the world.

Many of these test designs, in fact, have been found as weird fossils, and they obviously failed. Some look truly bizzarre, and by dating methods and geo-stratigraphy, we find they were'nt even around for very long. Like the Neanderthal man, one of your's and my past "cousins", they simply could not out-compete the mentally and physically improved later versions, and so they failed.

Simple, huh: and all without having to ask or bother the Sky Daddy, who spends His days wishfully looking for exciting new ways for arrogant but easily nose-ring-led men to Adore Him.... (Q: Why does He need such adoration one wonders? He must know He's omnipotent, right? But that's another story, obviously.)
It is clear that We are in front of a conscious mind that innovate causes of perpetuation and survival .. we can not imagine this without raising a creative mind .

Quote:
Originally Posted by rflmn
Well, I've now carefully pointed out why this is wrong-headed. No "thinking and concious direction" required, none found.
As for the similarties in living organisms configuration ... to you it means they all came from one cell , As for me it is the biggest proof of the oneness of God ( one creater of them all ) .

Quote:
Originally Posted by rflmn
You call this PROOF huh? More correctly, it speaks of the simple commonality of all DNA's designs of chance. As I outlined above.
Relaxman ... I never denies evolution from an Islamic point of veiw .[/font]
[/color][/font][/color]
Ok
[/quote]

Well, in fact, you don't allow for DNA to do it's work on it's own, so yeah, you do deny the naturally occurring process of Evolution I have shown. You also require that it's all originated and moderated by some iconic God. Wrong and again: UNNECESSARY.

Agreed?

Last edited by rifleman; 10-06-2011 at 09:53 AM.. Reason: REQUIRE
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-09-2011, 07:43 AM
 
570 posts, read 618,255 times
Reputation: 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman
No, but then, all the man-made things, the human inventions on this planet like pillows, cars, aircraft and toasters do not share a universal biochemical background, do they? There's a complete and universal commonality to all known life here: it's all based on DNA's capabilities and expansion. We regularly see it functioning, doing it's thing without any assistance from the lab scientist or, obviously, some etherial God.
I do not deny DNA's capabilities and expansion to work on its own .. I am talking about how it get that ability ?
How can random chance configure a system that runs very precisely ?
Try to apply it in practice and you will understand what I mean .
Quote:
Again, think it through, squall! IF a lonely but self-sufficient mitochondrium were to accidentally become incorporated into a simple cell, the simple cell engulfing the mitochondrium thinking it was potentially food. But then it discovered, by the results alone, that it's "food" was very capable, since the mitochondria is the most effective energy-producing cell organelle here, and carries it's own special surprise gifts. It's like you inviting an unknown guest into your house, only to happily discover he/she brought warm bread and good wine! So.. would you then automatically carve that guest up for "dinner", or welcome her in with a hug?)
accidentally become incorporated into a simple cell ?
thinking it was potentially food ?
surprise gifts ?
These three words contradiction with organized labor, Random accident does not produce precise work ...
That is a scientifical fact , what makes it different here ?
Away from this ...could you Prove to me that random chance can produce a well organized system ...
Quote:
If some imagined proto-rival of the DNA molecule, perhaps some less capable but "almost there" predecessors, were all that was required to kick it all off, then so be it. The final (or current, let's say...) version of DNA is what's operating out there now. FACT: British scientists have now witnessed the formation of the necessary amino acids out of it's REALLY simple organo-chemical base constituents, and now they are about to publish their findings that, in fact, DNA's amino acids can and do occur in a natural setting.

Of curse it can ...
this is how it supposed to work ..
What is strange about this ?!!!
Quote:
Next step? Part of a DNA molecule simply bumps up into another part and quickly links up. Why you may well ask? Well, because they "fit" together biochemically. Just like those LEGO blocks can and do link up with a i of pressure from a kid's hands. But then DBA has inter-molecular forces to "help", another fact we can easily see in the lab.

fit" together biochemically ... These are the tools that sustain life to composition ...
A System that works by tools ....
don't you feel that this sentence missing something ?
A maker
A maker that creat a System that works by tools ...
There you go ..
Quote:
As well, Dr. Craig Venter, (The Human Genome Project's designer and innovator...) down in San Diego, has inserted some DNA chains into a dead lipid balloon, and it sealed itself up and formed up into the right formations and BINGO, began to replicate itself! Gol-Dang It, just like REAL LIFE (but itout God's Holy Hand...)!LIFE, in essence, all on it's own! What DO you have to say about that, squall?

God's Holy Hand here would be DNA ...
Or did you expect to see the hand of God's ?!!!!
It does't work that way !!!
We infer the existence of God by his creatures ... the tools Which he has put for life to continue ...
Science only discovers God's tools they can not creates anything .
Quote:
You make the mistake that these things happened after the fact, that they sit around, those seeds, and "think": "Hmmm... why can't I learn to fly over there? Oh yeah; I forgot: I would need "seed wings"... Tough luck!"

actually it is the other way round ...
Quote:
Nope. No thinking required. These modifications, such as the apprearance of prototype early wings on smaller dinos as (probably) small decorative protrusions also, "Hey look mom! I can leap really good!", provided some limited and simple improved ability to quasi-fly when they ran and leaped. Over the following millions and millions of years, such a huge advantage would be strongly "selected for" (the key phrase you need to learn).

millions and millions of years !!!
This is the only excuse used by those who can not prove it in front of everyone !!!
Each time you asked them to prove it they will tell you that it only happens over millions of years ...
So it ain't happening in our lifetime ...
Quote:
Such significant modifications do not happen, all at once, into some "final form" we see now, as Creationist like to (stupidly and without justification...) laugh about. Appearing overnight, as in their impossible Insta-Poof versions they cling to as "how it really happened!". Nope. It's all incremental, but then tested out in that real-life envirnment. Most changes obviously don't make it, but some do.

Let me guess !!!!
It only happens in millions and millions of years !!!
Try to respond to that you stubid Creationist ..
Quote:
As in: It's not some profound internal decision on the part of so,e sentient but less-advantaged organism It's a simple mutation-caused change in it's offspring as to color, size, adaptability, functionality, etc., including the inclusion (I'm just reasonably speculating here, but...) of some lightly excess skin covering that accidentally provides some minor or improved "air-bag type floatation" to an insect that used to breed, with a lot of dangerous exposure, on land, right beside the water it needs to drink.
So it falls in, but "finds" (without thinking of course,) that it now floats out there and is thus no longer exposed to walking, predatory birds or rodents. And therefore, the ultimate survival of that particular "version" is hugely improved. And so all it's offspring, from then on,ating version and the land-locked version is gobbled up. And goes exctinct.
What's hard to grasp about this concept, pray tell?

but "finds" (without thinking of course,)
How in the world could something unconscious have the apility to find out ?!!!
Is it possible for woods to find out about anything ?
Ok .. you are scaring me now !!!
Quote:
And then later, another slight modification might occur that leads to an eventual significant modification and improved functionality in som other key area. FACT: Any complex biological ability and functionality can be rather easily explained in terms of individual incremental improvements. And so it goes.
Remember, squall, we have lots of time here, especially when the subject trial organism reproduces by the uncountable quin-trillions. Per month. Every year. For millions [or even billions...] of years. Each admittedly tiny improvement may well build on previous ones, via relentless mathematical exponential growth rates. (Please: look that critical element up if you don't understand exponential growth...)
Meanwhile, on so many other fronts, with all the vastly different environmental challenges and opportunities placed before that basic original cell structure, and with all the other organisms specializing in their unique areas, a virtual blizzard of new designs rose up for environmental testing in the old days. And obviously, sometimes these unique specialists co-mingled, purely by chance, and combined their specific interesting mods into a (possibly bizzarre) new organism ready to test itself out against the world.

Are you trying to convince me here or convince yourself ?
Try to imagine it as a movie ... How it all start ?
Who gave the cell the ability to evolve ?
How could a random chance creates a system fill with information ?
Plese understand ...
I am not denying its ability to work alone ..
The question is how could the unconscious able to configure such conscious abilities ?
The only answer will be a "maker" ...
Quote:
Well, in fact, you don't allow for DNA to do it's work on it's own, so yeah, you do deny the naturally occurring process of Evolution I have shown. You also require that it's all originated and moderated by some iconic God. Wrong and again: UNNECESSARY.

Agreed?

You want to convince me that a huge storm blowing in the backyard of your home can build a swimming pool ...
Sorry ... I can not agree to that .
Once again, random chance can not create a structured work .
random chance can not configure a system that runs precisely ...
Agree ?

Last edited by squall-lionheart; 10-09-2011 at 08:10 AM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2011, 08:35 AM
 
Location: Florida
18,314 posts, read 18,571,226 times
Reputation: 21022
One thing (among many others) that you ignore, squall-lionheart, is the innumuerable organisms that never did 'make it' to anything more advanced
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2011, 09:23 AM
 
570 posts, read 618,255 times
Reputation: 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by old_cold View Post
One thing (among many others) that you ignore, squall-lionheart, is the innumuerable organisms that never did 'make it' to anything more advanced
from a darwinism point of you I would say : Yes ...

ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

Quick summary :
1-I believe in Evolution variation ( microevolution ) but at the same time I believe that there are strict limits that are never crossed .
2-Random chance can not create a system .
3-The subconscious can not create a reliable system of accurate information .
4-Any system in the world needs a maker .
5-The fact that the DNA capable of operating on its own does not mean it does not need a maker .. it only means it was made that way (operating on their own ) .
2,3,4 corresponds to the simplest degree of logic .. therefore it supported No. 1 and 5 ...
If you believe that religion is a fairy-tale then I really believe that shapeshifting from creature to another is science fiction tale .
You know ...."Transformers & the incredible Hulk" !!!
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2011, 09:27 AM
 
34,630 posts, read 8,924,012 times
Reputation: 4804
Quote:
Originally Posted by squall-lionheart View Post
You want to convince me that a huge storm blowing in the backyard of your home can build a swimming pool ...
Sorry ... I can not agree to that.
Once again, random chance can not create a structured work .
random chance can not configure a system that runs precisely ...
Agree ?
This persistent and utterly false analogy of a whirlwind hitting a junkyard and creating a jumbo - jet of can of coke or a swimming pool here - the same wretched analogy applies no matter the object - pops up repeatedly no matter how often we argue that random chance is not applicable to naturalistic explanations. That is why all these arguments from statistic improbability are false argument whether its the cat walking on a keyboard and printing a message or a natural formation looking like a face. Or the false claim that it runs precisely. If that were the case, continents would dissapear, stars would not collide, species would not become extinct and nobody would die. But of course it is all intelligently made to run precisely as though it wasn't made to run precisely. Do you see why I cannot seriously entertain your objections as anything other than poorly reasoned?

The argument is really no more than wonder at the size and complexity of nature and finding the naturalist explanation too complex and hard to understand and instead finding it a lot easier to imagine a huge invisible human doing it all with a magic spell. Which of course only sidelines the whole question and explains nothing at all.

It therefore follows that they of course look at what seems to be a random heap of chaos (since they cannot or will not comprehend the explanations about natural processes) and declare that they can't see how it the magic word could happen without a big invisible being to say it.

I for one cannot buy into a big invisible human who was always there. Especially since there isn't any good evidence that I can see for one being around now.

And that's really the point. I don't suppose for a minute that we are going to persuade you and we don't really want to. You are entitled to believe whatever you like. What matters is that you won't persuade us with material as poor as this and neither, I believe will you persuade reasonable people.

Gradually, the numbers who see the flaws in the theist model and the better evidence for the naturalist model will increase and what persons of your persuasion buy into or cannot buy into will become irrelevant.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2011, 11:49 AM
 
31,385 posts, read 31,082,292 times
Reputation: 14878
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
This persistent and utterly false analogy...
I'm still trying to wrap my head around how "micro" evolution can work but "marco" cannot. Either you accept evolution or you don't. Macro/micro the process is one in the same.

Or,

How it is that in order for planets to exist, a star has to be just the right size and must die in just the right manner. How when that random star dies and randomly creates new stars and planets, and of those randomly created stars only a few are capable of holding those planets within its gravitational pull and of those randomly create planets that are randomly scattered within its gravitational pull, that only those planets that happen to lie scattered around just the right star can contain the conditions for life based solely upon where they happen to lie in relationship to their distance from their star. Yet some insist that something vastly more complex than life itself cannot come together by random chance.

Last edited by ovcatto; 10-09-2011 at 12:09 PM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2011, 01:13 PM
 
34,630 posts, read 8,924,012 times
Reputation: 4804
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
I'm still trying to wrap my head around how "micro" evolution can work but "marco" cannot. Either you accept evolution or you don't. Macro/micro the process is one in the same.
Because the mental image is completely different. For you me and Rifleman, we see Macro - evolution as micro over a couple of million years. For an evolution - denier, they accept evolutionary changes within recognizable species but cannot buy it that it can ever go so far that one kind of animal could ever turn into another. Hence the 'Dogs giving birth to cats' nonsense.

Quote:
Or,

How it is that in order for planets to exist, a star has to be just the right size and must die in just the right manner. How when that random star dies and randomly creates new stars and planets, and of those randomly created stars only a few are capable of holding those planets within its gravitational pull and of those randomly create planets that are randomly scattered within its gravitational pull, that only those planets that happen to lie scattered around just the right star can contain the conditions for life based solely upon where they happen to lie in relationship to their distance from their star. Yet some insist that something vastly more complex than life itself cannot come together by random chance.
While 'random chance' is right in that it wasn't planned ahead it can be taken - wrongly - to denote the idea that a skipload of random matter was slung together and it just, through a gadzillion - to one chance, turned out to be exactly right so as to produce us us - which is no more than overlooking the billions of years of intervening aggregation, fail and continuance becoming eventually survival extinction and change. Together with the ignoring that life evolves to fits the conditions, not the conditions being designed to produce the life.

Like I say, it's all in the mindset one brings to the matter.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2011, 02:48 PM
 
31,385 posts, read 31,082,292 times
Reputation: 14878
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
Like I say, it's all in the mindset one brings to the matter.
I suppose.

But what gets me is that there is so much chaos in both the universe and in biology (see cancer) to only pick out the exceptionally few successes both cosmologically (I am referring to galaxies and solar systems that don't become black holes) and biologically. How can you miss those events or things that just horribly wrong (from a human perspective). If a comet hadn't crossed earth's path and hitting the Yucatan we'd still be running around as some form of field mice.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2011, 08:54 AM
 
570 posts, read 618,255 times
Reputation: 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
This persistent and utterly false analogy of a whirlwind hitting a junkyard and creating a jumbo - jet of can of coke or a swimming pool here - the same wretched analogy applies no matter the object - pops up repeatedly no matter how often we argue that random chance is not applicable to naturalistic explanations.
Believe me .. whirlwind hitting a junkyard and creating a jumbo is fare more acceptable than that Science fiction movie whic wants to convince us that a single cell found out of nowhere inhabited by some bacteria by Coincidence & then BAM creted not only one creature but a huge diversity of living organisms & that is not it !!!
It all by some weird random accident comes with an amazing information system whic located at the DNA
Now is that what we call a Science fiction or what ?!!!
Ohh .. I forget .... it took billions of years to happen
So upon that nobody saw it or will ever see it
Quote:
That is why all these arguments from statistic improbability are false argument whether its the cat walking on a keyboard and printing a message or a natural formation looking like a face. Or the false claim that it runs precisely.
You can train a cat to do that but how in the world could unconscious made a systems that runs by laws & loaded with chemical information on the highest degree of precision ?
Quote:
If that were the case, continents would dissapear, stars would not collide, species would not become extinct and nobody would die.
True ....
Nothing left to tamper ...
Everything runs by system and laws
Quote:
But of course it is all intelligently made to run precisely as though it wasn't made to run precisely.
It runs precisely ... Do you have an objection here ?
Quote:
Do you see why I cannot seriously entertain your objections as anything other than poorly reasoned?
poorly reasoned to you & atheists ... you do not want to believe in regardless of anything else .
But it just my opinion .
Quote:
The argument is really no more than wonder at the size and complexity of nature and finding the naturalist explanation too complex and hard to understand and instead finding it a lot easier to imagine a huge invisible human doing it all with a magic spell. Which of course only sidelines the whole question and explains nothing at all.
Allow me to say that this is a very naive explanation !!!
Information has become simple and available to all of us ...It does not require a genius to understand it in general .
The subject does not require a magic spell !!!
We believe God created the universe with a specific laws and system that able to run it selves and do not need a magic spell .
Our evidence is very simple and logic ...
It is impossible to create a system by tamper random chance .
That is it .
Quote:
It therefore follows that they of course look at what seems to be a random heap of chaos (since they cannot or will not comprehend the explanations about natural processes) and declare that they can't see how it the magic word could happen without a big invisible being to say it.
I can explain to you how a computer feed itself automatically with updates programs .... so is that it ?
No ...
There must be someone who put the necessary tools to make it work by itself ...
Why ?
Because the computer has no conscious ...
The explanations about natural processes tells you how it runs .. not how it began or who made it with that ability .
If you convinced me that subconscious can create objects on a high degree of awareness ...If you convinced me that Coincidence can create a specific system then I will agree to all of what you are saying
Why is it to hard to understand ?
Quote:
I for one cannot buy into a big invisible human who was always there. Especially since there isn't any good evidence that I can see for one being around now.
And that's really the point. I don't suppose for a minute that we are going to persuade you and we don't really want to. You are entitled to believe whatever you like. What matters is that you won't persuade us with material as poor as this and neither, I believe will you persuade reasonable people.
It is up to you ... you are free to beleive or not ...
there are alot of people who disagree with you & find alot of good evidence that proofs God do exist .
for example A.Cressy Morrison "Former President of the New York Academy of Sciences " who see there are alot of Scientific proof that support the existing of God .
He said :
"WE ARE STILL IN THE DAWN of the scientific age, and every increase of light reveals more brightly the handiwork of an intelligent Creator. We have made stupendous discoveries; with a spirit of scientific humility and of faith grounded in knowledge we are approaching ever nearer to an awareness of God ".
Seven Reasons Why a Scientist Believes in God
So please do not try to make it looks like science contradicts the existence of God because some think it is & other think its not .
Otherwise all scientists would become atheists without exception but no because they may see something that you did not see .
It's a matter of vision and conviction which vary from person to another .
Quote:
Gradually, the numbers who see the flaws in the theist model and the better evidence for the naturalist model will increase and what persons of your persuasion buy into or cannot buy into will become irrelevant.
This remains your opinion , I have a completely different one .
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2011, 09:43 AM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 11,073,181 times
Reputation: 3717
Unhappy Oh GOOD LORD! Help!

First-off, squall, I was going to try to respond one more time with unassailable evidence to refute all you've said, but frankly, I simply cannot do it when you insist on changing everything to purple.

Here: try this!

Select this post so it shows up in your response (as in: hit the "Quote" box down below), and then take a look at what you have to deal with! Yikes! Even with my substantial mind, it boggles!

In order for me to separate out the individual sentence or paragraph of yours that I want to respond to, I first have to separate out all that formatting info just to see clearly what you're saying, and frankly, I don't have ALL DAY!

So please... just leave it in black, standard font, normal size! Basic black is good enough for me!

Then, I can proceed to demolish, for the last time, your argument. Trust me!
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top