Let's start at the beginning...How can something come from nothing? (Biblical, Adam and Eve)

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

You repeatedly assert this without providing the scientific validation of it. What peer-reviewed studies are there? What is the scientific basis for your assertion?

I don't doubt that there are peer - reviewed studies showing development of organic forms through natural mechanisms. Yes, I know you will froth about the use of the term 'natural' but that only means without any evidence to show that there is any kind of intelligence driving it.

Of course, there is no real call for peer reviewed studies "Demonstration that nature and god are not the same thing, with especial reference to nature being not very much intelligent."

In just the same way you won't find many peer - reviewed studies in "Coloration in bluebells with especial reference to fairies not doing it with brush and paint."

You are smart enough to know that your call for peer review is as fallacious as 'prove there is no god'.

However, Talk Origins is as good a source as one could wish for reasons not to see the hand of any forward - planning intelligence in the way nature works. Until their cogent refutations of the scientifically unsound claims of the ID lobby can be countered by you, your insistence that nature can justifiably be regarded as an intelligence, mind or consciousness and have the loaded label 'God' applied to it, it can only be regarded as a particular obsession of yours.

Now, why not stop twitting us and get to providing some evidence yourself instead of demanding that we somehow disprove you?

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Konraden

Since I'm not allowed to use certain words that aptly fit what you are, just imagine me being derisive.

That's easy . . . I've had a lot of practice.

The concept of nature is not the same as the concept of God. You have continued to equivocate the two. Your continued arguments from ignorance are logical fallacies, and do not in any argument, make you right. Everything in our universe is capable of killing us--I'd say that is pretty poor design.

More assertions without support. That there IS design is undeniable . . . any concerns over quality or specific outcomes is irrelevant. That the processes follow and are driven by very specific interaction parameters is undeniable . . . that there is a compulsion to reproduce is undeniable . . . that there is competition to survive is undeniable . . . that there is cooperation to form multi-cellular life in obvious contradiction to individual cellular survival and competition is undeniable . . . that there are "codes" linked to specific design outcomes is undeniable . . . that there are activators that are designed to turn on and turn off specific design "codes" is undeniable . . . that these activators can be driven by epigenetic (environmental) triggers is undeniable . . . that these epigenetic activators can be heritable is undeniable . . . etc. etc. THAT separates the intelligent and designed universe from the chaotic.

[Vic235]

Just let you know:

- atheists do not worship nature.
- atheists do not have a church of nature.
- atheists do not think nature has "moral values and worldview".
- atheists do not pray nature.
- atheists do not think nature is the creator of the universe.
- atheists do not think humans are created in the image of nature.
...

Religion does those; atheists think the whole approach of religion is totally wrong.

[Konraden]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

That's easy . . . I've had a lot of practice.More assertions without support. That there IS design is undeniable

I'm arguing that it isn't design, and if it were to be, it's some seriously poor design, which is totally incompatible with your Christian God.

. . . any concerns over quality or specific outcomes is irrelevant. That the processes follow and are driven by very specific interaction parameters is undeniable . . . that there is a compulsion to reproduce is undeniable . . . that there is competition to survive is undeniable . . .

The question is obviously, why do things reproduce. I've already stated that we are merely following tradition--the first self-replicating molecules have been doing it for quite a while now, and we're just following suit.

that there is cooperation to form multi-cellular life in obvious contradiction to individual cellular survival and competition is undeniable . . .

How is that a contradiction? We can clearly see in various species that there is strength in numbers. Why would a single cell not find strength with fellow cells? The anthropomorphism is a convenience for understanding.

that there are "codes"

Uh oh--the obfuscating quotes.

linked to specific design outcomes is undeniable . . . that there are activators that are designed to turn on and turn off specific design "codes" is undeniable . . . that these activators can be driven by epigenetic (environmental) triggers is undeniable . . . that these epigenetic activators can be heritable is undeniable . . . etc. etc. THAT separates the intelligent and designed universe from the chaotic.

Insert Puddle Analogy here.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Vic235

Just let you know:

- atheists do not worship nature.
- atheists do not have a church of nature.
- atheists do not think nature has "moral values and worldview".
- atheists do not pray nature.
- atheists do not think nature is the creator of the universe.
- atheists do not think humans are created in the image of nature.
...

Religion does those; atheists think the whole approach of religion is totally wrong.

We agree about religion. What does that have to do with Nature /God being God-like or not?

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Konraden

I'm arguing that it isn't design, and if it were to be, it's some seriously poor design, which is totally incompatible with your Christian God.

Poor or good or excellent are terms that require a knowledge of the ultimate purpose of the design to establish . . . which we do NOT know. But the design is undeniable

The question is obviously, why do things reproduce. I've already stated that we are merely following tradition--the first self-replicating molecules have been doing it for quite a while now, and we're just following suit.

The old "It just is" nonsense dressed up in verbosity.

How is that a contradiction? We can clearly see in various species that there is strength in numbers. Why would a single cell not find strength with fellow cells?

A single cell would seek to survive, period . . . at the expense of any other cells around . . . unless you are positing a mind for it to reason a stratagem for survival using cooperation?

Uh oh--the obfuscating quotes.
Insert Puddle Analogy here.

Translation: Stuff above your pay grade. If you do not believe genes are "codes" in the DNA you have a lot to learn.

[Konraden]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Poor or good or excellent are terms that require a knowledge of the ultimate purpose of the design to establish . . . which we do NOT know. But the design is undeniable

Did you just contradict yourself? Design is undeniable, yet we don't actually know anything about the design, including it's quality--and "none" is a quality.

The old "It just is" nonsense dressed up in verbosity.

Not even. You want to know why we reproduce. I provided an answer. You're not happy with it (per usual) because somehow, as always, you want some ultimate answer to something we currently don't know anything about.

So, I'll bite for a second. You'll postulate the First Cause argument, I'll reply with my proof that no first cause is needed. It's in this thread, go fetch.

A single cell would seek to survive, period . . . at the expense of any other cells around . . . unless you are positing a mind for it to reason a stratagem for survival using cooperation?

Why would you need a brain to form a cooperative relationship? Symbiotic relationships are formed without awareness of the organisms involved. Clown Fish anyone?

Translation: Stuff above your pay grade. If you do not believe genes are "codes" in the DNA you have a lot to learn.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

linked to specific design outcomes is undeniable . . . that there are activators that are designed to turn on and turn off specific design "codes" is undeniable . . . that these activators can be driven by epigenetic (environmental) triggers is undeniable . . . that these epigenetic activators can be heritable is undeniable . . . etc. etc. THAT separates the intelligent and designed universe from the chaotic.

You're thinking backwards. The complexity of our genetic code is a result of a long, slow process where it was built up over time. To bring in the old creationist argument, you don't expect a Modern Formula 1 engine to pop into existence in its fully formed status--nor would you expect any one part to function without any other. No, the design of the engine evolved over a long period of time--it got better.

So, as I said. Insert Puddle Analogy.

[KCfromNC]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

You repeatedly assert this without providing the scientific validation of it. What peer-reviewed studies are there? What is the scientific basis for your assertion?

Any peer-reviewed paper which doesn't include "god did it" in the explanation of results is another data point showing that god is unnecessary. At last count that would be, umm, all of them.

And before you claim that this is evidence for your "nature god", remember that science is all about excluding unnecessary assumptions. That's how and why science works. So when they chop that assumption down to "nature" because god doesn't add anything, don't complain about bias.

[Rafius]

Originally Posted by Konraden

So, as I said. Insert Puddle Analogy.

Here you are.


"Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in’, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everythings going to be all right, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for."
Douglas Adams.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Konraden

Did you just contradict yourself? Design is undeniable, yet we don't actually know anything about the design, including it's quality--and "none" is a quality.

Quality of outcomes from the overall design of reality. It seems to have been fairly effective so far . . . especially if the desired outcome is quality of consciousness (spirituality) . . . NOT physicality. But you "physical" minds seem to have trouble with those concepts.

Not even. You want to know why we reproduce. I provided an answer. You're not happy with it (per usual) because somehow, as always, you want some ultimate answer to something we currently don't know anything about.

So, I'll bite for a second. You'll postulate the First Cause argument, I'll reply with my proof that no first cause is needed. It's in this thread, go fetch.

No First Cause argument . . . A simple acknowledgment that what you refuse to identify (or acknowledge) DOES EXIST . . . whatever you wish to think about it or call it. You cannot deliberately ignore something, then claim it doesn't exist and that our ignorance is a reason to not believe it exists (some BS fallacy). Man up. God EXISTS (unlike your imaginary derisory foils) . . . whether in the limited version you prefer (but refuse even to acknowledge) or in any other possible configuration of attributes people wish to assign to Him (the part that seems to irritate you so much because of the irrationalities and absurdities within the myriad versions.)

Why would you need a brain to form a cooperative relationship? Symbiotic relationships are formed without awareness of the organisms involved. Clown Fish anyone?

More physical limitations . . . mind does NOT exist IN a brain . . . it is produced BY a series of chemical reactions located in a brain according to you. Chemical reactions are available to cells. What I am asking you is how does a mindless, purely competitive single cell striving only to survive and reproduce . . . NOT compete with the other cells fighting for the same resources? Just getting that first multi-cellular organism presents a major hurdle for the survival/selection motif . . . let alone the complexity you say just managed to evolve without any template (design protocols).

You're thinking backwards. The complexity of our genetic code is a result of a long, slow process where it was built up over time.

There had to be an existing template of protocols for that to happen . . . for your "random processes" to discover or stumble upon.

To bring in the old creationist argument, you don't expect a Modern Formula 1 engine to pop into existence in its fully formed status--nor would you expect any one part to function without any other. No, the design of the engine evolved over a long period of time--it got better.

You know I am not a Creationist and I certainly would not use such inane arguments. Why only five nucleotides . . . in combinations of four for the design codes (DNA) and four for the activators (tRNA, mRNA, etc.) that actually represent a plethora of workable design outcomes?

So, as I said. Insert Puddle Analogy.

::Sigh:: There is still the depression that contains the puddle that establishes its design, the atmospheric processes that produced the rain that filled the design to make the puddle . . . ah hell. . . it's pointless even to try to penetrate concrete that has set.