Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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 09-22-2010, 05:43 AM
 
Location: NZ Wellington
2,782 posts, read 4,173,728 times
Reputation: 592

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas R. View Post
I can envision an alternative, but it still doesn't change that life itself is amazingly unlikely for a variety of reasons. Tyson makes some good points, but many of them are quite speculative or based in "I think it would be nice if X were different, it not being different means it's bad."

And having been a deformed baby pictures of deformed babies is never the right tack to take with me on the "there is no God" idea.
Wow, you just refuse to read what I typed.. Where exactly did I type "there is no god", go on quote me..

You only see what you want to see... Not that I was expecting anything special from a closed mind.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-22-2010, 06:20 AM
 
Location: NZ Wellington
2,782 posts, read 4,173,728 times
Reputation: 592

YouTube - Open-mindedness
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2010, 08:13 AM
 
63,998 posts, read 40,299,200 times
Reputation: 7896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gplex View Post
That's not the point. The design natural selection has left us is NOT intelligent.

You see design because you can not envision an alternative. Just keep that mind of your close, I'm sure it will serve you well.
This is the common mistake that atheists make when confronting the design issues. It is the fallacy of argumentum ad consequentiam ( I believe one of you erroneously tried to use it on me). DNA is undeniably the basis of coded design. RNA (of various types) is the activator of the designs. Competition for survival and environmental circumstances are the assemblers of the designs. You are free to believe that the designs are poorly assembled . . . but not that they do not exist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2010, 10:45 AM
 
5,458 posts, read 6,727,561 times
Reputation: 1814
Quote:
Originally Posted by firstborn888 View Post
Really? Many hold to the idea that creation, particularly extremely complex and delicately balanced living organisms, points to a designer/creator.
Sure, but I don't know of any biologists who refer to natural selection as a god so it's not really on topic here. Or did you have some other sort of designer in mind?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2010, 11:26 AM
 
Location: Western Cary, NC
4,348 posts, read 7,366,879 times
Reputation: 7276
The species has a great deal in common. We all evolved from the same line of early primates, we have brains which if used can aid in gathering knowledge, we all have a horrendous past filled with wars, killings, prejudice, and ignorance based on one god or the other. We additional have developed our own method of finding our moral compass, and many have sought to find equality between different segments of the species. The only difference we have is some of us don’t accept things on faith, or without proof; while others are willing to follow on faith alone without looking at the cost in lives. This is changing in today’s world, and hopefully will end some of the endless religious killings.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2010, 04:12 PM
 
Location: NZ Wellington
2,782 posts, read 4,173,728 times
Reputation: 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
This is the common mistake that atheists make when confronting the design issues. It is the fallacy of argumentum ad consequentiam ( I believe one of you erroneously tried to use it on me). DNA is undeniably the basis of coded design. RNA (of various types) is the activator of the designs. Competition for survival and environmental circumstances are the assemblers of the designs.
Will you stop lumping me together with people that happen not to believe in what I don't believe.. Should I start lumping you with taliban, because they don't believe in the FSM too?
Just to make it clear to those who don't read what I type, you know who you are, saying "I don't believe", doesn't mean I believe the opposite of that belief is true.

The argumentum ad consequentiam is when the person argue that because "this position" is more desirable, then it must be true. I did not make such a silly claim.
Basis of code design... What are you talking about. Did we base computer code of dna? This is such a ambiguous statement, something many people on this forum seem to do very well by the way.
You put together a logical argument, but the root or starting premise is flawed, or/and hasn't been proven.
In evolution, information (code) from the environment is communicated to genomes indirectly through natural selection and varieties that don't do well in that environment.

Is gravity a designer? Is erosion a designer? Is fusion a designer? Is molecular mechanics a designer? Then why call any phenomenon resulting from these natural events design? Oh, so we don't know exactly where DNA came from, so are you suggesting an argument from ignorance?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
You are free to believe that the designs are poorly assembled . . . but not that they do not exist.
You claim that there is a design, is nothing but subjective assertion. There are many things that seem design, because of natural selection, but evolution already explains this, there is no need for a designer.. a pretty poor one in fact.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2010, 04:19 PM
 
Location: NZ Wellington
2,782 posts, read 4,173,728 times
Reputation: 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by cncracer View Post
The species has a great deal in common. We all evolved from the same line of early primates, we have brains which if used can aid in gathering knowledge, we all have a horrendous past filled with wars, killings, prejudice, and ignorance based on one god or the other. We additional have developed our own method of finding our moral compass, and many have sought to find equality between different segments of the species. The only difference we have is some of us don’t accept things on faith, or without proof; while others are willing to follow on faith alone without looking at the cost in lives. This is changing in today’s world, and hopefully will end some of the endless religious killings.
I think that's unfair, many wars have been started without religion or god being the source of the conflict.
In this post //www.city-data.com/forum/15904750-post79.html I think we see many reason why those who have dogmatic beliefs usual resort to violence.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2010, 05:03 PM
 
63,998 posts, read 40,299,200 times
Reputation: 7896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gplex View Post
The argumentum ad consequentiam is when the person argue that because "this position" is more desirable, then it must be true. I did not make such a silly claim.
Your knowledge of the fallacies seems as flawed as most of your other knowledge. You asserted that it was "stupid design" and essentially reaffirm it in this post " there is no need for a designer.. a pretty poor one in fact."
Quote:
Basis of code design... What are you talking about. Did we base computer code of dna? This is such a ambiguous statement, something many people on this forum seem to do very well by the way.
You do not think very deeply about these issues. At the level of the universe itself and its operation . . . the existence of a code (DNA) that produces specific results in different combinations and uses messengers and activators (RNA) to manifest them is a designed (not random nor chaotic) universe. You need to broaden your focus . . . the design is NOT just the results.
Quote:
You put together a logical argument, but the root or starting premise is flawed, or/and hasn't been proven.
Assertions like this are usually accompanied by some logical proof or explication . . . otherwise they are just opinion.
Quote:
In evolution, information (code) from the environment is communicated to genomes indirectly through natural selection and varieties that don't do well in that environment.

Is gravity a designer? Is erosion a designer? Is fusion a designer? Is molecular mechanics a designer? Then why call any phenomenon resulting from these natural events design? Oh, so we don't know exactly where DNA came from, so are you suggesting an argument from ignorance?
Again . . . such shallow thinking. They are parts of the design of the universe itself! Have you ever studied systems theory?
Quote:
You claim that there is a design, is nothing but subjective assertion. There are many things that seem design, because of natural selection, but evolution already explains this, there is no need for a designer.. a pretty poor one in fact.
Without a design to the system . . . chaos would be the order of things, science would be impossible, and all knowledge of it would be non-existent or useless.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2010, 05:31 PM
 
Location: NZ Wellington
2,782 posts, read 4,173,728 times
Reputation: 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Your knowledge of the fallacies seems as flawed as most of your other knowledge. You asserted that it was "stupid design" and essentially reaffirm it in this post " there is no need for a designer.. a pretty poor one in fact." You do not think very deeply about these issues. At the level of the universe itself and its operation . . . the existence of a code (DNA) that produces specific results in different combinations and uses messengers and activators (RNA) to manifest them is a designed (not random nor chaotic) universe. You need to broaden your focus . . . the design is NOT just the results. Assertions like this are usually accompanied by some logical proof or explication . . . otherwise they are just opinion. Again . . . such shallow thinking. They are parts of the design of the universe itself! Have you ever studied systems theory?Without a design to the system . . . chaos would be the order of things, science would be impossible, and all knowledge of it would be non-existent or useless.
Yes, I know your tactic well. Claim my knowledge or something about be is flawed or lacking, but never explaining why.

According to the definition of design, we must determine something about the design process in order to imply design. We do this by observing the design in process or by comparing with the results of known designs. The only example of known intelligent design we have is human design. FLAWED REASONING.

If you know anything about scientific theories, you know that no scientific theory can encompass every situation. Order can come from chaos. eg. When a bomb goes off, where does all the pieces fall? If you wish to not call a bomb or something similar "chaos" then describe what you mean.


I think this is one of the main reasons why common ground is ignored by those who ignore reality.

YouTube - Richard Dawkins: One Fact to Refute Creationism
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2010, 06:18 PM
 
Location: Texas
4,346 posts, read 6,631,373 times
Reputation: 851
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCfromNC View Post
Sure, but I don't know of any biologists who refer to natural selection as a god so it's not really on topic here. Or did you have some other sort of designer in mind?
I'm just saying that the empirical evidence doesn't disprove the existence of a creator. The poster said it "Points out that there is no God" and I disagree - that's all.

But as you say - this is off topic and I'm not obsessed with proving my case (like some believers are) and I'm sure there are many many things most humans can agree on - both theists and non-theists.

That's whats important to me, to find common ground and move forward as humans into a more humane world.

I agree that religious fundamentalism is used to promote many conflicts but the actual source of the conflicts is not a belief or non-belief in certain creeds. The actual source is the fear and greed and ignorance contained within the human heart.
Reply With Quote 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.


Reply
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

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:26 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top