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.
I think the design issue has framed the debate improperly. The existence of design is a by-product of many processes most of which have been reasonably discovered. What has NOT been discovered and what is central to the existence of God issue is the very existence of intelligence itself. By that I mean the capability we possess to know about these issues, debate them, critique them and evaluate whether or not they were intelligently designed or not. There is absolutely NOTHING in the dead, chemical world that remotely presages or exists as a precursor to this unique phenomenon we possess. It represents a quantum leap from the "dead stuff" that comprises our reality as currently measured and investigated. There is no way to get to our intelligence from a dead, chemical reality without presuming that chemicals have some innate ability to possess this totally unique and alien phenomenon of intelligence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Your self serving talk of a dead chemical universe and pre -empting the discussion by saying I'm wrong no matter what I say shows, frankly, old mate, that in your own way you are not one whit better than Eusebius in your persistent and blinkered peddling of your own faith -based beliefs. You have been clobbered, caught out in falsification and discredited, debunked and discarded as soundly as he has, but, like him, you are unable to be objective.
Not ONE of those accusations has any basis in fact, Arq. You have been asserting them so long you actually think they happened and refuse to objectively evaluate them because they suit your preferred beliefs. The inconvenient truth is that a rock has no intelligence nor do its constituents unless they are all manifestations WITHIN an intelligence (unified field).
I see many complicating things waaaaaaay too much. Most of you are bogged down in biased dogma, either secular or religious.
Since my perception of "God" is "All the Energy/Matter That Exists and Has Existed"...then everything was necessarily Sourced by God, and IS God. Annnnnnnd...thus, of course, God Exists...and without all the baggage or hocus-pocus spew.
Once you have that all settled...the rest of it is just a matter of learning about God...figuring out the details.
Adopting this view covers all the bases...and serves to avoid all the headtrips about the issue.
It took me coming to this board 5 1/2 years ago to get it all squared away. Now that I have (through the help of a brilliant and patient member) ...I bask in the contentment of being hip to The Truth.
It's just a matter of getting your mind right.
I went onto that site and it started out very un-scholarly like. Then it went into 'evolution', starting with denigrating atheists then saying this;
Quote:
So committed evolutionists must believe (for the origin of life to have occurred naturalistically) that a code system originated by chance, with no outside intelligence. But experimental science has shown this is false. Information is non-material; it is a metaphysical entity, and has only been observed to be derived from an intelligent source. An example can be demonstrated simply.
Is it just me or is there something a bit off here?
OK. Lets start by looking at the experimental science that has "shown this to be false". Where might I find a reference to it so that I can read up on it for myself?
I went onto that site and it started out very un-scholarly like. Then it went into 'evolution', starting with denigrating atheists then saying this;
Is it just me or is there something a bit off here?
OK. Lets start by looking at the experimental science that has "shown this to be false". Where might I find a reference to it so that I can read up on it for myself?
OMG please don't ask him ...he does not know the difference between credible and non-credible sources.
He will come back with that STUPID corrupt Darwin busted site that I reported for copyright infringement.
This is the response I got back from the anti-piracy team on 10-27-2015. Hopefully they have dealt with that site by now. I will know in by the end of this quarter or next quarter the status of it.
Quote:
Thank you for reporting suspected piracy! All reports you send in go directly to our anti-piracy vendor, for immediate investigation and action, as well as to our Macmillan anti-piracy team.
Due to an increasing volume of reports, our team will not be sending an individual reply to each report as it comes in but will make sure to update you on the status of all links you send in at least once a quarter.
In the interim, our vendor is still acting on each report as soon as they get it.
Sometimes you will see links that remain up even after we received a report; this can be for a variety of reasons such as when the underlying URL from a linking page leads to a scam site or dead link. Unfortunately, certain sites are slow to comply – or are entirely non-compliant - with our takedown notices. Our efforts don’t end there, however. We pursue multiple escalation steps, as well as sending all links to Google for delisting from search results.
If you have urgent questions, please contact us at [/email]. Our anti-piracy team continues to scan and takedown infringements proactively on your titles.
A major stumbling block with creationist understanding evolution seems to be the transition from single celled organisms to us on the one hand and the 'creation' of the single celled organism in the first place with its 'complex' coded DNA on the other. Two giant leaps of faith requiring intelligent design or a 'creator' or magic. Well, actually not so much. Not to my mind anyway.
The very machine the creationists are using to read and post on is a prime example. Your machine was not designed and built in its present form in one step. It is the result of evolution. I remember the fancy new computer at the CSIR that my brother worked on. It was amazing! He programmed a game one could play on it. Naughts and crosses! Amazing. It didn't even have a monitor! One typed data and instructions in and it printed results out on a line printer. Data was stored on punch tape. And that wasn't the earliest computer! Software and machines have been advancing and becoming more and more complex over time. Have a look at your smartphone. No one got up one day and thought it would be cool to design a smart phone - from scratch!
A major stumbling block in creationist understanding evolution seems to be the transition from single celled organisms to us on the one hand and the 'creation' of the single celled organism in the first place with its complex coded DNA on the other. Two giant leaps of faith! Well, actually not so much. Not in my mind anyway.
And for some of the Pedigree Religious getting it all done in about 10,000 yrs is another issue.
The YEC crew is the best! When they get going back and forth with a Militant Atheist...well, it just doesn't get much better than that!
I see its attributes possessing the scope, power, and ubiquity of a God as the Source of our very existence and conscious intelligence. Materialists seem to have a higher standard for God than merely the Source of EVERYTHING
Actually no - it is you that has that standard. When it is highlighted that you can not evidence a single thing you are saying - you back pedal into this "God is just the word I use for whatever the source of everything is" rhetoric. But the reality of your posts is that you claim this god is conscious - intelligent - intentional - moral - judges us morally after death - visited us in human form - and that human consciousness survives the death of the brain and goes to commune with this god in some happy slappy land of love.
All of which is nonsense you have made up but back up with nothing but god of the gaps arguments and when people highlight this failing you - as I said - retreat into this linguistic trickery of "Ah god is just a label for whatever our universe is".
Until we understand consciousness and intelligence fully - you have basically no license at all to declare where it could have or could not have come from. You are merely making things up. Again. Subjective hubris arguments - based in this god of the gaps argument from ignorance approach as usual - that we feel ourselves so vastly above our nearest relatives that some biological leap of equal magnitude to our hubris must have occurred is just empty question begging and not useful at all.
Inquiring minds? You refuse to look at anything we present as evidence, but dismiss it out of hand and play you weary old trick of posting links without doing any scrap of work yourself.
And I will reply to your earlier post, full of denial, misrepresentation and craftiness - as usual.
As a taster your first comment about 'deeper' strata does not mean earlier is either ignorant or denialist or is a deliberate piece of dishonesty. You know that strata can be inverted so, either you were just making a false claim that you could just claim was true in spite of any evidence, or you were misrepresenting what I said about fossils being where the should be and setting up a trap to get me claiming that that all 'deeper' strata had to be earlier. In either case, you should be ashamed of yourself, as either woefully ignorant or terribly dishonest.
And to take the last point, you can if you wish write a piece about an aircraft not being intelligently designed, but it would be as much a waste of time as your other posts since nobody is saying that it wasn't.
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 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.
...he does not know the difference between credible and non-credible sources.
