Originally posted by josephwDon't blame me for your poor expression.
That's because you lost the meaning and intent of the thread by screwing up what I said so badly replying with completely erroneous statements.
For example: I asked, 'is it not true that at any given moment everything in existence is precisely where it should be'? To which you replied, "It is not known to be true that everything is where it is due to non-arbitrary laws."
Who said it was? You twisted it up. You're either lying or you're too ignorant to understand plain English.
There was nothing 'plain' about your english. I even had to ask for clarification which you gave, and I answered with the best of my ability based on your answer. Accusing me of lying or ignorance in this instance is uncalled for.
It's just too simple for you isn't it? Everything in existence is as it is because of design, and would cease to exist as it is if and when that design changes.
It's a no-brainer.
If it is such a no-brainer, then why can't you explain it better and explain what you think I lied about? It doesn't make sense to me, and what little I thought I understood from what you said, I strongly disagree with. Calling me a liar and simply repeating your claim without explanation doesn't help.
Originally posted by sonhouse"..there is no proof of design in the universe."
Exactly where did you take English? Grade school then nothing? It was perfectly clear what he said. He said, if I can paraphrase, there is no proof of design in the universe.
And if I may add, the BB theory is just that, a theory that seems to agree with what we already know about the universe, which doesn't make it absolutely true. There are many other t ...[text shortened]... the pinnacle of creation but in fact more like bottom feeders.
Is that clear enough for you?
You've got to be joking! What kind of science is it you have that tells you the universe has no design?
Do you even understand what the word design means? Obviously you can't use that word because it implies a designer, and so you need to redefine the terms so as to avoid facing the possibility that a creator made the universe.
Well let's just forget that for now and focus on what design means. When I say design I'm talking about what holds this whole shebang together. You know, Newton's third law and the like.
You freakin' eggheads have egos so big you can't help wrecking a discussion because all you do is try and prove how smart you are, and because you can't stand the idea that there's a being with infinite knowledge capable of creating the universe and life itself.
But that's ok cause it gives me something to laugh at.
Originally posted by twhiteheadNow you're just spinning off topic again.
Don't blame me for your poor expression.
[b]For example: I asked, 'is it not true that at any given moment everything in existence is precisely where it should be'? To which you replied, "It is not known to be true that everything is where it is due to non-arbitrary laws."
Who said it was? You twisted it up. You're either lying or you're too ignoran ...[text shortened]... sagree with. Calling me a liar and simply repeating your claim without explanation doesn't help.
Originally posted by josephwThat there is no proof of something doesn't mean it's not true. It just means there is no proof that it is true.
[b]"..there is no proof of design in the universe."
You've got to be joking! What kind of science is it you have that tells you the universe has no design?
Do you even understand what the word design means? Obviously you can't use that word because it implies a designer, and so you need to redefine the terms so as to avoid facing the possibility th ...[text shortened]... creating the universe and life itself.
But that's ok cause it gives me something to laugh at.[/b]
What part of the laws of mechanics imply "design?"
Originally posted by josephwLook, you have accused me of lying and all sorts of dishonesty. Back up those accusations or admit you are yourself being dishonest with your false accusations to avoid dealing with what I actually said originally.
Now you're just spinning off topic again.
I took your posts seriously and gave an honest sincere response. If you don't believe me then provide some evidence that I am not being sincere. If you are just going to act like cheney3 who makes false accusations at the drop of a hat then you will be consigned to the looney bin with him.
Originally posted by josephwJosephw, you will find some atheists in this forum to be as stubborn as possible with regards to design.
[b]"..there is no proof of design in the universe."
You've got to be joking! What kind of science is it you have that tells you the universe has no design?
Do you even understand what the word design means? Obviously you can't use that word because it implies a designer, and so you need to redefine the terms so as to avoid facing the possibility th ...[text shortened]... creating the universe and life itself.
But that's ok cause it gives me something to laugh at.[/b]
Twhitehead and humy are the most stubborn and in much denial. Sonhouse is right behind them.
Ghost has been troublesome as well.
8 edits
Originally posted by josephwAccording to what evidence?
[b]"A beech pebble created and shaped natural erosion of rock doesn't conform to a specific design. So why doesn't that cease to exist as it does?"
It seems to me that everything occurring is according to and by design. .[/b]
"...
To me that means that whatever is shaped or molded or bent or melted by anything in nature follows a set of rules governing matter.
..."
If what you mean by "set of rules" is the "laws of physics", we already noticed that laws of physics and there still is no evidence that the laws of physics are designed.
"...
The pebble is shaped by forces acting in accordance with specific design rules,
..."
How do you know they are "design rules" and not just "laws of physics"? How do you know the laws of physics are designed? What is the evidence for this?
"...
and if those rules changed beyond perimeters the universe would collapse and cease to exist in its current form.
..."
You mean if the laws of physics where radically different from what they are then everything will be different from what it is? That is both correct; and irrelevant; What is the evidence for design?
"...
No design, no form = no universe
..."
only according to your religion, not the evidence.
What is the evidence for design?
All you have done is asserted you religious opinion, which isn't evidence nor reason.
Explain to us this evidence please...
And I mean evidence, not religious opinion.
[off-topic]
Anyone;
I am suddenly finding the usual set of characters used to make a quote or change the font don't work in my posts which explains my odd method I used to indicate quotes above.
Is anyone else having the same problem?
[/off-topic]
Originally posted by chaney3We are on the right side. You only offer opinions and nothing more. If design was evident there should be signs in science, and we have found nothing that indicates design.
Josephw, you will find some atheists in this forum to be as stubborn as possible with regards to design.
Twhitehead and humy are the most stubborn and in much denial. Sonhouse is right behind them.
Ghost has been troublesome as well.
You look at the universe or here on Earth and see design in everything, just like ancient astronomers saw design in the pattern of stars, the constellations we use today for the most part, but we just use that as a reference to find stuff in the sky, we don't really believe there is a bear in the sky or a big skillet.
You just assign design because you have no science background and are still scientifically speaking, a thousand years behind the rest of us.
Originally posted by sonhouseI cant believe that none of you jumped on the fact that chaney's last post was #666. coincidence or design?
We are on the right side. You only offer opinions and nothing more. If design was evident there should be signs in science, and we have found nothing that indicates design.
You look at the universe or here on Earth and see design in everything, just like ancient astronomers saw design in the pattern of stars, the constellations we use today for the most ...[text shortened]... cience background and are still scientifically speaking, a thousand years behind the rest of us.
Originally posted by josephwSo you discount that anything can occur randomly or without design.
It seems to me that everything occurring is according to and by design.
That makes the discussion a bit pointless doesn't it?
You imply that even the most random activity is "by design" you said
To me that means that whatever is shaped or molded or bent or
melted by anything in nature follows a set of rules governing matter.
The pebble is shaped by forces acting in accordance with specific
design rules ...
So why cannot evolution fit into those "rules" ???
Your position is an argument for a theist's belief in the Theory of Evolution.
Originally posted by wolfgang59He doesn't want to answer that one.
So you discount that anything can occur randomly or without design.
That makes the discussion a bit pointless doesn't it?
You imply that even the most random activity is "by design" you said
[i]To me that means that whatever is shaped or molded or bent or
melted by anything in nature follows a set of rules governing matter.
The pebble is shaped ...[text shortened]... se "rules" ???
Your position is an argument for a theist's belief in the Theory of Evolution.
This thread started up with a 'proof' that there is a designer:
Because the orbits of the Earth and moon is so perfect, giving a perfect solar eclipse, there must be a designer.
(Then the discussion went off topic...)
Sorry to say, this is exactly the proof that there is no design involved.
If the orbits and solar eclipse would be perfect that might been a proof - but it isn't.
If the lunar orbit around the Earth would be perfectly circular, and not elliptic as it in fact is...
If the Earth's orbit around the Sun would be perfectly circular, and not elliptic as it in fact is...
If the Earth's axis would be perpendicular to the Ecliptic plane, but the axis is tilted 23 degrees and yet not stable...
If the Moon's plane of orbit would be parallel with the Ecliptic plane, and not tilted 5 degrees from the ecliptic plane...
If the Moon axis was perpendicular to the lunar orbit, and not tilted almost 7 degrees from its lunar orbit...
If the size and distance of the moon would match thew condition producing a total solar eclipse in the smallest possible area of the surface of the Earth, and not giving annular eclipses sometimes and total eclipses over a large area sometimes, and everything in between.
...then, I repeat: then!, I wouldn't doubt that this would be a signature of a Designer in action.
Then, it would produce marvelous Solar eclipses on the face of the Earth, every month!
But it doesn't. No designer signature there. The orbital elements are what they are, by chance and ever changing.
The solar Eclipse theory is rather a proof that there is no designer out there.