3 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds
Neither can evolutionists. It is only opinion. Opinion is not fact. The fact is that life has never been seen to evolve from simple chemicals. It don't happen.
It would take a much more superior intellegence to combine them than even man has to produce a living cell. Man can't do it and certainly it is absurd to think it happened by chance.
The fact is that life has never been seen to evolve from simple chemicals.
nobody who understand science and evolution is claiming that life must have “evolved” from simple chemicals
-strawman.
and certainly it is absurd to think it happened by chance.
nobody who understand science is claiming that it “ happened by chance”.
-another strawman.
You are a dishonest coward for hiding behind strawmen.
Originally posted by RJHindsYou can't say from the state of present science that life can't evolve from simple chemicals because the present state of science is still in its infancy. It's only been around in its present state for MAYBE 300 years. Compare that to even YOUR age of your universe, of 6000 years. Compare that to the reality of time measured in hundreds of thousands of years for humanity (Cro-magnon's, the first modern humans) or the reality of time measured by geoligic ages, millions of years.
Neither can evolutionists. It is only opinion. Opinion is not fact. The fact is that life has never been seen to evolve from simple chemicals. It don't happen.
It would take a much more superior intellegence to combine them than even man has to produce a living cell. Man can't do it and certainly it is absurd to think it happened by chance.
You project your fears of science getting real answers and are afraid to the death that someone soon may prove your biblical creation story to be in fact a fairy tale written by people with no more knowledge of how the earth really works than the ancient aborigines in Australia in the sense of knowing how we really came to be. The aborigines have creation stories just as valid or just as invalid as the biblical account.
You just make a blanket statement, 'it don't happen, it's aburd, etc., when you are in fact just spouting dogma not science.
Come back in 100 years and say that, I think even creationists will be totally outnumbered by a million to one, a time that can't come soon enough for me.
And yes, I know I won't be around to see that time just like you. Pity too. I would love to see the look on your face when confronted with a factual case of life coming out of a lab from basic chemicals, amino acids, protean, and so forth.
Originally posted by googlefudgeI didn't bring up snowflakes in the discussion either. I was only making a comment about your association.
It's not being ignored it's just a different question.
Evolution talks about the development and diversity of life in this universe.
Any and all questions about how this universe came to exist and how it came to be the way
it is are the purview of Cosmology and physics and have nothing whatsoever to do with biology
or evolutionary theory.
...[text shortened]... and found them.
Saying god did it is giving up.
Science doesn't do that.
Originally posted by googlefudgeRemember, Anthony Flew was the top Atheist for 50 years and he changed his mind because the new evidence supports the existence of and intelligent, creative being. The position of evolutionists is not supported by mathematics or logic in any way I can see. But the creation and design of life by an intellgent being became the only logical conclusion left for Anthony Flew to explain the integrated complexity of life and the fine-tuning of the universe for the existence of life. The conclusion that there is an intelligent being that designed the things to work as they do is the only reasonalble one left that is supported by mathematics, logic, and the new evidence. The whole evolution tree falls when the trunk of the tree is cut out. So now we must let the creation tree grow and produce its fruit. HalleluYah !!! Praise the LOrd!.
No your position is entirely faith based.
And Flew was wrong. His position is not supported by evidence or mathematics or logic.
Originally posted by humyIt must be because God made laws that allow the different patterns in snowflakes and the different patterns for fingerprints, etc. HalleluYah !!!
That is missing the point: Certain theists claim that complexity in something in nature means it must be designed intelligently with intent.
A snowflake has complexity -so it was designed with intelligently with intent?
If you add up all the complexity of each snowflake that makes up a snowfield then the total complexity of that snowfield is truly immense ...[text shortened]... exity must be intelligent design and could not be natural forces because it is “complex”?
Originally posted by humyHis arrogance is stating evolution is fact and there is no God. These are things he has no proof for. He is arrogant enough to state information in DNA is not a sign of an intelligent cause when he does not know what he is talking about. He has the arrogance to call people with more scientific knowledge than he could ever hope to obtain in his lifetime "wrong". He has the same arrogance you do, since you are ignorant of the true facts and refuse to try to find out the truth.Arrogance is clearly becoming a hallmark of the new generation atheists as I note here and you have overreached yourself when you claimed that any no. of disciplines are required to be mastered before you can understand what is DNA.
no, he didn't say you cannot “understand what is DNA” if you don't master many disciplines but rather you ca ...[text shortened]... on't see how you can mistake that for “arrogance” for he is admitting to an inability -right?
Originally posted by humyYou are the "Strawman King".The fact is that life has never been seen to evolve from simple chemicals.
nobody who understand science and evolution is claiming that life must have “evolved” from simple chemicals
-strawman.and certainly it is absurd to think it happened by chance.
nobody who understand science is claiming that it “ happened by chance”.
-another strawman.
You are a dishonest coward for hiding behind strawmen.
Originally posted by sonhouseNeither one of us will be around in 100 years to see what is discovered, so that is irrelevant to what we must decide today. Based on the evidence we have, there is adaptaion of species, some mutations; but there is no evolving of one kind of creature into a different kind of creature in real observable science. DNA provides us scientifc evidence of how much of life works and that is because of the information that is in it. Meaningful information is evidence of an intelligent source. So the honest and reasonable conclusion is this information came from an intelligence superior to our own.
You can't say from the state of present science that life can't evolve from simple chemicals because the present state of science is still in its infancy. It's only been around in its present state for MAYBE 300 years. Compare that to even YOUR age of your universe, of 6000 years. Compare that to the reality of time measured in hundreds of thousands of year ...[text shortened]... e of life coming out of a lab from basic chemicals, amino acids, protean, and so forth.
Originally posted by RJHindsNo, that is like saying the sun comes up every morning. We don't have the science to figure out why, so god must be doing it.
Neither one of us will be around in 100 years to see what is discovered, so that is irrelevant to what we must decide today. Based on the evidence we have, there is adaptaion of species, some mutations; but there is no evolving of one kind of creature into a different kind of creature in real observable science. DNA provides us scientifc evidence of how mu ...[text shortened]... est and reasonable conclusion is this information came from an intelligence superior to our own.
It is not a logical argument to go from point A to point B and conclude because at this time science can't totally explain evolution, it must have come from a god.
The real answer is to continue to work on the science. That is the only way we will arrive at a real answer, not just assume a god did it.
Originally posted by googlefudgeAgain, there are not dependent functions within a snow flake, there are not
I have already dealt with this.
The analogy is of complexity arising from simple rules.
Not saying that snowflakes are life forms.
Can you understand that an analogy doesn't mean that one thing is exactly like another thing?
interdependent systems within a snow flake, comparing a non-living thing
that only forms for a short period of time and breaks down to a living system
is bogus.
Kelly
3 edits
Originally posted by humyIntent on a snow flake? You know there wasn't any because? If water froze
That is missing the point: Certain theists claim that complexity in something in nature means it must be designed intelligently with intent.
A snowflake has complexity -so it was designed with intelligently with intent?
If you add up all the complexity of each snowflake that makes up a snowfield then the total complexity of that snowfield is truly immense exity must be intelligent design and could not be natural forces because it is “complex”?
differently like at the bottom of a pond or river instead of the top there would
be no life witnin ponds or rivers! You assume a great deal witbout cause!
Getting systems to work together is difficult, getting very complex systems
to work together that require good timing, temperture, energy and so on is
a skill, you don't get that within snow flakes to life's degree! So comparing
them due to the complexity within them compared to a living system is worse
than apples and oranges! At least Apples and oranges are living and products
of life!
Kelly
Originally posted by sonhouseThat is an easy one for science.
No, that is like saying the sun comes up every morning. We don't have the science to figure out why, so god must be doing it.
It is not a logical argument to go from point A to point B and conclude because at this time science can't totally explain evolution, it must have come from a god.
The real answer is to continue to work on the science. That is the only way we will arrive at a real answer, not just assume a god did it.
http://www.learner.org/jnorth/tm/mclass/SunriseSetAns.html
We have the science answers now with the discovery of the information code in DNA and RNA plus the language information of proteins that an intelligent being with intelligence far greater than ours must have designed these things along with the coded languages to make them work. It is like man making a computer or a robot and then making the computer language code to make them work. But as Bill Gates pointed out, the code is far more complicated than any that microsoft has designed.
Originally posted by RJHinds
His arrogance is stating evolution is fact and there is no God. These are things he has no proof for. He is arrogant enough to state information in DNA is not a sign of an intelligent cause when he does not know what he is talking about. He has the arrogance to call people with more scientific knowledge than he could ever hope to obtain in his lifetime "w ...[text shortened]... ance you do, since you are ignorant of the true facts and refuse to try to find out the truth.
His arrogance is stating evolution is fact and there is no God.
how is stating evolution is fact and stating there is no God be “arrogance”?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/arrogant
“...
1. Having or displaying a sense of overbearing self-worth or self-importance.
2. Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority toward others
...”
stating evolution is fact and stating there is no God does not say anything for or about ones own “ self-worth or self-importance” so it cannot be “ arrogance” by definition 1 and stating evolution is fact and stating there is no God does not say anything for or about ones “superiority toward others” so it cannot be “ arrogance” by definition 2, -so, by what definition of “ arrogance” is he arrogant?
You are talking total crap as usual.
He has the arrogance to call people with more scientific knowledge than he could ever hope to obtain in his lifetime "wrong".
actually he would call most scientist “right” and only a tiny minority “wrong” who are wrong.
And you are being a total hypocrite here because you would call most scientists “wrong” because most of them would accept scientific fact as fact including evolution and you obviously don't know much about science.
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay
Intent on a snow flake? You know there wasn't any because? If water froze
differently like at the bottom of a pond or river instead of the top there would
be no life witnin ponds or rivers! You assume a great deal witbout cause!
Getting systems to work together is difficult, getting very complex systems
to work together that require good timing, tempe than apples and oranges! At least Apples and oranges are living and products
of life!
Kelly
Intent on a snow flake? You know there wasn't any because?
Occam's razor. No excuse for stupid superstition.
If water froze
differently like at the bottom of a pond or river instead of the top there would
be no life within ponds or rivers! You assume a great deal WITHOUT cause! ( spelling corrected and my emphasis )
No, there is a cause and I assume nothing “ WITHOUT cause” here: ice floats on water because it is less dense than water because of the way the physics of molecules work which is alternately caused by the laws of physics. So that is the cause of ice floating on water and thus no need for the stupid superstition that it floats with the purpose/intent of supporting life.
Getting systems to work together is difficult, getting very complex systems
to work together that require good timing, temperture, energy and so on is
a SKILL, (my emphasis)
reminder of my previous quote that you so conveniently just ignored here:
Besides, what about the sun? The sun has different moving parts ( the interior of the sun is very turbulent and those patterns of turbulence have immense complexity ) that are doing different 'jobs'! For example, unlike the rest of the sun, the suns core is doing the 'job' of powering the sun with nuclear energy while the outer part of the sun is doing the 'job' of dispersing that energy into space and without that energy dispersal the sun will be unstable because it will get hotter and hotter.
-so, OK, what about the sun then? Will you be willing to explain to us why what determines patterns of turbulence in the sun that has immense complexity must be intelligent design and could not be natural forces because it is “complex”?
well, what about the sun? Must have intelligent design because all those complex patterns of turbulence within it and its workings requires a “SKILL”?