The big bang.

Originally posted by jaywill
Intelligent Design the way to go in my search for truth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppIgFEFUpjw&feature=channel

you have shown me this crap before and I pointed out why it is just a load of crap.

1, For starters, Miller's experiment has never been “discredited” and so that is just a lie.

2, Science has NEVER given proof/credence to the belief of existence of a god.

3, ALL credible geologists are in TOTAL agreement that for the first few million years when there was liquid water on Earth, the atmosphere had hydrogen and methane and no oxygen and only later on (a few million years later on) was this hydrogen and methane very slowly lost through slow chemical reaction between water and rock -so the video tells another lie there -Miller's experiment is NOT flawed because of the presence of hydrogen and methane in it.

4, the first life does NOT have to have the same molecular complexity of life today -the first protocell would not even need proteins! The first protocell could have been nothing more complex than a oily microsphere enclosing a single RNA molecule and that is all! Then evolution takes over and adds one piece of complexity with one credible mutation at a time. So the arguments put forward with the assumption that the first life has to be massively complex is completely flawed because of this flawed assumption.

I challenge you to show evidence to discredit any of the above!

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...Selection implies the choice of free will ….”

not in the context of natural selection for habitat does not have “free will” and every person that understands evolution will confirm they do not mean “free will” from “natural selection”.

“...To deny this, would be dishonest. ...”

so I am “ dishonest” to “deny” that habitat has “free will” ? 😛

You are dishonest if you deny that the word worthwhile "selection" exludes intelligence.

Even if you do not accept free will, you are left with intelligence, and it is that intelligence that is required, if you want anything to be selected in a consistent continuous worthwhile manner.

Where have you ever seen anything being selected in a continuous consistent worthwhile manner that does not have intelligence.

Because this proposed selection phenomena, has proposedly given us over 8 million complex living species that can seek to survive and reproduce, consistently and continuously..

But not only that, this proposed natural selection phenomena has also created all the necessary (needs of life) for all those complex living forms that it created.

This process created a man, and then the process said to itself....what does the man need? oh yes the man need medicine when he gets sick (Bingo we have medicine)

then the process said to itself oh the man needs lots of wonderful foods...so Bingo man has food.

And the process said to itself....oh sooner later the man will want to drive in cars....so bingo, man has fuel rubber, metal, glass, oil, fabric.

so I could go on for ever about that....but do you see where I am going with thsi.....THERE IS DESIGN and stuff has been purposely supplied.

The facts are, that there is no such thing as natural selection responsible for life in this cosmos .

We have life in the first place, because there is first a Supreme Life that is first cause.

And this fabrication that there was a big explosion and then we mysteriously had all the ingredients for life, and then miraculously without intelligence all these ingredients came together because of a fabricated word called natural selection is dishonest.

Life is a group of qualities such as consciousness, awareness, free will, purpose, meaning, reason and love....and these things are not material and are not created by this fabricated word natural selection, but are eternally existing because First Cause is eternally existing.

Life in this cosmos is clearly designed by a Supreme designer, and to deny this is dishonest.

In the entire cosmos with everything in it, where can you say that there is no design.........you cannot say.

And if you say everything has no design, then you must inform us how everything is clearly exhibiting useful design.

Design indicates intelligence.

Complex design indicates complex intelligence.

When are you going to become truthful?

Originally posted by vishvahetu
You are dishonest if you deny that the word worthwhile "selection" exludes intelligence.

Even if you do not accept free will, you are left with intelligence, and it is that intelligence that is required, if you want anything to be selected in a consistent continuous worthwhile manner.

Where have you ever seen anything being selected in a continuous ...[text shortened]... e.

Complex design indicates complex intelligence.

When are you going to become truthful?

A random gust of wind selectively moves only the lighter grains of sand -so that selection require free-will and intelligence? 😛

the word “selection” is simply given a non-standard meaning in the context of natural selection -do you understand the concept of “ non-standard meaning”? 😛


“...But not only that, this proposed natural selection phenomena has also created all the necessary (NEEDS of life) for all those complex living forms that it created. ...” (my emphasis)

the first protocell didn't “NEED” any of that complexity. All that complexity came about by evolution one credible step at a time because having those new mutations (which gave that complexity) was advantageous to the life.

“...And if you say everything has no design, then you must inform us how everything is clearly exhibiting useful design.

Design indicates intelligence.

Complex design indicates complex intelligence. ...”

does the complex geometric design of a snowflake imply intelligence?
Just like the “selection”, the word “design” is simply given a non-standard meaning in the context of natural selection and a meaning that does not imply intelligence.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
A random gust of wind selectively moves only the lighter grains of sand -so that selection require free-will and intelligence? 😛

the word “selection” is simply given a non-standard meaning in the context of natural selection -do you understand the concept of “ non-standard meaning”? 😛


“...But not only that, this proposed natural selection p ...[text shortened]... ard meaning in the context of natural selection and a meaning that does not imply intelligence.

Snow flakes are the way snow flakes are, because we have complex laws of physics, and these complex laws of physics did not come about one by one little step at a time.

I am talking about the entire cosmos and all the complexity that goes with it, and you reduce that to wind blowing the sand, thinking that you have answered the question.

The only way you could subscribe to atheism and reject intelligent design, is by being dishonest.

If you subscribed to truthfulness, you could not make many of the statements that you make.

To not see the mind boggling complexity and design everywhere is a dishonest seeing.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
Snow flakes are the way snow flakes are, because we have complex laws of physics, and these complex laws of physics did not come about one by one little step at a time.

I am talking about the entire cosmos and all the complexity that goes with it, and you reduce that to wind blowing the sand, thinking that you have answered the question.

The only wa ...[text shortened]... ou make.

To not see the mind boggling complexity and design everywhere is a dishonest seeing.

“....Snow flakes are the way snow flakes are, because we have complex laws of physics, and these complex laws of physics did not come about one by one little step at a time. ...”

yes, that's right, and all living things are the way they are because of the laws of physics apply to the environment so as to naturally lead to abiogenesis (in the right conditions) and evolution.
But, back to my question:
does the complex geometric design of a snowflake imply intelligence?
-by implication of your above statement, you have conceded that the answer is “no” and, therefore, you concede that the word “design” CAN be given a non-standard meaning in the right context that does not imply intelligence.

“...To not see the mind boggling complexity and design everywhere is a dishonest seeing. ...”

where did I say I don't see a lot of complexity? I see a lot of complexity (and note that neither the laws of physics nor evolution imposes any upper limit to the amount of complexity! )
Where did I say I don't see natures designs? I see natures designs (where, obviously, “design” in “nature's design” doesn’t imply intelligence) .
How are you NOT being dishonest by pretending my position on this is NOT what it is?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“....Snow flakes are the way snow flakes are, because we have complex laws of physics, and these complex laws of physics did not come about one by one little step at a time. ...”

yes, that's right, and all living things are the way they are because of the laws of physics apply to the environment so as to naturally lead to abiogenesis (in the right ...[text shortened]... nce) .
How are you NOT being dishonest by pretending my position on this is NOT what it is?

You carefully choose your words to exclude intelligence.

You say you see deign and complexity, but say it has nothing to do with intelligence...... when it does.

I asked you how does something get selected continuously and consistently without intelligence.

And I said show me something that is being consistently and continuously selected, without intelligence.

And we are talking about life when I am making these comments, because great amounts of complexity on the cellular level is behaving in intelligent ways.

Even in the cosmos with all the galaxies behaving as they do.....all that is taking place is by the will of God, and his intelligence is involved at every moment.

Tell me do you believe in intelligence?....I mean do you actually believe that intelligence exists in one way or another, because we see that there are intelligence tests (IQ test) and the word is in the dictionary.

I said once, that intelligence is all pervading because God is omnipresent, and intelligence is even in the snowflake.

People misunderstood what I was saying, and thought I was implying that intelligence was working to create the shape of the snowflake.....but the laws of physics are working to do that, but intelligence is still within even the snow flake because God is within every atom, because God is omnipresent.

Originally posted by mikelom
I think most of us are in agreement with the scientific idea of the original point of singularity, although very difficult for us humans to imagine and quantify mentally, and that science has pretty much proven it, with our developed intelligence and proofs of age of elements and movements of the gallactic entities.

However, we also know an apple falls fr ...[text shortened]... d, with it's own friends and society that we know nothing about, and never shall?

-m. 🙂

The energy was contained in potential energy form within the singularity.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
The energy was contained in potential energy form within the singularity.

Yes.... that's half true because if you hold a seed of an oak tree in the palm of your hand, you are holding the potential of a a huge 100 ft tree.

But this potential is not in the singularity that has been presented by science.

The singularity presented by science tells us that in a very very dense point of what ever (because they dont know).....that point exploded and now we all drive BMW,s on the auto barn.....wow

So how did that BMW come from that explosion....that is the big question.

To have all the ingredients to drive a BMW on the auto barn, and starting with a muddy puddle, you need and massive amount of mind boggling complex arrangements take place, in a continuant consistent intelligent way.

And without the first cause having intelligence himself/itself......... then it cannot happen.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
You carefully choose your words to exclude intelligence.

You say you see deign and complexity, but say it has nothing to do with intelligence...... when it does.

I asked you how does something get selected continuously and consistently without intelligence.

And I said show me something that is being consistently and continuously selected, without ...[text shortened]... s still within even the snow flake because God is within every atom, because God is omnipresent.

“...You say you see deign and complexity, but say it has nothing to do with intelligence ...”

yes, that's right. Nature's deign and complexity as opposed to artificially created deign and complexity has nothing to do with intelligence.

“...And I said show me something that is being consistently and continuously selected, without intelligence. ….”

I have already done so:
light gusts of wind selectively moves only the lighter grains of sand etc.
+ natural selection of course.

“...I asked you HOW does something get selected continuously and consistently without intelligence. ...” (my emphasis)

I am unaware you specifically asked me this; but I can still answer: either a physical process or part/one aspect of the environment can have a selective action such that it selects something. An example could be a gust of wind selectively moving only the lighter grains of sand. Another example could be frequent floods on some land with each flood selectively weeding out (by drowning) those animals that are very poor swimmers and thus selects only those animals that are [relatively] good at swimming to pass-on their genes to the next generation thus those floods “selectively breeds” the animals to be good swimmers just like we can selectively breed animals to be good swimmers (if we wished) but, of course, unlike us, the floods are not 'intelligent'!

“...And we are talking about life when I am making these comments, because great amounts of COMPLEXITY on the cellular level is behaving in intelligent ways. (my emphasis)

Not sure what you mean by “ COMPLEXITY” “behaving in intelligent ways”. Can “SIMPLICITY” “behaving in intelligent ways”?

“...Tell me do you believe in intelligence?....I mean do you actually believe that intelligence exists in one way or another ...”

yes; intelligence exists; intelligence exists in us; don't see what that has got to do with anything here.

“...and intelligence is even in the snowflake.
….
People misunderstood what I was saying, and thought I was implying that intelligence was working to create the shape of the snowflake.....but the laws of physics are working to do that, but intelligence is still within even the snow flake because God is within every atom ….”

but, even if your above incredible claim is correct, is intelligence REQUIRED to give a snowflake its complex geometric design?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...You say you see deign and complexity, but say it has nothing to do with intelligence ...”

yes, that's right. Nature's deign and complexity as opposed to artificially created deign and complexity has nothing to do with intelligence.

“...And I said show me something that is being consistently and continuously selected, without intelligence. … ...[text shortened]... laim is correct, is intelligence REQUIRED to give a snowflake its complex geometric design?

Yes intelligence is required to give a snowflake its design, because the laws of physics are operating under the guidance of the supreme intelligence

In this order the snowflake is possible.....

God, intelligence, will, laws of physics, snowflake.

Intelligence makes it possible for the laws of physics to operate as it does, and because the laws of physics operate as it does, we get the snowflake.

What does grains of sand got to do with the continuous and consistent mind boggling complexity of biology of living things, that produced 8.400.000 complex functional species of life that can reproduce itself over and over, and then the human species created millions of ingredients to help it enjoy its life.

What was operating outside of the species called human, that could think and realize that this species in the future would need so many thousands of items to enjoy its future life....such as ( timber, concrete, glass, rubber, fabric, cotton, wool, milk, plastic,chemicals, fuel, thousands of foods, spices, salt pepper......seems like something remarkable is going on here and to think without any intelligence.

Intelligence exists in us ....and what is it doing in us, or how is it functioning in us.or how do we recognize that it is working in us?....please explain.

You say that natures design and complexity has nothing to do with intelligence......but the car you drive is designed and it took intelligent persons to create it, so where have you seen design anywhere that is not governed by intelligence?

Where does the intelligence in us come from?

Originally posted by vishvahetu
Yes intelligence is required to give a snowflake its design, because the laws of physics are operating under the guidance of the supreme intelligence

In this order the snowflake is possible.....

God, intelligence, will, laws of physics, snowflake.

Intelligence makes it possible for the laws of physics to operate as it does, and because the laws ...[text shortened]... n anywhere that is not governed by intelligence?

Where does the intelligence in us come from?

“...Yes intelligence is required to give a snowflake its design, because the laws of physics are operating under the guidance of the supreme intelligence ...”

there is no evidence of this.

“....Intelligence makes it possible for the laws of physics to operate as it does, ...”

again; no evidence.

“...What does grains of sand got to do with the continuous and consistent mind boggling complexity of biology of living things, ...”

the selection of lighter sand grains by the wind and natural selection that gave rise to the complexity of life are both selections that require no intelligence.

“...Intelligence exists in us ...”

yes, that's what I just said after you said I deny this.

“....and what is it doing in us, or how is it functioning in us.or how do we recognize that it is working in us?....please explain....”

The human brain is obviously far too complex for either me or you to give anything like a satisfactory account of how it works or how self-awareness works.
Intelligence is in us because we evolved to have it. We evolve to have it because, obviously, it helps us survive and thus increases the chances of passing on our genes.
All that complexity in he brain is the inevitable consequence of evolution that has absolutely no limit to how much complexity it can create.

“...You say that natures design and complexity has nothing to do with intelligence......but the car you drive is designed and it took intelligent persons to create it, so where have you seen design anywhere that is not governed by intelligence? ...”

in the anatomy and molecular machinery of living things. Also in snowflakes.
We have EVIDENCE that cars are designed by something intelligent (specifically, us). We have no evidence that life was designed by something intelligent. In fact, we even have direct evidence that life was NOT designed by an intelligent but only if you assume that 'intelligence' incapable of making silly mistakes. For example, consider the case of the blood vessels and the nerve connections in our eyes being in front of the rode and cone cells in our retinas instead of behind thus they partially obscure the light reaching them!

“...Where does the intelligence in us come from? ...”

as I said, intelligence is in us because we evolved to have it.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...Yes intelligence is required to give a snowflake its design, because the laws of physics are operating under the guidance of the supreme intelligence ...”

there is no evidence of this.

“....Intelligence makes it possible for the laws of physics to operate as it does, ...”

again; no evidence.

“...What does grains of sand got to do with ...[text shortened]... ence in us come from? ...”

as I said, intelligence is in us because we evolved to have it.

You stated that our intelligence evolved because it helps us survive, and thus increases our chances to pass on genes.

Why does a cell choose to survive, because it could just as easily choose to not survive.....it would have to have higher knowledge to be aware that survival is a good thing, meaning it would have to have some sought of comprehension of right and wrong.

How could it know right and wrong, and always pick right.

Why do bunches of molecules seek to survive....do they have a knowledge base of right and wrong, good and bad, and from that knowledge base choose survival over no survival.

They would have to have previous experience of survival and conclude survival is a good thing and choose survival.

How do they know what a good thing is over not a good thing.

To choose to survive, they would have to understand that a phenomena of past present and future exist....and then they would have to understand that future is something desirable as against no future.

Do these cells and molecules think like this, for how else do they keep on keeping on, choosing survival.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
You stated that our intelligence evolved because it helps us survive, and thus increases our chances to pass on genes.

Why does a cell choose to survive, because it could just as easily choose to not survive.....it would have to have higher knowledge to be aware that survival is a good thing, meaning it would have to have some sought of comprehension o ...[text shortened]... cells and molecules think like this, for how else do they keep on keeping on, choosing survival.

“...You stated that our intelligence evolved because it helps us survive, and thus increases our chances to pass on genes.

Why does a cell CHOOSE to survive ...” (my emphasis)

it doesn't:
Nether I nor anyone that understands evolution is saying a cell would “CHOOSE” to survive.
A cell would evolve to have a predisposition to survive in the favourable environment -that is all.

“...How do they know what a good thing is over not a good thing. ...”

a cell does not “know” anything. A cell has no concept of “good” and “bad”.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...You stated that our intelligence evolved because it helps us survive, and thus increases our chances to pass on genes.

Why does a cell CHOOSE to survive ...” (my emphasis)

it doesn't:
Nether I nor anyone that understands evolution is saying a cell would “CHOOSE” to survive.
A cell would evolve to have a predisposition to survive in the f ...[text shortened]... good thing. ...”

a cell does not “know” anything. A cell has no concept of “good” and “bad”.

Once again....how does a bunch of cells know what a favourable environment looks like.

They could easily make choices that would have them accept an unfavourable environment.

They seem to know the difference between an unfavourable environment and a favourable one.

Even modern day persons have trouble in choosing correctly, and are always making wrong choices.

These cells are seemingly always choosing the correct path of action.

This would point to intelligence... correct.

Now I know why ......it was said somewhere by someone, that life occurring without intelligence, is like a bomb going off, and after the smoke settled, there was a fully functioning jumbo jet sitting there with 500 people strapped in their seats.

Does science really hold to this theory that life occurred without intelligence at its foundation.

Originally posted by Dasa
Once again....how does a bunch of cells know what a favourable environment looks like.

They could easily make choices that would have them accept an unfavourable environment.

They seem to know the difference between an unfavourable environment and a favourable one.

Even modern day persons have trouble in choosing correctly, and are always making wrong ...[text shortened]... es science really hold to this theory that life occurred without intelligence at its foundation.

“....Once again....how does a bunch of cells KNOW what a favourable environment looks like. ...” (my emphasis)

I have already pointed out cells don't “ KNOW” anything!
If a cell just happens to be in a favourable environment, it usually survives, else, it usually doesn't.
In fact, that could be used as a definition of a “favourable environment”.

“...These cells are seemingly always choosing the correct path of action. ...”

cells are not “seemingly always choosing” anything -where did you get that from? They just respond automatically from automatic biological processes many of which have been well-studied and documented.

“...Now I know why ......it was said somewhere by someone, that life occurring without intelligence, is like a bomb going off, and after the smoke settled, there was a fully functioning jumbo jet sitting there with 500 people strapped in their seats. ….”

no it isn't . I have already pointed out that the first life does NOT have to have the same molecular complexity of life today (why should it? ) -the first protocell would not even need proteins! The first protocell could have been nothing more complex than a oily microsphere enclosing a single RNA molecule and that is all! Given the right initial conditions, it may have even been inevitable that such a protocell would form!

“...Does science really hold to this theory that life occurred without intelligence at its foundation. ...”

no, and who said it does? Not me! Science has scientific method as its foundation.