Atheism

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:

Theism is the recognition that these mental and spiritual capacities that humans have evolved to manifest at the highest level we are aware of are not a random occurrence of life at a particular stage of evolution but rather are a manifestation/expression of something latent in the potential of the universe at a fundamental level.

AWWWW, you were going so well (without your double speak) until you wrote this piece of verbal hash. You could have easily said it more clearly (the smarter you are, the more simply you can explain things). You hould listen to the Feynman lctures. That guy wa marter than you, pinky , and Ollie combined. Yet his prose and speeh was loded with understandable analogies and humor.

You're just biased against thinking of spiritual aspects of the universe like consciousness, intelligence, agency, and intent in scientific terms as something that has to emerge from matter-energy at the most fundamental level.

Quote:

Seek clarity , precision and conciseness . It beats your ultimate word salads. You beleieve that by taking two sides and meeting at some middle ground is some art. Its not, its gibberish.

I don't know exactly why you can't understand it, but it's not word-salad.

Quote:

As far as your belief in "God's Master Plan", Id think that if you wish to try to think scientifically instead of merely "scientistically" , you should always add the evidence from which you draw your conclusions.
What you present seems to be quite a bit off the mark from folks like Leadfoot who ascribes a "possibility " of ID as nothing more than a facility built into the origin of the biochemistry of life.

Thinking of the universe a chaotic and random is no more scientific or less religion than thinking of it as a wholly organized system.

2 Replies

“When his life was ruined, his family killed, his farm destroyed, Job knelt down on the ground and yelled up to the heavens, "Why god? Why me?" and the thundering voice of God answered, There's just something about you that pisses me off.”
― Stephen King, Storm of the Century

0 Replies

@livinglava,

Iam not against anything. I love to argue and debate (when Im know something, otherwise Ill leave it to those experts). I just dont countenance double speak.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

"order and pattern does not necessarily imply intelligence".

2 Replies

This is what spirit of Ama has to say: "There is no right religion. Do you know, children, which is right? Recognize Jesus Christ and believe Him as true man AND true God. ... Therefore, you can be saved by any religion because you will pick out what is right and discard what is evil. Therefore, you will be saved by your own work and belief in the true God."

0 Replies

@peacecrusader888,

Quote:

Atheists, read this:

1. A rooster and a hen
Get the egg directly from the cloaca of the hen. Punch a hole and drain the content of the egg. Did you feel any solid? And yet, after so many days, the chicks hatched. Where did the beak and the fine feather come from?

2. A man and his wife
We know that a man produces the semen in liquid form and the egg in liquid form also. And fertilization takes place. And after 40 weeks, a baby is born. But the baby died. After a few years, the baby was exhumed. Where did the baby's skeleton and hair come from?

Would you be kind enough to explain this for us?

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

"order and pattern does not necessarily imply intelligence".

Intelligence does not necessarily imply common sense.

My brother is a scientist. He's an incredibly intelligent person.

He also believes that there are more than two genders and that the 'wage gap' exists.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

nah, just science and a whole lot of time. a lot more can happen in four billion years than if everything started in 4004 bce

I don’t know exactly how much time was involved but at least we agree that nothing like life would happen without the applied intelligence of a thinking actor capable of design.

Or was that just a slip of the keyboard?

1 Reply

Quote:

The findings of subsequent "spark shots" into an early earth's chemical makeup have yielded all the rebiotic chemicals that, with very little more tweaking , can accomplish things like replication, tropisms and other biological functions.

Oh how could I have forgotten the importance of 'spark shots'. Frankenstein's creation could never have come to life without that all important lightning.

Very kind to include 'very little more tweaking' into the recipe, I usually call it 'design' though. I guess MJ's four billion year old 'science' may have covered that as well. Somebody back then was obviously doing some, although science today is more akin to reverse engineering.

0 Replies

@Webb,

wow, you hve a brother who is a scientist?? Good for him. Is he also an IDer or a Creationist? not so smart of him. Scientists should only carry out predictions and experiments and work within actual science theories , not hunches or worldviews.

Even the Creationists who conducted C14 testing of dinosaur bones should have known the limits of Radionuclide dating. They were fraudulently "doctoring" fossil samples just to add more "Young Carbon" to the sample. It only took a few grams of carbon(such as vinegar) in a water solution or an alcohol , or a diluted shellac to do that. They only needed a molecule or two to "fool" the GC/MS gizmos.

The Creationists knew what they wre doing. They were involved in a fraud . Too bad the labs caught the mistake in their Quality Assurance/Quality Control program. (They analyzed the washing fluids before they powdered it and dissolved it in acid.)
After the analyses were reported out did they run the QA/QC samples and found the additives.
Theres the science involved in the Creationist?ID side. They are so scared of facts and evidence that they make up even more lies than theyve alredy done (Like Leadfoots harangues on "Well we all agree that it took an intelligence to create mud)

1 Reply

Quote:

(Like Leadfoots harangues on "Well we all agree that it took an intelligence to create mud)

I hate it when I am misquoted.
I said it takes intelligence to make life out of mud.
It’s really two very different things. Look it up if you don’t believe it.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

"order and pattern does not necessarily imply intelligence".

You have to first define what intelligence is and then trace it back through its tree of evolution from simpler patterns.

When you focus on defining intelligence by what it's not, that shifts your focus to contrast, which makes it impossible to trace back the evolutionary path that developed it.

It's like if you focus on defining humans in contrast to other primates, it becomes difficult to trace back the evolutionary path of humans from primates more generally, because you are only thinking in terms of what differentiates them as a species and not how those traits emerged from more general traits that preceded them.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Iam not against anything. I love to argue and debate (when Im know something, otherwise Ill leave it to those experts). I just dont countenance double speak.

You debate and argue in ways that undermine discussion.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

No. It was a slip of your mind. The same physical principles applied 4 billion years ago as now. The same chemical rections occurred. i.e., the science was the same. That does most emphatically does NOT imply that there was someone/thing /entity pplying them. As farmer points out, natural processes in pre-life like conditions produce precursor chemicals. the sun supplies energy kicks in several ways. No designer implied by that. Just physical laws which do not imply an ID.

0 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

You have to first define what intelligence is

Since Im not anyone who buys into Creationist BS, I am under no obligation to define anything you guys blabber. Its all in your court slim.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:

You have to first define what intelligence is
Since Im not anyone who buys into Creationist BS, I am under no obligation to define anything you guys blabber. Its all in your court slim.

You're pulling creationism into this discussion unnecessarily.

I am saying that from an atheist scientific POV, e.g. anthropology/ethology, you can take intelligence as a human characteristic and then trace it back through evolutionary lineage the same way you can trace five-fingered hands back through different configurations of paws, feet, or whatever.

What you'll gradually see is that there is a general potential for intelligence in the universe, just as there was always a general potential for paws, feet, and ultimately hands to develop in animals. To see how, you have identify the reasons why these things emerged from within the larger tree of life/evolution.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

mud, life. When you say it takes an intelligence to jump the phase rule. I ask you HOW did your IDer do it?
Real science is, at least trying to be objective about serching out origins and relationships between environments and evolution. (Unless you say that your IDer is mindlessly responsible for all of the great extinction events (just for laughs I guess))

No peeking into real science please.
Your arguments have not risen rom "Complexity means ID". I need to be convinced with some VIDENCE. Your arguments get a little worn after so much replay, while science dicovers new stuff each day.
The latest stuff is that Miller Urey is good solid work, (albeit the initial chosen atmosphere was wrong).

I notice that the "brand new" arguments by the ICR and somewhat , the folks at Discovery Institute and Keystone Creation Research, are that No matter what "life like" molecules they "create" in a lab, this all means that someone had a hand in it and the life they may call life no-one really knows whether that was what our planets life was basd on.
I think the corner they've been corralled -in keeps growing smaller as facts and evidence show that the world needs only water, a few basic chemicals , pH conditions, redox conditions, and gases.
The chemicals of life are almost all of those in the TOP % of percentage occurence in the Galaxy (an probably Universe)

0 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

You debate and argue in ways that undermine discussion

Why thank you, I guess I havent lost it all yet.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know