Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@Herald,

It seems like you asked this question without actually wanting an answer (I just read your argument with FM).

You have been given many answers by people who are legitimately educated in this subject and you've attempted (poorly) to refute them rather than learn from them.

I kind of lost respect for your question once you questioned the validity of evolution. This is not up for debate. Why do you think no creationists can get their papers published? No scientific journal wants to publish pseudo-science. Your real problem is that you think you know better than all of the worlds top scientists despite having no knowledge of general Biology whatsoever.

I would suggest not asking questions that you don't truly want the answer to in the future.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

why don't you get yourself a cat

Stuck for words again fm?

0 Replies

@JimmyJ,

How do you define "beneficial" and "flaw"?

1 Reply

@spendius,

Beneficial, meaning it benefits the organism. Flaw, meaning it hurts the organism.

Some flaws of the human body off the top of my head would be blind spot in the eye, crowding of the teeth, and the esophagus and trachea in the throat having a "shared opening" (this is why people say "some water went down the wrong pipe").

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

farmerman wrote:
Your reading comprehension skills are also a bit lqcking aren't they.

Some are lacking reading comprehension, others have problems with memory retrieval ... that is life.
The theme of this thread was ... and still is ID, not the Flood.
In the beginning of this thread I said that a lot of things in the living matter are too complex and too improbable to have happened by stochastic processes and FA asked me why. I can explain this but I would like to ask you now: Why do you think that the bio-complexity and improbability happened by stochastic processes ... driven by the casino saloon of the big bang, or whatever?

RE: the complexity and improbability
If we try to model some of the bio-processes by a computer, the complexity would be measured by the computational resources (time of processing, storage, program, communication, etc.) & engineering design and facilities needed (calculations, power supply, machinery, technology, etc.) required to model and execute the task.
Let's find now some elementary bio-task - decomposition of CO2 (by the leaves of the plants). Let's find the constraints to this task. The bond energy of C=O is 187 kcal/mol (2 x 93.5), so our facilities should not waste more than that ... for otherwise we will run out of energy sooner than expected.
Can you design now overall facilities (computer control, industrial machinery, power supply facilities, etc.) using not more than 187 kcal/mol man-made energy for the decomposition of CO2. You may use the power of the Sun for the purpose, for without it we are DOA.
Can you now see how much complex a common leaf is ... or you will need more subtitles.

The thing almost no one here wants to recognize or acknowledge is that we do not know if the process that resulted in "what we are now"...happened by natural physical laws without having been set in motion by a GOD...or happened by natural physical laws after a GOD set things in motion.

The bottom line of this question and all the others like it is: Is there a GOD?

Make no mistake about that...no matter how much anyone argues that the "Is there a GOD?" question is not the bottom line of this inquiry...IT IS!

I certainly do not know if there is a GOD or not...and there is no unambiguous evidence to indicate that a GOD is necessary for us to have arrived at "where we are now"...and there is no unambiguous evidence to indicate that it is impossible for a GOD to exist.

You guys are mostly talking past each other...unless you acknowledge that you are all merely engaging in a guessing game for which there is NO reasonable evidence upon which the guess is made.

Once you get past that...sharing the guesses becomes a breeze...and the need to derogate opposing guesses becomes a joke.

3 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

you are entitled to your opinion Frank, but science can only work with evidence and methodology so if you think that science even gives a rats ass about whether your( "Godmaybe/maybe not) arguments are even at the basis of research , you would be dead wrong.

Your opinions are valued, but without any facts, your argument is as valid as the existence of the Easter Bunny that I stated on another thread.
I shall spend no further space on your pet topic. You've just seen my
opinion. If you've got any real evidence (like the issue of convergent evolution) maybe you could cobble together something that is worth discussing.

SCience acts on a "presumption" against which outcomes can be tested and predicted. So far, so good.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

you are entitled to your opinion Frank, but science can only work with evidence and methodology so if you think that science even gives a rats ass about whether your( "Godmaybe/maybe not) arguments are even at the basis of research , you would be dead wrong.

Your opinions are valued, but without any facts, your argument is as valid as the existence of the Easter Bunny that I stated on another thread.
I shall spend no further space on your pet topic. You've just seen my
opinion. If you've got any real evidence (like the issue of convergent evolution) maybe you could cobble together something that is worth discussing.

SCience acts on a "presumption" against which outcomes can be tested and predicted. So far, so good.

Unless you are arguing that there is no possibility of a GOD, FM...you cannot logically argue that there cannot be the possibility of intelligent design.

If there is intelligent design...the design was set up the way science is now discovering.

You sure are grumpy these days. Life not treating you well?

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

You guys are mostly talking past each other...unless you acknowledge that you are all merely engaging in a guessing game for which there is NO reasonable evidence upon which the guess is made.

But there is evidence for the outcome of particular guesses. Not guessing at all leads to no outcome other than sitting in a cave chewing seaweed. That Apisa is not required to do that and plays golf instead is the outcome of the Christian guess. Finding fault because it is a guess is spectacularly trivial and extremely boring in direct proportion to the number of repetitions.

Quote:

Once you get past that...sharing the guesses becomes a breeze...and the need to derogate opposing guesses becomes a joke.

It is no joke when political outcomes are at stake. Apisa is the joke because he is sat on the fence with nothing useful to say.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

SCience acts on a "presumption" against which outcomes can be tested and predicted.

Religion acts on a presumtion against which outcomes can be tested and predicted.

0 Replies

@JimmyJ,

Quote:

Beneficial, meaning it benefits the organism. Flaw, meaning it hurts the organism.

Some flaws of the human body off the top of my head would be blind spot in the eye, crowding of the teeth, and the esophagus and trachea in the throat having a "shared opening" (this is why people say "some water went down the wrong pipe").

If we are talking about evolution the flaws you point to would need to be hereditary. Odd occurrences, sports, are either blended back in the ocean of normality if they mate and die out if they don't.

1 Reply

@JimmyJ,

JimmyJ wrote:

Your whole argument rests on what you deem to be "too improbable to have evolved without intelligence".

My 'whole argument' hasn't come to the issue of probability (although it is put in the title of the reference) for FM would not be able to calculate the bio-complexity at first.

further wrote:

But that is not logical.

You design at first a straw-man and after that start commenting how illogical the design is.

further wrote:

If we were to just dismiss everything that seems improbable ...

Can you give an example of s.th. that seems improbable and has 'evidences to the contrary' ... and what does 'seems improbable' mean? Is it improbable ... or only seems improbable?

further wrote:

But animals are most certainly not "intelligently" designed.

Try to draw and paint a butterfly on a sheet of paper by picking the colour of the pixels at random (by a roulette or electronic dices or whatever). You may perform as many trials as you wish.
Then select the best pictures, choose pixels to amend ... and amend them again with the dices.
When and if you achieve something that can be recognised as a butterfly ... or whatever don't hesitate to notify us.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

... you are all merely engaging in a guessing game for which there is NO reasonable evidence upon which the guess is made.

1. Where are you in this sentence ... are you into the 'guessing game', or you remain somewhere outside ... or perhaps above the things.
2. You cannot tell the atheists that they are running out of evidences for they can take out evidences out of every sleeve and may prove everything, no matter how improbable or impossible it might be.
3. If I submit some unreasonable evidence is it still an evidence ... or somehow becomes lack of evidences.

RE: the bottom line
The bottom line is neither whether there is God, nor whether you believe in God, but how do you define God? What is your personal understanding of the world?

2 Replies

@spendius,

Wrong...
The flaws I pointed out are in every human. At some point in our long history we developed them and they became a problem for us.

1 Reply

@Herald,

You just dismissed everything I said by dancing around the question. Again I say to you, why ask a question if you don't want an answer? Just because I cannot draw a butterfly is not evidence that the Earth must have been "intelligently designed" lol. That is utterly ridiculous..

0 Replies

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
... you are all merely engaging in a guessing game for which there is NO reasonable evidence upon which the guess is made.

1. Where are you in this sentence ... are you into the 'guessing game', or you remain somewhere outside ... or perhaps above the things.

I certainly have no problem making guesses when I think it appropriate. I think guessing whether there is a GOD or not...is an absurdity and not worth the effort.

If you want me to make a guess for some reason, though, I am willing to toss a coin. Just let me know if you want me to.

Quote:

2. You cannot tell the atheists that they are running out of evidences for they can take out evidences out of every sleeve and may prove everything, no matter how improbable or impossible it might be.

I'm not sure what you think the atheists have to prove. Most of them here claim they are doing nothing more than acknowledging that they do not "believe" in any gods. There is no reason to "prove" that. If a person assert he/she does not "believe" something...you pretty much have to take their word. But keep in mind that they are the foremost expert on what they do or do not "believe."

I do not "believe" there are any gods.

I also do not "believe" there are no gods.

I simply do not do any "believing" on this question.

Quote:

3. If I submit some unreasonable evidence is it still an evidence ... or somehow becomes lack of evidences.

You gotta do this one over...I do not understand what you are saying or asking.

Quote:

RE: the bottom line
The bottom line is neither whether there is God, nor whether you believe in God, but how do you define God? What is your personal understanding of the world?

If you think so...go with that.

I think the bottom line is: Is there a GOD?

As I see it, all anyone can do is to make a guess.

I simply do not guess on the question.

If you see the definition as important, you probably want to define it in a way that will support your guess about the answer. I do not have a guess…so I will leave the definition to you.

1 Reply

@Herald,

An atheist does not need to prove that there is no god.

You don't prove a negative. By that line of reasoning I could simply say, "prove to me that fairies don't exist." The weight of proof is on the person claiming that god must exist (you).

1 Reply

@JimmyJ,

JimmyJ wrote:

An atheist does not need to prove that there is no god.

You don't prove a negative. By that line of reasoning I could simply say, "prove to me that fairies don't exist." The weight of proof is on the person claiming that god must exist (you).

You are correct that atheists do not need to prove there is no god. Theist also do not have to prove there is a GOD.

But if a theist asserts in debate that there is a GOD...the burden of proof for that assertion falls on them.

Conversely, if an atheist asserts in debate that there are no gods (I acknowledge not many atheists do this)...but if one does, the burden of proof for that assertion falls on that person.

You are incorrect that you cannot prove a negative.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Maybe in philosophy, but in science we don't prove negatives. Meaning if someone says "prove to me that fairies don't rule the universe", most scientists if not all of them will not entertain this.

I never assert that there are no gods. I simply say it's far more likely that gods do not exist.

1 Reply

@JimmyJ,

JimmyJ wrote:

Maybe in philosophy, but in science we don't prove negatives.

I am not sure that is correct...but in any case, we are not engaged in science here, we are engaged in discussion in the philosophy forum.

If a person asserts something in a negative form...the burden of proof for that assertion falls on them.

Quote:

Meaning if someone says "prove to me that fairies don't rule the universe", most scientists if not all of them will not entertain this.

Okay.

But in a philosophical discussion, if someone says, "There are no gods"...a burden of proof accrues for that assertion.

Quote:

I never assert that there are no gods.

I didn't say you did.

Quote:

I simply say it's far more likely that gods do not exist.

Okay, Jimmy...that is an assertion...and a positive assertion at that.

A burden of proof accrues on you to establish that it is "far more likely that gods do not exist" than that they do.

I will be happy to engage you in a discussion of your validation of this assertion.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

The next quote of yours basically answers your "not sure if that's correct"..

I still disagree. I'll preface by asking you a question. Do you believe in unicorns?

We can have that discussion if you want.

1 Reply

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know