to the atheists on the board


The existence of life is circumstantial evidence for intelligent design.


The existence of presents is circumstantial evidence for santa claus.

The existence of colored eggs is circumstantial evidence for the easter bunny.

It is a bigger leap of faith to accept that life came about as product of chance than to have been created by something.

This is pure ignorance. Your analogies are the same old flawed
ones we have gone over many times.

Your quotes are out of context.

Your assertions baseless.

Provide a SINGLE SHRED OF HARD SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to
support intelligent design. There is NONE.

Evolution has tons of physical evidence.

Until you can provide something beyond mere unsupported
hypotheses, your story of intelligent design will continue
to live in the shadow of evolutionary theory and fact.

Wheres the beaf? I can make up a story from scratch to
compete with your intelligent design hypothesis and they
would stand on EQUAL ground, unless you have SOMETHING,
ANYTHING more to provide, other than word games.

peace

axeman





Quote from kungfoofighting:

The reason I posed this question is to find out what conclusions people would come to if something like a house were found on mars. My assumption is that people would conclude that there must be other beings out there, because how else could a house be constructed? A house would offer clear, but ultimately circumstancial, evidence of intelligent design. Therefore, I would expect fairly universal acceptance that there must have been some being that made the house.

An anthropologist, upon uncovering an arrowhead or other implements/tools, can confidently deduce that those items were deliberately made and not products of chance. If one firmly believes that life exists as a product of sheer cosmic luck, I would guess that one would also be very open-minded to the notion that the hypothetical house on mars came to exist without anyone to build it. Over eons, it is certainly more likely that bricks could be formed and mortared together, windows installed, and shingles nailed to the roof--on their own, than for life to have come into existence out of nothing.

Entire cities would have to pop up on their own, and it would not come close to the long odds of anything(even a "simple" bacterium) coming to possess life from "primordial soup". At least buildings are inanimate and are constructed of raw materials that could perhaps be whipped up in a perfect storm.

I find it interesting that modern-day evolutionists have abandoned the concept that we evolved first from bacteria-or other single-celled organisms, which then evolved into more complex, and "higher" species. They cannot reconcile the old concept with the 2nd law of thermodynamics--that things do not achieve more and more ordered states on their own. Rather, the opposite is true. They now claim that all species are equally evolved, and that there is no progress in evolution. I stumbled on these quotes on a webpage about the 2nd law of thermo:

All extant species are equally evolved. — Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan, 1995 (11)
There is no progress in evolution. — Stephen Jay Gould, 1995 (12)
We all agree that there's no progress. — Richard Dawkins, 1995 (13)
The fallacy of progress — John Maynard Smith and Eörs Szathmáry, 1995 (14)

11. Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan, What Is Life? Simon and Schuster, 1995. p 44.
12. Stephen Jay Gould, [interviewed in] The Third Culture, by John Brockman, Simon and Schuster, 1995. p 52.
13. Richard Dawkins, [interviewed in] The Third Culture by John Brockman, Simon and Schuster, 1995. p 84.
14. John Maynard Smith and Eörs Szathmáry, The Major Transitions in Evolution, W.H. Freeman and Company Limited, 1995. p 4 (title of chapter 1.2).


This sounds very much like a creation account of the world--only they can't bring themselves to say it. They would have us believe that all species evolved independently. Think how much more that complicates the big leap from non-living to living. Not only did one organism come to possess life from nothing, and then all subsequent organisms evolved from the original living thing; every different species also experienced this amazing condition of all the right things falling into place, and thus came to life.
More...
 
Quote from Turok:

>Over eons, it is certainly more likely that bricks could
>be formed and mortared together, windows installed,
>and shingles nailed to the roof--on their own, than for
>life to have come into existence out of nothing.

Wow, I'll have to get back to this (coming dinner party), but I find it unbelievably LESS likely that the house appears than a life form (even intelligent life). With the lone house there is no process by which "survival of the fittest" comes into play and thus no evolution.

You are using an extension of the "hand grenade amongst a pile of watch parts" argument and it just doesn't hold water.

Later

(fun topic btw.)

JB
More...

I look forward to your post! "Survival of the fittest", and evolution are two completely different concepts. It is certainly true that in nature, less fit members of a species will be less likely to survive. If a gazelle has a bum leg, most likely the cheetahs will kill and eat it. How this extends to explain how gazelles evolved into hyenas is what doesn't make sense to me. The supposedly "simplest" forms of life, like bacteria, are so much more complicated than a house that I don't understand how one could conclude that a house is more likely to spontaneously generate than life. My background is biology, and I am fascinated by how complex dna is, and how living organisms reproduce. I never understood how my college profs could describe the intricacies of some particular function in a cell and then proclaim, "See how amazing evolution is!"

If I am to accept that living organisms came to be out of nothing, I would have to consider all the living things that must have managed to come to life but then died, when they failed to evolve a means to reproduce. Then eons and eons would have to elapse before another new life came into existence. And if this organism also failed to figure out a way to replicate itself? Then what? What was the source of energy for all these evolutions to occur?
 
It is amusing watching someone use Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny to make some point, when both those concepts are in practice known to be false when utilized by adults who are doing so for the benefit of their children, and compare them to the concept of order flowing from a source of orderliness, design from a designer.

So amazing is the human mind, that it can rest its sense of superiority on the foundation of logic, reason, and physical perceptions, yet at the same time accept and embrace a theory that the mind itself is but an accidental event in the universe....proceeding from the idea that the development and construction of the mind is but a wholly random occurrence without design, plan, or order behind it.

Oh well, children dress up as adults and play house, so it follows that the "adult" mind is capable of thinking within its own limited confines to a conclusion of no higher intelligence at work than itself.

A mind, fixed and bound by concepts of relativistic logic, limited space, and time will forever run in circles around its own source of intelligence.

I suspect if a light bulb had consciousness and self reflective abilities, like many self centered human beings, it would think that being lit from within and shining forth, it was the source of light in the room. Little would the light bulb know of the external wiring and energy flowing through it, as it would be so absorbed in basking in its own sense of brilliance, that it could never understanding that it is just a medium of the flow of designed energy.

When there is an external objective validation of logic, reason, and sensual perception, that validation being independent of the use of logic, reason, and sensual perception in order to ensure proper calibration of said faculties, then and only then could the level of certainty espoused by the relativistic thinkers match the certain conclusions of the reality of their ideas.
 
Quote from axeman:


The existence of life is circumstantial evidence for intelligent design.


The existence of presents is circumstantial evidence for santa claus.

The existence of colored eggs is circumstantial evidence for the easter bunny.

It is a bigger leap of faith to accept that life came about as product of chance than to have been created by something.

This is pure ignorance. Your analogies are the same old flawed
ones we have gone over many times.

Your quotes are out of context.

Your assertions baseless.

Provide a SINGLE SHRED OF HARD SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to
support intelligent design. There is NONE.

Evolution has tons of physical evidence.
More...
Until you can provide something beyond mere unsupported
hypotheses, your story of intelligent design will continue
to live in the shadow of evolutionary theory and fact.

Wheres the beaf? I can make up a story from scratch to
compete with your intelligent design hypothesis and they
would stand on EQUAL ground, unless you have SOMETHING,
ANYTHING more to provide, other than word games.

peace

axeman



--The existence of presents is circumstantial evidence that something put them there.

--The existence of colored eggs is circumstantial evidence that something put them there.

If we wander into some remote jungle and discover a pyramid, why would we immediately acknowledge that someone must have been there before us, but when faced with the existence of life all around us, some choose to believe that life just came to be on its own?

I have not attempted to quote anyone out of context. As I mentioned in the post, I came across the quotes on a website about the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and quoted them as they appeared.(I wanted to be sure I remembered what it stated correctly).

When you argue that I cannot provide "hard" evidence of intelligent design, I submit that I have already stated that I believe that life is "circumstantial" evidence. This is analagous to me stating that a primitive axe I dig up was made by a man. I don't have any videotape to show the axe being assembled, but I can reasonably claim that the head of the axe was deliberately shaped and sharpened and was lashed to the handle, not by chance, but by design.

I am not trying to convert people to any particular religion--I am merely stating my personal belief that there is no better explanation for the origin of life than via intelligent design.
 
I've been studying up on quantum mechanics, a few areas of various types of philosophy that deal with "purpose," as well as information technology, processing, etc.

On the subject of "intelligent" design, I think anyone can look at pictures of Earth, Mars, etc and see some form of design. Now we have examples of "intelligent design" hanging up on museums across the globe. It is quite clear that this universe has made it possible to put into motion the mechanics to get to point where intelligent design is possible. I will leave the definition of "intelligence" alone for now and also whether or not any type of "god" could be considered "intelligent" by means of our standard vocabulary.

As of right now, we have two rovers on mars. One is working well while the other will be working shortly. We have a total of 5 spacecraft, including the rovers, at our command around a planet so far away, it takes light 10 minutes to get their from Earth. At some point, whether it be next week or 100 years from now, we are going to discover that we are not alone in the universe. This may or may not have huge ramifications for your beliefs, but it is sure to shake up religion in general here on earth.

Now, whether one is atheist, theist or agnostic, I do believe that any person from each group would definitely agree with the statement, "I want to know more than I do right now about reality, the universe and my existence." To assume that any of us, with such a short span of life on Earth, can definitely say with confidence that they know the "truth" is sadly mistaken.

I'm not against the use of "faith" since I use that in my life as well, but I use it in such a way that it remains adaptive to new discoveries and allows my belief system to evolve. I don't believe in the same things I did when I was 17. When I turn 37, I doubt I'll carry exactly the same beliefs I do today.

The bottom line is that our definitions of god, intelligence, purpose, etc -- may be too primitive to encompass the total truth. I do realize that even if everything has been set forth in a deterministic fashion since the big bang -- that this is nothing but a very impressive fate structured "dog and pony" show -- it still does not detract from the fact that there is indeed a "something" that exists and that this "somethings" state of being is unknown and will always be unknown from our current vantage point. We just do not possess the level of wisdom, knowledge, etc to understand the totality of what is taking place.

Right now, as you read this, there is a force in this universe that is accelerating the expansion of the entire universe. According to our most recent theories, it appears the universe will eventually rip itself apart in a "big rip" that will leave every particle alone and isolated from every other particle.

Naturally, it is ego that makes all of us think, "I'm special -- I don't want to die!" Then as you get older and raise a family, you realize that your own existence isn't necessarily the most important anymore -- besides, you still have your family, community and nation to fall back on. "I may die, but the family will live on, etc." Well, at some point, families will die, nations will end and the world will be destroyed -- and to top it all off, the universe will rip itself apart.

So as each of us sit here thinking our own thoughts, mine is centered upon the question of "why?"

Why?
 
1) Your claim concerning the 2nd law of thermodynamics is typical
creationist crap. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/creationism.html
This is nothing more than pure ignorance.

2) I am merely stating my personal belief that there is no better explanation for the origin of life than via intelligent design
Your belief is flawed and completely unsupported.

3) Your other analogies are flawed as well.
A person who comes across and axe or pyramid can deduce
they are HUMAN made through various external means
of verification. I can provide a ton of evidence that SHOWS
an axe and a pyramid were most likely created by humans.
If you had NEVER seen a pyramid or axe, or anything even
remotely LIKE a pyramid or axe created by a human, you
would NOT immediately assume an intelligent designer.
A snowflake is far more complex than an axe and does not
require a creator at all.


WHAT evidence can you provide me that a tree was created
by god? How about a human. NONE. Zippo.

This idea that is LOOKS designed is NOT evidence at all.

What AUTHORITY do you posses to say that so and so even
LOOKS designed???

You can CLAIM a tree LOOKS designed, and I can claim the opposite.

Your hypothesis carries ZERO weight. I might as well say
the big CRAP I took yesterday created the universe and it
coming out of my anus was a second coming :D

This whole "looks designed" thing is nothing more than
your own personal human bias.


peace

axeman





Quote from kungfoofighting:

Until you can provide something beyond mere unsupported
hypotheses, your story of intelligent design will continue
to live in the shadow of evolutionary theory and fact.

Wheres the beaf? I can make up a story from scratch to
compete with your intelligent design hypothesis and they
would stand on EQUAL ground, unless you have SOMETHING,
ANYTHING more to provide, other than word games.

peace

axeman



--The existence of presents is circumstantial evidence that something put them there.

--The existence of colored eggs is circumstantial evidence that something put them there.

If we wander into some remote jungle and discover a pyramid, why would we immediately acknowledge that someone must have been there before us, but when faced with the existence of life all around us, some choose to believe that life just came to be on its own?

I have not attempted to quote anyone out of context. As I mentioned in the post, I came across the quotes on a website about the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and quoted them as they appeared.(I wanted to be sure I remembered what it stated correctly).

When you argue that I cannot provide "hard" evidence of intelligent design, I submit that I have already stated that I believe that life is "circumstantial" evidence. This is analagous to me stating that a primitive axe I dig up was made by a man. I don't have any videotape to show the axe being assembled, but I can reasonably claim that the head of the axe was deliberately shaped and sharpened and was lashed to the handle, not by chance, but by design.

I am not trying to convert people to any particular religion--I am merely stating my personal belief that there is no better explanation for the origin of life than via intelligent design.
More...
 
"Why? You seek to know why? It is elementary my dear Aphie....the answer is because. Be cause."

You are seeking the cause of being. You are seeking the cause of be. Yet, to be, is to cause. You look at all the multitude of cause in hopes to find what be. Causation flows from being. Pure being is not a result nor the effect of a cause, cause flows from being.

Seek a Being who is without an opposite, without causation, without beginning or end.

Quote from aphexcoil:

I've been studying up on quantum mechanics, a few areas of various types of philosophy that deal with "purpose," as well as information technology, processing, etc.

On the subject of "intelligent" design, I think anyone can look at pictures of Earth, Mars, etc and see some form of design. Now we have examples of "intelligent design" hanging up on museums across the globe. It is quite clear that this universe has made it possible to put into motion the mechanics to get to point where intelligent design is possible. I will leave the definition of "intelligence" alone for now and also whether or not any type of "god" could be considered "intelligent" by means of our standard vocabulary.

As of right now, we have two rovers on mars. One is working well while the other will be working shortly. We have a total of 5 spacecraft, including the rovers, at our command around a planet so far away, it takes light 10 minutes to get their from Earth. At some point, whether it be next week or 100 years from now, we are going to discover that we are not alone in the universe. This may or may not have huge ramifications for your beliefs, but it is sure to shake up religion in general here on earth.

Now, whether one is atheist, theist or agnostic, I do believe that any person from each group would definitely agree with the statement, "I want to know more than I do right now about reality, the universe and my existence." To assume that any of us, with such a short span of life on Earth, can definitely say with confidence that they know the "truth" is sadly mistaken.

I'm not against the use of "faith" since I use that in my life as well, but I use it in such a way that it remains adaptive to new discoveries and allows my belief system to evolve. I don't believe in the same things I did when I was 17. When I turn 37, I doubt I'll carry exactly the same beliefs I do today.

The bottom line is that our definitions of god, intelligence, purpose, etc -- may be too primitive to encompass the total truth. I do realize that even if everything has been set forth in a deterministic fashion since the big bang -- that this is nothing but a very impressive fate structured "dog and pony" show -- it still does not detract from the fact that there is indeed a "something" that exists and that this "somethings" state of being is unknown and will always be unknown from our current vantage point. We just do not possess the level of wisdom, knowledge, etc to understand the totality of what is taking place.

Right now, as you read this, there is a force in this universe that is accelerating the expansion of the entire universe. According to our most recent theories, it appears the universe will eventually rip itself apart in a "big rip" that will leave every particle alone and isolated from every other particle.

Naturally, it is ego that makes all of us think, "I'm special -- I don't want to die!" Then as you get older and raise a family, you realize that your own existence isn't necessarily the most important anymore -- besides, you still have your family, community and nation to fall back on. "I may die, but the family will live on, etc." Well, at some point, families will die, nations will end and the world will be destroyed -- and to top it all off, the universe will rip itself apart.

So as each of us sit here thinking our own thoughts, mine is centered upon the question of "why?"

Why?
More...
 
Quote from ARogueTrader:

When there is an external objective validation of logic, reason, and sensual perception, that validation being independent of the use of logic, reason, and sensual perception in order to ensure proper calibration of said faculties, then and only then could the level of certainty espoused by the relativistic thinkers match the certain conclusions of the reality of their ideas.
More...

Primacy of consciousness arguments are invalid since existence exists. The Law of Identify is axiomatic; it is impossible to even grasp concepts let alone communicate them without invoking it--and that includes even blatantly irrational ones. Perception is reality; the evidence of our senses is real. We are conceptual beings whose only survival edge over every other living creature is our ability to think. Objectivity is attainable in a context. The Argument from Ignorance doesn't wash.

And for the same reasons the statement quoted above is without merit, so too is the oft-heard, popular claim that "nothing can be known for certain." That's the real bottom line of such a position, isn't it, that nothing can be known for certain thus we are free to invent anything we want and call it real? Priests and politicians absolutely love their various ways of saying that same thing to justify anything. Or worse, in the case of the Greens, nihilism (Ingrid Newhouse of PETA's infamous remark: "A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy.").

But isn't it odd, how the claim that nothing can be known for certain is, in fact, always stated with such certainty? They always manage to allow themselves that one, brief contradiction. Happily for the rest of us, it only takes a single contradiction to detect such self hatred of our very nature. And avoid it.

A liar isn't someone who lies about everything all the time; nor is a murderer someone who kills everyone he meets. As I've said, I won't waste my time with mysticism and other irrationalities. In that regard, food doesn't need poison. Poison however has to have food, so that it can masquerade as such, and be ingested by some hapless person. Similarly, provable ideas don't need nonsense in order to survive; but nonsense needs the sanction of those who can think clearly in order to gain any respect.

What I've stated here stands on its own merits, is approachable by anyone who has a serious desire to look and think for themselves. Do the work. Some have found this site useful:

http://home1.gte.net/cpq1szzy/certain.htm

And yes, it will help your trading. It will, if confidence in yourself, a disciplined approach to problem solving, the ability to perceive reality clearly, the belief that you deserve to profit and be happy, and ultimately your own self-esteem matter to you.
 
If the Mars question was designed to trap the athiest, I must say axeman shows it to be a question designed with not enough..........intelligence.

You stated that the emergence of a house layered brick by brick with mortar is more likely to occur by chance than life on earth. Can you mathemitize that assertion?

Evolutionists are not necessarily athiests. Athiesm is not a corrollary to evolution.

Creationism begins with faith.

Intelligent design emerged from faith, it is a political gimmick dressed in "science" to mask the fundamentalist Christian attack on evolution and inject the Creationist agenda in the school curricula.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top