The vast complexity of living things proves that God exists (proof 1)

[Cyberman]

There is no further point in debating with SavedByGraceThruFaith as he/she has abandoned reasoned argument altogether.

Essentially he/she has evolved into a troll.

So? I like chewtoys.

To that end, it's time for another round of Magic 8-Ball:

The vast majority are deceived.

My sources say no.

[Searching4truth]

your Bible says one man can't be punished for another man's sins therefore that shows inconsistency for everyone after Adam, oh and Jesus

[Beta Ray Bill]

I've already written a rather long thread about the Watchmsker's Argument and Creationism:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-20901.html

Go read that, SBG. You won't? Okay, here's a summary:

At no place in history has it ever been shown that complex life forms simply "popped" into existence, already complex, especially not 6000 years ago. The Earth was created almost 4 billion years ago, and through evolution became more and more complex, until chemical reactions lead to the simplest life forms. As time went on, these life forms grew more and more complex, and life evolved in millions of different ways. Plant life developed, sea life developed, then amohibious life developed, constantly becoming more and more complex.

You see where I'm going with this? Eventually dinosaurs came and went, then mammals, then primates. Then, millions of years ago, the genus Homo evolved frome the primates, and man was born, but he was in no image of God, I assure you. Homo became more and more complex until the most complex Homo evolved, the homo sapien. But that was slmost 200000 years ago, not 6000. It took a lot of millenia before the sapien learned how to use more and more complex tools, and dpread across the Earth.

The development of man was a slow, laborious process. There is no evidence that we poppef into existence fully-formed 6000 years ago, then miraculously filled the Earth in just a couple thousand years. There is evidence of homo sapiens living in North America from 14000 years ago.

Science has proved that we didn't first appear fully formed. We EVOLVE over billions of years, becoming more complex as time moved on.

The Watchmaker's Argument has no clairvoyance here, where people have studied more than just one book.

[Angrboda]

In your OP you assert that a kind of complexity is a reliable indicator of design. This may work for books, computers, and perhaps Clovis points. However there is a large class of very complex objects for which this claim cannot be confidently asserted. Human beings (and for that matter, most of life) are incredibly complex, yet it is not known whether they are the product of natural processes or design. Because we have a huge class of objects which have the property you claim is indicative of design, but we don't actually know whether they are designed or not, your claim that you know that complexity is a certain guide to design is simply false, since you don't know this to be the case for a large, common, and plentiful class of objects (humans). It is possible that they are designed, yet, because it is not known that they are designed, it is not known to be a reliable indicator of design for those objects (humans). If you have independent proof that humans are designed, this argument you've made becomes superfluous to that proof.

Assertion refuted. Complexity is not known to be a reliable indicator of design.

[max-greece]

Its not fair - I only got to use one of my arguments and the OP failed to address it properly.

What am I going to do with the other 26? I'm not sure they'll stay fresh in the fridge.

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

In your OP you assert that a kind of complexity is a reliable indicator of design. This may work for books, computers, and perhaps Clovis points. However there is a large class of very complex objects for which this claim cannot be confidently asserted. Human beings (and for that matter, most of life) are incredibly complex, yet it is not known whether they are the product of natural processes or design. Because we have a huge class of objects which have the property you claim is indicative of design, but we don't actually know whether they are designed or not, your claim that you know that complexity is a certain guide to design is simply false, since you don't know this to be the case for a large, common, and plentiful class of objects (humans). It is possible that they are designed, yet, because it is not known that they are designed, it is not a known reliable indicator of design for those objects (humans). If you have independent proof that humans are designed, this argument you've made becomes superfluous to that proof.

Assertion refuted. Complexity is not known to be a reliable indicator of design.

I will agree that the for the objects we know were designed, we know that they are designed by mankind.

And we do not know what is the cause of DNA, RNA, cells, or living organisms.

But the workings of cells and DNA are to ordered, complex, and interrelated to have arisen by random chemical reactions.

I will post some more topics tomorrow and we can discuss what is the alternative to a Creator and does it make any sense.

---

I've already written a rather long thread about the Watchmsker's Argument and Creationism:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-20901.html

Go read that, SBG. You won't? Okay, here's a summary:

At no place in history has it ever been shown that complex life forms simply "popped" into existence, already complex, especially not 6000 years ago. The Earth was created almost 4 billion years ago, and through evolution became more and more complex, until chemical reactions lead to the simplest life forms. As time went on, these life forms grew more and more complex, and life evolved in millions of different ways. Plant life developed, sea life developed, then amohibious life developed, constantly becoming more and more complex.

You see where I'm going with this? Eventually dinosaurs came and went, then mammals, then primates. Then, millions of years ago, the genus Homo evolved frome the primates, and man was born, but he was in no image of God, I assure you. Homo became more and more complex until the most complex Homo evolved, the homo sapien. But that was slmost 200000 years ago, not 6000. It took a lot of millenia before the sapien learned how to use more and more complex tools, and dpread across the Earth.

The development of man was a slow, laborious process. There is no evidence that we poppef into existence fully-formed 6000 years ago, then miraculously filled the Earth in just a couple thousand years. There is evidence of homo sapiens living in North America from 14000 years ago.

Science has proved that we didn't first appear fully formed. We EVOLVE over billions of years, becoming more complex as time moved on.

The Watchmaker's Argument has no clairvoyance here, where people have studied more than just one book.

Everything you just noted is based on the no God assumption.

But that assumption will not stand up to all the facts and will therefore be refuted/.

---

your Bible says one man can't be punished for another man's sins therefore that shows inconsistency for everyone after Adam, oh and Jesus

Of course if anyone else had been there they would have been deceived too. So God is just to pass it on.

---

Sure sounds like something happened. People now die, ground cursed, thorns now sprouting up, animals now dying.

And somehow you think punishing every living organism with death was an appropriate punishment for the sins of two humans?

The giraffe's neck disproves atheistic origin science. First it does not work (the valves to regulate blood) until the long neck exists. But the long neck does not work without the valves to to regulate blood.

I know you probably won't bother reading this before you disagree with it, but if you keep getting into my wheelhouse, I'll keep responding for fun: first of all, you're assuming only one part of an organism evolves at a time, which is so stupid it doesn't even bear mentioning. In fact, multiple components can evolve at once, and so the heart valves developed along with the neck, rather than one before the other.

This claim, by the way, has been answered since the days of Darwin himself. In fact, it was answered by Darwin, so when you claim that this is a problem for evolution, all you're doing is embarrassing yourself.

Did you see if there was an answer to this question, before you decided there wasn't one?

BTW Why did the giraffe get a long neck? The smaller animals did not die out for lack of low level food.

So, let me clear this up real quick: evolution isn't a process that is even aware of the environment, nor the other animals in the same biosphere. Evolution is just mutation with variation, across successive generations. To answer your question, the giraffe's long neck conferred a survival advantage- near exclusive access to a higher up food source seems likely, on the off hand- that allowed it to survive, breed, and pass on its genes to the next generation. That is all.

So, how much study have you done on biology and evolution before you decided they were wrong? What qualifications do you have in this field?

Math, Statistics, Physics, Biology and simple logic are all that is needed.

[Bad Writer]

And research. You forgot that.

[Doubting Thomas]

But the workings of cells and DNA are to ordered, complex, and interrelated to have arisen by random chemical reactions.

Do you have any evidence to support this assertion?

[Minimalist]

Of course he doesn't. It's an ID talking point designed to fool shitheads.

In many cases it obviously works.

[max-greece]

Holy shit - the OP is back.

OK - Question number 2 (not that you answered number 1):

If God designed all the lifeforms on earth how is it that 98% of all the species on Earth have gone extinct?

A 98% fail rate is pretty fucking appalling for a designer - but for a perfect one its just unthinkable.

Therefore there is no perfect designer and God disappears again.