No, but why would you think I was saying that?  Bring my comment and your response together for me, connect those dots? How did we get from discussing species...to "before the big bang"?

(October 29, 2015 at 11:14 am)jenny1972 Wrote:

(October 29, 2015 at 10:23 am)Rhythm Wrote: Or that it's random.  We currently view it as the very -opposite- of random.  Things proceed according to natural laws.  Particularly in the case of the species we see - there is an exceedingly non-random explanation for that.

oh so your saying before the big bang there was some kind of blueprint or organized DNA , hmmm  pretty inpressive for unthinking exploding matter ...

If by "blueprint" you mean "this is the way that particles interact, period", then yes, I suppose. Otherise, not on your life.

(October 27, 2015 at 6:40 am)pool Wrote: If the world really was designed and implemented,we'd be explaining the implementation using science and the design would forever be a mystery.
I mean,nobody is really going to understand why a rock comes down when you throw it up - it just does.This hints for a pre-designed world.Thus my conclusion that creationists might be right.What do you think?

Disclaimer:

---

This is only an idea I got when I was taking a shit and I saw a bucket get filled by water.Don't need any flame wars.You can contribute if you have something to contribute or you can move on.
And no.I'm not revealing what I've been smoking.

---

That reveals a sad, no doubt Christianity inspired, pre-modern mental block.

Christianity was born in the Iron Age, and reflects a stone/Bronze Age level of not just ignorant, but presumption. In the Bronze Age, people did try to make some sense of how the world works by looking at some mechanism behind their operations. But the human mind afforded no mechanism that can be observed or deduced with Bronze Age tools or understanding. The thugs of Bronze Age who presumes to know therefore boxed the mind away as a black box with levitated will devoid of supporting mechanism, gave it the name soul and extrapolated it to a fictitious entity that can be passed off as an explanation for everything beyond their puny understanding and circumscribed imagination. From this you get god, Allah, Christ, and other imaginary thuggish narcissistic maglomanical riffraffs that makes up the zoo of human cognitive disfunction. These riffraffs natural comes with the attribute of levitated will devoid of supporting mechanism, because the presumption is what led to the mental creation of this zoo in the first place.

Even in the Iron Age, the more perceptible have already come to see the presumption that will exists without a mechanism is an unwarranted assumption, as well as how powerful a tool for understanding the probing of the mechanisms behind phenomenon is. But those who perpetuate the rule of the riffraffs of Bronze Age superstition, and in doing so hope to rule through these riffraffs, which includes all members of all clergies, as well as self styled "theologians", preachers and "ministers", understand that if the will of "God" is not presumed to be devoid of a mechanism, then their own rule, previlege and utterly Untterly undeserved position of respect in every field of discourse in which they all uniformly have no real competency, would come to a screeching end.

Hence the perpetuation of the mental block that if a God created the mechanism of the universe, the mechanism that made the god tick, could not be probed just as how the mechanism that makes a lever work could be probed.

(October 29, 2015 at 10:53 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: It's still Paley's idea of the Watchmaker. It does not follow that because intelligent beings make stuff out of nonliving materials which defies the natural order of things that it must also be true that life must have emerged by an intelligent process. It seems very clear that chemistry allows for the self-organization of self-replicating molecules, and that the current complexity of life is ordered by very simple rules of particle interaction that do not equally allow for watches to be made without human intervention.

what would account for different species of living things then ? why monkeys and humans and plants and worms and birds under this theory why wouldnt every living thing existing on the same earth under the same conditions be exactly the same and have the same properties ?

(October 27, 2015 at 6:40 am)pool Wrote: Science does not provide rules as to how the world should work.Science merely make observations of it and try to provide explanations for why it is the way it is.But how did it come be the way it is?Why does the water rise when we fill a bucket with water?Why doesn't it go down?Anyone that comes up with a scientific answer for why the water doesn't go down but up have not understood what or why science truly is.
Science is not the reason why the apple fell down.Science is not the reason why it hurts to have a cactus up your ass.
Science is the attempt at an explanation for why the apple fall down.Science is the attempt at an explanation for why it hurts to have a cactus up your ass.(Frankly I wouldn't need science to figure that out.)

Anyway,science is merely a tool that attempts to explain the already designed world.But how did the world come to be the way it is?Surely not by evolution.Isn't that stuff for the living things?Then from what The big bang? So basically there was nothingness and there was a big explosion and earth was created and people would move forward if they walked forward(I know it seems stupid but that's because it's how things have always been and it seems silly to question it.But have you ever wondered why you move forward when you walk forward?)and apples would fall down if they were thrown up.Kind of not very convincing tbh.I mean,why does water turn into ice when we cool it?The only explanation we have is a scientific explanation,not that it's a bad thing it's just that if water were to turn into chocolate(analogically) when we cooled it,then we'd figure out a scientific explanation for that too.So what the point?

If the world really was designed and implemented,we'd be explaining the implementation using science and the design would forever be a mystery.
I mean,nobody is really going to understand why a rock comes down when you throw it up - it just does.This hints for a pre-designed world.Thus my conclusion that creationists might be right.What do you think?

Disclaimer:

---

This is only an idea I got when I was taking a shit and I saw a bucket get filled by water.Don't need any flame wars.You can contribute if you have something to contribute or you can move on.
And no.I'm not revealing what I've been smoking.

---

Yes, but this is the kind of idea that creatards would take to heart, and despite your disclaimer, they will get stuck on the “fact” that a non-believer admitted to this. So let’s examine it.
Firstly, if every scientific discovery ever made was proven to be false, that would not prove the creation story. Help me out Pyrrho. I’m sure there’s a classic fallacy that describes saying that B must be true because A is false.

Secondly just because science can’t tell us why things are the way they are doesn’t prove the creation story. The creation story provides a nonsensical explanation. So in the absence of any explanation at all you would put a nonsensical one simply because you feel there’s got to be an explanation. Like nature you abhor a vacuum. But again, that proves nothing.

DISCLAIMER: When I say “you,” I don’t mean you, pool, but anyone who would take your idea as proof of creation.

(October 29, 2015 at 11:26 am)jenny1972 Wrote: what would account for different species of living things then ? why monkeys and humans and plants and worms and birds under this theory why wouldnt every living thing existing on the same earth under the same conditions be exactly the same and have the same properties ?

Well, A: because they didn't all live under the same conditions, since there's a huge amount of environmental variance on the earth, and B: unguided mutations are the mechanism behind evolution, and no two beings will ever mutate exactly the same way. It's the sort of question that's really simple to answer if you had any interest in the subject beyond disagreeing with it out of hand.

Jenny: Evolution.

Things evolve according to their surroundings. Parts of initial populations, even if they developed in the same area, move into different surroundings.

(October 29, 2015 at 11:26 am)jenny1972 Wrote:

(October 29, 2015 at 10:53 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: It's still Paley's idea of the Watchmaker. It does not follow that because intelligent beings make stuff out of nonliving materials which defies the natural order of things that it must also be true that life must have emerged by an intelligent process. It seems very clear that chemistry allows for the self-organization of self-replicating molecules, and that the current complexity of life is ordered by very simple rules of particle interaction that do not equally allow for watches to be made without human intervention.

what would account for different species of living things then ? why monkeys and humans and plants and worms and birds under this theory why wouldnt every living thing existing on the same earth under the same conditions be exactly the same and have the same properties ?

You, m'am, need to read a good book on evolution by natural selection. I recommend Jerry Coyne, it's not too long and he's an expert on speciation - so right up your alley!

If you want to know about the big bang, you can ask me

(October 29, 2015 at 10:50 am)jenny1972 Wrote: hypothesis :

intelligent beings have created new things out of other material

has this been tested ?( i ask as i type on my computer keyboard )

ugh this big bang religion is just as dumb as all the others .....

I sort of love how people will bring this up and then refuse to take the argument the rest of the way. You just want to arbitrarily stop here, where you think you've gotten to your preferred conclusion, but that's not where the logic stops. We're under no obligation to not point out the flaw because you find it convenient. Here I go:

Hypothesis: intelligent beings are capable of creating realities.

... Has this been tested? Is there any evidence at all that this is even possible? Hmm?

Well then, if the exact same argument you used to dismiss the big bang theory also dismisses the one you'd accept... maybe you have the wrong end of the stick somewhere?

Evolutiondidit™.