Posts: 738
Threads: 9
Joined: October 11, 2015
Reputation:
9
RE: Here's why Creatards might be right
October 30, 2015 at 6:17 pm
(This post was last modified: October 30, 2015 at 6:26 pm by jenny1972.)
(October 30, 2015 at 5:40 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I can give you -the- theory, but I couldn't claim credit for it. That's not, btw...a law of nature. See why it was important for me to know what you're talking about? We aren't talking about laws of nature at all. Do you still want an explanation, or would you rather hold out for an actual law of nature?
photosynthesis is a good example of an organized behavior of an organism . why do you believe that photosynthesis developed outside of an intelligent design ? i dont want the theory about it i want your theory about how photosynthesis developed if not by intelligent design ( do you believe it created itself , always existed , exc.)
Imagine there's no heaven It's easy if you try No hell below us Above us only sky Imagine all the people Living for today  Imagine there's no countries It isn't hard to do Nothing to kill or die for And no religion too Imagine all the people Living life in peace You may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you will join us And the world will be as one - John Lennon
The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also - Mark Twain
Posts: 11260
Threads: 61
Joined: January 5, 2013
Reputation:
123
RE: Here's why Creatards might be right
October 30, 2015 at 6:24 pm
(October 30, 2015 at 5:14 pm)jenny1972 Wrote: right the effect is going to be the same because the laws of nature are the same for both . if you throw two balls into the air one is not going to obey the laws of gravity while the other ball continues upward . there are organized laws that everything must equally exist within , chemicals have structure , DNA is also organized not unorganized at all. intelligent beings organize we see it all the time .
So why are you assuming that if those physical laws were not designed, they'd be completely random? That's the question I asked, and it's one you've failed to answer at least twice that I know of.
In fact, you seem to have a profoundly difficult time even understanding anything that's being said to you; I haven't managed to get a single relevant response to my points from you in all my time here. And it's not that we're just unclear, because I can get the intent of every single atheist question or response to you... it's just that your responses are so far off the mark. Why is that?
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Posts: 738
Threads: 9
Joined: October 11, 2015
Reputation:
9
RE: Here's why Creatards might be right
October 30, 2015 at 6:33 pm
(This post was last modified: October 30, 2015 at 6:38 pm by jenny1972.)
(October 30, 2015 at 6:24 pm)Esquilax Wrote: (October 30, 2015 at 5:14 pm)jenny1972 Wrote: right the effect is going to be the same because the laws of nature are the same for both . if you throw two balls into the air one is not going to obey the laws of gravity while the other ball continues upward . there are organized laws that everything must equally exist within , chemicals have structure , DNA is also organized not unorganized at all. intelligent beings organize we see it all the time .
So why are you assuming that if those physical laws were not designed, they'd be completely random? That's the question I asked, and it's one you've failed to answer at least twice that I know of.
In fact, you seem to have a profoundly difficult time even understanding anything that's being said to you; I haven't managed to get a single relevant response to my points from you in all my time here. And it's not that we're just unclear, because I can get the intent of every single atheist question or response to you... it's just that your responses are so far off the mark. Why is that?
im assuming that organization proceeds from intelligent design because thats what i observe to be true around me . i observe that intelligent beings create complex things and objects lacking intelligence do not create complex things im just asking why you do not think that intelligence is responsible for organization . is it because you do not think it is organization or because intelligence is not necessary for organization or do you have a different belief and why ? the reason i believe the way i do is based on observation
Imagine there's no heaven It's easy if you try No hell below us Above us only sky Imagine all the people Living for today Imagine there's no countries It isn't hard to do Nothing to kill or die for And no religion too Imagine all the people Living life in peace You may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you will join us And the world will be as one - John Lennon
The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also - Mark Twain
Posts: 67189
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: Here's why Creatards might be right
October 30, 2015 at 6:37 pm
(This post was last modified: October 30, 2015 at 6:55 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
Okay, we'll dive in...but full disclosure, photosynth is my living. Firstly, again, this isn't a law of nature, so I won't be offering you any explanation as to a law of nature. Secondly, it's not an example of organized behavior, it's not behavior at all. It's the function of a specific type of cell - which a variety of behaviors are leveraged in support of (if you want an explanation of organized behaviors, it's all that stuff you're wondering about, not photosynthesis).
Forget all that though....are we talking photosynthesis as in "what plants do", or the first ever? I'm afraid that any answer I give you, btw, isn't going to be my personal theory, is that going to be a problem?
I can answer these:
Quote:do you believe it created itself , always existed , exc.
Without any elaboration, though. No, I don't think that photosynthesis created itself, and no, I don't think that photosynthesis always existed.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 11260
Threads: 61
Joined: January 5, 2013
Reputation:
123
RE: Here's why Creatards might be right
October 30, 2015 at 6:47 pm
(October 30, 2015 at 6:33 pm)jenny1972 Wrote: im assuming that organization proceeds from intelligent design because thats what i observe to be true around me . i observe that intelligent beings create complex things and objects lacking intelligence do not create complex things im just asking why you do not think that intelligence is responsible for organization . is it because you do not think it is organization or because intelligence is not necessary for organization or do you have a different belief and why ? the reason i believe the way i do is based on observation
I've already raised an objection to this idea that you observe intelligent design around you, only to be ignored three times: it's equally true that you do not ever observe intelligent beings creating realities, or laws of physics, or anything immaterial. In fact, the only thing you observe intelligent beings doing is rearranging pre-existing matter into new forms and inventions. You never see intelligent beings creating matter from nothing, and so by your own logic, if observation is sufficient to form a conclusion then one must also form the conclusion that intelligent beings cannot create matter, universes, or laws of physics... and yet you've come to the precise opposite conclusion.
Why is it that you'll trust your observations up to the point that they agree with what you already believe, but you'll discard your observations the moment they don't agree with you?
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Posts: 8214
Threads: 394
Joined: November 2, 2011
Reputation:
44
RE: Here's why Creatards might be right
October 30, 2015 at 6:47 pm
We once had a good discussion about consciousness and whether evolution naturalism wise can account for it. Then a certain member came with spraying shooting a bunch of irrelevant facts and didn't really continue or give any meaningful discourse to the discussion and people seemed to like that response. It was like they didn't like where it was leading.
I don't know where the thread is but it was a good one. If I started it, perhaps I will find it, not sure if I did.
Posts: 67189
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: Here's why Creatards might be right
October 30, 2015 at 6:57 pm
(This post was last modified: October 30, 2015 at 6:59 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
Would it matter if naturalism actually -didn't- have an explanation for consciousness? No, not really. Just another thing for folks so inclined to wax on about rather than making their own case, rather than providing their own explanations.
"Haha! You can't explain -x-, therefore djinn" 
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 8214
Threads: 394
Joined: November 2, 2011
Reputation:
44
RE: Here's why Creatards might be right
October 30, 2015 at 6:59 pm
It wasn't a really discussion if there is any account for it as of now, and if there isn't, then naturalism doesn't account for it. It was a discussion of whether it was impossible to occur naturalism wise due a paradox due to the nature of consciousness.
I will try to find it.
Posts: 738
Threads: 9
Joined: October 11, 2015
Reputation:
9
RE: Here's why Creatards might be right
October 30, 2015 at 7:03 pm
(This post was last modified: October 30, 2015 at 7:04 pm by jenny1972.)
(October 30, 2015 at 6:37 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Okay, we'll dive in...but full disclosure, photosynth is my living. Firstly, again, this isn't a law of nature, so I won't be offering you any explanation as to a law of nature. Secondly, it's not an example of organized behavior, it's not behavior at all. It's the function of a specific type of cell - which a variety of behaviors are leveraged in support of (if you want an explanation of organized behaviors, it's all that stuff you're wondering about, not photosynthesis).
Forget all that though....are we talking photosynthesis as in "what plants do", or the first ever? I'm afraid that any answer I give you, btw, isn't going to be my personal theory, is that going to be a problem?
I can answer these:
Quote:do you believe it created itself , always existed , exc.
Without any elaboration, though. No, I don't think that photosynthesis created itself, and no, I don't think that photosynthesis always existed.
if your knowledgeable about photosynthesis well just stick with that , the same principle can be applied to all complex behavior it doesnt matter what it is . were not looking for the explanation how it happens but the explanation how it came into existence , what created photosynthesis if not by intelligent design - not what the process involves . the origin of it .
Imagine there's no heaven It's easy if you try No hell below us Above us only sky Imagine all the people Living for today Imagine there's no countries It isn't hard to do Nothing to kill or die for And no religion too Imagine all the people Living life in peace You may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you will join us And the world will be as one - John Lennon
The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also - Mark Twain
Posts: 67189
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: Here's why Creatards might be right
October 30, 2015 at 7:06 pm
(This post was last modified: October 30, 2015 at 7:11 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
Oh, my bad..that's a much easier question than the process. It came into existence because the chemistry of life on this planet allows for it, through multiple different pathways, and nothing prevents it. If an organism contains any number of photo-reactive chemicals or structures, they can, for example, absorb a proton and shed an electron. A mutation that affects one of these structures or chemicals can variously confer or remove this ability from that organism - as has demonstrably happened in both directions. For example, the process used by plants comes from symbiosis between a protist and bacteria. Since that time, most of those bacteria lost the ability to photosynthesize...and then, apparently through lateral transfer, regained it.
Amazing, eh?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
|
