(May 13, 2018 at 2:26 pm)Mathilda Wrote:

(May 13, 2018 at 2:22 pm)CDF47 Wrote: I said however God wills to operate His universe is how it is done.  I do not have all the answers for how God operates and controls the universe. 

And scientists do not have all the explanations for how the world works.

I know that but they have come up with some amazing discoveries.  Especially seeing inside the cell and being able to create simulations of what is going on at that nano-scale.  It is impressive.

(May 13, 2018 at 2:28 pm)CDF47 Wrote: No, there are only two options: designed or not designed.  That is all.  It either took an intelligence to create it or it is blind and dumb.

Wrong. Self organisation works by having a random collection of components settle into a stable state to form a structure when there is not enough energy to break it apart again.

Take that video of a chair I posted. The water in the tank was turbulent so the different components moved around. Eventually some components stick together because it takes more energy to break them apart than is available in the environment. After a while the entire chair assembles. If you then took that chair outside in the middle of a hurricane it would get blown apart again.

Sure that chair was deliberately designed that way, but that was to demonstrate the process. The same process works on materials that are not designed. For example ... snowflakes. Increase the energy and the snowflake changes shape. Increase it even more and the snowflake melts.

(May 13, 2018 at 2:24 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

(May 13, 2018 at 2:23 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: A process that is not directed by a specific agent is not necessarily an undirected process.  You claimed the latter, not the former.  In addition to being a straw man, it's also a false dichotomy, as it's possible that the universe was not created at all.

It's impossible that the super-symmetrical universe was not created.

More unsupported assertions. Do you do anything but lie and assert things that you can't prove?

(May 13, 2018 at 1:00 pm)CDF47 Wrote: I have not used a straw man argument once.  On the contrary, I am faced with straw man, ridicule, spin, and every other dirty debate trick in the book in this thread.

Says the raggedy aul' scarecrow.

(May 13, 2018 at 2:28 pm)CDF47 Wrote: No, there are only two options: designed or not designed.  That is all.  

I'll pick either option. I'll pick 'designed by natural selection' or 'not designed'. Either way no God involved.

(May 13, 2018 at 2:12 pm)Hammy Wrote:

Darwin went to a lot of trouble debunking the various watchmaker arguments in On the Origin of Species, giving over the first portion of his book showing the fatal flaws in the arguments of people like the reverend Paley (a much better man in real life than our own Mr Inquisition, Paley was one of the progenitors of the socialist movement). Here's how he dealt with "how good is half an eye?":

Charles Darwin Wrote:To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.

(May 13, 2018 at 2:37 pm)Mathilda Wrote:

(May 13, 2018 at 2:28 pm)CDF47 Wrote: No, there are only two options: designed or not designed.  That is all.  It either took an intelligence to create it or it is blind and dumb.

Wrong. Self organisation works by having a random collection of components settle into a stable state to form a structure when there is not enough energy to break it apart again.

Take that video of a chair I posted. The water in the tank was turbulent so the different components moved around. Eventually some components stick together because it takes more energy to break them apart than is available in the environment. After a while the entire chair assembles. If you then took that chair outside in the middle of a hurricane it would get blown apart again.

Sure that chair was deliberately designed that way, but that was to demonstrate the process. The same process works on materials that are not designed. For example ... snowflakes. Increase the energy and the snowflake changes shape. Increase it even more and the snowflake melts.

That chair video proves nothing.  We are in a designed universe with highly sophisticated information in the cells of our bodies.  We are designed.

---

(May 13, 2018 at 2:43 pm)Hammy Wrote:

(May 13, 2018 at 2:28 pm)CDF47 Wrote: No, there are only two options: designed or not designed.  That is all.  

I'll pick either option. I'll pick 'designed by natural selection' or 'not designed'. Either way no God involved.

Natural selection is not a designer.

Bullshit.

(May 13, 2018 at 2:51 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

(May 13, 2018 at 2:43 pm)Hammy Wrote: I'll pick either option. I'll pick 'designed by natural selection' or 'not designed'. Either way no God involved.

Natural selection is not a designer.

I'll pick the 'no designer' option then, please.

(May 13, 2018 at 2:58 pm)Hammy Wrote:

(May 13, 2018 at 2:51 pm)CDF47 Wrote: Natural selection is not a designer.

I'll pick the 'no designer' option then, please.

Sorry, you lose, wrong bet.