(January 1, 2019 at 7:03 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(January 1, 2019 at 6:04 am)Amarok Wrote: So a bunch of arguments from credulity and straw men very good


So a bunch of BS creationist whining and conspiracy tripe

Nope. Reality. Atheist nonsense.  They don't want to believe something so they start making things up.

"Someone says "creation" and "complexity" together, so now we don't accept the term "complexity."

---

(January 1, 2019 at 6:38 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: What is the process that this intelligent designer used to make the DNA?
What was the process and where did it get the stuff?
Where is the evidence for the designing that cannot be accounted for by other means?

To me this is the "stuff exists therefore god" argument, which seems to be all they have now.

- It says in Genesis 1.
- If God made the "stuff", then why would God need "the stuff" to make "the stuff."   (Your question isn't rationale)
- Well let's see you account for it by another means.  Can't wait to hear this.  Regardless, you can have two routes that could potentially lead to the same place.  Suggesting something new doesn't mean it replaces what is already known.

If you want to indicate it all happened naturally, then why should I disregard science and assume your idea is better?  Something from nothing?  Organic from inorganic, then gaining in complexity?  Is there are YT video that demonstrates no matter and *boom* matter.  If you have a link to one, I would love to see it.

So do you have a non-silly idea of how this designer thing could have been done or are you just going to say "magic man must have done it" again then not show your working.

All you seem to do is pick at evolution while not putting anything FOR your side.

(January 1, 2019 at 7:03 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(January 1, 2019 at 6:04 am)Amarok Wrote: So a bunch of arguments from credulity and straw men very good


So a bunch of BS creationist whining and conspiracy tripe

Nope. Reality. Atheist nonsense.  They don't want to believe something so they start making things up.

"Someone says "creation" and "complexity" together, so now we don't accept the term "complexity."

Nope Creationist nonsense . All credulity and straw men because they don't want to accept something .

And the second statement is nonsense and is nothing but creationist conspiracy tripe

---

Quote:- If God made the "stuff", then why would God need "the stuff" to make "the stuff."   (Your question isn't rationale)

So no answer then 

Quote:- Well let's see you account for it by another means.  Can't wait to hear this.  Regardless, you can have two routes that could potentially lead to the same place.  Suggesting something new doesn't mean it replaces what is already known.

Consider yours isn't even a way ...

Quote:If you want to indicate it all happened naturally, then why should I disregard science and assume your idea is better?  Something from nothing?  Organic from inorganic, then gaining in complexity?  Is there are YT video that demonstrates no matter and *boom* matter.  If you have a link to one, I would love to see it

So the same bunch of credulity and straw men and arguments from ignorance  (and assertion that science supports this)

---

(January 1, 2019 at 7:13 am)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(January 1, 2019 at 7:03 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Nope. Reality. Atheist nonsense.  They don't want to believe something so they start making things up.

"Someone says "creation" and "complexity" together, so now we don't accept the term "complexity."

---

- It says in Genesis 1.
- If God made the "stuff", then why would God need "the stuff" to make "the stuff."   (Your question isn't rationale)
- Well let's see you account for it by another means.  Can't wait to hear this.  Regardless, you can have two routes that could potentially lead to the same place.  Suggesting something new doesn't mean it replaces what is already known.

If you want to indicate it all happened naturally, then why should I disregard science and assume your idea is better?  Something from nothing?  Organic from inorganic, then gaining in complexity?  Is there are YT video that demonstrates no matter and *boom* matter.  If you have a link to one, I would love to see it.

So do you have a non-silly idea of how this designer thing could have been done or are you just going to say "magic man must have done it" again then not show your working.

All you seem to do is pick at evolution while not putting anything FOR your side.

Well don't you know that if you attack x that makes y true 

But small criticism Matter formation and Abiogenisis are not evolution don't fall into the creationist trap .

(January 1, 2019 at 7:13 am)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(January 1, 2019 at 7:03 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Nope. Reality. Atheist nonsense.  They don't want to believe something so they start making things up.

"Someone says "creation" and "complexity" together, so now we don't accept the term "complexity."

---

- It says in Genesis 1.
- If God made the "stuff", then why would God need "the stuff" to make "the stuff."   (Your question isn't rationale)
- Well let's see you account for it by another means.  Can't wait to hear this.  Regardless, you can have two routes that could potentially lead to the same place.  Suggesting something new doesn't mean it replaces what is already known.

If you want to indicate it all happened naturally, then why should I disregard science and assume your idea is better?  Something from nothing?  Organic from inorganic, then gaining in complexity?  Is there are YT video that demonstrates no matter and *boom* matter.  If you have a link to one, I would love to see it.

So do you have a non-silly idea of how this designer thing could have been done or are you just going to say "magic man must have done it" again then not show your working.

All you seem to do is pick at evolution while not putting anything FOR your side.

You've put up nothing for your side.  Waiting on a video showing matter coming from nothing.  Come on.  If it's scientific, there should be at least one lonesome video showing this?  Just one little *poof* and there's a rock.  Looking forward to seeing this.

So more credulity and straw men and arguments from ignorance and more non sequiturs. and more assertions science supports you .

(January 1, 2019 at 5:52 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: No, sorry.  Atheism and science don't go together.  It's nonsense based on more nonsense.  If your foundation is flawed, then what you perceive based on it will also have be flawed.  We don't need anymore nutties telling people that the universe came from nothing, when science has shown us that no natural process creates, generates, or forms something from nothing.  It's ridiculous at its core.  Just as organic life doesn't randomly generate by some accident from inorganic matter, then gain in complexity over billions of years.   More nonsense concocted by nutty atheists.

Also, you don't tell me what dictionaries are for.  I can't make up my mind for myself.  If you want to go through life being a puppet and having everybody tell you what to think, then go for it.

---

 Okay.

If you just want to post insults M4X? Then fine. I'm sure Bucky and a few others will spar with yourself untill your pomposity wanes and you toddle off to other pastures. Seen such behaviour heaps of times both her and on other forums.

When you want to do more than post straw man arguments and arguments from ignorance and incredulity, let folks know.

Que some random assertion of some fallacy as if such is in any way a valid counter point.

CDF47, at least, comes across as an honestly wilfully ignorant person.

Not at work.

Oh, FFS! You all are acting like children!

New Year, new leaf, new chapter.

Yes, there are atheists groups who gather in churches.
Yes, DNA is complex.
Yes, science is seemingly our best method to discover reality.

And yes, if God is real, then science is our best method to know about it.
That science hasn't produced anything on any god is hinting that there is no god to discover... Certainly no god that could have been discovered by pre-writing peoples, such as the Abrahamic god which is a mere conceptual evolution of gods from Mesopotamia.

At best, the god that is real is the god of the philosophers. Any god from any religion that man has come up with is just that: wishful thinking, imagination, and an inability to grasp the complexities of the reality around us.
I'm sure many of the prophets, wise men, and religious leaders of old had good intentions and likely even believed what they claimed. But they doesn't make it true, that doesn't make it an accurate description of reality.


The notions behind intelligent design are all based on faulty reasoning.
CDF can't comprehend how a process that rewards with survival and reproduction those structures which are, at each instant, better suited for those tasks... how such rewarding can, in time, lead those structures to present an amazing complexity.
It's his faulty brain, arising through genetics and society, that can't grasp the enormity of time involved in here, the quickness of organic chemistry, and how a series of fortunate events can naturally lead to the DNA we observe on all living creatures on Earth. His brain, a product of this evolutionary process, evolving to find patterns, even where there are none, evolving to be immersed in a religious society and thus making it easy for him to perceive the religious pattern where it is not present.

M4x, you're similar.
Like us all, a product of genetics and society... With society also influencing genetics.

At this moment in human technological and scientific evolution, it is impossible to be 100% certain of these matters. But we can operate on degrees of probability.
And given the absence of the divine in scientific findings concerning reality, I attribute that divine factor to have a very low probability of existing outside human minds.
You can agree, or agree to disagree.
But all this idiotic back and forth show that you've been putting on is just... pathetic.
Jorm has, of late, been trying engage properly... But was the only one.

Peace out, happy New Year!

(December 31, 2018 at 12:49 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

(December 31, 2018 at 9:06 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: You keep claiming that it is impossible, yet you never provide any reasons or evidence for your claim.  And I'm going to keep dogging you on that fact.  Your start is good.  DNA is either designed or it is not.  Period.  And that's where things stand until you provide reasons or evidence for why it would be impossible.  You simply believing that it is impossible without any reasons or evidence is irrational.  You aren't irrational, are you?  If not, then provide reasons or evidence for your claim that it is impossible.

I can say this as many times and in as many ways as need be.  So you need to change your answer by providing some evidence or reason for it being impossible.

(Btw, continually mouthing your faith in the impossibility of it without providing evidence or reasons proves you to be a mouse rather than a lion.  You need to change your avatar to reflect that.)

Because it is a blind and dumb un-directed process is natural selection.  The Lion of Judah in my avatar is the Lord Jesus.  He came here as a lamb and will return as a lion.

Well, first of all, you were just informed that you were wrong in saying that natural selection or whatever is a blind and dumb un-directed process. It is not. And second of all, it's been shown that similar processes can lead to order and complexity, so if you are arguing on the basis that, in your opinion, such processes cannot lead to order and complexity, you are simply wrong. The reason you have given, both because it misrepresents what it is arguing against, and because even accepted on its own terms is wrong, does not lead to the conclusion that such processes cannot produce order and complexity. So, either you need a reason for why it can do so in these other cases, but not in the case of the order and complexity of life and DNA, or you need another reason.

Do you have either of these? Because if you don't then your conclusion that such processes cannot lead to order and complexity is unsupported and your conclusion unreliable.

Below is a video of a simulation of evolution, showing similarly "blind and dumb un-directed" processes leading to functional information.

(January 1, 2019 at 7:24 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(January 1, 2019 at 7:13 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: So do you have a non-silly idea of how this designer thing could have been done or are you just going to say "magic man must have done it" again then not show your working.

All you seem to do is pick at evolution while not putting anything FOR your side.

You've put up nothing for your side.  Waiting on a video showing matter coming from nothing.  Come on.  If it's scientific, there should be at least one lonesome video showing this?  Just one little *poof* and there's a rock.  Looking forward to seeing this.

Quote:Quantum physics explains that there are limits to how precisely one can know the properties of the most basic units of matter—for instance, one can never absolutely know a particle's position and momentum at the same time. One bizarre consequence of this uncertainty is that a vacuum is never completely empty, but instead buzzes with so-called “virtual particles” that constantly wink into and out of existence.

These virtual particles often appear in pairs that near-instantaneously cancel themselves out. Still, before they vanish, they can have very real effects on their surroundings. For instance, photons—packets of light—can pop in and out of a vacuum. When two mirrors are placed facing each other in a vacuum, more virtual photons can exist around the outside of the mirrors than between them, generating a seemingly mysterious force that pushes the mirrors together.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...-of-light/

So here is a account of particles popping in and out of existence.

And heres a video about what may have happened before the big bang.





No gods required.

Quote:"Complexity" became an issue for the atheists when people started suggesting it supported creation.  So now, it's not only saying "no god", but "no complexity."  Your Average Joe isn't going to have a problem with the term or even a reasonably educated child, and you can understand what it means without needing a dictionary.  Even a good number of atheists use the term, but you'll most likely see it applied differently, and in a way that attempts to explain away belief in a Creator.

Wrong again, ignorant one. 
"Complexity" became an issue when idiot Christians tried to start teaching ID as science. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

Dictionaries (and "books") do not address the problems which make EVERY definition of a god incoherent, and this guy are incompetent to address even one of the problems. 
So .... now he moves the goal posts, and appeals to "Average Joe" ... even though he has no way of knowing what the Average Joe thinks about anything, (as if it even mattered).

Still no coherent definition of a god, no definition of complexity, no attempt to define what is or is not complex.

(January 1, 2019 at 5:13 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(January 1, 2019 at 3:50 am)CDF47 Wrote: I don't find the truth here.  I find the truth in the design of living systems.

---

Because a picture can say a 1000 words.  Watch it operate.

---

Everyone knows what complexity is.  DNA is not only complex but functional like machine code.

"Complexity" became an issue for the atheists when people started suggesting it supported creation.  So now, it's not only saying "no god", but "no complexity."  Your Average Joe isn't going to have a problem with the term or even a reasonably educated child, and you can understand what it means without needing a dictionary.  Even a good number of atheists use the term, but you'll most likely see it applied differently, and in a way that attempts to explain away belief in a Creator.

Yeah, good points.  I have seen some of that.

---

(January 1, 2019 at 9:39 am)pocaracas Wrote: Oh, FFS! You all are acting like children!

New Year, new leaf, new chapter.

Yes, there are atheists groups who gather in churches.
Yes, DNA is complex.
Yes, science is seemingly our best method to discover reality.

And yes, if God is real, then science is our best method to know about it.
That science hasn't produced anything on any god is hinting that there is no god to discover... Certainly no god that could have been discovered by pre-writing peoples, such as the Abrahamic god which is a mere conceptual evolution of gods from Mesopotamia.

At best, the god that is real is the god of the philosophers. Any god from any religion that man has come up with is just that: wishful thinking, imagination, and an inability to grasp the complexities of the reality around us.
I'm sure many of the prophets, wise men, and religious leaders of old had good intentions and likely even believed what they claimed. But they doesn't make it true, that doesn't make it an accurate description of reality.


The notions behind intelligent design are all based on faulty reasoning.
CDF can't comprehend how a process that rewards with survival and reproduction those structures which are, at each instant, better suited for those tasks... how such rewarding can, in time, lead those structures to present an amazing complexity.
It's his faulty brain, arising through genetics and society, that can't grasp the enormity of time involved in here, the quickness of organic chemistry, and how a series of fortunate events can naturally lead to the DNA we observe on all living creatures on Earth. His brain, a product of this evolutionary process, evolving to find patterns, even where there are none, evolving to be immersed in a religious society and thus making it easy for him to perceive the religious pattern where it is not present.

M4x, you're similar.
Like us all, a product of genetics and society... With society also influencing genetics.

At this moment in human technological and scientific evolution, it is impossible to be 100% certain of these matters. But we can operate on degrees of probability.
And given the absence of the divine in scientific findings concerning reality, I attribute that divine factor to have a very low probability of existing outside human minds.
You can agree, or agree to disagree.
But all this idiotic back and forth show that you've been putting on is just... pathetic.
Jorm has, of late, been trying engage properly... But was the only one.

Peace out, happy New Year!

Science is pointing in the direction of a Creator.  I guess we agree to disagree on that.

Happy New Year!

---

(January 1, 2019 at 9:53 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(December 31, 2018 at 12:49 pm)CDF47 Wrote: Because it is a blind and dumb un-directed process is natural selection.  The Lion of Judah in my avatar is the Lord Jesus.  He came here as a lamb and will return as a lion.

Well, first of all, you were just informed that you were wrong in saying that natural selection or whatever is a blind and dumb un-directed process.  It is not.  And second of all, it's been shown that similar processes can lead to order and complexity, so if you are arguing on the basis that, in your opinion, such processes cannot lead to order and complexity, you are simply wrong.  The reason you have given, both because it misrepresents what it is arguing against, and because even accepted on its own terms is wrong, does not lead to the conclusion that such processes cannot produce order and complexity.  So, either you need a reason for why it can do so in these other cases, but not in the case of the order and complexity of life and DNA, or you need another reason.

Do you have either of these?  Because if you don't then your conclusion that such processes cannot lead to order and complexity is unsupported and your conclusion unreliable.

Below is a video of a simulation of evolution, showing similarly "blind and dumb un-directed" processes leading to functional information.

My point was things are either designed or not.  Those are the only two options.  Anything not designed, I consider a blind un-directed process.

---

Happy New Year everyone!